Nil By Mouth survey on Strict Liability

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Nil by Mouth has had a hidden agenda since it's inception, there is no way on earth you could have been RST Secretary and not been aware of that.

 

Oh dear, here we go again; more of your typical innuendo.

 

The quote refers to 2002, I wasn't involved with RST until ten years later and I don't recall NbM being discussed.

[Bearman 9]

No it isn't and that's why there's a law that says it's an offence in relation to a regulated football match:

 

expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on their membership (or presumed membership) of—

(i)

a religious group,

(ii)

a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation,

(iii)

a group defined by reference to a thing mentioned in subsection (4),

(b)

expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, an individual based on the individual’s membership (or presumed membership) of a group mentioned in any of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (a),

©

behaviour that is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred of a group mentioned in any of those sub-paragraphs,

(d)

behaviour that is threatening, or

(e)

other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

 

That's a joke...haha 'reasonable people' don't consider hanging effigies of proddies to be offensive! Singing up to your knees is an awful thing to sing about and you'll be jailed for it!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

That's a joke...haha 'reasonable people' don't consider hanging effigies of proddies to be offensive! Singing up to your knees is an awful thing to sing about and you'll be jailed for it!

 

Apparently it is, the man's been charged (see other thread).

[Bearman 9]

NbM was 'invented' because a young lad coming back from a football match was murdered by a madman coming out of a pub.

 

Nothing at all to do with the SFA or football clubs, more to do with the Strathclyde Police and it was dealt with at the time.

 

The problem we have today is the result of the decision by the British government to send thousands of half starved angry folk into Scotland who through their generations are still angry and are making a cunt of the reason we welcomed them here in the first place.

[Bearman 9]

Apparently it is, the man's been charged (see other thread).

 

I knew that before I posted...hooray hooray the wicked witch is dead eh?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The poll on Club 1872 is running something like 94% against to 6% for the adoption of strict liability.

 

I am pleasantly surprised to see that support for strict liability has now almost doubled to 11% vs 89%.

 

More than 10% of Rangers fans supporting the introduction of strict liability is a very positive sign IMO.

[forlanssister 3,062]

Oh dear, here we go again; more of your typical innuendo.

 

The quote refers to 2002, I wasn't involved with RST until ten years later and I don't recall NbM being discussed.

 

That would be 2012 then which is odd as you resigned in 2010, given that you are such an averous reader of minutes and such like I find it hard that you don't recall Nil by Mouth being discussed especially given Nil by Mouths condemnation of David Edgars public defence of the Famine song and other instances of that ilk.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I've said this before BH, you would make a great defense lawyer. You defend the impartially compromised NBM way beyond reasonable doubt, any reasonable clued up Ranger supporter knows their bias against our support. I filled the survey in simply to go against any of their recommendations, because any initiative they champion won't be beneficial to us.

Edited February 16, 2017 by aweebluesoandso

[Bluedell 5,366]

I agree as I said "the term "strict liability" refers to the liability not the sentencing". However, I think that the SFA would be well advised to use independent panels and I would be surprised if that was not written into the rules in due course. I would be shocked if there was not an independent appeal route at the very least.

 

So basically you have NO evidence as how strict liability will be applied and it's just your opinion and nothing else that there would be an independent panel, amd you do not know whether the SFA compliance officer would be the one who would refer any cases to the committee independent or otherwise.

 

1. 
   
2. There will be no question of judgement on who should be charged and who should not; and
    
   
3. The punishments that are handed down will be independently assessed and open to scrutiny.
   

When you say "will", you really mean "may or may not" and it's only your opinion.

 

Almost certainly the cases will be decided by an independent panel

The Tribunals will be at an entirely different level, almost certainly headed by judges or former judges or leading counsel. .

 

Again, there is no "almost certainly". It's purely your opinion as you think they would be "well advise" and based on nothing than a way for you to justify your support for strict liability,

Edited February 16, 2017 by Bluedell

[Uilleam 5,521]

In practice, there will be "Selective Liability", imposed strictly.

 

I think we all know how such selectivity will work.