Sunday, May 15, 2016

A few thoughts on the Tory/Labour plan to legalise sectarian abuse at football matches

It's been suggested today that because the SNP won a clear mandate at the Holyrood election, it's wrong for the opposition parties to press for the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act.  It may surprise you to hear that I don't agree with that line of argument.  In this particular case (and it's a very rare one), a tiny majority of MSPs with a vote - 65 out of 128, or 50.8% - were elected under the banner of a party that opposes one specific SNP policy.  If those MSPs want to attempt to use that numerical edge to reverse the policy, there's no democratic problem there - quite the reverse, in fact.  But the operative word is "attempt".  There's a fair chance this episode may actually end up demonstrating just how strong the SNP's arithmetical position is.  The opposition parties will need total discipline across four party groups who agree on little else and who don't particularly like each other - and that will only get them to 65 votes.  By contrast, the SNP group is cohesive and should easily be able to turn out 63 votes.  There's very little margin for error as far as the opposition are concerned, and the devil is often in the detail.  At this stage, the smart money should probably be on the Act remaining in force.

However, if by any chance the repeal attempt succeeds, the Tories and Labour are quite right to say that we have to accept that there is a 65-63 mandate for that to happen, albeit a complicated four-party mandate.  But the principle cuts both ways.  The 69-59 mandate given to the two main pro-independence parties is of course considerably less complicated and much more emphatic (one might almost say "decisive").  I therefore look forward to the unionist parties displaying their customary logical consistency, and showing the same respect for democracy that they demand of us.

By the way, my popular Labour MSP namesake has made this mind-boggling observation on the subject -

"Labour will work [with] other parties in the Scottish Parliament to repeal the Football Act. The law has become a symbol of the SNP's arrogance in government. No other party supported the law but the SNP used their majority to bulldoze it through anyway."

Kelly-speak to English translation : The SNP used the overwhelming mandate they received at the 2011 election to outvote the losing parties.  This is in line with what majority governments are typically expected to do.  Presumably Kelly thinks the Attlee government shouldn't have used its 1945 mandate to establish the National Health Service, but should have been less "arrogant" and entered into a compromise with the Tories instead.  But hey, a 10% discount on medical bills would be almost as good as a free NHS, right?

148 comments:

  1. The SNP are jailing people for 5 years for getting a bit mouthy at a football match. Even from a hang em and flog em tory perspective, it's a bit much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh. I just haven't got the energy to argue with your drivel anymore.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. It's deeply illiberal James and totally unbalanced when you consider the punishments attracted by other, more serious offences. Your 'response' here says it all - it's crap legislation that you can't defend.

      Delete
    4. I didn't "respond", Aldo. That's the point I was making - all you do is troll, and it's a waste of breath to respond.

      Delete
    5. I wasn't trolling, I was making a valid point. Do you think someone should be jailed for 5 years just for uttering something or singing a song? A constructive reply would be nice instead of launching straight into the hissy fit / ad hominem.

      Delete
    6. Of course you were trolling - you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. If you've suddenly had a change of heart and want a serious discussion instead, then start from scratch and lead by example.

      Delete
    7. Very good. Now is there any chance of answering the question: Do you approve of people being imprisoned for 5 years for singing a song? If you could focus on the issue being raised, we could perhaps make some progress.

      Delete
    8. No, Aldo. You're not listening to me. I am not interested in responding to your constant trolling. If you've had a change of heart, please start from scratch and demonstrate to us that you've turned over a new leaf. Until you do that (and I'm not holding my breath), I will not be getting into a substantive discussion with you about any topic.

      Delete
    9. That's an awfully long winded way of saying "I refuse to answer your question".

      Delete
    10. I gave you the short version right at the start, but you weren't listening then either.

      Delete
    11. It surprises me little a unionist attempts to attack legislation put into force specifically to counter act the sectarian cancer that can blight Scottish society through football.

      Is it perhaps because this act helps to dilute the divide and conquer tactics used by Westminster (through fostering and encouraging sectarian divide via primary or secondary influences, I.e Northern Ireland and "old firm" connections).

      No wonder the unionist minded political parties are so set against this as it helps to disrupt the poisoning of Scottish society so gleefully encouraged by the more staunch and loyal members of it.

      Delete
    12. 5 years? Point is they'll cry like babies on their first night. Then spend the rest of their 18 months in captivity reflecting how stupid they were. Perhaps reformed they will share their lesson with the 90 miute bigot in the stand and all this and the bile might end. Oh silly me. Drunk drivers ought to get a tax payer chaufer, hang the law and flog the benefits. Of course your right, what was I thinking? Forgive me. Remourse works indeed.

      Delete
    13. And all this for singing a song?

      It's a shitty, authoritarian, overbearing, illiberal law - and from what I've read tonight, it's doomed. Get used to it.

      Delete
    14. A few relevant facts:

      I can find no facts about length of sentences, but according to the report for 2014-15 only one person was jailed under the act and only five ever seem to have been. Given that most people were dealt with by fines, five years seems a little unlikely.

      Total convictions were only 231 up to March, barely scraping into the 'hundreds', not that you would expect large numbers from what is a rather specialised offence. However opponents can't have it both ways - the Act can't be a dreadful imposition on liberty and ineffective because no one is prosecuted. Of course a low number of prosecutions isn't itself a reason for repealing the law - no one would suggest legalising murder on the grounds of a similar number of crimes.

      As far as public support goes, Stu asked Do you support The Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act 2012 in one of the Wings polls a year ago and got a response of 60% in favour and 14% for abolition. There was surprisingly little difference in backing across age groups, class, gender, how people voted for Party or Independence or even what football team was supported (if any). Rangers fans (70% to 14%) were even more enthusiastic than Celtic ones (67% to 22%), though both were smallish samples. The only group opposed were UKIP voters, though even they (all 32 of them) split three ways between support, abolition and indifference.

      Which rather makes me think that this is one of those topics that only political partisans care about, despite it being seen as a 'working class' issue.

      Delete
    15. Just think Aldo is another troll with too much much more time than sense,of course just my opinion from what I read in his comments over the past year or so.

      Delete
  2. I have been an SNP member all my adult life and very nearly resigned from the party over the offensive behaviour act. The act itself is actually sectarian because it continues to promote the "both sides are as bad as each other fiction" which seeks to deny the reality of anti-Catholic prejudice and anti-Irish racism which is sadly still common in Scots society. It seeks to equate the culture of resistance to foreign occupation with the culture of ethnic oppression and colonialism. It is utterly illiterate from a historical perspective. It also highlights how very few Catholics and those of Irish ancestry have risen to positions of prominence in the SNP.

    As well as all this it is also an outrage in a liberal democracy to lock anyone up for saying things.

    Also, I wouldn't count on all the current SNP MSPs backing the act, I think there are a handful at least who recognise that it for the foolish, blinkered outrage that it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, which of us hasn't "resisted foreign occupation" by blowing up a load of innocent people having a drink in a pub?

      Delete
    2. Is it true that you can't make a sign of the cross in a football stadium?

      I'm a libertarian. As such, pretty much everything the SNP does rubs me up the wrong way. I hope the new parliament can strike a few blows for civil liberty.

      Delete
    3. I note that you don't actually address even one of my arguements there, but here's another:

      If I can't sing a song about people who never went anywhere near "innocent people in a pub" but happened to co-incidentally be in the same organization as them. Then I assume you agree that all song about the British army should be likewise illegal, as a result of the murderous activities of the Parachute Regiment in Derry in January 1972?

      Delete
    4. "which seeks to deny the reality of anti-Catholic prejudice and anti-Irish racism which is sadly still common in Scots society"

      It doubtless still exists, but is it really "common"? I live in west-central Scotland, am a Catholic, and have an identifiably Irish surname. I can't recall ever being the victim of anti-Irish racism (unless, ironically, you count online racist abuse from southern Tories on the website Political Betting).

      Delete
    5. There is no question anti-Catholicism is far less prevalent than it once was. It has also become more nuanced by class and politics. One of the reasons I think MSPs passed the act is because they are all basically middle class and have limited experience of working class culture, especially male working class culture. Much of the drive behind the offensive behaviour act was really just outright snobbery, of a very similar kind to that which banned smoking in pubs, at heart a contempt for the poor. Meanwhile middle class anti-Catholicism can conceal itself behind trends of secularism, and progressive social politics. Patrick Harvie for example is without question the most anti-Catholic politician on the British mainland.

      Delete
    6. It'd be good to have some evidence for that last assertion, Chris. To my untutored eye it looks completely loony.

      Delete
    7. Patrick Harvie wants to abolish Catholic schooling - certainly in the state sector, anyway.

      Delete
    8. "that which banned smoking in pubs, at heart a contempt for the poor"

      At that point I still smoked, and didn't have a problem with going outside. My non-smoking friends that I went for a pub tea with had a far nicer evening as a result of that legislation. How was it aimed at the poor?

      Derek

      Delete
    9. I want to abolish Catholic schooling too, along with all other "faith" schooling and places for clergy on education committees.

      I want an entirely secular state, much like Patrick Harvie...

      Delete
    10. Aldo - I want to abolish Catholic-schools too, as well as all faith-schools.

      Schools should be entirely secular and focus on teaching, not indoctrinating young minds with iron-age myths (that's what your churches are for). We don't teach that Thor and Zeus are real in schools (even though early Christians clearly borrowed a lot of iconography from western regions, especially Zeus - lets face it, the books written about god when Christianity was confided to the Middle East depicted god as a pillar of flame as volcano gods where the in-thing at the time in that region, only after reaching Greece did Christian writers re-rewrite their god to look like an old man ala Zeus, and lets not forget HELL was the Norse goddess of death long before Christians missionaries reached Scandinavia and decided to take her name for their underworld).

      Modern religions, including Christianity, are just a hodgepodge of stories and legends taken from older religions and edited to early Christian tastes - a bit like fanfiction.

      Banning faith teaching from schools (with the exception of when its clearly pointed out its just myths and stories as we go for the old world religions) isn't anti-Irish, its just common sense.

      Delete
    11. James Kelly,I too live in the West Central Scotland region,and I have been refused an interview for a job I was well qualified for.I called an hour later applied for same job,but I used a different surname and no middle name,I was greeted like an old friend,and the "manager" said to me he had to be careful as he did not want any of those Fenians here.Should have seen his face when I declared that I was that Fenian.It has happened a couple of times to me,but not in the past 35 years,maybe I just could no longer be bothered showing them up for what they were/are.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "of a very similar kind to that which banned smoking in pubs"

      If middle-class snobbery saves working-class lives (and the smoking ban will undoubtedly have done that by now) I'm finding it hard to be too angry about it.

      Delete
    2. More relevantly, it also protected the safe working conditions of the workers who work in pubs.

      Delete
    3. I would say "equally relevantly", not "more relevantly". All lives are important.

      Delete
    4. At the risk of getting off topic the evidence from across Europe is that smoking bans have not reduced smoking rates. The (overstated) hazards of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) could have been quite easily been eliminated by enforcement of ventilation and air quality standards which are common in many industries where toxic vapours are common. No other states have introduced smoking bans which have been as draconian as ours - banning separate smoking rooms, and even smoking outside in many locations.

      Delete
    5. "the evidence from across Europe is that smoking bans have not reduced smoking rates."

      Which isn't really the point if fewer people are being exposed to passive smoking.

      Delete
    6. People choose to work in pubs. They can equally choose not to work in pubs.

      People can enter pubs and endure passive smoking or they can go somewhere else - non smoking areas perhaps?

      People can smoke and induce an early death or they can not smoke and live longer.

      The choice should lie with individual people - not be imposed from on high by a smug elite (and I'm aware it was Labour / Liberals who initiated it).

      So, what's next? Booze? It seems the natural next target for the miserable feckers who control our lives.

      Delete
    7. "People choose to work in pubs. They can equally choose not to work in pubs."

      Yup, the age-old Tory "choice" for the plebs - work or health?

      Delete
    8. Didn't the Labour government in England, the one in Wales and the multi party one in NI do pretty much exactly the same thing?

      Come to that, I was in Dublin recently and you're not allowed to smoke indoors there either.

      The Tories in England have shown no inclination to lift the smoking ban. I note that the only person who has mentioned it is Farage.

      One of the things I appreciate about it most is that I can come home from a night in the pub and not have to have a shower and wash all my clothes for fear of smelling like an dirty ashtray.

      As for the employment issue, I should think that most certainly people who were out of work would have no choice about working in pubs or not. The rule is that you must take any job that comes along, or be sanctioned.

      Successive British governments have tried to discourage people from drinking and smoking by making the duty on both alcohol and tobacco prohibitively expensive.

      Delete
    9. James, you could always go and work somewhere else. Now there's a radical thought - the individual taking charge of their own life. Perish the thought!

      Yes, tris, it would seem to be spreading across much of the world, sadly. If it were to stop at smoking, I might not be too concerned. But it wont stop at smoking. Enjoy a wee dram while you still can - because the control freaks are on their way.

      Delete
    10. What can we say - it's just such fun to rob people like you of your few pleasures. :D

      Delete
    11. But not nearly as much fun as robbing you of your precious Scottish independence ;0)

      Delete
    12. The smoking ban issue reminds me of my cigar smoking days when many doubtless libertarian cigarette smokers got very uptight about being near my cigar smoke....

      Delete
  4. I can see it's going to be quite a painful readjustment for some of the more fanatical nationalists. Having got used to the SNP deciding everything over the last 5 years they now have to watch as SNP legislation is repealed / amended / watered down / defeated. So scornful are they of the opposition however that they can't handle the idea of being defeated even on piss poor legislation.

    The rot has well and truly set in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm. And I suppose that wasn't trolling either.

      Delete
    2. Just a statement of fact. The seethe from the SNP is so intense they don't want to give way to anyone - Greens included.

      Delete
    3. If you're not going to stop behaving like this, don't get upset when people point out you're trolling. It's really incredibly simple.

      Delete
    4. I'm not in the least upset. But you evidently are, about something. Eurovision not pan out the way you'd hoped?

      Delete
    5. My patience is not inexhaustible, Aldo. At the end of the day, I'm the moderator here, and I reserve the right to delete comments posted for the sole purpose of wasting my time. I've already done so once today.

      Delete
    6. If you think I'm a troll, why engage with me at all? I've complimented you in the past and even defended you. Now you're saying I don't have the right to express an opinion or ask a question? Poor show.

      Delete
    7. You're just another sad little Sevconian. A hater of all things Scottish. A Yoonietroll.

      Why anybody puts up with your bile even once is beyond me.

      Delete
    8. Celtic supporter actually, you presumptuous bigot.

      Delete
    9. One two three: "By a lonely prison wall..."

      Delete
    10. "Now you're saying I don't have the right to express an opinion or ask a question?"

      And there you go again. You have somehow turned "I reserve the right to delete comments that serve no purpose other than to waste my time" into "you do not have the right to express an opinion". Snide and content-free digs about my interest in the Eurovision Song Contest have got nothing to do with your right to express an opinion.

      Do you know what's a poor show? Trolling, Aldo. Trolling is a poor show. So pack it in, there's a good chap.

      Delete
  5. teeth in the glassMay 15, 2016 at 5:38 PM

    As someone with no interest in soccer or religion I find the situation rather sad as I believe the forms of tribalism displayed by advocates of both football and religion to signal deep rooted insecurity in their society.
    Divide and rule ! No need for Westminster to divide the Scots as we do that ourselves. That just leaves them the job of ruling us.
    “Only in their dreams can men be truly free. 'Twas always thus, and always thus will be.”
    Unless we drop the knuckle dragging tribalism the above quote will apply to us deservedly.
    The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act may not be perfect but at least it was a start and it must be replaced with something mush more effective.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A statement of fact supported by nothing more than your own narrow opinion, Aldo? It's really quite embarrassing to watch you cortort yourself around ever more ridiculous premises such as this.

    The SNP has been in minority government for less than a fortnight, a decision Nicola Sturgeon made when the option to form a coalition and informal agreements were available. For you to presume that some 'fanatical nationalists' would somehow have a problem with democracy after the decision was made to continue as a minority government just shows how completely bewildering you are as a self-appointed commentator on this blog in the interest of 'balanced' debate. You are motivated by trolling, not by standing up for your morals or ideals.

    Feel free to continue deluding yourself that anyone who frequents this blog takes the slightest interest in what you have to say. You've made countless remarks over the last few months that singles you out as just another Tory zealot buried in Daily Mail/Telegraph dreamland. Fooling nobody, I should add.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I very rarely read the Daily Mail. I used to vote Labour prior to their becoming a joke.

      All I have done is point out what I see as intransigence on the SNP's part when it comes to working with other parties, brought on by the referendum defeat and the loss of their majority. I think this thread is a case in point. Who wants sectarianism? No one. But you can't trample civil liberties and introduce cruel and unusual punishment as an answer to it. The people who point this out are shouted down not because of the message they convey - which is pretty sound - but because of who they are.

      Delete
    2. Aldo,

      Please peruse this document - from my 10 seconds Google exercise, I can find that your claim that people are being jailed for 5 years for 'singing a song' is entirely bogus.

      http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/06/7911/4

      It's really a waste of everyone's time, mines included, to show you there error of your ways, as your motivation is not to debate and discuss (and learn from that process), but to troll, divide and otherwise willfully misinterpret that facts to push your own agenda. People are not being 'shouted down' - people are debating the value of the law, and latterly the opportunism of James Kelly to paint the bill as 'SNP arrogance' rather than what it really is.

      I reply with the above link simply to show everyone reading, once again, just how easy your baseless assertions come undone under the merest hint of scrutiny.

      Not that I am not aware that you will zero in on any hint of a fact that might somehow support your position. The reality is, frankly, I can't be arsed, as splitting hairs doesn't detract from the overall falsehoods you seek to present as facts - "Just a statement of fact." as you have claimed above.

      You are nothing more than GWC with a B in Higher English.

      Delete
    3. The fact is that people CAN be jailed for up to 5 years for singing a song.

      And the law should not allow for such an abuse to even be possible.

      Dealt with.

      Delete
    4. Aldo! You imbecile!

      You just said in your first comment:

      "The SNP are jailing people for 5 years for getting a bit mouthy at a football match."

      When the reality is they are not, are they? That's demonstrably a lie, on your part.

      Now you're saying [they] "CAN be jailed for up to 5 years for singing a song.".

      When the reality is that there have been hundreds of offences recorded under the OBFA and a tiny minority have resulted in a custodial sentence. Please show me proof that any of these resulted in a 5 year jail term?

      Also, is it just "singing a song?" or is it more like allowing people, in public, to incite hatred, racism, religious intolerance and general fuckwittery which can end up with innocent people in hospital or worse, dead?

      You're incredible, Aldo, really. You're twisted even more than the pasta I just ate for dinner!

      Finally, it's judges and the courts who decide how to appropriate sentencing for offenders, not the government. That decision is entirely within the jurisdiction of whichever judge is appointed to a particular charge, and of course there are numerous other factors taken into account when this decision is made, such as previous offences, the nature of the offence, etc.

      Now that that's been 'dealt with', will you have the balls to retract your statement, or will you continue down the path I already said you would, expressly intent to divide, mislead and misrepresent the readership here, instead of taking part in actual debate? Or in other words, are you just trolling?

      This, in my opinion, is entirely at odds with James moderation policy given that the sole purpose seems to be to waste his (and our) time.

      Delete
    5. I will not retract my statement, as it can also be taken to mean intent on the SNP's part to jail people for 5 years, even if such a case is yet to arise.

      The courts decide on sentencing, yes - but according to government guidelines. They can't, for example, sentence a murderer to 24 hrs community service. The government sets the boundaries that judges must act within.

      Anyway, we'll soon find out what parliament has to say about your wee draconian law. If it gets chucked out or watered down due to fears over illiberalism, this 'twisted imbecilic troll' will be expecting an apology :0)

      Delete
    6. Of course you won't, because you're a fucking idiot. Presented with facts, you cannot bring yourself to admit you are a) lying and b) misleading everyone who reads your comments.

      I would suggest that the maximum 5 year term you're talking about would be reserved for the most hateful crimes covered by the act, which directly resulted in loss of life, for example.

      Is it completely unfathomable that someone might bring a banner or chant something so intolerant that it might lead to events where people actually lost their lives as result, such as I don't know... a crush or major disruption at a football match where the chances of getting hurt in the 'crossfire' between equally hateful cunts is higher?

      The government sets boundaries which they should work within, which covers the range and severity of the offence which the lawbreaker has been charged with. The impact might range from a few folk complaining to the police to idiots taking it upon themselves to seek revenge. That's why it has a term up to 5 years.

      You are grasping at straws to try and present 'getting a bit mouthy at a football match' as being punishable by a 5 year jail term. Absolute pish from you, despite your record.

      Finally, it's not 'my' law - I'm talking about you, not the SNP. Don't attribute the governments decisions to me.

      Delete
    7. I will not suffer to be called "a fucking idiot" by a yes voter :0)

      We have laws to cover violence, incitement to violence, public disorder, hate crimes based on religion and ethnicity - all of which pre-date this new law. So don't tell me it's about protecting life and limb. You do that by enforcing existing laws - not by introducing new ones that are both surplus to requirements and illiberal.

      We'll see what parliament has to say.

      Delete
    8. Hahaa. Okay then, No voter. Practically every scare story BT made in the event of a Yes vote have come to pass anyway. And please don't start on your £15B black hole myth - really, we have been over this before and we cannot help it if you cannot get your head around the difference between running the country as the UK government would and running the country the way the current Scottish Government would. I know it's against your mantra, but facts are facts, after all - not that you would know one if it rapped your across your concrete-hardened knuckles.

      Only you, Also, could value freedom of thought over the right not to be routinely abused at a football match? Take a look at yourself.

      I don't know if the OBFA will stay, but I hope it does to take care of some of the idiots who attend Scottish football matches and put other attendees in potential harms way, but also to bloody the nose of contorted Unionist fuckwits like yourself who will drop any hint of morals or indeed logic in order to try to score a political point against the SNP. The game of government has just kicked off, by the way, and it's still going in direction of independence.

      Must be hard to stomach that after all your teams efforts, Aldo, eh?

      Delete
    9. You lost your majority despite all expectations. You lost the popular vote and you don't have a mandate (even in combination with the Greens) as both manifestos are vague and non-commital. There is not going to be a referendum in this parliament. Beyond that is anyone's guess but, in the here and now - and in the near future - you are stuffed. I'll take that and call it a win.

      Delete
    10. "You lost the popular vote"

      I beg pardon? The SNP won the popular vote with 1,059,897 votes. Labour were in a distant second place with 514,261 votes.

      Delete
    11. Aldo,

      I'll just list all the falsehoods you've just posted to illustrate my point that you are a compulsive liar and a troll.

      1 - SNP lost a majority in a voting system designed by your old Labour pals specifically to prevent a absolute majority government. 2011 was a freak and reasonably unlikely to have re-occurred, despite the SNP vote share going up to record levels. This was warned about repeated from various alternative media sources, but the narrative bore some fruit, clearly.

      2 - SNP didn't *lose* any popular vote, infact they won it by a landslide! Over 1 Million constituency votes, remember? Or did you forget that one?

      3 - The SNP doesn't need a mandate pre-agreed in their manifesto. The manifesto is not binding, only it's inside the head of Jackie Baillie, or maybe numbnuts like yourself and GWC. The mandate comes from the electorate, and if they want a vote, they will get one.

      3 - There will be a referendum exactly when the electorate decides to have one. Politicians do not get to dictate against public will, and it would be a disaster for the Tories to prevent the Scots from having one. Unionists are so desperate for that narrative to take hold, that the SNP don't have any mandate... I wonder why? 19 months since the referendum and the direction of travel is still towards independence, isn't it? Can you feel that pressure in your bowels, Aldo? It seems like it!

      4 - How are the SNP stuffed? They are in government, with a pledge to work across party lines, with a minority of 2.

      5 - A win? You really are deluded.

      Delete
    12. Seem to have lost count after 3 there... if only I could pop out the comment box :(

      Delete
    13. Martin, you can effectively "pop out the comment box" - there's a Preview button next to the Publish one.

      If you don't like your previewed text, you can edit it.

      Delete
  7. So who are you Aldo? I read only Troll. You are not being shouted down. Am amazed by James's patience with you. Being disagreed with because you are wrong is not being shouted down. You are the intolerant one. Examine your arrogant certainty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the title of this thread: "Labour/Tory plan to legalise sectarian abuse" isn't in any way intolerant or arrogant?

      I'm amazed at James' patience too - but not for the reason you are.

      Delete
  8. They want to turn Scotland into a Northern ireland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 8:24 PM

      Northern Ireland and ROI are great places to visit inspite of Adams and Co. Mr Adams just like the Scot Nat sis cannot accept democracy. I am surprised the Nat sis have not made Adams an honorary member! Yet.

      Delete
    2. You going over this marching season?

      Delete
  9. The Unionists dream of turning the clock back to the days when us daft jocks fought with one another over which school we went to, or what team we supported. Classic divide and rule.


    I'm sure Laurel and Hardy that lurk here will approve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 8:28 PM

      Well if we had all gone tae ra same school then nae problem. Mibbie.

      Delete
    2. Hell of a big school then, 23.

      Delete
  10. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 7:08 PM

    The Nat sis are sectarian by nature as they want to create a division between their neighbour who they have had an over 300 year old agreement to the benefit of both. eg: an end to stupid wars, the mutual fight between Scottish and English working class to improve their lot. The Nat sis have just got to come clean and admit they hate the English.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't just hate the English, GWC. You can also add to that list: Scottish Unionists, the political right, nats / nat allies who don't toe the line.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 7:55 PM

      Aldo, if the Nat sis could come clean and publicly admit they hate the English then I would not respect them but accept their honesty.

      Delete
    3. Just pop over to WoS - some of them readily admit it, lol

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 8:04 PM

      Aldo, further to your last comment you are absolutely right the Nat sis are like Stalinists who toe the line. How on Earth can you have so called socialists in a right wing Nat si party who remain silent. Shirley ! a Trotsky figure will have to emerge from those dimwitted lefties.

      Delete
    5. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 8:14 PM

      Aldo, their mothers were probably shagged by Commonwealth merchant seamin unloadin their load at the Govan Docks.

      Delete
    6. Aww. Bonding is lovely. Shall there be the pitter patter of little troll hooves soon?

      Delete
    7. GWC, please, the imagery is just too much!

      Delete
    8. The image summoned by Conan wasn't particularly appetising either.

      Delete
    9. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 8:54 PM

      Aldo, sadly the knee trembler has gone since the loss off the tenement back close. Old David Francis will be reminising.

      Delete
    10. Guid auld 23. No matter how low the tone, we can depend on you to lower it further.

      Delete
  11. "...an end to stupid wars..."

    Like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 7:50 PM

      They were good wars for Christianity and Civilisation. And a few bob for the oil corporations and pension funds. Surely you agree inspite of you being anti English!

      Delete
    2. Iraq removed an evil dictator.

      Afghanistan was in direct response to the 9/11 attrocity.

      When unionists talk about stupid wars, they mean people getting hanged / burned / shot because they pledged alliegance to the wrong laird.

      Delete
    3. "Iraq removed an evil dictator"

      The premise for invasion, however, was WMD. Did we find any?

      Derek

      Delete
  12. I'm quite looking forward to labour and the Tories working together again. It'll be like #BetterTogether reunited.

    What's particularly fascinating is that while supporting the UK union could be considered a reasonably sane cause, this time it's in support of being able to blast out 'knee deep in fenian blood' in yer best tenor voice on the telly, in the thousands too.

    I'm sure it will work out really well for them. Carefully thought out policy position for a modern Scotland. Chuck in a few cans of irn bru, some patriot jogging, and the nats will be on the run in no time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 8:58 PM

      Skier, I thought you Nats sis were pally wie ra Tories. Same policies an aw that.

      Delete
    2. Chin up, 23. You're putting the band back together.

      Delete
    3. They'll need those evil wicked tories to pass their tax plans - and fracking too.

      Delete
    4. Rangers Fans Sing 'Up to our knees in Fenian blood' Celtic v Sevco 1/2/2015

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAn7aPmC6wk

      This is the topic under discussion.

      I understand Murdo's a big fan of the 'Queen's 11'.

      https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/721694551770034176

      Delete
    5. Wasn't that tried before Skier? What was it that Albert Einstein said again?

      Delete
    6. Murdo is also a big fan of Rangers "party songs" and could regularly be found belting them out with other members Conservative Youth at party conferences back in the day.

      Delete
  13. This legislation has been a seriously contentious issue from the moment that it was first proposed. It poses a great many problems in prosecution which goes to the very heart of the Act itself.
    An acquaintance was on the working party which worked on the (then) Bill and my point to him always was the probolem of contextuality. For instance singing the Queen at your local Orange Lodge is quite a different thing from singing in the midst of 60k Celtic fans at Parkhead. Personally I never understood why a development of the law on breach of the peace could not have been used for the same purpose. It puts an onus on the individual cop, but they arent all stupid.
    In any event, might a reaonable SNP approach be to set up a Review Group for the Act, assembling all shades of opinion, which would report in fairly short order - certainly by the end of the year - making recommendations on its reform and maybe even repeal?
    Ah but, the opposition parties would not agree to this? Would they not now? They would rather be seen to be in cahoots with the variety of idiots which shame Scotland on a regular basis with their outpourings of bile? They would rather repeal the Act as a matter of politcal revenge even at the expense of more sectarian trouble (and remember next season - FOUR OF games for the first time in four years)? Oh aye, some of them might (your namesake I would guess would be near the front of that queue), but some of the more cerebral might just be tempted? This would allow them to say the SNP have been induced to take action on this dreadful piece of legislation that their majority allowed them to impose on us, but would also involve a systematic review of the law that might even improve matters, and at the very least not make them any worse?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best outcome would be a review of the law in terms of civil liberties with a revised version, if needed, backed by the Greens and maybe the Libs.

      That and #Betterthegithereunited supporting sectarianism all the way.

      Which is what I'm kinda expecting.

      Delete
    2. Part of the reason you can't use "breach of the peace" to prosecute these behaviours is that BOTP is a relative rather than an absolute notion. The case law has generally been that a football match is a giant, systematic, organized breach of the peace. In effect you cant breach the peace if there is no peace to breach.

      Delete
    3. I think you make my point for me. What you seem to me to be arguing is that football is so "unpeaceful" that everything goes. But we know that not every kind of behaviour is acceptable even at a football match. For instance racial abuse of a player is not acceptable conduct. Challenging others to fight is a common form of behaviour leading to a charge of breach, and it would not matter if it were at a football match or not. That said, things go on at a football match that would get you the jail if you did it in the street. However, I dont accept that football is "a giant, systematic, organized breach of the peace". Its rules of conduct might differ from other social situations, but that it not to say that there no rules - racial offence, challenging others to fight for instance. In much the same way setting out to cause religious offence by singing one of the "old songs" might be seen in the same way. what matters in every case is context. As a 7 year old I had to speak to my own son so that he understood he would hear things at the football that he would not say in front of his mother. Its all about context.

      Delete
  14. This is another exercise in self-flagelation by Labour.

    The Tories clearly want it as they want to appeal to their Core Vote (bigotted Loyalists), I presume there is some kind of free speech principle behind the Greens and Liberals supporting repeal (perhaps ironic with regards to the Fibs).

    But for Labour, it's another huge bear trap. As big as the trap Ruth laid for them in every debate for the 2016 election by bringing up the Union/Second Referendum. Labour walked straight into that trap and no doubt, led by the same people, ranks filled by the same people, will walk into this one.

    Ruth will not shut up, on TV and in the Press, about how she "beat the SNP". For Labour this just cements the Tory claim to be the "strong opposition" and the "one way to beat the SNP". It is another nail in Labour's coffin. They would be morons to support it.

    But morons they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's gloves off time Dair - and the only party getting "flagellated" (oooer!!), is the SNP. I expect the opposition to take every opportunity over the next 5 years to smack them around. It's a great Scottish cultural tradition - keep your leaders humble!

      Delete
    2. Ah, you mean the SNP will be 'flagellated' by the increasingly irrelevant MSM, just like they have been since 2007?

      Gloves off...aye right.

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 10:49 PM

      Coat brig Irish Republicans fur Scottish social security welfare payments rule ok ya bass.

      Delete
    4. I have a bowler hat for sale. You couldn't afford it.

      Delete
    5. The Blessed Reverend Paisley's spittle spattered it. It's in a glass case.

      Delete
    6. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 11:11 PM

      Bloody Free Masons and Knights fae Saint something rule ok and Bowler Hats.
      OK ya Bass.

      Delete
    7. I think this politics thing is beyond you Aldo.

      There will be no "smacking around" of the SNP. For the simple, political reason that the Greens do not want to be obliterated at the next election. The survival of their swelled ranks depends completely on them hanging to the SNP's coat-tails.

      Sure, they can join in on relatively unimportant bills (and the OFBA really is a pretty meaningless bill, more message than actual law). It will certainly send a message out to the 90% of the public who back the OBFA - that the Tories and Labour both support sectarian bile in Scotland.

      Meanwhile, in all the big votes, the Greens will either vote with the SNP or Abstain. And every time the Greens Abstain its an auto-win for the SNP.

      Delete
  15. Behave yourself like a human being and you don't get arrested. It's that simple. The non sectarian part of Scotland, the majority. Do not like what these animals do and say at sporting events. We can stop it because the majority of people think it's wrong to denigrate people in public. The minority are in favour of repeal cause they are the ones the act is trying to stop. Just stop being morons!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 15, 2016 at 11:05 PM

      Is there a non sectarian community anywhere in Scotland ?

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working ClassMay 15, 2016 at 11:15 PM

      Obviously. When clearly you are sectarian.

      Delete
    3. Excellent. A response from a troll who likens his fellow Scots to Nazis, with a pathetic "Nat sis" meme.

      Delete
    4. There's a non-Sectarian community in most of Scotland. Try growing up anywhere except West Central Scotland and North Ayrshire and when you go to those areas its very clear to see how different they are.

      I moved to Glasgow at 19. It is very visible how the most common opening on meeting new people in huge swathes of public life is "what team do you support?" The culture is alien to most of Scotland.

      Delete
    5. I think that's largely perception rather than reality. What is true is that outside of the West of Scotland there aren't so many Catholics, which means the issue is not so apparent. The sectarianism is still there, it just has fewer opportunities to present itself. In fact in many ways Glasgow has much more nuance as the higher percentage of Catholics means there are also many more mixed marriages and many more people know and work with Catholics than is the case in other parts of Scotland.

      Delete
  16. Behave yourself like a human being and you don't get arrested. It's that simple. The non sectarian part of Scotland, the majority. Do not like what these animals do and say at sporting events. We can stop it because the majority of people think it's wrong to denigrate people in public. The minority are in favour of repeal cause they are the ones the act is trying to stop. Just stop being morons!

    ReplyDelete
  17. GWC is quite pathetic. Aldo thinks he is...a person who can't quite put his own thoughts into a blog that will never ever get the same hits that James' does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM

      Erse lick and probably the office jobsworth.

      Delete
    2. Another reasoned, long thought out contribution from 23.

      Delete
  18. The poll public conducted on this found that the ACT had 80% general support and even a majority of support from football match attendees themselves.

    The Opposition Parties obviously are setting their faces against, not only a piece of Legislation which is wanted but one which is working well.

    As a wee side-issue............I wonder if we will see an Amicable-Decoupling by our two resident "close friends" and fellow Tories, Glasgow Water Closet and Aldo?

    This "joined-at-the-hip" thing,can be taken a bit far, can't it.

    Still, with all that Prep School/Boarding School male-bonding, it ain't really surprising, is it.

    Live and let live, I say.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This is the unionists furthering their latest foul idea! ......Ulsterization of Scotland - all for their masters at Westminster who probably hate sectarianism as much as we do ..... but useful idiots will do their work for them again!

    ReplyDelete
  20. In this thread Aldo has been exposed as a liar. Why respond to him in any way? As for the other clown.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 16, 2016 at 11:38 AM

      Unike yourself and Aldo this clown does not support austerity and Tartan Tory collaboration with the Tories on tax policy. The Tories are consistent you yellow Tories are deceitful scum.

      Delete
    2. The trolls posts can be summed up thus - One thinks that we are unfit to govern ourselves, that we are emotionally and intellectually unable to do so.

      The other (and I'm being kind here) obviously has some kind of personality disorder and keeps repeating the same peurile insult.

      Neither can make any positive case for the Union which they profess support for. Quite the opposite in fact as they make a great case for independence. I suppose that is why the blog author tolerates them.

      Lets send them to Coventry, they would like it there. A place where they can think about the good old days of bombing civilians and the 1980 Scottish Cup Final.

      To put it in language they understand - what a couple of fan is.

      Delete
    3. GWC2 - pleased you recognized yourself. I do not support austerity or the Westminster government that is imposing it - neither do the SNP if that's who you mean by "tartan tories" - You're in a worse state than I thought! How do feel about your favourites trying to stir up sectarianism in Scotland again - you being a socialist and all?

      Delete
    4. You jusy know that 23 would be the first one screaming about being taxed more if Holyrood used the blunt instrument of income tax to raise revenues. ..

      Delete
    5. Glasgow Working Class 2May 16, 2016 at 5:09 PM

      In reality the Tory/Lib policy on tax has given me so far 50 quid per month in tax relief. The Tories next year will give me more.
      I am happy to go back to pre Tory/Lib. I do not have a problem paying tax but you pretend left of centre nat sis do. And do remember Broon opposed the tax cuts. You actually know you are just disguised Tory scumbags. Just have some bottle and admit it.

      Delete
    6. GWC2 - Gimme, gimme, gimme - some socialist you!

      Delete
    7. Glasgow Working Class 2May 16, 2016 at 6:07 PM

      Excuse for a knobend.

      Delete
    8. Glasgow Working Class 2May 16, 2016 at 6:25 PM

      Your answer above is typical of Nat sis. I was emphatic that I want to pay tax but you Nat sis do not want to confront your Nat si Tory agenda. Scum.

      Delete
    9. Classy stuff. I knew you'd whine about your entitlements - you have no interest in paying more taxes. You're all mouth, 23.

      Delete
  21. In the panelbase poll on this, a massive majority of voters of all parties backed the legislation.

    Oh, except UKIP voters; they wanted it repealed.

    I guess Kez and Ruth are targeting the #2%?

    ReplyDelete
  22. We must rid Scotland of these servants of sectarianism whose allegiance to a system that despises them is staggeringly stupid!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 16, 2016 at 5:22 PM

      You nat sis and your hatred of the English is sectarian. The proof is you would hand Scotland over to the EU.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2May 16, 2016 at 6:01 PM

      Mr Mclean, do embellish a bit more on who exactly are the servants you refer too?

      Delete
    3. GWC2 - You are one of them with your inability to think for yourself. You prove it every day with the same old phrases, would be funny if they weren't so stupid. Unlike you Mr GWC2 I hate no one, no not anybody. I regret there are many stupid people around but I don't hate them either. What I would never even considering is hating anyone the masters want me to hate - unfortunately, some can't see how brainwashed they have been and are. Sad, reactionary, regressive and pitiful people.

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working Class 2May 17, 2016 at 7:47 PM

      I assume as you never fully addressed my comment that you would hand over Scottish sovereignty to the EU.

      Delete
    5. Just you carry on making it up as you go along, 23. It's hilarious.

      Delete
  23. Aint nae fella like a stellafellaMay 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM

    Mine opinion is dis:

    Phuck all da phannies and den vote yes. Dats wight. Vote yeah, deah, yes yes.
    It's easy, just dae it fellas and lassies.

    With the yougov poll on OFBF dat showed 80% support last year - interested in yer take James- was dat a loaded question?

    Me dinnae like silly Huns or daftie tims but meprefer tims generally. Some Huns ok. Dafc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 16, 2016 at 8:17 PM

      You should google, right outside Windsor Walls, for some entertainmet.

      Delete
    2. Why bother? You're providing more than enough comedy gold, 23.

      Delete
  24. If I may paraphrase James Hunt..."The problem with Aldo is that he is a prat, always has been, always will be." Spotted him way back....now just skim past unread. Makes no odds, James, if you block him or not. But thanks for the excellent blogging. (PS the actual word Hunt used was 'W**ker' but for some reason the BBC edited it out - like me with Aldo's irrelevant trollings)

    ReplyDelete
  25. What's your favourite comment so far in this thread?

    Mine's Keaton's "Is that it?"!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Pretty disgusted with the Yoons on this. Speaking as someone who had a family member stabbed by somebody who supported the same team as him.

    ReplyDelete