here is the fleshed out guidelines in the bill by the Lord Advocate

By the looks of it you could get done for Donald Whaurs Yer Troosers.

 

I find Gunt referring to his own as victims and paranoid offensive, can I get him done? :icon_mrgreen:

 

I am pushing it mainly because when I posted it on another thread a number of people's arguments were shown to be based on ignorance and they showed they had a closed minded 'victim' position that they didnt want to let facts get in the way of. IMO its not vague at all. It pretty well details most scenarios where it counts or does not count. They clearly are trying to weed out the angry-head types. The point of the word 'reasonable' offence is simply to negate unreasoable offense such as someone getting angry at an Ireland top or crossing themselves (religious gestures are specifically mentioned as not counting as an offense) or frothing at the mouth because of a national flag that is not their own favoured one. These are the unreasonable people who will also fall foul of the clampdown on people consumed by hate, threatening manners, obsessed with historic violence etc. Hopefully we will have the games being more attractive to people who are not like that but currently dont want to go.

 

I'm singing every rebel song I know at every game from now on.

* The SNP. As I have said numerous times I will be encouraging everyone I know now to vote for them or with them.

 

The fact alone that you are having to expain/convince 95% of fans it isn't vague sums it up for me.

 

Only a minority element but I very much dislike that way of thinking. No point in pretending. There is clearly a divide in our support on these issues and the diehard politcs-heads are the minority as polls on this site have shown. Only 30% voted for the keep all ra songs option in a recent poll. Probably what the other 70% voted for is in no way threatened by the bill.

 

My worries exactly a point some stubborn people don't seem to understand, but we must be Neanderthals or just simpletons!

 

Last night when I posted it was clear almost nobody had read that. They had formed OTT opinions without actually having a clue about the detail. Its plain stupid to get hysterical about something you dont have a clue about. So, yes I think I am glad I posted the fleshed out bill because noone had read it who was posting in that thread. A lot of people just have a default position of feeling persecuted and love taking the position of having a cause to rebel about. They hadnt bothered reading the fleshed out bill so I think its a good thing I did. There is an awful lot of heart and no head in this anti-bill group.

 

When you are at the game it's hard to keep a lid on your emotions.

What happens if a guy with a family and a job gets filmed shouting "* you ya stupid inbred hun *", get's hauled up to court and loses his job, his house etc...

Do you think that's fair?

Have you been to a derby match?

 

You were hardly a committed SNP voter anyway were you? For every one of you there will be 3 people who might vote SNP because they had the balls to end this ancient sore in our game.

 

No offence gunt but your an advert for why we shouldn't vote SNP.

The way you talk about your fellow fans is nothing short of disgusting.

 

I would have voted for the scum.seeing as they were the best of a bad bunch. But not now.

 

Yes a jury or judge will ultimately decide but I know first hand how much a police statement can influence the final decision. I think that's what people are getting at.

That and the fact the police seem to be allowed to define what is offensive and what's not at the time of the "incidents" meaning, whether you eventually get acquitted or not, you are put through the * that comes along with being lifted, charged or remanded. The fact the Bill defines things is irrelevant when your on the spot - at the game - only afterwards does (should) it really make a difference.

I don't support this Bill and let my MSP know as such.

 

Anway I just want people to read the bill with an open mind, not having already taken a standpoint before they read it. In fact even that is not the final version. There will be more amendments so really any extreme negative position on it is premature. Anyway I dont want to talk about me, I want the discussion to be about the details of the bill. I find it weird that noone is commenting on any of the detail. There is loads in there.

 

This is very much like that South Park episode where everyone is offended by everything at Christmas time.

This is stupid - It will only result in reduced attendances and the death knell for our game - Bottom Line.

 

Can you answer please Gunt.

 

We can't possibly have open minds seeing as we are knuckledraggers.

 

Agreed, guess the 90% or so of fans that have some form of opposition to this bill are all knuckle-draggers, leaving the rest to enjoy their perch up on their pedestal, looking down at the peasant fans below.

 

People are going to have to get used to controlling themselves a wee bit better then. In everyday life you have to control yourself so I dont see why people should go to a game and shout hate at people. Personally I have no interest at all in the opposition fans at games and I have always been baffled by the scattering of folk who spend half their time focussed on the opposition fans. We have a bad culture at football. We have a bad culture in terms of drinking and lifestyle (killing the booze culture is the next target for the SNP). I want us to change and become a more civilised small nation like the Swedes or Norwegians etc and an end to all aspects of our ned culture.

 

This is just more of the usual arrogance from you. The vast majority knew that this bill cleared the way for the police to apprehend fans for almost any alleged offensive behaviour. I have read the bill and it is extremely vague and open to interpretation.