Msps Scrutinising Football Bill Attend Old Firm Game

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

So your source was a government website...fair play to you scoop...

[TheLawMan 6,240]

So your source was a government website...fair play to you scoop...

No. My source was a good friend who sent me it asking for my comments on it.

If he got it from a government website, then fair enough. Care to link me to it.

Not really sure what the issue is here ffs

[*Manticore* 1,893]

eh....so my point....thats a disgrace. Eh ?

I don't know why the motion to consider it in private has been proposed.

There is Government business which is quite rightly kept confidential.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Care to link me to it.

I've closed the links now but it only took a couple of minutes' googling.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

I don't know why the motion to consider it in private has been proposed.

There is Government business which is quite rightly kept confidential.

Yeah, but its been discussed openly over the last 3 weeks and there is more and more unrest on it building up online as its even more apparent now just how badly thought the whole idea is.

The cynic in me thinks they realise the televised debates are harming them, so they are now going to pull the plug and debate it behind closed doors.

Very poor IF thats the case.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

No. My source was a good friend who sent me it asking for my comments on it.

If he got it from a government website, then fair enough. Care to link me to it.

Not really sure what the issue is here ffs

None really just found it funny....

[Jocky Broon 207]

You have to be totally blind not to notice the brainwashing that goes on in BBC Scotland.Tonight their lead news story was the Record apologising to Lennon quickly followed by this visit to Ibrox.STV on the other hand led with a house attack on an 84 year old pensioner in Dundee.If you cant see what is going on you have to be dumb.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Yeah, but its been discussed openly over the last 3 weeks and there is more and more unrest on it building up online as its even more apparent now just how badly thought the whole idea is.

The cynic in me thinks they realise the televised debates are harming them, so they are now going to pull the plug and debate it behind closed doors.

Very poor IF thats the case.

Legislation can be a lengthy process, and as I say some business of Government must be confidential.

You are starting your conspiracy theory a bit early.

Let them die before you bury them.

But if you are really concerned, contact one of your MSPs.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Working my way through today.

1st up, you have the girl from the European Convention of Human Rights telling them their new bill will be open to many challenges under section 10 of the ECHR. Not only that, but it is the duty of the parliament to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a requirement for additional laws on top of the existing ones and that the changes are a proportionate measure to the overall problem.

2md up, you have Professor Buchanan who told them that it would take up a huge amount of resource to follow online postings and that any on American sites such as facebook are subject to loads of hoops to jump through just to obtain an IP address then once you have that address, how do you prove which person wrote it if its in a house where 4 people have access to the internet.

Also, how do you prove that someone hasnt left their phone lying on a table only for someone to put something controversial online to get them into trouble.

And finally, where you have a situation where 2 friends, one protestant and one catholic are out having a drink together ribbing each other about football and one says to the other whilst laughing, "if you dont shut it, i will knock your head off" then in the company of police, it would be clear that no charges should be handed out. If someone online says the same thing, presses a smilie, but it doesnt come on, then presses submit, all of a sudden they face a 5 year jail sentence for what was probably only a joke.

Now ive moved onto Cunningham and Mulholland who have categorically stated the bill should be considered if: “There is a link to offensive chanting comments and the likelihood of public disorder"

Can anyone remind me of the most recent public disorder at an Old Firm game ?

More to follow.....

[johanhentze 14,294]

Working my way through today.

1st up, you have the girl from the European Convention of Human Rights telling them their new bill will be open to many challenges under section 10 of the ECHR. Not only that, but it is the duty of the parliament to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a requirement for additional laws on top of the existing ones and that the changes are a proportionate measure to the overall problem.

2md up, you have Professor Buchanan who told them that it would take up a huge amount of resource to follow online postings and that any on American sites such as facebook are subject to loads of hoops to jump through just to obtain an IP address then once you have that address, how do you prove which person wrote it if its in a house where 4 people have access to the internet.

Also, how do you prove that someone hasnt left their phone lying on a table only for someone to put something controversial online to get them into trouble.

And finally, where you have a situation where 2 friends, one protestant and one catholic are out having a drink together ribbing each other about football and one says to the other whilst laughing, "if you dont shut it, i will knock your head off" then in the company of police, it would be clear that no charges should be handed out. If someone online says the same thing, presses a smilie, but it doesnt come on, then presses submit, all of a sudden they face a 5 year jail sentence for what was probably only a joke.

Now ive moved onto Cunningham and Mulholland who have categorically stated the bill should be considered if: “There is a link to offensive chanting comments and the likelihood of public disorder"

Can anyone remind me of the most recent public disorder at an Old Firm game ?

More to follow.....

Going by what you're saying here, it sounds as if they're (Cunningham and Mulholland) out on their arses here!

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Going by what you're saying here, it sounds as if they're (Cunningham and Mulholland) out on their arses here!

I dont think ive heard one thing in what is now around 5 hours of listening to these meetings that would suggest this is a good idea.

Which means.

It will be passed

[johanhentze 14,294]

I dont think ive heard one thing in what is now around 5 hours of listening to these meetings that would suggest this is a good idea.

Which means.

It will be passed

It just means that they have made up their minds some time ago, that they are going to pass it. We have a saying back home.. This is a mere play for the gallery.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Cunnigham, Mulholland and James Kelly doing their very very best here to ignore the fact its an "offensive behaviour" bill and NOT a "sectarian behaviour" bill

Christine Grahame eventually pulls them all back into line by reminding them its not a sectarian bill and that everyone should remember its an offensive bill.

Next question comes in.

And Cunningham takes it straight back down the sectarian route.

And not only that she says, and im paraphrasing a little, "This isnt a magic bullet to solve the problem of sectarianism in Scotland. This is a about a particular manifestation of sectarianism which causes a big issue of public disorder"

I mean WTF ???

So Dr Waiton was right. This is about criminalising football fans and only football fans.

And where the fukk is this big issue of public disorder she keeps rattling about ??

And did you fukking listen to the Chairperson Roseanna ? Its about OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

"Football creates a public disorder issue" again.

[RFC55 109,729]

Cunnigham, Mulholland and James Kelly doing their very very best here to ignore the fact its an "offensive behaviour" bill and NOT a "sectarian behaviour" bill

Christine Grahame eventually pulls them all back into line by reminding them its not a sectarian bill and that everyone should remember its an offensive bill.

Next question comes in.

And Cunningham takes it straight back down the sectarian route.

And not only that she says, and im paraphrasing a little, "This isnt a magic bullet to solve the problem of sectarianism in Scotland. This is a about a particular manifestation of sectarianism which causes a big issue of public disorder"

I mean WTF ???

So Dr Waiton was right. This is about criminalising football fans and only football fans.

And where the fukk is this big issue of public disorder she keeps rattling about ??

And did you fukking listen to the Chairperson Roseanna ? Its about OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOUR.

Thanks for the updates mate but should that not be fluffing

[No.12 508]

You could get done for that comment as it is obviously offensive to cows.

Quality

[Troop6 12]

Not strictly relevant, but I have BBC Parliament on just now and Christine Grahame has seen it fit to wear a white poppy rather than a red one..

[Senna 735]

Not strictly relevant, but I have BBC Parliament on just now and Christine Grahame has seen it fit to wear a white poppy rather than a red one..

Sums the stupid bitch up.

[Troop6 12]

Sums the stupid bitch up.

I think if I was part of her constituency then I'd feel inclined to request clarification from her regarding the matter. Bint.

[caseyjones 3,009]

I think if I was part of her constituency then I'd feel inclined to request clarification from her regarding the matter. Bint.

It's certainly not for me, but you will struggle to make a cogent argument against someone wearing a Peace Poppy.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

It's certainly not for me, but you will struggle to make a cogent argument against someone wearing a Peace Poppy.

Are you saying a red poppy is a "war poppy"?

[caseyjones 3,009]

Are you saying a red poppy is a "war poppy"?

If I was I would have put that in my post.

The red poppy is called the Remembrance Poppy. The white poppy is called the Peace Poppy.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

If I was I would have put that in my post.

The red poppy is called the Remembrance Poppy. The white poppy is called the Peace Poppy.

So they could really wear a white poppy for the other 364 days a year instead of being attention seeking cunts on the 11th of November

[Chef 436]

Finding offence with white poppies

[caseyjones 3,009]

So they could really wear a white poppy for the other 364 days a year instead of being attention seeking cunts on the 11th of November

They could do.