The Rangers Standard

As I said previously, this legislation could almost have been designed to create the sort of climate that makes united action extremely unlikely. Perhaps if all those who subsequently turned out to be so concerned about free speech had acted when it was mainly Rangers fans under attack then something could have been done...The bill was the culmination of a process that had started a decade or more before.

Let's face it, this legislation essentially codified a strongly emerging tendency within Scottish football fandom. The default position, particularly among fans of Rangers and Celtic, is to assume the worst of fellow fans. There is a determined lack of empathy, a willful rush to misunderstanding. Night Terror, as you suggested, the SNP's motivation, as in most decisions, was populism. While we might blame the politicians and journalists, fans of all football clubs in Scotland would do well to consider just what role they played bringing this about. Despite the protestations from fans representatives, both in submissions to and appearances before the Justice Committee, maybe we had already created the impression that this was something we wanted to protect us from the big bad fans of other clubs.

I think the key thing now is to show how institutionalising laws like this are creating a petty tell tale environment. I also think we need to be able to show how the 'tolerant' government are actually hate filled and the most intolerant group in society. That is the aim of the book.
www.amazon.co.uk/Snobs-Law-Criminalising...erance/dp/0957155905

Alasdair McKillop wrote: I've never had the impression football fans wanted this, even as a tit for tat tool to hurt their rivals.

The cry baby approach to taking offence is quite pathetic, but I don't see it as having any real influence as it seems to me it is mostly ignored by anyone in power. The only example I can think of where fans have managed to make any sort of change by taking offence is in the way Hun has become a partly proscribed word now.

Anyone got any other examples of where offence taken (if not given) has resulted in action?

Night Terror

An interesting comment concerning "Hun" being the only partly proscribed word in this context. I can't help but feel you're being provocative. Can you explain to me what practical impact this proscription has had? I am not aware of a single prosecution or any material impact that has resulted from its use.

Just to reiterate, I have no interest whatsoever in having anything short of incitement to violence banned (in the interests of preserving free speech), detest the easily offended mentality so prevalent amongst some and don't care a jot should someone call me a "Hun". However, from previous postings, I had thought you thought likewise, am I mistaken?

In the interests of factual accuracy, may I ask, are you saying you are not aware of any proscribed words from the RFC fans' vernacular? I am not asking if you approve their usage, merely the act of banning, proscription or making illegal.

A fabulous article by Dr Stuart Waiton.

The very fact that Spiers was asked to give a presentation re the this Bill, only adds weight to Night Terrors assertion that they were going to pass the Bill no matter what.

What qualification does Spiers have to lend weight to the discussion? What accredited research has he undertaken as opposed to the likes of Prof Steve Bruce.

As a side note - a few months back I wrote to Strathclyde Police under FOI asking for figures relating to sectarian offences for an article I was preparing. They were unable to provide such information to me, or anyone else for that matter due to the crime recording system. Sectarian offences are recorded as an aggravation of the original crime - not as a stand alone crime in itself.

This bill was passed despite the academic evidence to the contrary, and in the absence of any available crime figures which would show a rise in sectarian offending.