Jump to content

Buddie Arrested For Free Speech!


Recommended Posts

Have just saw this thread and while you will understand as I work in this area I cannot make comment on individual arrests I would like to clear up a couple of things.

Whilst probably agreeing it is not the worst crime ever it does break the current laws and that are the only ones that can be policed however it is understandbly frustrating when other fans seem to be getting off with things but the officers concerned can only police the area of the park they are in.

As for ejecting him from the parkbeing the more sensible option? Probably.

However can I add when we are given our remit from our bosses it is that only the stewards can eject fans from the game,if we are taking anyone out they will be under arrest.

As I say am not debating the rights and wrongs just hopefully clearing up a couple technical points.

What should you or the police have done after hearing the comments of Neil Lennon at the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


My take on this is, if you stop people from verbally making their opinion known in a non threatening manner, you are moving toward the sort of state that the majority of us would find unpalatable and offensive.

I'm not intending to pass judgement on the actual content and the man in question may have directed the comment at an Israeli player, but it was not abusive, nor threatening to the individual, and he is perfectly enitled to make his political stance known. It doesn't matter WHERE he is as long as he isn't breaking the law in doing so. In this case the new legislation was, at the very least, misused to eject someone from the stadium.

It's rich that some people think it ok to abuse Tokely for his indiscretions, vile as they may have been, and yet won't accept others right of free speech.

I would go further and say the police have actually assisted the individual in his attempt, if it were his intention, to raise his profile.

At the end of the day we have to decide whether we wish to have a voice or if we wish to live in silence at every apparent atrocity.

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on this is, if you stop people from verbally making their opinion known in a non threatening manner, you are moving toward the sort of state that the majority of us would find unpalatable and offensive.

I'm not intending to pass judgement on the actual content and the man in question may have directed the comment at an Israeli player, but it was not abusive, nor threatening to the individual, and he is perfectly enitled to make his political stance known. It doesn't matter WHERE he is as long as he isn't breaking the law in doing so. In this case the new legislation was, at the very least, misused to eject someone from the stadium.

It's rich that some people think it ok to abuse Tokely for his indiscretions, vile as they may have been, and yet won't accept others right of free speech.

I would go further and say the police have actually assisted the individual in his attempt, if it were his intention, to raise his profile.

At the end of the day we have to decide whether we wish to have a voice or if we wish to live in silence at every apparent atrocity.

Impressive stuff. You've reached a 7/10 on the Pomposity Scale with that post. lol.gif

When people are comparing this guy to freedom fighters it's a wee bit hard to take seriously.

As I said above, this is not about freedom of speech. It's about attention seeking twattery. You're confusing the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impressive stuff. You've reached a 7/10 on the Pomposity Scale with that post. lol.gif

When people are comparing this guy to freedom fighters it's a wee bit hard to take seriously.

As I said above, this is not about freedom of speech. It's about attention seeking twattery. You're confusing the two.

Far more succinct but you outscored me their. And,might I say? Irony to the nth degree!whistling.gif

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What should you or the police have done after hearing the comments of Neil Lennon at the game?

He could have been arrested, "A" denoting the person displaying the behaviour.

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010

Section 38 © "A" intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your saying the crowd at a football match collectively decides the things that can and cant be spoken about at the game? How does this work then?

The SPL ground rules say these things can't be spoken about at a game. If your entering the ground you have to go with these rules.

What gets me is its one rule for the OF and another for the rest of us. The Police and the SFA/SPFL are running scared of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impressive stuff. You've reached a 7/10 on the Pomposity Scale with that post. lol.gif

When people are comparing this guy to freedom fighters it's a wee bit hard to take seriously.

As I said above, this is not about freedom of speech. It's about attention seeking twattery. You're confusing the two.

Well I've read quite a lot of your posts on here more than anyone else and I admit defeat....you won the 'attention seeking twattery' by a long way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has Palestine got to do with a footballer from Israel.

Was a reaction wanted from Kayal.

Maybe we could get a quote or reaction from DVZ and Goodwin about The Troubles ?

Pathetic DSS !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What should you or the police have done after hearing the comments of Neil Lennon at the game?

As I already said as I work in this area I cannot comment on individual incidents.

I am a passionate football fan who probably says things at times that are out of order and try to police games as a football fan as well as a police officer as I was a fan a hell of a long time before I was a police officer.

Was only trying to clear up a couple of technical points.

Although I can assure you far more OF fans are arrested under these laws than non OF fans despite what you may think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could have been arrested, "A" denoting the person displaying the behaviour.

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010

Section 38 © "A" intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm.

This is indeed correct, he could have been. I'm not sure exactly what training the police are given on offences of this type, but I'd imagine it's based on whether or not such an arrest would be worthwhile or pointless based on the expected eventual outcome?

When a case such as this gets to the fiscal (and then subsequently to court), the test that is used is not a subjective one (i.e. it is not based on if anybody actually was placed in a situation of being in fear or alarm), rather an objective one, which looks at the likelihood of the 'ordinary' person who is neither overly sensitive nor overly immune to such fear and alarm.

In my opinion, this type of case would have a close to zero prospect of any sort of conviction (or even getting past the first stage of the fiscal before being dropped), as it would be incredibly difficult to establish that an ordinary person would be placed in such a position of being in a state of fear or alarm for being called a fanny...

Again, I cannot be certain as to the specifics of local police training on the issue, but I'd imagine they are told in general to overlook such an issue for these reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is indeed correct, he could have been. I'm not sure exactly what training the police are given on offences of this type, but I'd imagine it's based on whether or not such an arrest would be worthwhile or pointless based on the expected eventual outcome?

When a case such as this gets to the fiscal (and then subsequently to court), the test that is used is not a subjective one (i.e. it is not based on if anybody actually was placed in a situation of being in fear or alarm), rather an objective one, which looks at the likelihood of the 'ordinary' person who is neither overly sensitive nor overly immune to such fear and alarm.

In my opinion, this type of case would have a close to zero prospect of any sort of conviction (or even getting past the first stage of the fiscal before being dropped), as it would be incredibly difficult to establish that an ordinary person would be placed in such a position of being in a state of fear or alarm for being called a fanny...

Again, I cannot be certain as to the specifics of local police training on the issue, but I'd imagine they are told in general to overlook such an issue for these reasons.

Perhaps it was a stealth advert for Irn Bru thumbup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I've read quite a lot of your posts on here more than anyone else and I admit defeat....you won the 'attention seeking twattery' by a long way.

Listen I am very happy to take comments like that from anyone but truthfully there's no way I've beaten you to this award bud.

This one is yours and yours alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

Jeez...! is this pish still being talked about?

I know why shull keeps coming back to it... it says "FREE" in the thread title and he's got his phone hooked up for that keyword.

what's the rest of your excuses though..? Boredom? sprained wrists only good for punching keys instead of knuckle-shuffling..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is indeed correct, he could have been. I'm not sure exactly what training the police are given on offences of this type, but I'd imagine it's based on whether or not such an arrest would be worthwhile or pointless based on the expected eventual outcome?

When a case such as this gets to the fiscal (and then subsequently to court), the test that is used is not a subjective one (i.e. it is not based on if anybody actually was placed in a situation of being in fear or alarm), rather an objective one, which looks at the likelihood of the 'ordinary' person who is neither overly sensitive nor overly immune to such fear and alarm.

In my opinion, this type of case would have a close to zero prospect of any sort of conviction (or even getting past the first stage of the fiscal before being dropped), as it would be incredibly difficult to establish that an ordinary person would be placed in such a position of being in a state of fear or alarm for being called a fanny...

Again, I cannot be certain as to the specifics of local police training on the issue, but I'd imagine they are told in general to overlook such an issue for these reasons.

Your 3rd paragraph also, I believe, sums up the chance of a conviction in the case of some shouting "Free Palestine" or "Free Scotland" or indeed, in its day "Free Nelson Mandela".

The truth that may never surface regarding this incident is that the Celtic security, at the very least, asked the police officers to note that DSS has shouted "Free Palestine" and this prompted their intervention.

I would be interested to know what the Lord Advocate's opinion would be of someone being arrested under this new law for such an utterance at a football match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has Palestine got to do with a footballer from Israel.

Was a reaction wanted from Kayal.

Maybe we could get a quote or reaction from DVZ and Goodwin about The Troubles ?

Pathetic DSS !

Someone should also have asked cisse on tuesday night how he feels about al qaeda.

Lets also ask all the english based players at st mirren how they feel about scottish independence.

This DSS character and that other balloon bluto made real tits of themselves over this and bumped their gums when not enough people agreed with them.

DSS & BLUTO main stand sweary mob

StatlerWaldorf.JPG

laugh.pnglaugh.pnglaugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DSS, delighted that common sense prevailed and you're free from having a criminal record.

You should never have been arrested in the first place, but hey ho.

Personally, like apartheid era South Africa, I prefer to think of the plight of the Palestinian people as a humanitarian, rather than political, issue. For that reason I support what what DSS said and indeed where and how it was said.

Only my opinion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In days of yore I've heard the Saints faithful question the hygiene of the Grenockions, the parenthood of referees, the apparent abuse of woolly farmyard animals by a group of fans from the Aberdeen area....I could probably go on but I can't be arsed. As a paying fan I couldn't give a fcuk what goes on and if it makes a folks day to get something "aff their chest" then go for it. It doesnae bother me.

When it becomes impossible to get rid of frustration at a game of football then I'll call it a day. I really don't care what individuals shout and ball, a wee quiet mutter of "nutter" to a mate usually does it for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I already said as I work in this area I cannot comment on individual incidents.

I am a passionate football fan who probably says things at times that are out of order and try to police games as a football fan as well as a police officer as I was a fan a hell of a long time before I was a police officer.

Was only trying to clear up a couple of technical points.

Although I can assure you far more OF fans are arrested under these laws than non OF fans despite what you may think.

As an officer of the law your input here is useful. Thanks for the initial post.

I appreciate you can't comment on specific incidents so let's take this into the hypothetical world. Imagine a footballing environment (i.e. a situation covered by the new legislation), how should police officers act after being made aware of an individual shouting "Think you're a hard man, Jasper, eh? You're just a fcuking fanny" in an offensive and aggressive manner? Now consider the impact that audio and video evidence of this incident would have on securing a conviction - imagine there was such evidence, do you not think there would be a god chance the PF would persue such a case?

In this hypothetical situation, in your opinion, should the individual be charged under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012? If not, hypothetically, could you explain why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...