Celtic v St Mirren SPFL PREMIERSHIP 1/11/23

[Slarti]

Good on Celtic FC for taking action against the GB.
If only the other half of the ugly sisters would take similar action against the singing of mindless sectarian songs as wintnessed on their recent visit to the SMISA Stadium. Apparently they find it quite acceptable for their fans to be singing in earshot of national TV cameras ....."up to our knees in ******** blood".
Yet again the football and police authorities also choose to turn a deaf ear to this bile - I wonder why that is.

We should be more strict and tell them that if any bigoted songs are heard then their allocation will be cut in half. If it happens again, then quartered. A third time, a one game ban. A fourth a two game ban. Etc. Same for standing. If it's put out as a condition for all clubs then they can't complain of victimisation.

Not that the club will actually do any of that, though, as it will cost money.

[W6er]

24 minutes ago, Slarti said:

35 minutes ago, W6er said:

I see, so North Korea also has freedom of speech...you're free to say what you like there, but the consequences are three generations of your family will be interned for life in a slave labour camp or killed.  

No, North Korea has laws against free speech. They specify things that you're not allowed to say. Here it's a more generic "likely to incite" sort of thing. Even then, you are still free to say them and take your chances in court if charged.

So if the punishment is less severe and the prohibited speech not clearly defined, then it's free? I would argue the reverse is true, the vagueness of the law means that people are likely to be more cautious. However, the principle's the same: say the wrong thing and you will be punished. That's not free speech. 

@Albanian Buddy - do you not think it rather 'convenient' that the Celtic board are choosing this particular time to act on these alleged healthy and safety infringements attributed to the Green Brigade? Also, I like how they've left this until the day before tomorrow's game to give the shortest possible window they realistically can to prevent the organisation of demos, etc. 

My plan for tomorrow night is to forget about the game completely. I will treat it like buying a lottery ticket - I would be ecstatic if we won, but I will essentially put it out of my mind and not seriously consider the possibility that we will get anything. I'm not even sure I will check the score, as I know I will get a number of messages if we pull off a shock result. 

Edited October 31, 2023 by W6er

[Slarti]

So if the punishment is less severe and the prohibited speech not clearly defined, then it's free? I would argue the reverse is true, the vagueness of the law means that people are likely to be more cautious. However, the principle's the same: say the wrong thing and you will be punished. That's not free speech. 
[mention=16936]Albanian Buddy[/mention] - do you not think it rather 'convenient' that the Celtic board are choosing this particular time to act on these alleged healthy and safety infringements attributed to the Green Brigade? Also, I like how they've left this until the day before tomorrow's game to give the shortest possible window they realistically can to prevent the organisation of demos, etc. 
My plan for tomorrow night is to forget about the game completely. I will treat it like buying a lottery ticket - I would be ecstatic if we won, but I will essentially put it out of my mind and not seriously consider the possibility that we will get anything. I'm not even sure I will check the score, as I know I will get a number of messages if we pull off a shock result. 

The principle is nowhere near the same.

And it's FREEDOM OF SPEECH, not FREE SPEECH. There's a big difference and probably why you disagree. You're disagreeing with something that doesn't exist. One is the right to say things, the other is no cost for things said.

[W6er]

2 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

The principle is nowhere near the same.

And it's FREEDOM OF SPEECH, not FREE SPEECH. There's a big difference and probably why you disagree. You're disagreeing with something that doesn't exist. One is the right to say things, the other is no cost for things said.

 

I will quote the Joint Committee on Human Rights:

“everyone has the right to free speech within the law” - https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/freedom-of-speech-challenges-and-the-role-of-public-private-and-civil-society-sectors-in-upholding-rights/

The principle is the same - criminalising speech. It's the punishment and the manner in which the law is framed that's different. 

 

Only in this madhouse does a match thread descend into a debate on the definition of free speech! 🤪 I'll take responsibility for derailing this one and will bow out of this thread for ~25 hours, at least.  

[elvis]

We will not be allowed to get anything from this game .No less than 2 goals no more than 5.a player sent off early and at least 1 penalty all in favour of the green bigots.

Edited October 31, 2023 by elvis

[Albanian Buddy]

22 minutes ago, elvis said:

We 

😂 

[Slarti]

I will quote the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
“everyone has the right to free speech within the law” - https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/freedom-of-speech-challenges-and-the-role-of-public-private-and-civil-society-sectors-in-upholding-rights/
The principle is the same - criminalising speech. It's the punishment and the manner in which the law is framed that's different. 
 
Only in this madhouse does a match thread descend into a debate on the definition of free speech! [emoji2957] I'll take responsibility for derailing this one and will bow out of this thread for ~25 hours, at least. [emoji4] 

Quote mining at its best there, bud.

What about this, from just before your quote?

"Subsequent international agreements have recognised that the freedom is not an unrestricted right. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1950, was explicit that the right may be limited by law. Article 10 of the convention reads that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” and that this includes “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”. But it adds the caveat that restrictions may be imposed for a variety of reasons, including to protect the rights of others:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has summarised what this has come to mean in the UK. It said that “everyone has the right to free speech within the law” and noted that “unless it is unlawful, speech should usually be allowed”. The committee’s summary continued:

The right extends further than just the right to make speeches. It extends to all forms of expression. Together, freedom of expression and freedom of association cover the right to form societies with lawful aims, even where those aims are not shared with the majority, and the right to peaceful protest.
Free speech is not an absolute right: it is right that there are limitations to ensure that it is not exercised in a way which causes harm to others. We note the law prohibits speech which, for example, incites murder, violence or terrorism; stirs up racial hatred, or hatred to other groups; causes fear of violence, alarm or distress, constitutes harassment or is defamatory or malicious. It does not prohibit speech which others may find upsetting or offensive."

Which is just a wordier way of saying what I said - freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequencies of your speech.

[antrin]

12 hours ago, Slarti said:

We should be more strict and tell them that if any bigoted songs are heard then their allocation will be cut in half. If it happens again, then quartered. A third time, a one game ban. A fourth a two game ban. Etc. Same for standing. If it's put out as a condition for all clubs then they can't complain of victimisation.

Not that the club will actually do any of that, though, as it will cost money.

Probably be a packed end at their away games, full of banned GB (ironic abbreviation, eh?) fans who’ll turn up in their droves at away games.

Or is the Celtic club responsible for flogging away tickets to them?  I saw no reference to Celtic stopping the pollution of other grounds.

[Slarti]

Probably be a packed end at their away games, full of banned GB (ironic abbreviation, eh?) fans who’ll turn up in their droves at away games.
Or is the Celtic club responsible for flogging away tickets to them?  I saw no reference to Celtic stopping the pollution of other grounds.

I think Celtic and Sevco deal with away tickets for their bigots.

[Doakes]

13 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:

All that was missing was a GIRFUY “Hail Hail” at the end 😂 

Is there not a splitter faction of the GB called “The Bhoys”? 

I think this decision may help us tomorrow night as there will be protests outside about this decision. Don’t forget that the GB have been very unhappy in the past resulting in protests against their team when Lennon was manager and they failed in their 10 in a row challenge. 

I hope we pump them!

Marchin on to the title! COYS

Yep, but they sit at the other end 

Think we can expect some form of protest from their fans tonight, a quick look at social media shows that they are a bit divided over it 

Suspect Rodgers might rotate a few players too with how many games they've played recently

Tough game as always but we may as well have a go

[beyond our ken]

11 hours ago, Slarti said:

Quote mining at its best there, bud.

What about this, from just before your quote?

"Subsequent international agreements have recognised that the freedom is not an unrestricted right. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1950, was explicit that the right may be limited by law. Article 10 of the convention reads that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” and that this includes “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”. But it adds the caveat that restrictions may be imposed for a variety of reasons, including to protect the rights of others:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has summarised what this has come to mean in the UK. It said that “everyone has the right to free speech within the law” and noted that “unless it is unlawful, speech should usually be allowed”. The committee’s summary continued:

The right extends further than just the right to make speeches. It extends to all forms of expression. Together, freedom of expression and freedom of association cover the right to form societies with lawful aims, even where those aims are not shared with the majority, and the right to peaceful protest.
Free speech is not an absolute right: it is right that there are limitations to ensure that it is not exercised in a way which causes harm to others. We note the law prohibits speech which, for example, incites murder, violence or terrorism; stirs up racial hatred, or hatred to other groups; causes fear of violence, alarm or distress, constitutes harassment or is defamatory or malicious. It does not prohibit speech which others may find upsetting or offensive."

Which is just a wordier way of saying what I said - freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequencies of your speech.

You missed a bit, maybe it didn't get past the proof readers.

"Other people usually suffer the consequences of the shit some people pour onto the world whilst referrencing their own right to "free speech""

 

[beyond our ken]

13 hours ago, northstbuddie said:

Good on Celtic FC for taking action against the GB.

If only the other half of the ugly sisters would take similar action against the singing of mindless sectarian songs as wintnessed on their recent visit to the SMISA Stadium. Apparently they find it quite acceptable for their fans to be singing in earshot of national TV cameras ....."up to our knees in ******** blood".

Yet again the football and police authorities also choose to turn a deaf ear to this bile - I wonder why that is.

The down side is tolerance of this mob by the so-called decent supporters, any of whom that I've spoken to offer trite excuses around them being good for the matchday experience.

Apart from one or two exceptions I think the GB only say out loud what the rest of them are thinking.

[antrin]

1 hour ago, antrin said:

Probably be a packed end at their away games, full of banned GB (ironic abbreviation, eh?) fans who’ll turn up in their droves at away games.

Or is the Celtic club responsible for flogging away tickets to them?  I saw no reference to Celtic stopping the pollution of other grounds.

I found the answer to my uncertainty…. (Bbc)

”It is understood Celtic made the decision due to what it believes is the group's consistent failure to adhere to club and stadium rules. 

The Green Brigade are already banned from receiving tickets for away games.

Celtic said there had been a "serious escalation" in unacceptable behaviour by the fans' group.”

So, that’s alright, then.  

 

[Albanian Buddy]

40 minutes ago, Doakes said:

Yep, but they sit at the other end 

What’s the script between these two groups? 

Is it a bit like the life of Brian?

[Slarti]

You missed a bit, maybe it didn't get past the proof readers.
"Other people usually suffer the consequences of the shit some people pour onto the world whilst referrencing their own right to "free speech""
 

I think you'll find that's covered in all the other stuff - causing harm, infringing on the rights of others, etc.

[faraway saint]

If we csn keep a clean sheet till half time I'm hopeful we can get something from tonight.

Please don't lose an early goal. 🙏

[Jockmd]

Would this action by the Celtic club be taken if the flags were Ukrainian?

[spankin_panda]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

If we csn keep a clean sheet till half time I'm hopeful we can get something from tonight.

Please don't lose an early goal. 🙏

I think that’s the Key against the OF… lose an early goal and it’s a long night, if you don’t, it changes the atmosphere and you are in with a shot. 
I’ll be watching here from Florida, beer in hand to either celebrate or drown my sorrows lol

Edited November 1, 2023 by spankin_panda

[Doakes]

5 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:

What’s the script between these two groups? 

Is it a bit like the life of Brian?

Something like that  

Bhoys wear all black, they had a scrap with each other once upon a time but I think they are more or less aligned these days 

 

[Doakes]

Baccus and Mandron doubtful for tonight - late fitness tests 

[shull]

Hopefully, the correct result to make Sportscene highlights worth watching.

[faraway saint]

27 minutes ago, Doakes said:

Baccus and Mandron doubtful for tonight - late fitness tests 

That's not going to help if they're not fit. 😟

[billyg]

Baccus out , Mandron fit enough for bench !

[northstbuddie]

[Ronnie]

Their team, hell of alot of negativity from their fans to that line up with more than a few thinking they will lose the main cause of negativity being Forrest and Turnbull playing who from our point of view always play well against us.

Sent from my T610K using Tapatalk