The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The hungry gamekeepers

Posted on October 31, 2016 by

Old media and new media spoke with one voice in Scotland today:


But for once it was the dead-tree press that held the moral high ground.

Labour MSP James Kelly today published all the responses to his consultation on the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act, which poll after poll has consistently shown as one of the most overwhelmingly and universally popular pieces of legislation ever to be enacted in Scotland, uniting voters in support across party lines and every possible demographic line.

Readers may perhaps be less than entirely astonished to find that Kelly’s survey was an embarrassing mess. This was our favourite question:


That’s actually three questions rolled into one, two of which contradict each other, to which hapless participants were offered the reply options “Yes” or “No” – or the only answer that anyone could actually give honestly, “Unsure”.

(A functionally-identical question would be “Do you like fruit? If so, would you like a banana, or would you like an apple? Yes or No?”)

Respondents were entirely self-selecting, unfiltered and unweighted, giving the survey roughly the same amount of scientific validity as there’d be if this website decided to conduct a Twitter poll on independence. (There’s something of a theme to the groups who sent in submissions. See if you can spot it.)


In fairness, many of the responses were considered and enlightening, offering many thought-provoking arguments and observations. Here are the first two we clicked on genuinely at random from the 3000-plus individual PDFs on the website, which take diametrically opposing positions and make their cases strongly:



It’s fabulous stuff. “I oppose the law, but I have no idea what the advantages or disadvantages of repealing it would be, I have no idea what should be done instead to combat sectarianism, and I have no opinion on threatening communications. I just want to sing about Fenian blood and Derry’s walls.”

Some went into more detail, of course.


A plea for the cherished human right to express hate by singing, there.

But we digress (although it’s perhaps worth pointing out that the survey’s respondents were also keen to repeal the part of the law against sending individuals direct threats, an altogether uglier form of “free speech” which we suspect will be hastily glossed over by the Act’s opponents).

The more interesting thing was to note that while the Daily Record made Kelly’s meaningless dossier of bigot’s grievances its front-page lead, it at least didn’t pretend that it was something it wasn’t. The careful wording made no spurious claims – it’s technically true to say that “thousands of fans” backed repeal. Specifically, just over TWO thousand.


Which is very nearly enough to fill the stadium of Inverurie Loco Works.


While highly misleading, it’s also not strictly inaccurate to describe the Act as the “hated Offensive Behavious law”. It only takes one person to hate something for it to be hated, after all.

But for a cover splash the Record’s tone and coverage seemed rather reluctant. The story got just 337 words in total, of which more than half (181) were quotes, and other than a highly dubious use of “massive public support” in the opening paragraph, reads like the absolute bare minimum the Labour-friendly paper thought it could get away with on a slow news day.

Common Space, however, went into full propaganda-foghorn mode, headlining their piece with the wildly inaccurate claim that “Over 70% of Scots want to scrap offensive behaviour law”.

Since 3,248 (the total number of respondents) is not 70% of the population and the survey wasn’t in any way demographically balanced in order to allow that number to be extrapolated to represent the entire nation (as a properly selected and weighted poll by a real polling company can be), that’s a blatantly false assertion.

And where the Record had split its 181 words of quotes fairly equally between Kelly (104) and a Scottish Government spokesman (77), Common Space didn’t trouble itself with any such balance, quoting more of Kelly’s press release than the Record had (122 words) but not bothering to give the Scottish Government a single word of reply.

We expect the broadcast media to cover the story at considerable length tonight, which would be unjustifiable in itself. (Although it may hold off until Wednesday, when a symbolic vote will take place in the Holyrood chamber that the SNP may well lose.)

What’s more disappointing is that on this subject, their supposed scrutineers are in fact even less trustworthy.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 31 10 16 19:56

    The hungry gamekeepers | speymouth

  2. 01 11 16 15:08

    The hungry gamekeepers | Stuff from the Interne...

378 to “The hungry gamekeepers”

  1. Walter Scott says:

    It wouldn’t matter if this act reduced sectarianism at football grounds or even if in some small way reduced violence. The hilarious James Kelly is just trying to trip the SG up using any means. If this waste of space was forced to do a real job his limited intelligence would probably condemn him to gathering shopping trolleys in Asda car parks for the rest of his employable life. No offence to trolley gatherers.

  2. Stoker says:

    “Labour MSP James Kelly..”

    Enough said! The guy is a chancer with nothing substantial to offer the electorate. Thick as shit in the neck of a bottle and twice as smelly.

    The vast majority of Scotland’s electorate don’t want your sectarian songs of division and hatred anywhere near our sporting arenas.

    Scotland is progressing into the 21st century whether irresponsible morons such as JK like it or not.

    Either get with the programme or fester in the past with your Slabber Party and your red top BUM rag.

  3. mike cassidy says:

    That disgracefully misleading headline means Commonspace has just stooped to the same level as the worst tabloids.

    I started to register on the site to point this out – then thought, why bother?

    I’ll just delete them from my favourites list.

  4. liz says:

    The BBC guy seems to think all the other parties will vote for abolition.

    Do Green supporters think your party will do that?

  5. Desert Nat says:

    Sad to read of the dreadful state DR has reached, I haven’t picked it up in 30years however my grandparents used to set great store in its reasonable tabloid journalism.

  6. Brian Powell says:

    If the Act is repealed the feeble excuse will that sectarianism can be educated out of the fans, probably over the next 20 years.

    So after over a hundred years of not doing that, the next decades will.

    Kelly is simply thick, the chaotic questions show that. The Tories will vote for repeal to satisfy its OO voters.

    So it will be up to the Greens to unleash blatant sectarianism again with their vote.

  7. crazycat says:

    @ liz

    This is one of many reasons why I will never again vote for the Green Party.

  8. Bob Mack says:

    In fairness Mr Kelly is not famed for his cerebral functions. Indeed he is more famed for the lack thereof. We recently saw for ourselves events in Scotland and England that means leaving the poison that happens at grounds unchecked has very real consequences.

    It is a good law with sound reasons .

  9. Did he divide them equally between Kafflicks and Prodistents?

  10. Vestas says:

    @ mike cassidy 6:49pm

    commonspace has been “dodgy” for a fair old while now IMHO.

    Its always amusing watching the animals (“activists”) turn into the pigs (“establishment”) as they get their snouts in the trough.

    Haggerty has her snout well engaged for a while now with MSM “recognition”, judge the results yourselves….

  11. harry mcaye says:

    I don’t believe Common Space is short of Celtic supporters among its members.

  12. Ken500 says:

    No wonder the terraces are empty. The major clubs in debt.

  13. carjamtic says:


    Well said and they wonder why even the Tories are laughing in their faces….is he really an MSP in our parliament ?….more like a seller of snake oil (s).

    P.S. I attempted to answer his poll questions,I gave up in the end, had a rant about zero tolerance for violence and I supported the act…..shit questions,badly laid out.

  14. Ian Foulds says:

    Well said Stoker at 6.44pm

  15. Stoker says:

    Rev wrote:

    “Common Space, however, went into full propaganda-foghorn mode, headlining their piece with the wildly inaccurate claim that “Over 70% of Scots want to scrap offensive behaviour law”.”

    That puts the lid firmly on Common Space’ coffin as far as i’m concerned.

    Also, they state; “Over 70% of Scots..”? Really? I’d be willing to bet that a substantial number of the participants come from certain parts of Ireland, or at the very least their great great grannies once tried a sip of Guinness on the London Road.

  16. David says:

    There is a bigger picture here. That is- we need to start a campaign to change our electoral system to stop these people who have lost an election being empowered to rule over us. Allowing rejects in to government is disrespectful to the electorate. They know a nugget heid when they see one and don’t tend to vote for them. Change the system Scotland.

  17. liz says:

    @crazycat – that’s really annoying.

    They could easily argue for amendments but out right ban is wrong

  18. Socrates MacSporran says:

    James Kelly MSP is of course, a well-known, some might say prominent, member of “The Celtic Family”.

    Angela Haggerty, Editor of Common Space – could also, indeed has been, identified as a member of the same “Celtic Family”.

    They, therefore, have an axe to grind here. TCF (I shall use this acronym for The Celtic Family from here on), was pleased to see OBFA (the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act) introduced, since they thought it would see hundreds, even thousands of Rangers fans arrested for singing their favourite ditties – partciularly the one about being: “Up to our knees in Fenian blood”.

    This has not happened.

    TCF also claim, since they do not sing songs underlined by religious bigotry, but, political songs refering to the Irish freedom struggle – then that was alright.

    Sadly for them, the Police, when they have acted, have treated some of the Celtic “Party Songs” the same way as they have treated the Rangers ones – as offensive behaviour at football.

    This, as TCF sees it, wasn’t supposed to happen. They, TCF are the “good guys”, “Ra Peepul” on the other cheek of Scottish football’s bigotry arse are the bad guys.

    The rest – the other 40 “Diddy Clubs”, don’t matter. This overlooks the fact, if you put in the same stadium, at the same time, for instance, fans of Ayr United and Kilmarnock; Hearts and Hibs; Raith Rovers and Dunfermline Athletic; Dundee and Dundee United, St Mirren and Morton and, most specifically, Auchinleck Talbot and Cumnock – then, you will undoubtedly get examples of offensive behaviour of football.

    As a sports writer of over 40-years’ experience, I can say – OBFA is bad law; it was hurriedly rushed through, poorly thought-out and, unnecessary – strict enforcement of the old Breach of the Peace laws would, I am sure, have worked as well, probably better than OBFA has.

    However, OBFA is better than nothing. Amend it, yes; scrap it, most-certainly not.

    However, in my opinion, the enforcement of “Strict Liability” by the SFA, on the clubs, would be the best means of eliminating offensive behaviour at football.

    Unfortunately, the will to do this simply does not exist within Scottish Football, and, it will surely transpire that the Scottish Government will be forced to intervene and impose perhaps draconian measures on the unwilling-to-act-otherwise Scottish football establishment.

    Mr Kelly is, I feel, trying to win kudos from TCF.

    As for Ms Haggerty; in my view, she is on the low side of average as a writer, but, and I use in making this judgement the absolute dog’s dinner she made of editing Phil Mac Giolla Bhain’s otherwise excellent book on Rangers’ troubles: ‘Downfall’ – she’s a shite sub-editor or editor.

  19. Craig Murray says:

    Commonspace is degenerating into a tremendous disappointment.

  20. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “It wouldn’t matter if this act reduced sectarianism at football grounds or even if in some small way reduced violence”

    It has. Sectarian crimes are down since it was introduced.

  21. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “However, OBFA is better than nothing. Amend it, yes; scrap it, most-certainly not.

    However, in my opinion, the enforcement of “Strict Liability” by the SFA, on the clubs, would be the best means of eliminating offensive behaviour at football.”

    Agree with both of those. OBFA could certainly do with some improving. And strict liability is at least 50 years overdue.

  22. bjsalba says:

    I think the SG should put in an amendment to have Mr James Kelly draft a Replacement Bill, (without any help from any unelected pesky bureaucrats – aka civil servants) and then let it go through parliamentary procedure in the normal way.

  23. frogesque says:

    I was 17 when I moved to Scotland with my folks some 50 odd years ago. Never knew what a Catholic or Pro distant was until the.

    Then some pals encouraged me to go to football games.

    The sectarian bigotry is just plain evil. It shames Scotland and repeal of the OBFA, however imperfect, would reset the clock to the 1960s.

    Yes, a time of slums, shoeless bare arsed kids and funny handshakes stuffed with brown envelopes, hospital A&Es closed on Old Firm match days. Oh, and Labour votes weighed, not counted.

    Modern Scotland deserves better, keep the Act, improve it to make it better, end school segregration and educate our kids to respect and learn from others of different faiths and customs.

    The police could also man up as well, insist the major clubs improve their control or play behind closed doors.

  24. Ian MacDonald says:

    It’s sad to see Common Space reduced to this. It was an invaluable resource during the first indyref, but in my opinion (and apparently others as well) has been heading downhill at quite a pace for the last few months.

    Hope they can turn it around.

  25. One_Scot says:

    Lol, Budge has changed his photo, probably didn’t want to get recognised by the Old Bill. #LMAO.

  26. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    I don’t think I’ll ever forget the in-depth profile of James Kelly, which was published in February, 2014.

    Here’s a quote from it:-

    “Our hero James Kelly MSP rose from humble origins to an even humbler condition today. James’s parents were too wee, too poor and too unimaginative to give him a middle name.

    “Such things are not for the likes of us”, said his father. “One given name is all we have, because we’re dependent on others to give us anything.”

    That’s from:-

  27. galamcennalath says:

    I speak from a position of ignorance, so I will say very little.

    I have never been to a football match in my life and at this late stage almost certainly never will.

    I have attended many large crowd events and while there is always petty crime, I have never experienced collective bad behaviour at any time which appears to be far from uncommon at football matches. I just find it a bit of a mystery – why it happens, and more importantly why there seems to be an inexplicable degree of toleration?

    Any actions which are intended to force a minority of wayward football ‘supporters’ towards normal and expected public behaviour must be a good thing.

  28. Open letter to Patrick Harvie:

    Dear Patrick,

    3248 responses to an ‘Are You A Demon Lover’ level of reactionnaire, as opposed to the 5,394,752 of us who didn’t feel the need, hardly constitutes a mandate to back Kelly, WATP Tomkins, and The Queen’s Eleven Fraser in their petty wee stunt to embarrass the sitting government.
    Given what is going on in our world right now, is this the murky wee sectarian level of petty gesture politics in which the Green party wish to wallow in the company of this grubby wee nest of chancers?
    We shall remember.

  29. One_Scot says:

    Sorry he doesn’t exist any more.

  30. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi Socrates MacSporran.

    You typed,
    “This overlooks the fact, if you put in the same stadium, at the same time, for instance… Dundee and Dundee United”

    The situation in Dundee is, strangely unique. There’s a pub called “Frew’s” at the Coldside Circle; around five minutes walk from both grounds. One Saturday, it’s a Dundee pub; the next Saturday it’s a United pub.

    The party on Hogmanay sees fans of both Dundee teams in the same pub. Nae bathir… The footie fans in Dundee are not separated by the differences you may have experienced elsewhere in Scotland. Yes, there’s banter but nothing like the “banter” found in Glasgow, for example.

    (I never thought I’d do a post on WOS about footie – sorry Ruby…)

  31. liz says:

    Hope Green supporters get in touch with their MSPs about this.

    Had a quick look at the OBFA & it does cover some serious issues such as incitement to violence against folk of different race, sexual orientation or religion.

    Something you would think the Greens would support.

  32. The fat spanaird says:

    James Kelly is thicker than shot on a soiled nappy and speaks from his waste expulsion pipe

  33. crazycat says:

    @ liz

    Unfortunately, the Greens were quite clear in their manifesto that they would back Kelly. I don’t know how many people who voted for them actually read the manifesto, but this isn’t a new position for the party (though it mystifies me, too).

    And Harvie went on about it at their conference just recently, as well. I would guess there’s no chance they’ll change their minds. I understand that they need to be different from the SNP, and when it comes to things like expanding Heathrow I agree with them. But this particular issue seems a poor tactic to get what they say they want.

  34. yesindyref2 says:

    Sorry, what was the question again?

  35. Graeme says:

    “The situation in Dundee is, strangely unique. There’s a pub called “Frew’s” at the Coldside Circle; around five minutes walk from both grounds. One Saturday, it’s a Dundee pub; the next Saturday it’s a United pub.”

    Football rivalry in Dundee is exactly how it should be, no religion no politics just football, sure there are nutters on either side of the street but they’re a minority by in large it’s good natured rivalry

    Just hope Dundee can stay up this season so we can get the derbies back


  36. tartanfever says:

    Breaking News:

    Angela Haggerty supports male only panels, or as they like to call them ‘manels’

    I saw a video on Common Space with her and three other blokes last week and I see she’s taking part in a meeting next week with another male only panel.

    Can someone please break this news to Kirsty Strickland and WFI mediawatch.

  37. Andrew Mclean says:

    Oh mr Kelly you really are a sanctimonious idiot, actually I have spent most of my adult life treating the bigotry you espoused like terminal cancer. Let me tell you what you are. An embarrassment to your party, an embarrassment to your heritage and embarrassment to political life in Scotland.
    I do however like yore singing of IRA songs, the passion you express when talking of killing British soldiers is I am sure hart felt, just one question, wearing a poppy this year?

    I fuckng dare you!

  38. heedtracker says:

    Another classic rational debate versus fcuk wits. If democracy means anything at all, its the right to tell some people what they don’t want to hear. George Orwell, roughly.

    If there’s one thing that Rangers and Celtic fans are really adept at, its winding each other up. But why should everyone else have to put up with it.

  39. Arabs for Independence says:

    Graeme @ 8:17pm

    Totally agree with you about Frews and football in the city of Dundee.

  40. Smallaxe says:

    We’re up to our knees in tragedian mud and it could make me cry when I hear their sectarian silly noise!

    Peace Always

  41. Andrew Mclean says:

    Head tracker

    Because it’s disease of our country. And ignore it at our peril, the Westminster government used it to control Ireland, but we are bigger than that, our country will be united.

    One Scotland for all Scotland, whatever your race political affiliation or religion, creed or colour.

    Leave blood and soil nationalism for the BNP, NF, the UKIP, and tories.

  42. yesindyref2 says:

    Interesting. I have no personal views on this, I don’t go to football matches and if I did have the time, it would be the Juniors, not the overpaid prima donna leg clutching Oscar-fail premier league or others. Diddums.

    Greens – attitude to repealing a bill because it’s not perfect. OK, let’s repeal the Murder Act because some people get convicted wrongly, and some get off by mistake, and we all have to worry in case our self defence goes too far. Next step, the right to carry arms.

    From Commonspace: “Public consultation into offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications laws find clear public opposition”

    As this article points out, there’s asbolutely nothing “clear” about it. It’s a mess.

    In general about Commonspace though, if it supports Labour initiatives like escorted out of Holyrood Kelly’s, perhaps it can get closer to the remains of the Labour vote in Scotland, and get a YES from them in Indy Ref 2, in which case it’s worth it. It can reach the parts that other SNPs can’t. Haggerty? Very disappointing writer, I had higher expectations.

  43. Grouse Beater says:

    One more for the infamous list:

  44. Balaaargh says:

    Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Haud the presses!

    The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service are listed as respondents???

  45. Graeme says:

    Arabs for Independence says:
    31 October, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    Graeme @ 8:17pm

    Totally agree with you about Frews and football in the city of Dundee.

    I wasn’t the one that made the comment about Frews pub that was
    Brian Doonthetoon


  46. yesindyref2 says:

    “Nelson … five ships were captained by Scots, his crews Scots, Welsh and Irish”

    Interesting, I didn’t know that. Didn’t even think about it.

  47. It seems to me that the unionists will try anything that may cause division.

  48. heedtracker says:

    Andrew Mclean says:
    31 October, 2016 at 8:40 pm
    Head tracker

    No I meant some fans don’t want to be told to shut up. If Rangers club could get to them to be nice, they might even get a shot at an English league. There’s a big tear running down my nose at thought of them finally getting to play where they so rightly belong but have no chance, in reality. They’d do well to start in League 1.

    Its not like it cant happen, Swansea City style. But a lot of old school fans in Scotland really look forward to Rangers games too.

  49. Iain More says:

    The only people I know who want this Law scrapped are bigoted hate filled Yoons who should be in padded cells. 70% of Scots want it scrapped my arse!

    I wont be clicking into Commomspace any time soon if ever if this is an example of what we can expect from them.

    PS I am starting to get annoyed with the you are posting too fast crud.

  50. Liz g says:

    Not being a fan of football and like one of the posters above never having been to a game (never even sat through one on TV,preffering to watch paint dry)
    But living in the Central Belt I can appreciate the need to do something about the Bigotry.

    So while this act definitely has it’s faults and yes it is impossible to arrest half a stadium of people the fact that the behaviour is anti social enough to merit it own law is a huge statement to make.

    It’s not how many times people get away with breaking this law that’s important here,its the fact that when they behave in that way they ARE breaking the Law.
    No I don’t think it should have been made a Law.
    But now that it has to reverse it looks like society is saying that we were wrong to disprove and now this is perfectly ok to do.

    Personally speaking if I were the SNP I wouldn’t play games,I would let it be known to the MSPs that.
    This vote is a quid pro quo.
    Pick at our attempts to softly eradicate this scourge in our society and we will integrate the school’s.
    We won’t play about with the Club’s while they’re trying to protect their money.
    We won’t mess with anyone’s freedom of speech.
    We are done with initiative after initiative.

    I suspect that preventing their chance’s to nurture the next generation of bigotry will focus their minds.
    It’s probably what they should have done in the first place.
    Surely the Greens could support that?

  51. yesindyref2 says:

    @Iain More
    Maybe, but the comments seem to me to be appearing a whole load faster.

  52. Andrew Mclean says:

    Small axe

    You are my Brother.
    I have never met you and probably never will,
    But in all sincerity I care dearly for you and your family.

    You are part of the common weal of Scotland, our heart, as was Mr Shah, Mr Surjit Singh Chhokar,
    And every man who wished the best for our country.

    The JKR, spanner and orange order, you really need to get a grip. But a story for you,
    During the last armed rebellion in Scotland, a girl called Flora McDonald, apparently helped the most dangerous man in Britain escape.

    Later on she supported the British in the American war of independence. Funny that? Is that what Kezia is doing.

    By the way, I am eligible for an Irish passport? Really? What happened there, I could trace my family tree 5 generations before Flodden.

    Perhaps they like the cut of my Jib?

  53. Ruby says:

    My solution to these problems would be to ban spectator football.

    Surely it would be much better if all these men did some sport instead of sitting about watching others play sport & ending up being a drain on our NHS.

  54. Orri says:

    The majority of those wanting the OBFA repealed seem to be Celtic fans. Might that be because it spoils their cage rattling fun? Whereas previously you got more convictions of Rangers fans due to the more blatant nature of their songs now the concept of context has been introduced.

    Now that it has it might be said that the act has served its purpose and might be safely repealed in exchange for a formal reference to context in Disturbance of the Peace laws so there are no banned songs just a common sense don’t intimidate or deliberately piss people of kind of thing.

  55. Dr Jim says:

    Did the survey cover the definition of the word reapeal repeel reapeel…. repeal
    It’s just that this survey was aimed at people who pay other people a lot of money to let them be offensive whilst providing a policeman to stare at them and a seat not to sit on

    Just a thought

  56. Andrew Mclean says:


    You haven’t the slightest understanding of the subject you are posting about, have you?

  57. Paul Wilson says:

    Going by the attendances at Scottish Football these days this act will hardly matter thanks to the morons and the Glasgow mafia that run or should I say run in to the ground our game you would have to say job done they have destroyed it far more men go shopping with their other half’s than go to watch the rigged game that masquerades as Football. Scottish Football R.I.P. killed by Blatant bias towards the ugly sisters and total disregard to those that don’t support these two and with the joke of a National team in their Pink strips our game is DEAD!

  58. Liz g says:

    Ruby @ 9.06
    I think there’s too much money involved to simply ban it.
    And I think we also have to remember lot’s of people enjoy it.

    I do remember reading that there’s also some sort of emotional value to it,channeling the hunter gatherer instinct that isn’t being used up in modern lifestyles.
    Apparently that’s why it’s male dominated and can be the catalyst for aggression and mob mentality!
    It’s supposed to be a form of cathartic release,the theory being all that energy has to go somewhere.

    But I,and I suspect you have very little time for understanding the behaviour and would rather get serious about making it extinct…so to speak.
    So the key to it is probably going to be all about the money.

  59. yesindyref2 says:

    Absolutely totally OT:

    I used to know a couple of pilots with Loganair, one was my instructor when I used to have money and no responsibilities apart from getting to the pub before it shut.

    The Express is surprisingly good for some stuff. Pity about the rabidness of MacFadyen, she does it a disservice. I used to love the Giles cartoons many years ago. A pictorial way of getting the news and laugh at it 🙂

  60. heedtracker says:

    Liz g says:
    31 October, 2016 at 9:00 pm
    Not being a fan of football and like one of the posters above never having been to a game (never even sat through one on TV,preffering to watch paint dry)

    Ah Liz. Get em young. Its changed completely since the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s but for young sports fans, like me, I could bore you to death with the sheer joy, and horrors, that football brought. The things we saw. You have no idea. I have even stood in Ally MacLeod’s living room, kitchen, garage, and garden, after he’s was one of Aberdeen greats. Sir Alex Ferguson once phoned our house to get hold of one his sons at Hogmanay, in his first ever season at Man U. His son wasn’t around but even to a drunk teenage fan, me, he was really lovely. His wife’s the funny one though:D

  61. TB says:

    Wow. Just after Derek Bateman’s myopic denial of BBC bias towards Scotland, here comes the increasingly unimportant Common spaceheads with their worst performance yet. Absolutely disgusting.

  62. Grendel says:

    Sadly I’m sure the Greens will support Kelly. If they do they will be letting all of us who are sick to the back teeth of sectarianism and were delighted when a government finally had the balls to do something about it.
    The repeal of the OBFA will be a black day in Scottish history and will be remembered for a long, long time.

  63. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Oh crivvens! A miserable couple of thousand of the usual suspects stand up for vile sectarian behaviour and it’s 70% of Scots? What? =wince= “I don’t believe it!” (To coin a phrase.)

    Where exactly are CommonSpace going with this? Have they no better cause these days to which they can devote their attentions? Is their ambition so etiolated now that they aim to become mere Labourite fellow-travellers? (Sailors jumping onto a sinking ship, so to speak.)

  64. Andrew Mclean says:

    Liz g,
    That is the same argument used to defend violent and child pornography? It causes no harm and is a release?

  65. Maren says:

    Interesting exchange from the CommonSpace writer’s Twitter feed, where he has also admitted that the article is wrong and the headline misleading.

    abigdoob ?@abigdoob 1h1 hour ago

    @David_Jamieson7 @1975Thomson @jamieszymko See the source is Scot Lab press release. Did it come direct or 2nd hand via BBC?

    David Jamieson ?@David_Jamieson7 1h1 hour ago

    @abigdoob @1975Thomson @jamieszymko Direct. After a phone call from the director general.

  66. Andrew Mclean says:

    What is hallowe’en fib night now?

    Head tracker
    “but for young sports fans, like me”

    In your dreams!


  67. Lochside says:

    The title of this should be the ‘Careless Beekeeper’. Let’s face it, Kelly’s face should be redder than a tomato with this latest bullshit attempt to ’embarass’ the SNP.

    Last week a wee boy was smashed on the head with a bottle thrown by a thug. There were around 15-18 arrests at or around the game. Ten years ago there were on average several murders because of these fixtures between the old firm. Go back a hundred years and it’s a litany of mayhem. Why?..because both clubs grew big and rich on manufactured hatred and bigotry.

    Surprisingly many people on here are non football folk…or should I say ‘fitba’ ( not the detestable ‘footie’ as invented by middle class English celebs). Most games in Scotland now, outwith the Old Firm are small and violence free affairs played in front of small crowds. The media and other factors have killed the Scottish game and left us with a ‘binary choice’ to quote Fanny May. That of the ugly twosome.

    Sectarianism of the orange variety does exist in several other clubs, but it’s low level. Arrests are few and nearly all the arrests are Rangers and Celtic. So let them repeal the Act…people forget the disgraceful attacks on Neil Lennon that prompted amongst the other deaths and assaults the SNP to try to do the right thing…and see what the New Year game brings with the clash of bigots.
    Will James Kelly’s face be 40 shades of puce when the butcher’s bill is toted up?…I doubt it.

  68. macnakamura says:

    Socrates MacSporran
    ” TCF (I shall use this acronym for The Celtic Family from here on), was pleased to see OBFA (the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act) introduced, ”
    You know this?

    It is not my recollection of how the ‘TCF’ responded to the Parliamentary consultation prior to enactment.
    I will be happy to acknowledge my mistake if you provide some evidence.

  69. FatCandy says:

    Kelly has just completely and utterly fucked what little chance Labour had at the council elections.

  70. yesindyref2 says:

    OT again
    Carney is to leave the Bank of England after Brexit, in 2019.

    I want him for our Central bank.

  71. Ruby says:

    Liz g

    Does that mean that these men are not getting enough exercise and as a result they have difficulty handling their emotions.

    It’s all very sad!

  72. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    FatCandy @ 21:45,

    They see it the other way. Pander to a sectarian hard core, the main supporters they have left, in the hope it’s enough to keep them afloat in their former heartlands next May.

    So they think. Mistakenly.

  73. Smallaxe says:

    Andrew McLean:

    I thank you for your kindness Brother,our Hearts are One.

    Peace and Love to You and those who You Love

    My heart is in my words.

  74. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    This law was never about sectarianism. The words sectarian and sectarianism do not appear anywhere in the Act. Fans from 16 different clubs have been charged under this Act. Aberdeen fans are the ‘worse’ for arrests under this Act per head of number of fans. This Act was never wanted by Celtic fans. I have seen fans from all over Scotland protest against this Act. This Act has a very poor conviction rate. This is the worse piece of legislation introduced by the Scottish Parliament. There is a majority of MSPs to get it overturned. The ignorance on this site is shocking.

  75. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    The Tories will use this repeal to show they are standing up for the ‘blue/orange’ side, their Queen and Union and will say they have earned their vote.

    BLiS will use this repeal to show they are standing up for the ‘green’ side and deserve their votes again (they are that far behind the times of Politics in Scotland).

    The MSM/BBC will use it to show SG were wrong, SNP are Baaad and are now being ‘held to account’.

    FibDems are an irrelevance.

    Harvie’s Greens along with all of the above should be pilloried if they vote to repeal rather than propose an amendment.

  76. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    yesindyref2 says at 9:52 pm

    Seconded 🙂

  77. Andrew Mclean says:

    Fat candy
    Or bender,
    No Kelly’s heroes are the IRA, such is his adoration. Best sung when in a boys club? Or is that spelling incorrect?
    But this is the rub, his heart land forsakes him, due to his being knee deep in old dirty labour.
    And old dirty Labour have no power, their days are numbered. Power seeping away every day, what chance but to go for a final back pocket bounce, uk ok style.

    What ex labour will end up on the board of privatisation U.K. $750,000 in 6 months, who’s a greedy bastard?

  78. Cadogan Enright says:

    this law would ultimately eliminate sectarianism and make it as unacceptable as racism or sexism

    That is clearly not in the interest of the Union

    Hence every means will be used to get rid of it

  79. Lochside says:


  80. Liz g says:

    Andrew McLean @ 9.36

    Em…No it isn’t Andrew,it was an essay taking a look at why certain spots were popular and why there was also a social economic demarcation between the different kinds of sports.

    It doesn’t defend the findings of aggression or mob mentality as anything,it only noted that it was there,and advanced the theory that it was a release.

    But even so you’ve lost me.

    I really don’t get how you think there’s any similarities with kiddie porn apologists here.
    There is I think an argument that following football and using up emotion ( being passionate about it ) when doing it.
    Can and I’m pretty sure is done without causing any harm to anyone.
    On the other hand….
    As I am sure you will agree kiddie porn is Always harmful no exceptions.

  81. Saor Alba says:

    Common Space has a big dose of “Animal Farm” about it.
    It is very disappointing to observe their machinations, but not unexpected.
    Point scoring actions at best. What a let down!
    The only group who have been constant in their support for Scotland, capable of good government and transparent in their actions is the SNP.

  82. Andrew Mclean says:

    I have just realised what Michelle Mone, was given a baronet for? A woman who started in 2008 that she would abandon her country UKOK in a frigin heartbeat if she was to lose a penny? Why Kelly’s heroes the IRA, and Dr Reid are forgiven.

    U.K. Ok would rather the IRA walked into Westminster than the SNP!

    Wearing a poppy with pride ukok style.

  83. HandandShrimp says:

    James Kelly’s windmill gets a lot of tilting.

    If the public are so emphatically behind him why did he fail in the May elections and had to scrape back in on the list vote?

    Common Space is less a reasoned argument and more of an open soap box for anyone to sound off on. There are some good articles but they also publish some absolute mince. Still I guess that is what an open soap box is all about.

  84. Liz g says:

    Ruby @ 9.53
    I don’t think it’s really the exercise that the writers were getting at.
    I think it was more the need to be part of a Tribe and the buzz from your Tribe being successful.
    It pointed out that when football first became popular the spectators were mostly drawn from the working class.
    And back in the day that ment hard physical graft.

  85. Effijy says:

    Mr Kelly is well reported as enjoying a wee sectarian song
    in the pubs of Rutherglen.

    If anyone has taken a video of him in full hate the Prods mode, or collectively document his participation, it would auger well with him if it’s legal bigotry that he is espousing.

    Apparently he considers Soldiers to me small in stature?

    How can anyone who knows this man think for one moment that he is capable of building a future for our Nation and our Children.

    Would Kelly like to teach these songs and attitudes to our school kids to ensure Bigotry has a future?

    My God the man is one of Slab’s favourites!

  86. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 9.57
    Don’t see how you can call us ignorant.
    We all know that it’s the Dangerous Dog Act that’s Actually the worst legislation.

  87. Big Al says:

    There’s a simple solution to this. Sectarian behaviour costs points. The clubs would quickly stamp out the idiots if they were threatened by going down the leagues & having their revenue cut.

  88. Smallaxe says:

    Andrew McLean:

    Re.liz g: Please take my assurance my brother,liz has a huge heart and love for our beautiful Scotland,she just finds the male love of football unfathomable and I know that she would
    sooner die than excuse the behaviour that you mention.

    Peace Always my Brother

  89. Andrew Mclean says:

    Liz G,
    I agree but the excuse “it’s just a boys game” it’s men they have instinctive violence, drilled right down to an excuse for abhorrent behaviour, just lads it’s ok, blowing of steam.
    A few weeks ago I was walking about at work, a young woman passed me pushing a stroller, behind me a, and I will use the term loosely, man shouted “show us your ass”.?

    I can’t say anything else as he was an employee, but taking to him was like talking to a stupid adolescent, and he was a lot older than that. I said you will be dismissed for gross misconduct, he said I will take you to court, I said would you wife like that said to her? Would your wife like the fact you were dismissed for sexual harassment of a young woman pushing a pram? He turned to the guys with him and said did anyone hear me say that, a couple said that they did, a couple got head down and scurried away.

    Just boys having a laugh. Did you know the Billy Boys were rapists? No nor did I, makes you proud and kind of humble UK ok style.

  90. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Liz get, isn’t the Dangerous Dog Act Westminster legislation?

  91. boris says:

    I highlighted the inappropriate behaviour of Prof Adam Tomkins and the Tory Party courting Glasgow Rangers supporters. Tomkins is now a declared Unionist and hero of Glasgow Rangers supporters who rushed to promise the Tory’s their votes in future elections/referendums.

    The campaign to reverse legislation proven to be to the benefit of the majority is being advanced by the Unionist parties with one eye on the vote

  92. ian murray says:

    Just a wee chuckle Do you think that there Celtic supporters who joined the Green party but it wasn’t what they expected?

  93. Norman R says:

    When I saw this “poll” on the Holyrood magazine about 71% of respondente being in favour of repealing the act, my first reaction was skepticism. After all, real polls have consistently shown overwhelming support for the act. Well, this is a Mickey Mouse poll. The question is wrong. The sampling is wrong. Frankly, its only good for a laugh. The act may be flawed, but it has served a purpose and most people feel that the baby should`nt be chucked out with the bathwater, especially when a better option has`nt been proposed by its opponents. I did`nt vote Green in recent elections, but I think I would be very annoyed if they went along with this nonsense. The overwhelming feeling I have about Kelly and his ilk is glaring immaturity. If the SNP can be undermined in some way then, go for it! Never mind the rights and wrongs of the issue, just sock it to the Nats! Its this infantile, venomous mentality that only serves to undermine their own credibility. Thank god grown-ups are in charge.

  94. Smallaxe says:

    Peter Edinburgh:

    I noticed the ignorance on this site at @ 9.57

    Peace Always ALLWAYS

  95. Clootie says:

    It’s not about football, it’s about long established bigotry.
    White against Black, Protestant against Catholic, Muslim against Christian, Straight against Gay, Man versus Woman, Rich versus Poor etc

    It comes down to what was the INTENT of what was said or sung.
    What was the IMPACT of the words

    Had the arguement related to improving the act then I would have listened. However it is merely bigots demanding the right to insult a fellow Scot…and that is the problem for all of us.

    The law needs to stay and every politician who beliefs in a fair society should be fighting to keep it.

  96. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 10.38.

  97. Liz g says:

    Smallaxe @ 10.43
    Me too and again at 10.43…LOL

  98. Andrew Mclean says:

    Ok Peter.
    What is the conviction rate?
    Looking it up is the first step, then look at the headlines of newspapers.
    But Peter said ignorance, Pete no offence, your just a boy walking into a man’s pub.
    Next time facts, evidence, truth, that is what we have here.
    Just repeating the straplines of you local or national rag just get you laughed at!
    You are at step one. Dare you to take step two. Are you man enough?

  99. Juan P says:

    The Act would have been better named ‘The prevention of cuntish behaviour at football grounds by cunts (Scotland) Act 2012’

    That’s essentially the behaviour it seeks to criminalise. If you just turn up to a game to watch the match then fuck all happens to you and you don’t get lifted by the polis.

    Anyone bleating otherwise is talking out their arse.

  100. Smallaxe says:


    Well,do you feel lucky Punk.

    Love it! 🙂

    Peace Always

  101. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    The conviction rate, until 2015, ‘in the University of Stirling report and statistics into the effect of the Act, it showed that conviction rates since introduction in 2012 are as low as 22% with only 143 convictions from 664 charges in relation to section 1 of the Act.’

    Is that enough for you? Or will you continue the personal attacks?

  102. Smallaxe says:

    Juan P:

    Eloquently written Juan,I agree wholeheartedly.

    Peace Always

  103. Andrew Mclean says:

    Juan p
    Agree with what you say, but Loki here the term Cxxt is considered uncouth. Unless you are spanner, the JKR think it rebellious, just asked an American Squaw, she didn’t.

  104. Andrew Mclean says:

    Small axe
    Secret room brother?

  105. Big Jock says:

    James Kelly is genuinely the thickest member of parliament I have ever heard. He looks like a harassed goat teetering on the edge of a cliff.

    He is trying to court the same bigots as Jim Murphy and Ruth Davidson. They need the bigots as all the good guys wouldn’t touch Slabour or Tory with a bargepole.

    In actual fact noone really cares about how we get rid of bigotry. We just want it gone. Slabour would have you believe that talking to people stops bigotry.

    Sectarianism has existed in Scotland since the Irish Catholics came here in the late 19th century and early 20th. Slabour have allowed it to fester as has the BBC and the Record etc. The problem is 90% from one club who hate Catholics,The Pope, Scottish people, Irish people anyone who is yes and anyone who is not a Queen loving mongrel.

    Yes other clubs have their problems. But that club with their everybody hates us we don’t care attitude is your problem. It was so peaceful without them for four years and they have come back with the louts and aggressive dangerous songs. They attract trouble because they incite and invite it.

  106. Peter, Edinburgh says:

    Liz g, perhaps you will remind me of the Dangerous Dog Act introduced by the Scottish Parliament.

  107. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Liz g, can you remind me of the Dangerous Dog Act introduced by the Scottish Parliament.

  108. Andrew Mclean says:

    Big jock

    Looking like I disagree with everyone tonight, but I am pretty sure arse holes existed before then, they just didn’t know what to be arseholey about.

  109. Legerwood says:

    Peter. Edinburgh @ 11.17

    Control of Dogs Act (Scotland) 2010.

  110. Andrew Mclean says:

    In 2013 to 2014 86 were found guilty 68 not guilty
    In 2014 to 2015 76 were found guilty 14 not guilty
    Section one offences

    The timescale you cherry picked was on the introduction of a new law.
    All new laws need time to bed in,

    On your reasoning the crime of unlawful sexual assault should be legal as it has a shocking low conviction rate.

    Your move.

  111. Smallaxe says:

    I’m there Brother!

  112. Tam Jardine says:

    When I wrote to Neil Findlay urging him not to support repeal of the act he described it as “bad law” and I don’t think he had any idea why it was from the rest of his slightly aggressive email.

    “Bad law” jars with me, perhaps wrongly in the same way Paul Holywood does when he talks about “a good bake”.

    Anyway- without going into it too deeply I simply worry that, whatever the conviction rate is or the overlap with other legislation, the result of a repeal will be that it will energise supporters behaving badly. It will say that antisocial behaviour is fine in the context of a football match.

    That’s not the Scotland I want my kids grow up in.

    As for Kelly’s poll one issue occurs to me. We are assaulted with any supposed waste of money by the Scottish Government. I presume this poll was paid for indirectly out of the Scottish Government’s coffers- slab gets money for being an opposition party as well as expenses.

    How did they pay for this preposterous and substandard poll and how much did it cost us? Or are we to believe this was paid personally by James Kelly or funded by the labour party activists?

    How can the money be justified when you examine the ridiculous and unsound sample?

    If we can get polling companies to judge that the poll is so selective as to be worthless is there a case to be made that the parliament should not deem it eligible as an expense? Why should we pay for it?

  113. Big Jock says:

    I know that Andrew. But the football bigotry is a modern phenomenon which has historical links to Irish immigrants to Scotland.

    There was bigotry and ethnic cleansing during the reformation. That was Scot against Scot. Modern bigotry is a fancy name for not liking the Irish or their religion.Orange walks celebrate beating the Irish and Rangers are a big part of that mob.

    Some Celtic fans sing IRA songs. Wrong, yes, inappropriate, yes. But we are talking about two different spectrums. One celebrates freedom from oppression the other celebrates oppression. Hence Rangers cause the majority of the problems I.e George Square. They want to fight anyone who threatens their right to hate openly. They are a festering sore on our society.

  114. yesindyref2 says:


    That’s all I can say.

  115. Andrew Mclean says:

    Peter from Edinburgh
    Oh you naughty little boy, I looked at the IP address from your last post.

    What have I said about the far left, see you undercover chaps you just are so obvious UKOK style.

    Ps now listen in ukok world the aircraft carrier that actually has fighter jets on board needs a very small boat traveling behind it, because its so old it needs a repair ship. A repair ship tiny in comparison? What magical tool is this beau ship containing. And what is this magical tool not doing on the ship itself.
    A conundrum uk ok style

  116. Tam Jardine says:

    Andrew McLean

    I think Peter may have just swept all the pieces off the board and gone home in the huff. If we’re all ignorant what does that make him if he’s just had his arse handed to him by yourself, Liz and Legerwood?

  117. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Andrew McLean, what do you mean my move? You asked for stats, I provided them. You then make an excuse about needing time to bed in. I made my move, you ignore it. As for your mention of sexuality abuse. Pathetic.

    This is a terrible Act, and has nothing to do with sectarianism. Otherwise, why only legislate on sectarian behaviour at football? Does sectarian and offensive behaviour no happen elsewhere?

  118. Ori says:

    @Andrew Mclean

    I know exactly what I’m talking about. Read what I sad for fucks sake.

    Continue down this route and all that happens is the SNP get defeated. Alternatively do a deal where the essentials of the law get merged in to others and it’s responsible government.

    The whole point of the OBFA is to make it easier for the life to charge people for behaviour which is designed to cause offence at a football match because such offence is at a minimum intimidating and if not designed to provoke a violent response.

    The police also have laws to make it easier to regulate driving so as to prevent accidents, injury and death. Speeding, MOTs, insurance, drink levels, mobile phones, licences are all based on specific instances of dangerous driving.

    As I said, some Celtic fans are no saints but we’re getting away with singing songs to wind up rival fans because there was no specific law against them doing that. There shouldn’t have to be.

  119. Andrew Mclean says:

    Big Jock
    Don’t be fuckng stupid, the modern IRA never fought for the oppressed, they fought for control, they controlled and still do, the drug cartels, protection rackets and the emerging sex trade.
    As do the loyalist uk ok style.

    Want a lollipop uk ok.


  120. Thepnr says:

    Whether OBFA is a “good” law or a “bad” law isn’t the point in all this.

    It’s just another attempt to get one over the SNP.

    That much is just so obvious. Common Space being truly ridiculous in it’s assertion that over 70% of Scots want to repeal the law based on a consultation organised by James Kelly.

    Deary me, and they started out with so much promise too.

  121. Tam Jardine says:

    Peter. Edinburgh

    Ok- I withdraw my last remark as you clearly are still here! Can I ask you a quick question- do you think offensive behaviour at football matches will increase or decrease if the act is repealed?

  122. Andrew Mclean says:

    Peter old chap
    You didn’t give stats whatsoever they are, you cut and pasted.
    I gave empirical evidence. You told me the earth was flat. Please don’t be that guy, use your brain, think man think!

  123. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Andrew McLean, so what part of the University of Stirling report are you disputing? Far left, jeez, utter paranoid ramblings.

    Oh, and here I am Tam. My are set handed to me? How exactly? Certainly not by Andrew. As for Liz g, I asked if the Dangerous Dog Act was Westminster, which it was. There was Scottish Government legislation, as pointed out by Leeswood, the Control of Dogs Act (Scotland) 2010. Now, this is dangerous dog legislation, but not the Dangerous Dog Act. Not so much as having my arsenal handed to me, but someone answering a question I asked.

    But thanks for your input anyway. And I’ll let you know when I’m heading home, not quite yet though.

  124. Smallaxe says:

    Andrew McLean

    Still in the room!

  125. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Apologies for the spelling above. I am posting from my phone and predictive text is kicking in!!

  126. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Tam, can you define offensive behaviour please.

  127. Tam Jardine says:

    Peter. Edinburgh

    Can I anticipate your answer is that it will have no effect whatsoever and request that you come back here on the 1st of January to tell us all how the disgusting chaos that will surround the OF game would have been as bad or worse had this legislation not been repealed?

    We’re not talking about singing songs Peter- we are talking about behaviour that creates an environment where people get stabbed, folk get glassed and women are beaten by husbands and partners.

  128. Liz g says:

    Andrew McLean 10.37

    Andrew while I see what you are getting at I think.

    Can I first say I was talking about something I had read not saying that it was my thoughts.

    second we are getting a bit deep here and a good bit off topic so I don’t want to derail the thread more than this post….ok

    Lastly I will probably be in so much trouble for saying what I am about to anyway you won’t want to keep the conversation going.

    While we all want the moral zeitgeist to go in a certain direction,and as a society we are obliged to do our upmost to ensure that it does.
    We cannot legislate our way there.
    It’s worth pointing out that the Americans haven’t because they are not constitutionally allowed to,made any law to ban the N. word yet no body “well nobody with a brain” uses it any more.
    This happened through social change,and is probably how we will ultimately beat but not eradicate sectarianism.

    But when you were talking about the young man who spoke to the the young mum so inappropriately you said yourself he wasn’t that bright.

    (So hope I am saying this right )

    Fifty or so years of promoting it’s not acceptable to think of women in that way is up against thousands of years of instinct.
    While that guy was stupid enough to blurt out what went through his head and yes there is no excuse for him doing it.
    He lives within a civilised society and benifits from it so he must abide by the rules.
    I would argue that while most men when they are asked do you notice and think of woman in that way…if they’re smart…they will say no …… but they would be lying.

    Before you go thinkin again that’s a pedo defence, I am talking about a survival of the species type thing as in how consenting adults respond to their basic nature not an abomination of nature.

    So what I am trying to say is, if the Tribel element is indeed there in and around these sports,then we need to acknowledge what it is we are up against to manage it because it may very well be a part of human nature.
    The sectarianism is definitely man made that we do know,so that’s why I am a big fan of not having any religion in schools at all.

    Also we have, as a society seemed to focus on football supporters as the only ones that behave this way when it’s probably that they are the only ones doing it every week with cameras on them.
    Mibbi we need to cast the net wider to tackle or manage it.

  129. Meg merrilees says:

    Can’t imagine Hogmanay if this Act is scrapped in the immediate future!

  130. Tam Jardine says:


    Offensive: a particular term or definition is likely to be perceived as insulting by a listener or reader—an affront to that particular individual or to an entire group of like individuals—whether or not an offense was intended.

    Behaviour: the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others.

    I guess it is a combination of the two terms. Do you think that will increase or decrease as a result of the OBFA being repealed?

  131. Andrew Mclean says:

    Liz g
    Human nature? Or society’s nurture?

  132. Rock says:

    Robert Peffers,

    You bang on about Scots being “sovereign”.

    What is the status of the large number of English settlers living in Scotland?

    Are they equally “sovereign” as Scots?

    If they aren’t, why should they be allowed to vote in a Scottish independence referendum?

  133. carjamtic says:


    For a deaf,dumb and blind kid,you sure post a mean kinball.

    Weak,frightened,compromised ?.. in the past, in Scotland,that usually meant fucking off somewhere else….running away from everything,some far distant land,finding somewhere to hide from the truth.

    We are all involved in this (football fans or not) compromising is for losers.


  134. Thepnr says:

    Will you stop yer tickling, Rock!
    Oh, stop yer tickling, Rock!
    Dinna mak’ me laugh so hearty,
    Or you’ll mak me choke.
    Oh, I wish you’d stop yer nonsense,
    Just look at all the folk.
    Will yer stop yer tic-kle-ing, tic-kle-ic-kle-ing.
    Stop yer tickling Rock!

  135. Rock says:

    “Although it may hold off until Wednesday, when a symbolic vote will take place in the Holyrood chamber that the SNP may well lose.”

    It would be very interesting to see the Greens vote against the SNP government on this issue.

  136. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Firstly, this law is not only about Celtic and Rangers, why anyone thinks it is astounds me.

    Secondly, there is, ans was prior to the introduction of this Act, legislation that dealt with sectarian behaviour and violent behaviour at football.

    Thirdly, Tam, your definition of offensive. I can therefore consider the use of the word ‘plonker’ to describe me as being offensive as I perceive it to be insulting to me. I consider myself a reasonable person and therefore could ask for the person that used that offensive language at me to be charged under OBFA. But only if there was a football game being played in Scotland tonight. Luckily for that individual no senior Scottish game was played tonight, therefore he will not be charged under this Act. I will therefore I will ignore his name calling.

    So, giving your, as wide as the Clyde, definition of offensive behaviour, there is no way that question can be answered.

  137. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    And for the record, I’m off to bed, but happy to pick all this up again in the morning.

  138. Orri says:

    @Andrew Mclean

    I know exactly what I’m talking about. Read what I said for fucks sake.

    Continue down this route and all that happens is the SNP get defeated. Alternatively do a deal where the essentials of the law get merged in to others and it’s responsible government.

    The whole point of the OBFA is to make it easier for the police to charge people for behaviour which is designed to cause offence at a football match because such offence is at a minimum intimidating and if not designed to provoke a violent response.

    The police also have laws to make it easier to regulate driving so as to prevent accidents, injury and death. Speeding, MOTs, insurance, drink levels, mobile phones, licences are all based on specific instances of dangerous driving.

    As I said, some Celtic fans are no saints but we’re getting away with singing songs to wind up rival fans because there was no specific law against them doing that. There shouldn’t have to be. Expanding disturbance of the peace laws might be a way forward that the SNP and Greens can agree on.

  139. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 11.59
    You haven’t addressed your original point of us not knowing what the stupidest law was.
    The one most fans of dog’s hate.
    The one they have campaigned against since it’s been brought in.
    The one you get prosecuted in Scottish Court’s for.
    You know the court
    The Court’s that operate the Scottish Justice System.
    The system that’s no a reserved matter.
    The system that Holyroods responsible fur..that wan!!

  140. Tam Jardine says:

    Good night Peter, Good night Elizabeth. Good night Daddy *Good night, Son* Good night Mary Ellen. Good night Andrew. *Good night Tam* …

  141. Andrew Mclean says:

    Sorry Peter,
    This isn’t Twitter or a random forum, answer the retorted post, didn’t walk on by like I don’t exist.
    Your stats were shit, your evidence was old and you misquoted from it.
    Answer my point!
    You lied either from stupidity or malice.
    It’s not an insult but facts please, is that to much in ukok style?

  142. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Liz, sigh indeed.

    You mentioned the Dangerous Dog Act. I asked you if that wasn’t Westminster legislation. You said no. I asked you to remind me of the Scottish Parliament Dangerous Dog Act, another poster pointed out the Control of Dogs Act. Which isn’t called the Dangerous Dog Act, but I’m not going to dispute what it was called. I am more than happy to accept a dangerous dog piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament.

    I am more than happy that, In your opinion, this dangerous dog legislation is the stupidest law, although I didn’t use the word stupidest in my original post. It’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. My opinion is different.

    So, yes, very much a sigh, and also a yawn as I am now, off to bed.

  143. Cadogan Enright says:

    I note commonspace involved in making stuff up in the Revs post above. Between this and their gross misrepresentation of the Billboard campaign, repeated again by Angela Hegarty In Sunday’s Herald it’s pretty obvious that they have a mission to undermine the broad YES Movement . Sort of all the really bad bits in Bella, with none of the redeeming features, only worse.

    Anything anyone does for YES is BAAD and only they know best

    If you were to judge the genuine YES bono fides of any organisation on one issue, this law would be it

    Only Yoons Benefit from the status quo ante

  144. Cadogan Enright says:

    Looks like Ponsonby is thinking what I was saying in my post that just disappeared at 1.00

  145. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 12.58.
    Well whit kin ah say Peter.
    Am happy you’re happy.

  146. Liz g says:

    Tam Jardine @12.43
    Goodnight Thomas

  147. Andrew Mclean says:

    Peter once of Edinburgh now asleep

    Your statement was false, your quoted statements were disproved.

    The offensive behaviour act is one of the most effective.

    Your comments were immature.

    No offence but as a post?


  148. yesindyref2 says:

    As a little point of information, or lack of it, I would presume that the Repeal of this Act would in itself be a Bill, be subject to a vote, perhaps even Committee, and then even when voted on, would require Royal Assent.

    Seems to me to be unlikely that would happen before the Hogmanay game, more like next year.

  149. Kelly and Tomkins are two fleas off the same dog.
    The old divide and conquer doesn’t work any more.
    Tony Blair’s New Labour Gang are all very wealthy men and women off the back of keeping the masses poor and dependent on state intervention just to take home a pay that barely keeps the wolf from the door.
    Labour in Scotland actively collaborated with their Westminster Colleagues to turn Scotland into an industrial wasteland, a backwater, where the only escape route was immigration or the army.
    Gordon Brown,John Reid, Douglas Alexander, Margaret Curran, Tom Harris, Jim Murphy, Lord Foulkes, Lord Darling, Lord MacConnell, Baroness Liddell, and the ‘Fucking Useless’ Forty Failures who were at last kicked out on their ear last May, milked the cash cow for everything they could get, their most diligent act as MP’s and Cabinet Members being to flip houses and claim everything they could on expenses.
    The Tories have always strived, and continue to attempt to destroy Civic Scotland.They believ in an elite at the top, a buffer zone of middle class ‘aspiring’ professionals, and the resat propping up privilege and wealth.
    Blair was a neo Conservative and continued where Maggie and John Major left off: privatise, PFI, illegal wars, light touch on the Bankers,WFTC fre money to their filthy rich pals to subsidise low pay.
    Ruth Davidson, Jackson Carlaw, Adam Tomkins, Murdo Fraser, and the Listory Boys are fervent agents of May’s Right Wing Junta.
    They will continue to punish the poor for the crimes of the Money Men, reward their mates in the City, and sell off as much publicly owned assets and institutions as they can before we get a chance to stop them destroying society all together.
    Brexit has brought this to a head.
    Wake up, Celtic and Rangers supporters.
    They are using you and your votes to subjugate you.
    When Tomkins and Murphy are in the hospitality suites and lolling on the dear seats at Ibrox and Parkhead, you’ll still wake up on a Monday morning and wonder whether you’ll have a job by Christmas.
    They are cynical bitter manipulators who basically don’t give a damn, as long as they continue to rake in the money.
    Patrick Harvie must realise that these Unionist elitists are the real enemies of the people.
    Why therefore would he and his party go into a lobby with them? Just because they can?
    I have nothing but contempt for the remnants of Unionist carpetbaggers still rattling about Up Here.
    They are anti Scottish. They would sacrifice our country to the greater good of the Motherland.
    The Act is hardly perfect, but I detect a change in behaviour of both sets of Glasgow supporters over the piece.
    We’re not there yet. But I ask, who are your real enemies, Celtic and Rangers supporters?
    The Oligarchy which is determined to drag us out of Europe, and reduce the citizens of this country to penury and subservience, or your next door neighbour, struggling to make ends meet and make sense of this madness, who happens to support another team?
    Green Party, think again, for pity’s sake.

  150. Smallaxe says:

    Jack Collatin:


    I would not like to get into your bad book Jack.

    That post was a Stoater!

    Peace,Love and Pick their Bones

  151. Liz g says:

    Andrew McLean @ 1.25
    Well said.

    Didn’t know if you were still up
    In answer to your question.
    While sectarianism is most definitely a society construct.
    I do think that there is an argument for the Tribel element in and around football to be a part of our basic nature.
    In much the same way as a heterosexual man responds to a woman.
    I am not trying to denigrate men because we all know there’s a big difference between thought and action.
    Which is the whole point.
    If we can accept that the most powerful part of human nature can be subject to self control.
    Then it’s not much of a leap to so can every other response.
    Therefore this Tribel element if that’s what is is,can be more positivity managed.
    But we have to work out first if that’s what’s going on.
    Much the same way as we have found that society functions better when women are not expected to put up with what you termed as the boy will be boy’s attude.
    Find an acceptable way to channel the Tribel stuff and football might loose that image.
    It would follow that the sectarianism will not get manipulated in to it.
    Because I think sectarianism has it’s root’s in social engineering

  152. Thepnr says:

    I absolutely respect the right of the Green party to hold different views than the SG. On this issue though I don’t have a clue why they would.

    There is no political capital for them in opposing OBFA, in fact the opposite is true. This isn’t a Green issue, Patrick Harvie out of touch on this I believe.

    Supporting the Unionists to repeal this law will cost the Greens votes. In saying that, I don’t believe the Greens will support a repeal if it ever comes to a vote, merely abstain.

  153. yesindyref2 says:

    The Greens said they wanted it to be reformed, it will be interesting to see if they stick to that. The SNP have said they’ll consider suggestions for reform. Let’s see if they stick to that!

    Onyways, nice one-sided article from Leask. I, errrr, collected some bits of posts from that express article in my reply. No idea if that posting will stay or be deleted, because of the content of some of the material.

    (sorry cmd)

  154. Dr Jim says:

    Maybe I’m misunderstanding some of these so called Independence web sites when they say they support Independence because it seems like what they’re really supporting is the protesting bit and not the actual winning part

    Perhaps they feel if we actually win there’s likely to be a drop in readership and maybe for these so called web sites that’s an unpalatable prospect hence the support and at times positive bullying of folk to vote Green at the last election for, you know, a more balanced Holyrood, they claimed

    That has gone extremely well for the rest of us who voted for the main vehicle to get us Independence and are now reliant on a questionable bunch of Prima Donnas showing off their wee bit power at every opportunity and we wait with baited breath to see if they’re going to do that very thing again with the OBFA which all of us know perfectly well has not a thing to do with whether the Act is a good bad or indifferent one

    Given that in politics memory is usually short except nowadays because of our friend the Interweb we can and do remember everything and everyone who lets down the aspirations of the rest of us and then vote accordingly when the time comes round to do that

    All three Tory parties in Holyrood will probably vote against the SNP effort of driving out the putrid fetid obscenity that passes for entertainment amongst a section of people who use football as their place to hide while they carry out their baser instincts towards others in the hope of retaining their anonymity amongst the mob

    So, it’ll be over to the Greens to demonstrate to the population of Scotland their reasons for not supporting the SNP effort to attempt to curb uncivilised behaviour amongst some of our population whether at a football match or otherwise
    And here’s the thing the Greens reasons will need to be better than the “It’s just not good enough” argument which is what we’ve come to expect from the three Tory parties in there desire to hide the truth that it’s just all about power and nothing more for them

    The police like it, the judiciary like it and what’s more important, We, the people of Scotland like it, that’s why we didn’t vote for the three Tory parties or the Feckin Greens

  155. schrodingers cat says:

    article on common space getting absolutely slaughtered btl. snigger

  156. Smallaxe says:

    Dr Jim:

    I think that you have correctly marked the card of some so called “Independence” websites,most of them will disintegrate
    after Independence is won.This site I would hope,will emerge as our daily newspaper giving us what it always has done,Truth.

    Peace Always

  157. Al Dossary says:

    Why do they not just write the headline in its truest form – “The vast majority of old firm season ticket holders want this act repealed”.

    With the exception of a very small minority at the other clubs, there is widespread support for this act amongst supporters at other clubs in Scotland.

    The vast majority of supporters of other clubs give not a shit about Rangers or Celtic, and there is broad support for the act.

    My home town of Wishaw was a no-go zone on a Saturday night back if Celtic won when they played with a 3pm Saturday kick off. Not so bad when Rangers won, but still dangerous all the same. If you go back to the year that Celtic broke the 10 in a row streak of Rangers, there was not a police cell in Lanarkshire that was empty that night. The word on Facebook after the last drubbing Rangers took was for “fellow Tims to be careful out there – the zombies are about and itching for a fight”.

    Kelly and his ilk have milked the support of their catholic brethren for years. BLIS was and is on the whole a cabal of xth generation Irish immigrants – just look at GCC or the nepotism of John Reid (Celtic board member), Helen Liddell and Frank B Roy (flautist extrordinaire in the Crossmaglen patriots republican flute band). Mr Roy by all accounts was a bigot of the most extreme type in his Ravenscraig days prior to his finding of the parliamentary gravy train.

    And don’t get me started on the religious leanings of North Lanarkshire Council’s ruling party (as pointed out to me by my best friend of 40 years during one of our many Buckfast fuelled, putting the world to rights, late teen conversations all those years ago). I believe the figure then was 20 of the 24 councillors were of the Celtic persuasion (as is he still I might add). But hey – they were not SNP, therefore in the eyes of the orange order it was ok to vote for them lol.

    I still treasure to this day the look of astonishment and dismay on the face of a particularly staunch Belfast Unionist when I told him that the (then) new Irish Secretary John Reid was a Celtic season ticket holder!

    They were unfortunately supported by the orange order whos party line was that a “vote for the SNP is a Catholic vote”. Ironically in giving the vote to BLIS they were supporting the very people they were told not to vote for!

    Fortunately many, many of BLIS have seen through the bullshit and oppression of BLIS but unfortunately the orange order vote has moved off to the Ruth Davidson party rather than embrace their future free of the Westminster shackles.

    And why does this “disease” of bigotry still exist in Scotland ? Quite simply that no political party has had both the will and the courage to dismantle the state sponsored segregation of children at the age of 5 years old, followed by their further radicalisation at the age of 11 when they go to high school. Yes there is an element of peer pressure to support Celtic/Rangers from an early age, but the kids that exert that pressure are those whose parents impress upon them birth that the family are all Celtic / Rangers.

    I would hope that the SNP have the will to address this state sponsored, bigotrous divide, but given that it would alienate a huge %age of those who have switched allegiance from BLIS to them, I fear they have not the courage as it would destroy their chances of retaining many central belt and Fife seats.

    I sincerely hope the Greens go for a rework of the bill rather than repeal – it is not perfect, but it is better than nothing.

  158. Michael McCabe says:

    Good Name for a new paper. The Daily Truth.

  159. Smallaxe says:

    Michael McCabe:

    Hi Michael,I was looking for you on O/T

    Peace Always

  160. mealer says:

    I don’t think it will do the SNP any harm to be defeated on this.

  161. Malky says:

    While I accept that Common Space is a discussion forum (and this, like plenty of other articles on the site, has certainly sparked a discussion), they will not last long if they continue to knock their chosen ‘demographic’. I rarely feel able to post a positive comment on articles I read there, simply because they increasingly attempt to undermine the Scottish Government in general and the SNP in particular with rarely any substance or rationale.

  162. Smallaxe: Indyref2
    Next week Osborne’s benefits Cap ,£22,000 in London, £20,000 in the rest of this lump of rock, takes effect, and it is forecast that an additional 300,000 children will be pushed into poverty, some families losing between £58 to £100 per week.
    No transitional period, no mitigation. ‘Hard working families’ in receipt of WFTC included. Boom, that’s it.
    Ruth Davidson touts her ass around the BBC looking for guest spots on the Great British BBC Trash, and Kezia Dugdale is off on another jolly to the US of A.
    I read Leask’s pusillanimous opinion piece, Indyref. Money for old jam from one of the last of the Dead Tree Scrollers.
    I must have missed his invite to tea and scones, since by dint of the fact that I am writing this, and that you, and presumably Leask, are reading my rant, I am classed as one of those nasty cybernats whom yet another anonymous SNP spokesperson would rather I didn’t.
    Well, Mr Leask, if I am classed as a vile cybernat, I accept your invitation to tea. In fact, why don’t we film it, and broadcast it on youtube.
    I promise not to say ‘fuck’ or call you a “Ed: Tractor.”
    Of course I lack your literary skills, you being a professional journalist and all that, and you have honed your presentational and debating skills through countless guest spots on BBC Scotland News Where We Are, but I am willing to take the risk. Doubtless you will run rings ’round me; £14.8 billion Black Hole, Spain will veto our EU bid, but we’ll be forced to use the euro, Russia will attack, £1200 a year more per head spent by HM Government in Scotland than the rest of the UK, the oil has run out.
    I am trembling in my boots with dread at the prospect of being given a right doing by a professional journo and exposed as a nasty wee cybernat bully which the faceless wing of the SNP wishes would just stop all this moaning about the MSM and right wing politicians.. Or maybe not.
    Children are starving and Leask offers cake.

  163. yesindyref2 says:

    @Jack Collatin
    In one paragraph Leask mentions the other side: “… The result? Cybernats get a much higher profile for their disastrous online interactions than their similarly angry Unionist foes.”

    He also refers to what I presume is that Express article: “one of the more pro-British tabloids ran its first expose on keyboard warriors. Some looked quite vulnerable. ”

    “expose” Which wasn’t really up to much, and shown to be fraudulent by a Wings article. But did the fool take the trouble to look below the line, and make a balanced article? No.

    David Leask, if you happen to read this, you are lazy. Or dishonest. Which?

    Peter Piper

  164. smallaxe, I hope that you are keeping well. I have a dental appointment this morning; hence my Bah Humbug mood.
    I ask, when I turn 70 next year, and since I live in the Desolation Row of the West of Scotland, will HR Maj be sending me a telegram?
    I also have most of my own teeth, do not eat fried Mars Bars (raucous laughter from the HIGNFY, BBC QT, Mock the Week, Would I Lie to You Home Counties audiences), and eat my greens.
    The Daily Truth has a ring to it. Peace.

  165. David MacGille-Mhuire says:

    Anyone else having trouble accessing this post?

    FORBIDDEN ACCESS TO THIS SITE VIA THIS SERVER (or words to this effect) displaying.

    Tech hitch?

  166. Martin says:

    I’m a Celtic season ticket holder for 20 years. I support the OBFA, though it could do with tidying up. I can’t be arsed with folk singing about stuff that happened years ago in another country. I can’t be arsed with a culture that leads to young boys getting bottled and managers getting jumped.

    It’s an imperfect act, but reform it rather than repeal. All that does is send out the message to the fudricks that they can do what they want.

  167. Macart says:

    If that law is repealed, it will have nothing to do with any moral stance and everything to do with harming the Scottish government at a cost to Scottish society.

    That’s all Mr Kelly and his unionist party support cares about, damaging the SNP.

    Should it be repealed rather than amended to become more effective, make no mistake the drops we saw in football/sectarian related offences, A&E numbers, home abuse cases will be reversed.

    I wonder if Kelly considers that a price worth paying? I wonder if he thinks people will forget who would have been responsible? I wonder if he remembers just why the law came about in the first place?

    Just so the politicians are aware. Folk know why you’re doing this and no I don’t think they’ll forget by the time the next ballot comes around.

  168. One_Scot says:

    ‘I don’t think it will do the SNP any harm to be defeated on this.’

    Good point. It will show a wider audience of normal decent people the Yoons for what they are.

  169. Smallaxe says:

    Jack Collatin:

    Best of luck at the dentist Jack,just grab him by the testicles and say,”now we’re not going to hurt each other are we!”

    I have an Oncologist appt. this afternoon,the vampires will feed well tonight. 🙂

  170. Right on cue the BBC lines up MrK to tell us how the whole population of Scotland is with him and his “Biggest response in the history of the parliament”.

    Right, “Sit down Mr Kelly!”

  171. Smallaxe says:


    Good morning,thank you for the links as usual,kettle’s on

    Peace Always x2 pass one up to Jack Collatin please,I was remiss with my post to him. 🙂

  172. Brian Powell says:

    Would the Greens really vote against the Act on the basis of Kelly gibberish survey with no real alternative ready to put in place?

    It must be obvious that the Tories, A Tomkins etc, would be trumpeting their success, and no rational explanation would get through to the tribes in the sectarian supporting football supporters, they would see it as a green light.

  173. Fred says:

    Peter from Edinburgh deserves a hearing, this act was supposed to be an experiment, has it worked? & has the message been got across that offensive behaviour is offensive! As a long-lapsed blue-nose myself I deplore the dismal Ibrox stuff about a 17th century battle where King Billy was backed by the Pope versus James. Celtic fans by comparison are witty, entertaining & politically spot-on! The Palestine flag business has been mega.

    It’s the fans job to wind up the opposition, is singing “You all live on the shite side of Fife! da-ra, da-ra da-ra da-ra!” offensive? & if not why not. I have a nephew who was caught sashing it up in Edinburgh & fined. He didn’t think this could possibly be offensive as it was only at Hearts fans but glad to say he’s now away to the Yoonie noo & appears quite sensible.

    Mebbes time to take stock & kick this act into the long grass, defeat appears to be on the cards anyhow & “Breach” is possibly quite sufficient anyhow & always was. It’s the SNP’s job to get Scotland its independence, being “up to it’s knees in this shite runs counter to that end.

    Three kings at the Boyne anyhow & not a lot of people know that by the way!

  174. The Isolator says:

    @Al Dossary,

    Post of the year for me in relation to this little hornets nest.The SNP has always faced hostility from both sides of the bigot divide ,in trying to tackle head on this scourge of 21st Century Scotland.They have relied too heavily on a across all society approach for consensus with this legislation and ended up with a complete dogs dinner.

    Re-visit,tweak and revise but repeal??Never.

    Cut off the serpents head and do away with state sponsored segregation and we could be on our way to something akin to tolerance.Leave it in place and well it’s all just tinkering around the edges.

    Bizarrely here in the east and in contrast to further west ,voting SNP was seen mainly as a
    “working class Protestants” thing in 70’s Scotland.

    William Wolfe when leader of the SNP was often (wrongly imo)regarded as “anti Catholic” by many voters but even he realised that the key to breaking into the Labour heartlands was to attract the catholic vote.(Hence reluctance to follow through party policy on Non Secular State education)Election after election during the 70’s and 80’s invariably began with the SOS for Scotland being photographed with and prominently publicised with the Cardinal of the day.It had been a Labour ploy for decades.Indeed Galloway played the religious card during the Referendum Campaign time and again aided by the “Scottish ” Labour Party.

  175. Brian Powell says:

    Surely if there is discussion about Kelly’s survey on TV or the radio they will have Prof Curtice to point out the survey questions are drivel and it isn’t a meaningful poll.

    Or probably not.

  176. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    And after a good night’s sleep I return to this thread.

    I mentioned ignorance in my original post.

    The ignorance of people who think this Act is about sectarianism. When, as I pointed out, neither the words sectarian nor sectarianism appear anywhere within the Act.

    The ignorance of people who think this Act is about Celtic and Rangers. Jeez, where to even begin with that.

    The ignorance of someone who thinks that unless you support this Act, your Yes vote isn’t genuine! What the hell does that even mean?

    The ignorance of people who do not understand what this Act is even about. That this Act does not define ‘offensive’ and only requires a police officer to consider that someone, somewhere, who may or may not exist, is offended, however that police officer has defined offensive!

    The ignorance of people who wish to use legislation to end offensive behaviour, only at a football game!

    The ignorance of people who wish to use legislation to end offensive behaviour, but are happy to be offensive themselves, towards people who do not agree with them.

    The ignorance of people who do not understand that our MSPs may wish to get rid of bad legislation.

    I have said my piece on this Act.

  177. The Isolator says:

    Oops apologies should have read secular not non secular drat

  178. Naina Tal says:

    The ignorance of people who can’t see that calling people ignorant is highly unlikely to persuade them to their point of view.

  179. Smallaxe says:


    The ignorance on this site is shocking.

    Perhaps Peter if you had said,the ignorance on this matter is
    shocking,then you may have got a different reaction,but to condemn the site out of hand was maybe a bit rash.Dont you think?

    Peace Always

  180. Ruby says:

    Liz g says:

    Therefore this Tribel element if that’s what is is,can be more positivity managed.

    ‘But we have to work out first if that’s what’s going on.

    Ruby replies

    Could it be that what’s going on is that people are going to football matches as a means of relieving stress & anger and also a way of achieving a sense of identity.

    I’m sticking with my idea that the solution to all this bad behaviour is more aerobic exercise.
    I’m not sure if a job that involves hard phsyical graft could be counted as aerobic exercise.

    If they want to be part of a tribe then why not just be part of a team ie play football instead of watching football. Or perhaps Rugby would be better!

    Since singing/chanting is a good way of relieving all that bottle up stess & anger then perhaps the solution would be if there were more male voice choirs. No idea how the Welsh male voice choirs came about but that might be worth researching.
    The only part of football I enjoy watching is the fans singing ‘Sunshine on Leith’ and I bet they enjoy singing it.

    Could be worth looking at what happens in Wales vis a vis choirs,rugby playing, sectarianism & stress relief. (and perhaps why Welsh is so widely spoken)

    The issue of people wanting to be part of a band and learn to play a musical instrument could be solved by having more bands ones that are not sectarian.

    My solution more sport, more choirs, more bands & more socially acceptable ways of relieving stress.

  181. Ken500 says:

    The ignorance of politicians who try to use the Act as political fodder,

    It was brought in by two (lapsed) Catholic MSP’s. McAskill and Cunningham. After McCoist whispered in Lennon ear and they nearly went for each other. A bad Law, There should be no sectarian Laws in Scotland as Scotland is a secular country. The Churches have privileges above the Law, The equal opportunity Employment Laws etc.

    It’s a bad Law but it works. Any politician should think carefully before they go against the will of the majority of voters wishes. They are sick of sectarianism and fed up with the part sport, especially football plays in it. It exist mainly in the Central belt encouraged by Unionist politicians. They did nothing about it for far too long. Banning Orange Marches etc. A National scandal.

    The Churches are losing members faster than a sieve loses water. The terraces are empty. The clubs are in debt. Sectarianism will die out. Change the Law at your peril. The Police were not carrying out their duties because of political influence? Now they are.

  182. Robert Louis says:

    If the OBFA isn’t quite right (and I emphasise ‘IF’) then the correct approach is to modify it, following proper consultation. Simply deleting the law, is just designed to ‘bash the snp’. James Kelly of Labour is NOT motivated by some kind of overwhelming largesse for football fans who like to sing about being up to their knees in catholics blood, no, this is all about bashing the SNP.

    Why the Greens appear to support such a move, is truly beyond me, on every level. I think they do themselves no favours with their approach to this. Whatever they might think, repeal of this law, will be seen by the bigotted sectarian thugs as a big, huge, freaking giant, neon, bright green light to indluge in hate speech and hate crime, and bogotry, that some people seem to have forgotten used to be rampant.

    No good will come from the repeal of OBFA, for Scotland, or for the green party.

    I’m not angry at the Greens for this, I simply cannot understand how such a move gels with their overriding ethos.

  183. Robert Peffers says:

    @frogesque says: 31 October, 2016 at 7:43 pm:

    ” … end school segregration and educate our kids to respect and learn from others of different faiths and customs.”

    There is actually no school segregation, frogesque, and there never was after the RC schools were legally brought under the state school system.

    Legally neither the Protestant, (so called, non-denominational), schools nor the Roman Catholic, or indeed other religious ran, schools can legally refuse to take any child on the grounds of their religion. Any child can attend any state school if they live in that schools catchment area and providing there are places vacant.

    Historically the state got all the RC schools for free when the came under the state education system. They got the RC paid for schools, the equipment and the teachers who were trained in RC paid for teacher training colleges.

    Not a penny was paid in compensation for those schools, teachers or equipment and the law was clear that a child could not be refused a place in any state school on the grounds of their religion.

    Quite simply the idea of school segregation exists only in the minds of religious bigots. People send their children to RC schools or Non-denominational schools by free choice and if the RC school happens to be the better school it often has not only the catchment area’s non-Christian children but a good many Protestant children too. BTW: No child can be legally forced to take RE classes if their parents do not wish them to do so.

  184. Sinky says:

    James Kelly on Call Kaye shortly. I’ll stick to mogadon.

  185. Robert Louis says:

    Oh, and I might add, that if OBFA is removed, with a Government defeat, it will not harm the SNP in any way. Most Scots (a large majority) time and again have been shown to support OBFA, so their defeat will only strengthen the SNP, further allowing them to take the moral high ground.

    The bigots who want this law repealed may be very vocal, but honestly, and the SNP know this, they number very few in terms of the electorate.

    Labour falling into a trap all of their own making yet again, and apparently taking the greens along as willing partners. Clearly they have not thought the consequences through.

    It all seem like such a good idea James Kelly, doesn’t it? Bash the SNP? Ho ho, what fun. The reality is, were it not such an important matter for Scots, my guess is many in the SNP would actually be laughing their socks off.

  186. Andrew Gordon says:

    As ever the BBC in Scotland are salavating over this total bollocks survey by Kelly and the spectacularly lazy journos at the Record
    “Call I’ve got my own agenda Kay ” will be highlighting the OBFA on her show this morning, I know most visitors to WOS are not great listeners of this guff but might I suggest if you have nothing else to do with your time from 9-10 am this morning we cram the BBC switchboard expressing many of the opinions put forward on this site.
    It is utterly deplorable and lazy reporting with absolutely no evidence of any of the opposition parties coming up with any alternative or amendments.

  187. Stu Mac says:

    @Peter. Edinburgh says:
    31 October, 2016 at 11:03 pm
    The conviction rate,

    It was you that started the personal attacks – on everyone on this site, so a bit hypocritical of you to take that attitude. Arrogant person methinks. You think it’s OK to call us fools but whine when you get slapped down for it.

    As to your figures, what do they prove? Could it be the police/fiscal aren’t prosecuting with enough vigour or not getting their cases set up right? Or could it be – as quite a few folk on this site have suggested – that the act does need amending but not replacing? There’s not necessarily an easy black/white interpretation.

    One thing is sure, all the parties against the act refuse to say what they would do in their place. Except for vague talk about facing causes of sectarianism and so forth. Nothing concrete at all. Without that, without some agreement by the other parties as to what they should do afterwards, doing away with the act achieves nothing but give encouragement to sectarian bigotry.

  188. As someone who writes better than me wrote,

    “If every rightwing thinktank came up with a scheme to distract the populace from political injustice and compensate them for lives of hard labour,

    the solution in each case would be the same,


    baking cakes and Football or `bread and circuses`.

  189. Seumas says:

    I am certainly no fan of the Act and went on marches to prevent its implimentation. Now its here, it should be used to the fullest extent or not at all. There needs to be proper definition of whats “acceptable”, “inappropriate” or just downright hate-filled bigotry and not left up to individual officers to decide. I enquired of an officer at a Celtic v Hearts game as to why no one was being removed from the ground for calling Celtic fans “beasts” and glorifying paedophiles. The reply was that it would cause crowd disturbances as there would be too many to remove from within the Hearts support. Too much focus (pardon the pun) is on songs of Irish history which may be labelled inappropriate for a football match, nothing is being done to stop the disgusting insult of calling others “paedophiles”, because they support Celtic.

  190. heraldnomore says:

    Re-tuned from KwithanE to Talk Radio, only to find more fitba talk, this time on friggin’ poppies, but at least it’s FIFAbaad and not SNPbaad.

    And Kelly’s not there.

  191. Stu Mac says:

    @Ken500 says:
    1 November, 2016 at 8:48 am

    Wish what you said was true but the fact is it is the non-sectarian clubs (with a small handful of exceptions) who are losing fans. The Old Firm continue to attract many fans and to be a focus for bigotry.

  192. Smallaxe says:

    Perhaps if the range of unelected church leaders who are entitled to an unelected seat on local education committees was curtailed our schools could get on with the job of educating our young people.

    Peace Always

  193. Ruby says:

    Oil and gas firms look to explore west despite fall in crude prices

  194. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Aah Stu Mac, point out anywhere I called anyone ‘fools’.

  195. Clydebuilt says:

    Stoker@ 31st Oct.7.21.

    I’m not convinced that the opposition to the bill is centred around Celtic, unless it’s a case that The Red Tories have concentrated on their fans, I reckon there’s equal resentment from the other side of the sectarian divide.

    Politics as usual from both Tory Parties.

    It’s the Green’s I’m disgusted with

  196. Clootie says:

    @Peter face Edinburgh 8:28

    You didn’t say anything constructive. Bigotry is wrong and should always be challenged. Your argument is akin to saying that the racist jokes of the 70s were just a bit of fun and with no stats to show otherwise.

    You have to send a message that WE do not accept this treatment of another group in OUR society. Any pressure that can be exerted on bigots is to be welcomed.

    What do you want? Scotland has ignored the religious bigots for far too long (both sides). The only way to change behaviour is for it to have consequences – drinking and driving was acceptable when I was a teenager the law not only forced a change in behaviour it has made people think about how unacceptable it was. Perhaps you would be happier if “nationalists” had to sit at the back of the bus.

    Peter try to think for yourself – read about racism in America, South Africa. Read about the fight for equal rights by woman. Open your eyes to the bigotry in Northern Ireland. If you think these do not compare to the law you wish to repeal then you do not understand how quickly the embers of hatred can be fanned – look at Brexit.

    We can pick division or unification.

  197. Bob Mack says:

    I agree that defeat would not hurt the SNP, but it would rather hurt our Society. We have lived too long with hatred either home grown or imported from across the water. Scottish history is littered with sectarian violence both on the football park and on the streets. Somewhere a message has to be put down that this is no longer acceptable

    I have been both to Ibrox and Parkhead and other football grounds where this happens. The manager of Kilmarnock had his players singing the Billy boys in the dressing room earlier this year!

    It may take decades to stop this anachronism but a start has to be made somewhere. I will be very disappointed in the Greens if they fail to support this vote.

    Not because I appreciate they may have doubts regarding some of the clauses,but because they will be seen like it or not to be supporting other parties who are now openly seen encouraging sectarianism for political ends.

  198. Robert Peffers at 8.51

    Well said, Robert.

  199. Has Labour brought forward any proposals yet to replace the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act it wants to scrap?

    Or is it just a case Labour of for its own political advantage wanting to scrap a piece of SNP legislation.

  200. Robert Peffers says:

    @Peter. Edinburgh says: 31 October, 2016 at 9:57 pm:

    ” … This Act has a very poor conviction rate.”

    Utter pish, Peter from Edinburgh. In point of fact the small conviction figures are the greatest proof the act has been exceptionally effective. It is the sole reason why the conviction rate is small and getting smaller, because the act is working

    If the act was, as you attempt to claim, NOT working we would expect the conviction rate to be increasing not decreasing.

    It won’t matter a damn in any case for the once great Scottish football game is in terminal decline. A return to unbridled sectarianism and offensive behaviour by removing this act will kill off what remains of Scottish football and hopefully a departure of the Irish protestant Rangers Newco to N.I and a return of the Irish Catholic Celtic back to the Republic or perhaps to a then foreign England will see the Scottish game begin to recover.

  201. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Clootie, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. 70′ s jokes? Drink driving? America, South Africa and Northern Ireland?

    I agree absolutely that bigotry should be dealt with, this Act is not about bigotry, this Act is about offensive behaviour. There is legislation that dealt with both bigotry and sectarianism, it needed to be implemented. It never was.

    This Act is bad legislation. Are the young Hamilton fans who were arrested and charged under this Act for singing a song about Motherwell bigots?

    How has this Act dealt with the hundreds/thousands of Aberdeen fans that sang vile songs about pedophiles and Jimmy Saville towards Celtic fans last Saturday?

  202. Muscleguy says:

    @Liz g

    Back in New Zealand ordinary people got to watch the rugby or the rugby league. Crowd support is vocal and partisan ‘Rip his head off’ can be heard when the rucks are contestable, but it isn’t meant.

    In some parts of NZ the crowd might do a haka in support of their team. It is just as cathartic, involves the same stratas of society yet hatred and bigotry are absent.

    So to access the claimed catharsis it is not necessary for absolute base instincts, hatred and violence to be part of it. This is the point, other places manage this, so why can’t Scottish fitba?

  203. Ruby says:


    These football matches sound like a really horrible experience! Why do you go?

    Would the solution to these problems for fans who object to unaccaptable behaviour not be for them to boycott the matches?

    Why does everything have to be left up to the government?

  204. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Robert Peppers, you think Celtic are a Catholic club? Honestly?

  205. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Apologies. Above was aimed at Robert Peffers.

  206. Seumas says:

    I go to football to support a football team, not indulge in politics or abuse others about subjects not fit for a football stadium.

  207. BIll McLean says:

    James Kelly MSP – a man of lower intellect and even lower vision it would be hard to find. He should stand for MP and get himself to Westminster where he would be very much at home. A clown!

  208. Ruby says:

    Seumas says:
    1 November, 2016 at 9:34 am

    I go to football to support a football team, not indulge in politics or abuse others about subjects not fit for a football stadium.

    Ruby replies

    Why do you go when all this bad behaviour is happening? I reckon the solution to these problems would be for fans like yourself to do something about it. ie boycott the matches.

    Money talks and as soon as these club see empty terraces then for sure something will be done. Sometimes you do need to get involved in politics even if that is just going on a march, protesting, boycotting/going on strike!

  209. Greannach says:

    By repealing this Act, there might be the chance of increasing discord which can only be a good thing for the continuation of the UK. “Look at the Jocks, constantly fighting amongst themselves over trivia like football. They couldn’t run a country in a month of Sundays. Leave it to the cool heads of Westminster.”


  210. Stoker says:

    Clydebuilt wrote (@9:17am):

    “I’m not convinced that the opposition to the bill is centred around Celtic, unless it’s a case that The Red Tories have concentrated on their fans, I reckon there’s equal resentment from the other side of the sectarian divide.”

    Nor should you be convinced because it’s true what you say, there’s opposition from all quarters. Sorry if my post was misleading, that was not my intention.

    I specifically made a connecting mention to the Dirty Redcoat, Slabber and James Kelly because these are the facilities which for decades have used the Irish Catholic Celtic supporting community (and their vote) to create a victim persona.

    It helped immensely with the Unionist agenda of divide-and-rule, and of course to sell BUM rags etc. But times have moved on as we all know and most people can no longer be used and fooled as easily as they once were.

    However, there is still a hardcore (both sides) of bigots out there who, no matter what folk try to create for the good of the human race, will not accept progress because to remove their opportunity to hate is to make life meaningless to them.

    For excellent reading on how things used to be, and in some quarters around Scotland still to this day, i recommend reading our own Dave McEwan Hill’ article he wrote for WOS. Sorry, i can’t remember the title of the article or i would have linked to it for you.

    That’s a man who knows what he’s talking about when it comes to that particular subject. I thoroughly recommend it. 😉

  211. Clootie says:

    Peter fae Edinburgh @ 9:30

    …ah you have resorted to the age old argument “… They started it”. The number of times I have heard that claim….!
    The nice Hamilton fans were only responding to the nasty Motherwell bigots.

    Perhaps your reading should include the Roman period and the use of “Games” to distract the people.

  212. Seumas says:

    FAO Ruby…. the bad experiences are a miniscule minority within my 35 years of following Celtic. I wish they never existed at all, but they wont stop me from supporting my team, I cant let the neanderthals win.

  213. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Someone used the word skewered earlier on. I think this Act has been well skewered on Call Kaye this morning.

  214. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Thepnr says at 12:24 am

    One of the funniest things I’ve read on here in a while.

  215. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Stoker says at 9:53 am

    ” i recommend reading our own Dave McEwan Hill’ article he wrote for WOS. Sorry, i can’t remember the title of the article or i would have linked to it for you.”

    Is it this one Stoker?

  216. Stoker says:

    Jockanese Wind Talker wrote:

    “Is it this one Stoker?”

    That’s the one! Extremely relevant to this thread. Thank you!

  217. DerekM says:

    And does the non football supporting people of Scotland not get a say in this?

    Oh and sectarianism is offensive behavior so does come under the act,it was never meant to only stop sectarianism it was meant to stop incidents by visiting football fans to our towns and cities and give the law a better way to prosecute than having to use the old breach of the peace act.

    but hey ho can it if you want just means the police will stick breach of the peace on trouble makers again.

    Yes we already had an offensive behavior act at football and everywhere else.

  218. Tam Jardine says:

    Peter.Edinburgh 12.29am

    Can I try to elicit an answer to my question up the thread using the definition of offensive behaviour as per the OBFA:

    The behaviour is—
    (a) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on their membership (or presumed membership) of—
    (i) a religious group,
    (ii) a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation,
    15 (iii) a group defined by reference to a thing mentioned in subsection (4),
    (b) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, an individual based on the
    individual’s membership (or presumed membership) of a group mentioned in any
    of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (a),
    (c) behaviour that is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred of a group mentioned in
    20 any of those sub-paragraphs,
    (d) behaviour that is threatening, or
    (e) other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

    Now calling someone a plonker clearly doesn’t fall within that definition. Shouting or singing that someone is a fenian plonker does. Or a proddie plonker.

    So using the actual OBFA definition of offensive behaviour- do you think the proposed repeal will increase or decrease the instances of said behaviour occurring?

  219. Peter, Edinburgh says:

    Tam Jardine, I would consider the use of the word plonker to be offensive under section (e) other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

    I am a reasonable person and I consider the use of the word plonker to be offensive.

    I could also consider his language threatening.

    Now, are you going to define what a reasonable person is, and what this reasonable person can consider offensive?

  220. Robert Louis says:

    We should all be aware of those who suddenly appear here, and are working very hard overnight on this forum to divide us. ‘Divide and conquer’ is how Westminster plays its dirty games. Sophisticated trolling seems to be the modern modus operandi from unionists.


    It was interesting to read that piece I wrote over three years ago and reflect on where we are now.
    I have little doubt now that the majority of the Catholic vote in Scotland is now with the SNP or with independence. Some of the older generation still hold out but the younger ones have crossed the road. And it’s not religion as I pointed out in that article. It was and is political/tribal.
    The Scottish “Catholic ” vote is now in its natural place. The final straw (and Jim Murphy knew this well) was being asked to walk behind Union Jacks with the OO.

    It would indeed be ironic that the descendents of the same people that come into Kintyre and Argyll in the 4th and 5th centuries and gave Scotland its name should be the final piece in the jigsaw that sees Scotland reclaim its normal independent state

  222. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Robert Louis says at 11:11 am

    “modern modus operandi from unionist”

    You thinking about these Guys ‘n’ Gals??

    Remember in their eyes we are ‘Vile Seps’ after all and the stakes regarding the financial liquidity of the rUK following Brexit are very high.

    An iScotland taking its resources with it would see them the “Little England” Guy Verhofstadt has commented on.

    Also Jim Rogers told the BBC that there are “serious problems facing the UK” and that “the pound’s value will ‘certainly go under one dollar’ if Scotland leaves the UK.”

    The Establishment will use every trick in the book (which they wrote and revised during the age of British Imperialism) to prevent that from happening.

  223. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Robert Louis, oh for God’s sake.

    Apologies to Tam, my reply, sent from my laptop has not appeared. In short, I would consider the use of the word plonker to be dealt with under section (e).

  224. heedtracker says:

    He should stand for MP and get himself to Westminster where he would be very much at home. A clown!

    It is a circus or a loony bin. Today we learn that Micheal Hesseltine throttled his mother’s dog for some reason. Last week Hesseltine explained to rancid The Graun readers how he spends his retirement on his 1900 acre garden, shooting grey squirrels, 350 this summer.

    Also, BBC r4 Womans Hour had well, this

    “Sali Hughes and Sophy Robson on the joy of painted nails. Sali is author of Pretty Iconic, a tribute to her favourite beauty brands, Sophy Robson is a nail artist.”

    In the interview, they explained how fascinated they were by David Cameron’s beautifully manicured hands at PMQ’s, Cameron chooses clear nail varnish too, they explained. Nice BBC lady a tad shocked.

    BBC r4 Today show this morn, owned by Nic Robinson, total ban on any SNP MP interview but meaning that that bunch of BBC tories now only interview tory MP’s, on the SNP currently trying to block topryboy disability benefit cuts, going through the mad house, because a few toryboys agree with the SNP, apparently.

    Logic might dictate Nic Robinson actually talking to the SNP, but that’s just my little slice of the mad UKOK world of planet toryboy.

    Its nice to think that anyone SNP, just refuses to go anywhere near likes of Nic Robinson though.

  225. Smallaxe says:

    Dave McEwan Hill:

    I also re read your 2013 post Dave,I agree about the final piece in the jigsaw,it would make us whole again.I hope with all my being that it happens as soon as possible,for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

    Thank you for that illuminating post in 2013.

    Peace and Love to You and those who you Love

  226. Brian Powell says:

    Patrick Harvie is going to vote to repeal the Act, based on his original reservations.

    Unfortunately no principled stand will be recognised in the reactions by those who want bigotry to continue. It will all be seen as green light for sectarian behaviour.

  227. Chic McGregor says:

    OT anyone else unable to connect to the National today?

  228. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Remember, bad law though I and many others believe OBFA to be, it is about Offensive Behaviour At Football.

    It is not about purely sectarian behaviour, or bigoted behaviour, but, Offensive behaviour; which takes many forms.

    A wee story, some years ago Ayr United had a particular supporter: “Enclosure George”, who was known for his loud comments and witticisms. On several occasions, the United coaching staff had to physically restrain Ally MacLeod from vaulting the wall into the enclosure to confront George, while the directors, often the target for his abuse hated him to a man.

    Monday to Friday, George was a quiet, diligent accountant, who was (I am reliaby informed) rather good at his job. On Saturday afternoon, however, this respected CA turned into his alter ego: “Enclosure George” and was a bloody nuisance.

    Now football tolerated him, the club could easily have said – any more and you’re banned, but, it didn’t.

    Multiply that single “Honest Man” by the hundreds of St Mirren fans, for instance, whom I personally heard verbally abusing a single Morton player, or the thousands of Old Firm fans on either side, and we have a problem which requires attention.

    Football has allowed, over many years, otherwise decent huan beings – accountants like George, other office workers, guys who toil in factories, or furnaces, who drive trucks or who work in service industries, to turn up at a game on a Saturday, and “let off steam”.

    Some go too-far, but are seldom chided, told to tone it down, or cut it our, or, in the worse cases to take a hike.

    Football has shown a reluctance to try to improve the behaviour of a small percentage of their audience – so, the law has, in its usual misguided, clod-hopping way, had to step in.

    Final word on “Enclosure George”. One Monday morning three Ayr United players turned-up at George’s office, stood around his desk and gave him back some of what he had given them on the Saturday.

    “What gives you the right to come into my workplace and abuse me”? George asked.

    “Well – you do it to us on a fortnightly basis”, was the reply.

    Haven’t seen George at Somerset Park since – but, that approach would not work for every fan.

  229. liz says:

    @Robert Louis – good find and Patrick does need to read it.

    @Muscleguy – I know you are from NZ and perhaps you don’t understand why this happens at Scottish football.
    It’s very plain and simple, you probably didn’t have unionist politicians creating divide in the population for there own ends.

    Celtic & Rangers have been used by both Labour & Cons for that very reason, divide and rule

  230. Brian Powell says:

    If this Act is repealed do the police have a legal obligation to police inside the grounds of football stadiums?

    Could they protect the public and streets outside the grounds and leave stewarding to the clubs inside?

  231. Liz g says:

    Muscleguy @ 9.31
    I suspect and it is only an opinion.
    Definitely formed from only the outside of football looking in
    The reason others can blow off steam around sport and not decend into sectarianism in all it’s forms is because it is classic divide and conquer techniques.
    The politicians and it is the politicians do and always have encouraged it.
    One hope is, I have found that,I have met less and less young people willing to engage in this shit.
    Their horizon’s have broadened a bit espically since the 70s and more so since the Internet.
    There is also more and more people like us who are no longer prepared to put up with it.
    There could conceivably come a tipping point where football itself will be seen as ripe for drastic measures.
    I myself hate government interference but would quite happily no concern myself about banning it.
    Football has had long enough to sort this out and hasn’t bothered.
    Start a campaign to replace the Dangerous Dog Act with the Dangerous Fan act and I’m in.
    Not even fussed about what exactly it’s called.

  232. Robert Louis says:


    Meanwhile, even more good economic news from Brexit..

    In other matters, Jockaneese wind talker at 1134am, you are right, I wouldn’t ever put it past them. It is after all partly what they were set up to do. Every trick in the book, including sowing seeds of division over relatively trial matters – and ensuring where division exists, manipulate social media to feed that division.

    If the cap fits, and all that.

  233. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Chic McGregor says at 11:51 am

    From today’s National, (I got on no bother about 5 minutes ago).

    “HOLYROOD looks set to vote against the SNP’s Offensive Behaviour at Football Act (OBFA), after opposition parties united behind a Labour report damning the law.”

    “The Tories have said they’ll use a debate tomorrow to give MSPs the chance to register a vote against the legislation. With all parties bar the SNP opposing the Act, it seems inevitable parliament will vote against the principles of the law.”

    “Labour MSP James Kelly published the results of his consultation on the OBFA yesterday morning, saying 71 per cent of the 3,248 people responding wanted to repealing the section of the law covering behaviour at football, and 62 per cent wanted the ditch the part covering offensive communications.”

    “Kelly’s consultation, which was self-selecting, is at odds with more methodical research carried out by YouGov for the Scottish Government, which found the act was supported by 80 per cent of Scots.”

    “The Scottish Government said Kelly and Labour were treating football fans with contempt and had to come forward with an effective replacement.”

    “Most responses came from individuals. Celtic were the only club to take part, saying they had “significant concerns” but that they “remain supportive” of the Scottish Government’s commitment to addressing unacceptable behaviour.”

    “Glasgow City Council said it thought the law should be repealed.”

    “LGBT groups Stonewall Scotland and the Equality Network said repealing the act could suggest threatening behaviour at football is acceptable.”

    “Ministers brought the law forward in 2012 after a run of incidents, including 35 arrests and a clash between club managers at an Old Firm game. Despite united opposition, the SNP had a majority and could pass the law. Now the party have 63 of Holyrood’s 129 MSPs.”

    “There were 287 charges reported to prosecutors last year under section 1 of the act, which is aimed at tackling sectarianism and disorder at football.”

    “Charges were from 117 football matches across 29 stadiums in Scotland in 2015/16, up from 193 charges relating to 54 games played at 21 stadiums the year before, an increase of almost 50 per cent.”

    “The people have had their say, it’s time to scrap the SNP Football Act,” Kelly said as he released the report of his consultation.

    “The SNP were arrogant to bulldoze this piece of legislation through Holyrood in the first place. Every other party opposed it.

    “Academics, lawyers, football clubs and football fans opposed it, yet the SNP wouldn’t listen and used their then majority in the Scottish Parliament to rail-road the Football Act through.

    “Having lost that majority, and faced with clear public support for repeal through the consultation process, it would be incredibly arrogant if the SNP do not now think again.”

    A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “Scotland continues to have a problem with abusive behaviour at football games which tarnishes our national game.

    “A hardcore minority is souring the atmosphere for the majority of football supporters and critics of the Act seem to think our only option is just to accept this contempt for fans and players.

    “Not one viable alternative to dealing with the unacceptable scenes of violence and abuse we continue to see at matches has been put forward in the entire debate around this law.

    “This is not just about sectarianism or language that can be challenged by education programmes – two-thirds of charges under the law in 2015/16 were for threatening behaviour, including physical violence.

    “After two full football seasons of the Act being in place, an independent evaluation found that the clear majority of fans condemn abusive behaviour towards people’s religious beliefs.”

    Green justice spokesman John Finnie said: “Let’s make legislation which treats everyone equal before the law, otherwise we’re dealing with forms of discrimination by only targeting people who are football fans. This is an unhelpful approach and we’ll be working with MSPs from all parties to ensure that the Act is repealed as quickly as possible.”

    Scottish Liberal Democrat justice spokesman Liam McArthur said: “The SNP committed a serious professional foul when they forced this legislation through Parliament, instead of tackling sectarianism head-on.”

    So there you have it.

    BLis, Tory, FibDem and Greens backing a repeal rather than amendment via ‘registering a vote against the legislation’.

  234. Dr Jim says:

    Pre war Bavaria must’ve been a great place to be or why would theresa May’s Brexiteers and Donald Trump be trying to get us all to appreciate the idea so much
    Or am I just blaming them for somebody else’s badness?

    It’s like enough time’s gone by now and folk have forgotten so let’s go for it again but this time total balls out rabid, not picking on one or two races, let’s get em all

    No wonder the European Union is becoming more hostile to the UK and Trumps political positioning and posturing
    Scotlands First Minister will have to work really hard in Europe to put a deep political moat between us and the Tory English National Socialist party

    Street assaults on anybody who looks or sounds foreign are rising in England and America
    It’s gone past humorous sarcasm now

    Apologies for the gloomy post on this but I’ve been watching some disturbing stuff filtering through on our “Propaganda Information Screen Hologram” viewers, or “Pish” for short

  235. Anne says:

    This is shabby behaviour in the extreme from the Lib Dems. And I single them out because I have the misfortune to have Willie Rennie as my MSP. They – the Lib Dems and their partners in crime – are trying to move Scotland back, not forwards, and only for the sake of scoring a few political points. The Act makes a strong statement about the values that people in Scotland hold, and what we aspire to be.

  236. Brian Powell says:

    Chic Mcgregor

    “Green justice spokesman John Finnie said: “Let’s make legislation which treats everyone equal before the law, ”

    The Greens are doomed with this approach. The ConLabLibs aren’t interested in creating anything on this basis, they simply want to try to damage the SNP.

  237. Artyhetty says:

    Robert Louise@11.11am

    I second that Robert, was talking about that very thing with someone last night. It is a known tactic and won’t just be happening on sites like Wings. It will be across the board, at meetings, and any gatherings at all. The unionists are desperate, and that desperation goes beyond these shores and they will do anything to keep Scotland shackled.

    Regards the repeal of this act being discussed, it is a disgrace that politicians would rather have violence and unrest, even domestic abuse, than work at ensuring it is dealt with in a mature and meaningful way.

    Makes you wonder who the criminals are really. Those wanting to repeal this act quite clearly wish things to be taken backwards, they want trouble, it suits their agenda and keeps them in a job.

    We can be sure that the moment any major violence was to take place at a football match, they would be shouting about it at FMQ’s! SNP not doing enough to stem violence!

    Surprised and disgusted at the Greens on this.

  238. Valerie says:

    Robert Louis @9.01

    Great post. Totally agree.

    This whole debate shames Scotland, and glorifies knuckle draggers. I can’t tell you how depressed I feel, that Unionists hate this country so much, they will resurrect this Jim Murphy shit bandwagon.

    We aren’t allowed to move forward. We have to be dragged backwards by Neanderthal interests.

    And that goes for the FUCKING Greens too if they support Kelly.

  239. yerkitbreeks says:

    I haven’t bothered to look at Commonspace for some time, and this article justifies my lack of interest !

  240. Dr Jim says:

    Philip Hammond there making a start on resetting the economy by declaring war on Russia to help take our minds off Brexit
    What a relief PHEW!

  241. Nana says:


    Pound sterling ‘likely to plunge to new record 31-year low once Article 50 is triggered’

    Our oil will keep them afloat, plenty more money for endless wars and off shore tax avoiders.

  242. Glamaig says:

    Apologies if this is old hat Im a bit out of touch lol

    was watching this Adam Curtis documentary at the weekend – mind bending and too much to watch all at once – dont know quite what to make of it although a lot of it certainly makes sense

  243. Tam Jardine says:

    Peter. Edinburgh

    That’s fine Peter- if you treat my question like a beartrap and evade it. A response would be “the OBFA repeal may result in an increase in offensive behaviour at football matches but that is a price worth paying as it is bad law” or some such thing.

    You want it repealed but can’t answer a basic question as to whether or not this course of action will improve behaviour or not. You ever thought of a career in politics?

  244. Common space claim 70per cent of Scots want to scrap the act as the population of Scotland is about 5million that means they must have asked about say3 and halfve million people and if they did not then their claim is false phoney polls again ,?

  245. orri says:

    If there’s a vote pushed ahead tomorrow then one assumes Kez will be home from the USA? If not it’s all going to hinge on who turns up as the opposition only had 65 without the PO.

  246. Davo says:

    You can see the dramatic decline in Daily Record sales here

  247. Free Scotland says:

    If Kelly and his pals get this through, it will go down as yet another betrayal of the Scottish people by a desperate and soon-to-be-gone labour no-hoper.

  248. harry mcaye says:

    “Final word on “Enclosure George”. One Monday morning three Ayr United players turned-up at George’s office, stood around his desk and gave him back some of what he had given them on the Saturday.
    “What gives you the right to come into my workplace and abuse me”? George asked.
    “Well – you do it to us on a fortnightly basis”, was the reply.

    No way!!! Reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld where Jerry, after being noisily heckled by a woman during his stand-up, turned up at her work to boo her.

    As a Hamilton Accies fan I well remember our famous foghorn fan, Ian Russell, known to one and all as Fergie. Why Fergie I never understood. On my first ever visit to Accies, me and my Dad got there about 15 minutes before kick off then leaning against the crush barriers watching the players warm up, heard this almighty noise coming from behind us. It was my first sight of Fergie. All that summer’s pent up frustrations and here he was unleashing it as soon as he caught sight of the pitch!

    His abuse was never threatening and it was often hard to make out what he said. He was once picked up by the team bus after a game away at somewhere like Perth, after he’d missed the supporters bus home. The bus only got a mile or so down the road when it stopped and chucked him off again. He’d gone right through the players and told the manager what he thought of their recent performances. He was banned several times and turned up at one game with a step ladder so he could peer over the fence.

    I dare say many fans were offended by him over the years however at many home games there would be a crowd of young kids gathered around him, enthralled at this wee mad sweary man. He probably drew as many folk to games as he kept away but he was definitely of a different era and wouldn’t last five minutes under these laws.

  249. harry mcaye says:

    Davo – The most recent figures showed the Daily Record’s sales at an all time low of 166,000.

  250. Legerwood says:

    “”Green justice spokesman John Finnie said: “Let’s make legislation which treats everyone equal before the law, otherwise we’re dealing with forms of discrimination by only targeting people who are football fans. This is an unhelpful approach and we’ll be working with MSPs from all parties to ensure that the Act is repealed as quickly as possible.””

    This statement does not make sense.

    Surely all laws are discriminatory because they all target behaviour by groups or individuals that is deemed unacceptable by society whether it is murder or rape or any number of offences.

    And in just about all cases the numbers involved in such behaviour will be small but that is not an argument against having the law in the first place.

  251. Commonspace getting a well deserved tanking from readers. Not a single note of support.

  252. Davo says:

    Harry mcaye – The chart I linked to only goes up to 2015 but predicts total sales of around 175k for 2016. What is interesting is that the actual number of sales lost each year is pretty constant. This means that the % of readers lost each year is actually rising steadily.

  253. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    @ orri says at 12:56 pm

    “assumes Kez will be home from the USA? If not it’s all going to hinge on who turns up as the opposition only had 65 without the PO.”

    Orri one also assumes that if Dugdale is home from the ‘states she actually remembers to press the button and vote instead of playing with her mobile phone. 🙂

  254. ScottishPsyche says:

    For those saying there was legislation already in place for the offences, someone walking down the road singing sectarian songs could be charged with BOP but the exact same song was deemed acceptable at a football match.

    Wasn’t the Act created precisely because behaviour that was unacceptable outside football was somehow acceptable inside the stadium? It was to put forward the idea that the songs and accompanying behaviour were unacceptable anywhere. Now whether it has done that is debateable but it seems a fundamental flaw in the argument of those wanting repeal of the Act that measures were already in place.

  255. Valerie says:

    In my anger, I forgot to impart some crucial info for the hard of learning.

    For all the mentally challenged, that KEEP saying ‘scrap OBFA, so we can make it a crime outside football grounds’

    You goddamn idiots, it IS, and has been a crime to perpetrate religious harassment since the 90s. It’s in two different Scottish laws.

    Not that this info will make any difference, because those of us supporting eradication of sectarianism know your agenda, and its revolting.

  256. yesindyref2 says:

    Ho ho ho delighted with myself, got my dedicated server in Docklands renewed at the same price as last year which was a reduction on an already great deal. Wow I feel sharp 🙂

    Relevance to Indy? Why on earth would I change suppliers from a great service that does extra for me when I really need it, and has uptime that’s so good I’ve no idea what it is. So yah boo sucks to this “Scotland does 65% of its trade with the rUK”, they do 25% in cash terms more than we do with them, and if I’m not wanting to change, why on earth should they if they’re happy with their Scottish supplier?

  257. James Barr Gardner says:

    I am wondering whether the OBFA repeal by the Red tory loons is just another gambit forking the Greens and the Scottish SNP Government thus attempting to drive a wedge between them, yet another pathetic delay tactic to halt the next Independence Referendum!

    As for the OBFA it was brought in for the People of Scotland who were fed up with violence caused by football fans.

    Drink and sectarianism are a bad mix thrown together with mob mentality of fans plus no action by the SFA with it’s head in the sand maybe that should be arse, as almost 90 supporters prosecuted so far by the Courts.

    Scottish Independence will change a lot of things for the better, the way forward has no place sectarianism in it.

  258. Socrates MacSporran says:


    Anent the late Ian “Fergie” Russell. I remember seeing Fergie at Love Street one day, sitting in one of the wing areas of the new stand into which the away support were shown. He was sitting there, with four stewards around him and nobody else close.

    Another time, at Rugby Park, I pulled-up the Match commander – an old rugby-playing team mate – because Fergie had been lifted and thrown-out for swearing.

    He said: “Aye, this woman complained, so, my Sergeant explained – it was Fergie, he swore as he did as a matter of course and meant no harm. But, the woman persisted in complaining, so eventually, the Sergeant had to throw him out.”

    The Match Commander felt the woman had half a deserted ground in which to stand, but, she wanted to stand within ear-shot of Fergie.

    The B&Q Challenge Cup Final at Fir Park, Hmilton v Ayr United. Fraser Elder of the Sun had been detained in pre-match hospitality, eventually reaching the press box about 15 minutes in. He sat down between me and the late Hugh McKinlay of The Herald and asked: “What have I missed”?

    Hughie replied: “Bomber Harris scored a cracker in eight minutes, and Fergie got lifted for celebrating”. That was the basis of Fras’s match report.

    By the way – the away game after which he was thrown off the team bus as at Aberdeen. Gerry Phillips, one of the team he abused told me about it.

    Yes, under the terms of the Act, Fergie was guilty of offensive behaviour at football, but, his was non-malicious misbehaviour, not the stuff the act is meant to catch.

    It is still bad law, but, necessary law, and, until the football authorities come up with something which works – it is after all, their problem – well we need some sort of act on the statute book. Repealing it is not the answer.

  259. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I am a reasonable person and I consider the use of the word plonker to be offensive.”

    You are, by definition, not a reasonable person.

  260. Jack Murphy says:

    Just in case you didn’t know John Robertson is now:-
    “ThoughtcontrolScotland”, and his Header is “Resigned Professor John Robertson and Media Bias”.

    Perhaps old news—I don’t know—-but he has done great research on the Media in Scotland over the last couple of years.
    The Link:-

  261. Fred says:

    If Kelly wins this the peeps will judge the result, the government have played an honourable part in this & if there are any future knuckle-dragging episodes blame will be apportioned accordingly. A win-win situation as Tam Cowan might not say.

  262. K1 says:

    I just clicked on the common space article form a tweet on Wings twitter which said ‘We’d like to apologise for a poor news report we published yesterday – please find the updated story here:’ with the link to the almost identical article from yesterday which had at the bottom of it:

    ‘UPDATE: This article was amended on 1 November. The headline was changed to make it clear opposition to the OBFA came from a consultation rather than a poll. A section was also added providing the Scottish Government’s view on the need for the OBFA.’

    At no point has common space actually considered this:

    ‘Since 3,248 (the total number of respondents) is not 70% of the population and the survey wasn’t in any way demographically balanced in order to allow that number to be extrapolated to represent the entire nation (as a properly selected and weighted poll by a real polling company can be), that’s a blatantly false assertion.’

    It’s still essentially the same absurd SLabour branch propaganda pamphlet against the OBFA published by Common Space. That’s not journalism guys that’s straight up PR for Labour. There is no ‘analysis’ in this piece, none, zilch, it’s a copy and paste and ‘that’s what the man said and we just published it cause we can piece.’

    And the phoney ‘apology’ is just that…what they apologising for? They haven’t altered the content of their article, merely added a bit about the SNP and changed the headline?

    So what is the point of them (CS) re – publishing this pretty much in its entirety after their initial screw up?

    *confounded if ah know*

  263. HandandShrimp says:

    If I am honest I don’t care much one way or another about this piece of legislation. As I recall it had a sunset clause built in anyway so it is hardly set in concrete.

    I do recall that when Lennon was getting bullets and parcel bombs through the post the press were screaming “Oh the Humanity! Won’t someone do something?” The Government did something and the press have bitched ever since “Why did they do something?”

    There has been a lot less offensive behaviour and reactionary nonsense in recent years but I have no idea if that is because of the legislation or because 50% of the equation cooled its heels in lower leagues….or a little of both.

    Of all the things going on in the world this Act isn’t very high on my list of concerns. The notion that 70% care is patently ridiculous. Most people in Scotland would be hard pushed to recall what the bill is called. 70% of those that do care want it repealed but that may in fact only be a few thousand people. Kelly’s obsession with the Act and Murphy’s “let’s bring alcohol back into the grounds” are indicative of the sort of wrong headed attempts at populism that parties that have gone off the rails sometimes think is important.

  264. Andrew McLean says:

    Peter says we are abusive to him, the end of his first post At 9:57 is these words, and remember this is before anyone has responded to him “The ignorance on this site is shocking.” so it’s ok for Peter, to call us ignorant, Imagine you were talking to someone for the first time, and you ended your introduction with, “by the way you are an ignoramus!” really?

    Peter asks, Does sectarian and offensive behaviour not happen elsewhere? Yes quite often I walk into Aldi, and am confronted with sectarian mobs. walking on Ben Lomond, you struggle to get past crowds of bigots most days, and don’t mention the cinema, can’t hear the film for the chanting. And as for rugby, tennis and golf, the sectarian bigotry is awful.

    Peter asks “so what part of the University of Stirling report are you disputing?” none Peter, I am saying your cherry picking to suit your agenda.

    In his post at 11:03 he quotes “The conviction rate, until 2015”, then continues to rely on the University of Stirling report, but wait that is a funny use of statistics, the act only came out in 2012, In 2013 to 2014 86 were found guilty 68 not guilty, and in 2014 to 2015 76 were found guilty 14 not guilty? See I use the same report to state its working well.

    Lest we forget what the act is to prevent, the report has the contributory factor as including insulting religion, support of terrorist and or celebrating murder, race ethnicity, sexual orientation, threatening behaviour, challenging others to fight.

    Peter says “Firstly, this law is not only about Celtic and Rangers, why anyone thinks it is astounds me” however In the report it says “The figures also detail how supporters of Rangers and Celtic continue to attract the majority of s. 1 charges, though at a slightly lower rate in 2013/14 than in the previous year.”

    Peter says, “Far left, jeez, utter paranoid ramblings”, really you cut and pasted from a far left website? From a party that has so many undercover special branch it has its Christmas party in Pitt street police office!

    Peter in your post at 12:29 you said you considered my description of you as a plonker that it constituted offensive language under the act? yes you are correct I should not have said plonker, I should have said stupid plonker, and even then given your posts no realisable person, including he of the Clapham omnibus would find that anything other than an accurate description.

    As for your pal J Kelly, his classic, “it criminalises a lot of young men” is the absolute limit of absurdity, Is this the criteria for how law is to be judged , it makes criminals who engage in criminal activities have a criminal record? , And just when I thought J Kelly was the biggest fool on Call Kaye, we get the wee woman, who had never seen violence at a football mach prior to 2012? and complains when police arrest someone for what appears to have been a criminal act, they made sure they protected the offender and the arresting officers, UKOK Kaye, “are you a lawyer” because you complain that it’s the police officer who can be offended? Oh great Lawyer never heard of The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 then, because there is no requirement that any person should actually feel threatened, abused or insulted. And the reason was so a POLICE OFFICER could prosecute! Are we abolish that act now?

    Funny every time this is brought up, the same stupid arguments are used.

    Scottish Labour, drunk in the gutter, sick down his shirt, reeking of buckfast and woodbine.

  265. yesindyref2 says:

    “I am a reasonable person and I consider the use of the word plonker to be offensive.”

    You are, by definition, not a reasonable person.

    Sorry, I disagree with that. Holding a different point of view and arguing it strongly does not make anyone unreasonable, the presumed opposite of reasonable.

  266. Flower of Scotland says:


    Come on folks. RogueCoder,s “Going Postal” funder is at 52% with only 2 days to go!

    There will be some help for the Wings stall at the Indy gatherings.

    So let’s get this fully funded!

  267. K1 says:

    I’ve got it! Common Space are good at ‘collating’ information but cannot ‘decipher’ information. Mair saliently they are not journalists, they are like a wee newsletter wi bits and bobs from other papers.

    *sighs…ah…that’s better…sanity returns confoundingness evaporates*

  268. Stu Mac says:

    Peter. Edinburgh says:
    1 November, 2016 at 9:17 am

    I posted from memory – checking I see you called us ignorant. Not one person in particular, all of us. You know fine well in everyday parlance that is much the same thing calling people fools and I suspect you remember quite well what you said and knew what I was referring to.

    I should add that the main purpose of this site is to expose nonsense and misrepresentation by politicians and the media. The Rev’s article does exactly that over a poll which is either dishonestly or incompetently produced and is thus valueless as evidence – though it is being used as “evidence by the Media. Are you happy for that to happen or is it OK because it supports your viewpoint? I notice you had no comment on that.

  269. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    I removed Commonspace a while ago. I’ll have to put it back up again to join the chorus of dissent

  270. Phil Robertson says:


    In “How the North was lost”, you mention a poll of 1013 participants and follow it up with “Scots as a whole back the Act by a massive 4 to 1.”

    Then here you chastise Common Space for “Common Space, however, went into full propaganda-foghorn mode, headlining their piece with the wildly inaccurate claim that “Over 70% of Scots want to scrap offensive behaviour law”.” using a poll sample three times BIGGER.

    Pots and kettles come to mind!

  271. Hamish100 says:

    Surely point of order Kelly should be supporting the removal of sectarianism and bigotry from football matches?

    After all his party has failed over the past century.

    What No? Point of order , I canny sit doon.

  272. Croompenstein says:

    using a poll sample three times BIGGER

    Come on Phil well you know it wasn’t a poll…

  273. Thepnr says:

    @Phil Robertson

    Your skating on thin ice with this argument. James Kelly’s consultation piece was in no way a scientifically conducted poll and for Common Space to report in it’s headline that “Over 70% of Scots want to scrap offensive behaviour law” was crass.

    You’ll also have noticed I’m sure that Common Space have already “apologised” on twitter for this article and how it was reported.

    “We’d like to apologise for a poor news report we published yesterday – please find the updated story here:”

  274. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Stu Mac, I gave specific examples of the ignorance I see here. You know, stuff like people claiming that this Act is about sectarianism, when it isn’t. And people are still claiming it is about sectarianism!!

    About people claiming it’s about 2 clubs, when that is nonsense.

    About a claim that Yes voters are not genuine Yes voters if they do not support the Act.

    It is you that has used the word fools, not me.

  275. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Given the concern of the Kelly consultation, it will be interesting how some on here treat the current Government consultation on a 2nd Independence referendum!!!

  276. Stu Mac says:

    @Robert McDonald says:
    1 November, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    I saw that. They are perfectly entitled to criticise the legislation but to use such an obviously badly flawed piece of so called evidence really undermines any argument they want to make. Especially from a site which is often critical of poor journalism in others.

  277. Phil Robertson says:


    “Your skating on thin ice with this argument. James Kelly’s consultation piece was in no way a scientifically conducted poll and for Common Space to report in it’s headline that “Over 70% of Scots want to scrap offensive behaviour law” was crass.
    You’ll also have noticed I’m sure that Common Space have already “apologised” on twitter for this article and how it was reported.”

    Indeed. At no point did I suggest that there was any credit to the Common Space extrapolation. The point I was making was that Wings over Scotland had done exactly the same in extrapolating fewer than 1200 to “all Scots”.

    I take it you feel that it is now time for WoS to follow Common Space and apologise for its “crassness”.

  278. K1 says:

    ‘Stu Mac, I gave specific examples of the ignorance I see here. You know, stuff like people claiming that this Act is about sectarianism, when it isn’t. And people are still claiming it is about sectarianism!!’

    Scottish Government Report on the operation of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications
    (Scotland) Act 2012


    Directly beneath


    Point 4:

    ‘4. A central objective of the Act was to tackle sectarianism by preventing offensive and threatening behaviour related to football matches, and in doing so, aiming to clarify and strengthen the law in relation to sectarian and offensive chanting, and prevent the communication of threatening material where it incites religious hatred or threatens serious violence.’

  279. K1 says:

    ‘Peter. Edinburgh says:
    31 October, 2016 at 9:57 pm

    *This law was never about sectarianism. The words sectarian and sectarianism do not appear anywhere in the Act. Fans from 16 different clubs have been charged under this Act. Aberdeen fans are the ‘worse’ for arrests under this Act per head of number of fans. This Act was never wanted by Celtic fans. I have seen fans from all over Scotland protest against this Act. This Act has a very poor conviction rate. This is the worse piece of legislation introduced by the Scottish Parliament. There is a majority of MSPs to get it overturned. The ignorance on this site is shocking.’

    Oh Peter?

    How’s about the ‘original’ Act?

    1 Offensive behaviour at regulated football matches

    Explanatory notes

    Point 6 section (a):

    6. Subsection (2) lists the five kinds of behaviour which trigger the offence at subsection (1). These are:

    (a) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on their membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group, a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation, or group defined by reference to a characteristic listed in subsection (4) (for example, by engaging in sectarian chanting or singing);

    Point 6 section (e):

    (e)other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive (for example, this would include, but is not limited to, sectarian songs or chants).

    * my bold throughout.

  280. Andrew McLean says:

    Peter fay Edinburgh.

    “It is you that has used the word fools, not me.”

    I think you error in treating the the subjects of this assemblage as a coherent whole.

    You will have had your tea then Peter.

  281. Andrew McLean says:

    Peter fay Edinburgh.

    “It is you that has used the word fools, not me.”

    I think you error in treating the the subjects of this assemblage as a coherent whole.

  282. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 5.46
    This ignorance of which you speak on this site is it limited to the Act?
    Or do you have other examples?

  283. K1 says:

    Naw Liz, the ignorance which he spoke of was limited to his attack on the ‘site’ on the basis that the word ‘sectarian’ did not appear anywhere in the Act…that was his opening gambit. From then on it was aw downhill. His first comment and his last comment (so far) contain the exact same assertion, or lie as ah like to term it. He clearly hadn’t ‘read’ the Act. (bit ignorant…when ye think aboot it)

  284. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Talking of ignorance:

    “Labour MP charged with assault walks free after apparent paperwork blunder”

    “Marie Rimmer MP was accused of kicking a campaigner – but the trial collapsed over a clerical error”

    So this has been on going for 12 months, and now Sheriff Adair eventually decides to throw out the case against her due to a “lack of location in the charge.”

    Basically “the word Glasgow had not been listed on the charge”.

    You couldn’t make it up.

  285. Smallaxe says:


    Scots Law: Guilty: Not Guilty: Not Proven:and now:…..

    Peace Always my friend

  286. orri says:

    The latest news on the Marrie Rimmer case is that’s she’s been cleared of the charge of being verbally abusive. However the physical assault, as in kick, part of the case is still ongoing. The original charge was dropped on a technicality but the case brought back with all the t’s dotted and i’s crossed.

  287. Smallaxe says:


    Thanks for the update,good news,much appreciated.

    Peace Always

  288. Breeks says:

    Have to confess I don’t come across the OBFT act at all, but the whole issue seems to me very similar in nature to the furore about the Named Persons act.

    It seems the intention is to make trouble for trouble’s sake, and a very moderate degree of controversy is amplified into feigned outrage by the media and somewhat opportunist politicians trying to raise their own profile.

    Where was the outrage about the McCrone Report? Where is the outrage about Brexit? Trident? Scotland’s fishing industry being expendable? Rosyth vs Devonport? We all know the list…

    These “people” don’t give a shit about any of that, but yet can’t sit still at the thought there are football fans intent on abusing somebody feeling harassed by legislation which curbs their bad behaviour. Strikes me they are not sincere about anything except giving the Scottish Government a bloody nose about “something”. They demean their profession and their own integrity by sailing under a false grievance of convenience. “We don’t know what we’re standing for, but we know what we’re against”. Yeah? Well win, lose or draw, that’s you selling out your integrity right there….

  289. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Aah K1, I bet you got all excited when you thought you had me.

    Your first link is to a report. Not the Act. Your second link is to the Expanlanatory notes and the words sectarian and sectarianism do not appear anywhere within the Act.

    Good try, but, in football terms, a shot that went well wide.

  290. Orri says:

    Sectarianism is a subset of discrimination based on religion which is in the act. So an act brought in to combat various forms of bigotry is worded in terms that include sectarianism. English is a wonderful language if used an understood properly.

  291. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    And neither the words sectarian and sectarianism appear within the Act.

  292. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Liz g, I don’t know those on here well enough to know the extent of ignorance of posters. When it comes to this Act, the ignorance is pretty obvious.

  293. Orri says:

    The words don’t appear because that would both limit the law and also require a legal definition of sectarianism. What does appear is a description of motivation and classes of abuse based on the perception of groups including religion. If you don’t understand that the OBFA includes sectarianism via its description of the actions that break it then you might benefit from remedial education of some kind as you don’t understand written English.

  294. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Let’s be clear Orri, you agree that the words sectarian and sectarianism do not appear in the Act?

  295. Andrew McLean says:

    fay Edinburgh

    Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012
    Section 6: interpretation
    (4)“Hatred on religious grounds” means hatred against—
    (a)a group of persons based on their membership (or presumed membership) of—
    (i)a religious group (within the meaning given by section 74(7) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 7)), (ii)a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation, or (b) an individual based on the individual’s membership (or presumed membership) of a group mentioned in either of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a).

    Definition of sectarianism
    Cambridge university press
    (a person) strongly supporting a particular religious group and not willing to accept other beliefs:

    You don’t quite understand that when drafting law, legal terms are important.

    look I didn’t even call you a plonker, as not knowing that is not unusual.

  296. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    OK @ Peter. Edinburgh

    As previously asked by Tam J

    “Do you think offensive behaviour at football matches will increase or decrease if the act is repealed?”

    I’d like your opinion unless of course you really are just a pedant, a Troll or perhaps both??

  297. Andrew McLean says:

    Peter, Fay, Edinburgh

    Just in case you still haven’t understood Black’s Law Dictionary defines sectarian as
    a term that relates and pertains to a sect or religion that differs from non-sectarian which is not related to a religion or sect.
    Had the term been used it would have been unenforceable, and a legal minefield
    Further reading in the attempt to find a legal definition

    don’t believe me, just ask, there are more lawyers in Edinburgh than rats, A Judge told me that.

  298. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Jockanese, and I asked Tam, define offensive behaviour.

  299. Orri says:


    One of your claims was that the OBFA was never about sectarianism. Obviously you now accept that it was explicitly intended that it be. Now having seen the description of actions included in the act most reasonable people would admit that it includes not only sectarianism but other forms of bigotry including racism and homophobia. So my question to you would be can you show that the act does not include sectarianism in its remit?

  300. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    The Motion was carried. Good stuff.

  301. Andrew McLean says:

    Peter I Know

    the behaviour of the Greens today. sectarian appeasers,
    every door I knock on I will say of course the greens are bigots.

    Of any party I did expect the greens to have a social conscience, but no self serving bastards all. And do you know what, most Scots agree with me the offensive football act is a long overdue attempt to get rid of bigotry in Scotland, The Greens played politics, absolutely offensive and disgraceful.

    Their argument at its heart “I hate sectarianism but i see a chance of my name in the paper so fuck Scotland.”

  302. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    And my question to you Orri, which you have not yet answered, do you agree that the words sectarian and sectarianism do not appear anywhere within the Act?

  303. Andrew McLean says:

    Peter. Edinburgh says:5:43 pm
    The Motion was carried. Good stuff.
    today was a total waste of time.
    Good stuff.

  304. Dr Joe Kinnear says:

    You would hope free speech would be important in an independent Scotland. It isn’t nice polite speech which needs protection…

  305. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 4.16

    Oh good, glad you narrowed that down.

    Now can I ask….. other than the assertion that posters here are ignorant……what’s your point exactly?

  306. Orri says:


    No the word sectarianism does not appear in the act. That has nothing to do with whether it covers sectarianism or not. The actions it describes more than cover sectarianism. It deals with sectarianism and in its draft phase it covered sectarianism. For it to mention sectarianism explicitly it would have had to create a legal definition of sectarianism. The approach taken was to include the definition rather than the term.

  307. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Thanks for the reply Orri. Perhaps K1 will take note.

    And the reason this is a bad law 8s due to the vagueness of the wording. If it was about sectarianism then that’s how it should have been worded.

    And Liz, well done on misquoting me. I am sure it wasn’t deliberate.

  308. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 6.25
    Are you not going to answer my question?

  309. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    What is the question?

  310. Liz g says:

    The question is… What’s your point exactly?

  311. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    I thought after 3 days and God knows how many posts, my point was pretty obvious!

  312. Liz g says:

    That’s why I’m asking it’s not!

  313. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    If it isn’t obvious to you now Liz, I don’t think I can explain it to you any clearer.

  314. K1 says:

    Y’know Peter it’s not a competition, but for you it is. You are slightly pedantic, nevertheless as others have pointed out with great patience and kindness sectarianism is within the remit of the act. Further the explanatory notes form part of the Act itself as it aids in the understanding of the remit in the implementation of said Act. It would be cited in a court case to support the underlying premise of the application of the Act if the behaviour being judged was sectarian?

    The word sectarian is in the Act. I’m not going to play games with you on this, because your point is to be a smart arse, my point still stands. See if your point would in a court of law be upheld, I rather think not.

    I find it rather sad that you kinda ‘whooped’ like a wee boy cause you think you are on here scoring points with posters who don’t have the investment in seeing this Act repealed (which it won’t be) as you do. Unlike you I’m not interested in scoring points wi ye, merely pointing out that your claim that the word sectarian is not in the Act is false.

    Others have made ample use their time and education to inform you of the necessity of that word not being placed into the body of the page that outlines the Act, but without the explanatory notes, which by the way I didn’t ‘disguise’ in my post, much of the Act itself would be open to far wider and more difficult implementation.

    The word sectarian (in) forms the Act and therefore is ‘used’ in the Act itself.

  315. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 7.08
    So you are not going to answer me?
    You don’t know how to answer me?

  316. Smallaxe says:

    Peter. Edinburgh says:
    2 November, 2016 at 6:49 pm
    “I thought after 3 days and God knows how many posts, my point was pretty obvious!”

    Peter,about your point,could you please let me have God’s email address,I can’t remember how many posts there was either.

    Thank you in advance and anticipation.

    Peace Always ALLWAYS

  317. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    K1, it isn’t a competition. It isn’t a place for personal abuse either. Didn’t stop you though.

    Liz, my point is obvious.

    Smallaxe, not sure why you would think I would have God’s email address, but thanks for your contribution.

  318. K1 says:

    How and where have I ‘personally abused’ you Peter?

  319. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 7.26
    You can keep repeating “it’s obvious”
    If you want but that doesn’t make it so.
    Also we are now up to three questions you are side stepping.

    It’s ok to admit you don’t know,nobody will judge you ,we will all I’m sure understand .

  320. Smallaxe says:

    Peter,you stated that God knows,I therefore assumed,wrongly it seems,that if you know what God knows….see what I’m so clumsily getting at.

    Thank you for replying.

    Peace Always ALLWAYS

  321. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    It was a ‘plonker’ that you called me K1, wasn’t it?

    Liz. It’s obvious. I cannot make it any clearer to you.

    Smallaxe, as the Beach Boys sang, God Only Knows. Again, thanks for your contribution.

  322. Liz g says:

    Smallaxe @ 7.36
    Should I be asking God what his point is…..em directly or indirectly.
    Please tell me cause I am far to ignorant of God as well as The OBAFA.

  323. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 7.41
    So are you saying you do have a point but don’t have the word’s to explain it?
    Or you think you have a point but don’t know what it is?

  324. Smallaxe says:

    Peter,I apologise for being such a nuisance,if you could forgive me for taking up your valuable time.I would be very grateful if you could furnish me with the email address of the Beach Boys,I would be forever in your debt.

    Many thanks

    Peace Always ALLWAYS

  325. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    There you go Smallaxe, best I can do is the Beach Boys fan club. Not a nuisance at all.

  326. Smallaxe says:

    liz g:

    I am a member of the HSS (Humanist Society of Scotland), hence my fascination in endeavouring to acquire God’s email address.

    I have sought but did not find.

    Pity the ignorant for they shall inherit the kingdom of ignor.

    Peace Always


  327. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    I think we have exhausted this now Liz. Perhaps you just don’t understand the point.

  328. Smallaxe says:

    Peter thank you,so very much.I think I’m picking up good vibrations from you already.

    Peace Out Man

  329. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 8.01
    I will do my best to understand Peter.
    Just go ahead and make it.

  330. Liz g says:

    Smallaxe @ 8.01

    Maybe you are looking in the wrong place.
    I have heard that he often used his less well known first name HALLOWED

    As in our father who are in heaven Hallowed be thy name!!!!!

  331. K1 says:

    Thought you might ‘grab’ that one Peter. Och I didnae mean to hurt yer feelings?

    But it’s not exactly ‘personal abuse’ is it? One word at the end of one post referencing the nonsense of the word ‘plonker’ being an ‘offensive’ term as your proof that you can find any word ‘offensive’ because you think ‘offence’ is in the ‘eye of the beholder’?

    That was your point, wasn’t it? You think this Act is bad because you and other ‘fans’ think it’s being misapplied on the ‘ground’ so to speak? That a police officer can just decide it’s ‘offensive’ and arrest you because he/she’s’s interpreting your behaviour according to ‘his/her’ ‘opinion’?

    But we are not talking about personal opinions when it comes to the OBFA Peter, we are talking about how the Act is applied as a piece of Law in terms ‘offensiveness’ as defined by the Law? It’s the courts that decide whether an ‘offence’ has been committed as it pertains to the Act of Law which that ‘offence’ has ‘breached’. So it’s not down to someone’s ‘subjective’ interpretation whether someone is arrested for any ‘suspected’ breach of the Law?

    Sure’n that’s why we have courts.

    You can of course take ‘offence’ and convince yourself that my placing that word at the end of that post was ‘personal abuse’. But I rather think Peter even you know your ‘reaching’ here?

    Why did you get intae aw that wi the other posters regarding the word ‘sectarian’ in the Act Peter? That’s what we are all trying to find out from you, what is your point, it seemed to be that you wanted to K1 to ‘take note’. That’s a smart arse Peter, that’s not someone ‘debating’ a point and by so doing placing a different view into the mix so that we can all opine away, whether agree or disagree Peter, it doesn’t have to be a ‘battle’ or ‘competition’.

    We’re aw just talking here Peter, sometimes it can get a bit ‘nuanced’ not everything is black and white. Not everyone is on one ‘side’ and the ‘other lot’ are on the ‘wrong’ side of ‘your side’. It’s not all about football 😉

  332. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Now I’m a ‘smart arse’ K1!

    Your no very good at this ‘I’m no offending you’ stuff.

    I think, as I said to Liz, we have exhausted this.

    I have made my point. I have provided Smallaxe with the address of the Beach Boys fan club. Not much more I can do here.

    Take care all.

  333. yesindyref2 says:


    Plonker (n)
    1. One who makes cheap wine
    2. One who drinks cheap wine
    3. One who is very sick after drinking too much cheap wine
    4. One who slams things down on the table rather then doing it gently
    5. Something to unblock the cludgie
    6. Somethimg to block the cludgie in the first place

    Origin Fr archaic – Plonquer – translation – you what?

  334. Liz g says:

    K1 @ 8.12
    Am glad it’s no just me K1.
    All I saw was him getting caught up in debating stuff and never getting to the point.
    Still isn’t apparently!

  335. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 8.19
    So are you conceding the point then ?

  336. Liz g says:

    Peter Edinburgh @ 8.19

    When you say there’s not much more you can do here,can I ask what it is you think you have already done?

  337. yesindyref2 says:

    Mmm, just done a little more research, amazing what you can find.

    HMS Plonquaire. Most historians think that Nelson’s ship was the HMS Victory, but the recent find of the Scrolls of Algernon shows that this just isn’t true, and further research into the Scrolls of Biggles shows that the manner of his death was greatly exaggerated.

    In fact what really happened was that Nelson’s ship was the HMS Plonquaire, this was a Type 2A built at Govan, and crewed by a hardy but always drunken lot of Scots sailors. Before the Battle of Trafalgar Neslon stood up, swaying from side to side because he’d picked up some good habits from the crew and was pissed out of his brain, and started to address his crew.

    “We have a great battle today”, he said, “I want all you English scum to do your duty”.

    Well, there was a riot at that. “We’re not English scum you plonker” they said, “We’re Scots scum”, and they did set about Nelson to his detriment. Sadly a bottle of whisky in his hand smashed, and that was the end of Nelson.

    The rest is history.

  338. K1 says:

    We’re driving them away wi rational reasoned caring enquiries Liz…oh the humanity!

  339. Liz g says:

    K1 @ 8.46
    Glad you said we.
    I wiz beginning to wonder.
    He answered everyone for days…. I ask a question or two…and he’s gone.
    A girl could get a complex.

    Seriously tho it’s looking like he just wanted to make statements and had no real point to make.
    I mean he claims to understand the wording of the Act,but doesn’t have the vocabulary to answer a question as simple as what’s your point!!!!! Bizzare.

  340. K1 says:

    Yes, but I rather think you may have always been a smart arse Peter. I also already pointed that out in the previous post to you.

    The boy/man who sees offence everywhere is complaining, that in essence ‘everyone’ think ‘like him’. Therefore the police/courts will treat innocent ‘fans’ the way that he treats innocent strangers in conversation: condemning them by accusing them of ‘offensive’ behaviour or speech just because he/they ‘think’ it’s ‘offensive’.

    Peter’s afraid of himself.

  341. Andrew Mclean says:

    Peter Edinburgh,
    I called you a plonker,
    I even called you a stupid plonker,

    Read carefully now, nothing you have said has disproved my assertion.

    In fact posters on here have went out of their way to explain rudimentary basics of law, your reasoning because it didn’t actually define a concept then it isn’t about that concept.
    But this is the rub, it does. You apparently are to stupid to understand the meaning of words.

    But given the most ridiculous act I have ever witnessed in any legislature happened this afternoon when a really vastly incomprehensible stupid plonker jumped to his feet and made you look like Einstein in comparison, and in the grip of some sort of psychotic episode, let his mouth run wild, his obviously drink addled brain struggled to make a coherent sentence and gave up.

    At least you aren’t in that league.

    Ps I earn my living to putting into practice law, and new law is the worst of all, a lot of the time you have to look at what Parliament intended, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

  342. K1 says:

    Aye Liz, his point, I think, was that the word ‘sectarian’ didn’t appear in the act and he was here to tell us we were all ignorant, cause we don’t even ‘know’ that. His first comment is quoted in my second post to him. That was it and then a wee bunch of assertions, but I think more than anything he didn’t understand the points that others were making back to him.

    He was very defensive very quickly after ma initial 2 posts and if you check you can see he just wants to let me know that I’ve got it wrong. Then he stfu about that after I directly answered him back. The accusation of ‘personal abuse’ followed immediately after that and the rest is history.

    In relation to your conversation, yes it was bizarre, he simply could not answer or repeat his ‘point’ as his only point if you follow his comments was about the word ‘sectarian’ being in the Act. He had nothing else Liz, so he ‘sidestepped’ as you stated, repeatedly.

    To be honest Liz, he was out of his depth. It showed, which is fine, but he should have stuck around and maybe a wee break through would have occurred if he’d just realised that ‘he’ was the one who came on here to ‘show off’ and it backfired. But his pride won’t allow for that ergo he ran away.

    *waves hi to Peter…we know you will still be reading ;-)*

  343. Andrew Mclean says:

    Peter, Fay Edinburgh
    Since it would be hypocritical of me to condemn the greens for engaging in old tribal politics, don’t take it to hard, I have been called out for posting poorly thought out arguments.
    Perhaps this will prove better medicine than the stupid medium of twitter, if you read the press you would think us all swivelled lunatics, now you know better, least I hope you do.

    The use of plonker came with affection from Only Fools and Horses, don’t take it to heart. Next time know your subject, if you don’t, try not to get one over on people who do, you would be surprised who posts here!

  344. Smallaxe says:

    Ha ha ha ha….. Wipeout.

    “Help me Rhonda”by the Beach Boys

    Peace Always

  345. Liz g says:

    K1 @ 9.32
    I can see what you are saying K1,and he did seem to get hung up on that “sectarian” thing, but while clarifying that might have been the – Reason – for posting,I still don’t get his. – Purpose – for posting.
    Here it’s mostly about exchanging information as we either understand it or can demonstrate it.
    Or asking something.
    I still can’t work out how the exchange with him was supposed to end in his head.
    It doesn’t read like the conversation could lent itself to the we will agree to disagree position.
    Even Smallaxe trying a bit of humour with him didn’t fly.
    Like I said bizzare!!!!

  346. Smallaxe says:

    liz g:

    That wisnae humour liz,K1 knows,I was twistin’ his melon,Man.

    Peace Always my friend x

  347. K1 says:

    Hmmm…I see what you mean Liz. I think he came to ‘win’ or ‘score’ a ‘point’. I think maybe he’s a big ‘fan’ of some club and is caught up in that identity and he feels that this is being challenged in some way by OBFA. But he wasn’t able to ‘articulate’ that beyond the msm/fitba forum level of engagement…he couldn’t ‘grasp’ analogies that one or two posters attempted and seemed genuinely at a loss when it came to any and all subtle humour or the nuance of other posters observations regarding the wording of the Act itself.

    I think he ‘failed’ in his ‘purpose, which was to ‘win’. The only time he was slightly ‘mannered’ was when he thanked Orri immediately after Orri gave him what he wanted after pursuing that point over and over with Orri, which was ‘agreement’ that the S word wasn’t in the Act. Immediately followed by ‘Perhaps K1 will take note’. That for him was a ‘result’, a ‘win’. It was giruy K1 and then it was obvious what he was really about. He wasn’t interested in anything else Orri or anyone else was saying on the subject matter of the Act itself.

    It’s strange he didn’t mention this again after I responded to him, not a peep about the Act after that nor a mention about anything that I’d actually written to him. Ergo I think he’s genuinely out of his depth and couldn’t ‘back pedal’, so he ‘attacked’ (playing the victim card)…last refuge of the cornered?

    Your question to him regarding his point was lost on him too. He had no ‘point’ Liz.

    How was it meant to end in his head? He’s superior to everyone else and ‘knows’ what the ignorant on here don’t. He could just keep repeating the S word wasn’t in the Act over and over again and no one was checking it out, cause Peter has read it and he ‘knows’ and if others don’t ‘even know that’ then they are ignorant and if they are that ignorant of the Act itself then anything they have to say about the Act itself isn’t worth ‘listening’ to.

    So he thinks his point is irrefutable. He did ‘feel’ caught out by the posts wi the actual wording, ergo his ‘aha’ at the outset of his engagement with me. But all that did was reveal even more about where his ‘intent’ lay. To rubbish the ‘site’ and the people commenting on the site. But he hadn’t understood the nuance of the Act itself. That the explanatory notes do in fact make up the Act as a whole, you cannot have the act without the explanatory notes.

    Peter wasn’t here to debate. He was here to ‘show off’. To run rings around us ignorant lot on this site.

  348. Liz g says:

    Smallaxe @ 10.24
    What ever you were twisting …it wiz still funny..LOL X

  349. K1 says:

    😉 Smallaxe…aye utterly lost oan him.

  350. Liz g says:

    K1 @ 11.21
    Well at least he left a bit better schooled than he arrived.
    And if he didn’t the people who just read will hopefully have a better understanding of the issues anyway,even if they don’t agree.

  351. K1 says:

    Ayep! Liz…ah always bear that in mind that we are talking to the many lurkers too on these threads…it also expands our own knowledge base about subjects that many of us may have little insight into but then quickly have to update to stay ahead of the obsfucators.

    (yeah Hamish, it nearly has the word fuck in there, luckily no Jesus wis harmed in the making of this comment). 🙂

  352. Smallaxe says:

    liz and K1

    I like to smother them with honey,then stick pins in their eyes.

    It’s all so bloody politely done it keeps them wanting to tell me to fck off,but it would make them look bad.

    Peace,Love and Pins

  353. Smallaxe says:

    K1:liz g

    Have you seen the cartoon,Jesus and Mo?I think that you might
    appreciate it.

    There’s a new strip,up on the site:

    Sorry can’t link

    Peace Always

  354. K1 says:

    Aye I had seen the cartoons…and that was a particularly ‘topical’ one Smallaxe 😉

  355. Liz g says:

    Smallaxe & K1

    Have indeed seen those cartoon strip’s
    They are a favourite of my son’s.
    You two are a bad influence….you will get me in trouble again if you keep encouraging my inner atheist bitch to post…

    I’m over here being all reasonable… fir fu… oops …fir Lucifer’s sake pack it in!!!

  356. K1 says:

    LOL Liz…nuthin’ like a bit o’ humour tae lighten the seriousness of it aw…thank chr…ah mean thank go…ah mean thank fuck for a good sense o’ humour! 😉

  357. Liz g says:

    K1 @ 1.36
    Ofcourse you do know your going to hell.

    I’ll see ye there!!!!

  358. Smallaxe says:

    Our father who art on Wings
    Hamish be his name
    Lead us not into damnation
    But deliver us from EVEL

    For though is a major pain
    I hope to never meet again
    I wish you all the best of luck
    And truly hope you GTF

  359. K1 says:

    LOL Smallaxe…oh and Liz I’ve already made the reservations, see ye in the Wings of Hell, a wee bar just roon the corner fae the Hamishes Devil Catchers Cafe 🙂

  360. Liz g says:

    K1 & Smallaxe
    While my primary belief is in Scottish Independence.

    My other one is that….Only the Scot’s can make Hell Cool..

    And for both I fully intend to try.!!(wish I could do wee face things right now)!!!

  361. Smallaxe says:

    Auld Nick has got all the best music!

    Coffins stood like open presses
    Show’n the deid in their last dresses

  362. Liz g says:

    Don’t ye just love splannig auld nick to Americans?
    So funny!!!

  363. Smallaxe says:


    I’ve never tried,but try getting them to say
    Hoat watter bottle.

    Harder still try getting them to buy a drink

    Peace Always

  364. Liz g says:

    Never knew they don’t buy a drink.
    If this is indeed the case.
    Can we agree that they are Not going to be allowed in Hell.

  365. Liz g says:

    Can’t see excluding them as much of a problem.
    While their teeth won’t be much help cause they all look the same.
    I think it is as simple as just failing the breathalyser.
    We could even have some fun with their own breath tests.
    While a bit mean we are obliged to keep some of Hell’s integrity????

  366. Smallaxe says:

    liz g:

    Their already in their own hell

    Trump and Clinton

    Oh ffs Naw!

    Peace Always

  367. Liz g says:

    Ahh eternal Trumpland with weekend excursions to Clintonvile a special kind of Hell.
    I am assuming there will be no whisky!!!

  368. Orri says:

    Peter the permanently perplexed pedant seems to have made the mistake of only reading the word of the act itself rather than the explanatory notes attached or the draft.

    I’ll confess that I hadn’t read the notes either. In my case it was because I understood from the actual wording of the act that it covered sectarianism.

    I can only assume that if history had gone a different direction and rape wasn’t a specific crime but included in a law against sexual assault and/or battery he’d be claiming that law didn’t cover rape.

    As for his motivation, I wonder if it’s an attempt at lessening the potential backlash from repealing a popular law dealing with a problem rife in some parts of Scotland.

  369. K1 says:

    ‘…lessening the potential backlash from repealing a popular law…’

    How would/do his comments aid in this, if indeed that was his ‘motivation?

    Just curious Orri.

  370. Orri says:

    On part of the strategy might be to pretend a general confusion about whether the law covers sectarian offences or not. The obvious point that reform might have been a better course of action will be ignored.

    The main point of this form of attack is to never allow that the SNP have any motivation other than interfering in the public’s lives an a mania for control.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top