Interestingly , only 6 Premiership clubs responded ( by name ) to this consultation . There were 5 anonymous contributions from organisations ( presumably football clubs ) .
Assuming all of the 5 anonymous organisations were Premiership clubs ( they may not be ! ) my simple Arithmetic gives me 6 + 5 = 11 . So one club did not respond at all , not even anonymously . I wonder who ?
Strange that on a matter of such importance to football clubs , especially in the Premiership , any club would want to withhold their identity . And for one ( at least ) not to respond is clearly a dereliction of their duty to their supporters .
In case anyone is unable to read the whole document , the Premiership clubs who responded by name are : Celtic , Dundee , Aberdeen , St Mirren , St Johnstone and Hibernian .
Why the others did not respond or withheld their identity is open to debate .
I noticed that Club 1872 responded - but only answered one question , stating that 92% of members ( who responded - no numbers given ) were against . That was it as far as they were concerned .
Celtic's response was long and detailed and , having read it , convinced me that this is not the way forward .
NB : Please note that this consultation closed on 17 March 2017 , so was not influenced by recent disturbances .
There are no alternatives TV1, for as long as folk have a voice then they're going to use it to express themselves in any way they see fit.Then why are we looking at it. There has been an escalation of disturbances involving in violent action, the highlighting of sectarian singing and the situation has altered.
Looking at responses from 2017 is not relevant to today, the positions will no doubt remain, but it is clear that things have got worse. This would suggest to me at least that a different look at it has to be taken. It’s clear that calls from the clubs has fallen on deaf ears to those who feel their conduct is ok and the other lot are to blame, or as bad.
If the nut wont or can’t change, sometimes a sledgehammer is the only solution. Letting football games to be used as expressions of violence, hate, political views, sectarianism does reflect on the country. If football doesn’t have the power, and let’s face it, it doesn’t, to stop supporters doing what they want, what would people suggest as an alternative.
Nobody wants strict liability, but, if responsibility to change isn’t embraced how do you solve the problem other than upping the ante?
I can’t think of anything that would achieve removing the stuff that the clubs themselves state they don’t want to see.
Anybody got an alternative I would be delighted to hear it. As would the clubs, authorities and government.
There are no alternatives TV1, for as long as folk have a voice then they're going to use it to express themselves in any way they see fit.
I agree wholeheartedly with missile throwing, pitch invasion, confrontation and intent to commit bodily harm, but as long as there are fans in the ground - then there's a high probability that the songs are going to be inflammatory, derisory, and designed to offend the defining characteristics of the opponent.
The issue I have is that football again is being used as the test case for "strict liability", when there are various protest/political groups inciting hatred, homophobia, bigotry and violence on a regularly occurring basis.
However unsavoury it may be, there still has to be scope for free-expression. It is a fundamental privilege of a nation that supposedly prides itself on free speech. There are many things I find distasteful, but at least I know by these expressions of hatred - the mindset of those pronouncing these words.
Any standard has to be set from the top though. If the process of parliament is to limit the topics of the songbook, then they must, by that same standard, judge themselves on their own actions and throughout society as a whole.
The problems in Scotland don't begin and end with football. They may be more identifiable at football grounds, but they are also evident in many other walks of life, including the political arena, media, and law.
The language may be less direct and industrial, but the sentiment remains the same.
The main issue I have with the "strict liability" proposal, is that there is very little the clubs can do to prevent paying fans from expressing themselves. Some clubs have tried harder than others, and it certainly appears that the newest club in Glasgow actively encourage the base to identify with a specific brand of supremacist behaviour; however "strict liability" will be used as a giant shitty stick to beat Celtic over the head with. They are petrified to deal with the ignorance and density of the huns, and by sheer numbers alone - their traditional supporters still make up the bulk of the electorate.
I'd really love to argue some of these points, TV1, but I can't justify an argument.I agree SL is draconian and possibly a last resort. However, hate groups can and do get prosecuted under the law if it contravenes recent legislation. At football because of the potential anonymity people can sing or shout what they like with little chance of being caught.
A wider societal look at this means most people are sick to the back fucking teeth with the never healing sore of Ireland’s troubles manifest predominantly boy through political channels but from the terraces.
For example, in our case thousands sing the provisionals songs a couple of hundred march. Celtic and I take the view, that having these views is completely up to the individual but to express them at the game is not that arena. Loads disagree and I accept that, but, why should my team be penalised for anyone’s political belief that has fuck all to do with my team playing football? Or, why do we spend more time singing about Bobby Sands/ BBB,SeanSouth,the ever merry agricultural worker, The Black and Tans/ etc, than any of our players? They inspire no cunt. They lift no cunt. What they do is lay us open to be tarred with a brush that should be owned by sevco.
I have not one problem with people having views and strong beliefs on the Irish situation, but I can’t take it seriously if the only way you show solidarity is by singing at away games when we are playing shite.
I would like us to sing Celtic songs, get behind the players, sing about them.
If however, we won’t stop and the sectarian songs and political songs are what defines us, then I would back SL. It’s a total ducking embarrassment for our country and wherever you go people can’t get their head around why we insist on living in the past and glorifying stuff that will ensure in 800 years we will be doing the same shit.
It seems to me supporters want a bye. That patience is running out to allow that, if it cuts down on us being viewed as a bigoted wee country then I would vote for it.
The PIRA do not play for Celtic, lots of players do. Why not sing about them and keep our club out of this firing line.
And another thing, if you feel you can’t, then at least have the ducking balls to march with the Republicans. At least they have the balls to back up what they hold dear. Singing about filling an empty holster, yet too scared to fill the streets kinda fucks up any claim to be standing beside them.
The club want it, Lenny said its embarrassing, no response. It will be sad if we are forced to. But I think it will happen. Let’s jump before we are pushed.
There are no alternatives TV1, for as long as folk have a voice then they're going to use it to express themselves in any way they see fit.
I agree wholeheartedly with missile throwing, pitch invasion, confrontation and intent to commit bodily harm, but as long as there are fans in the ground - then there's a high probability that the songs are going to be inflammatory, derisory, and designed to offend the defining characteristics of the opponent.
The issue I have is that football again is being used as the test case for "strict liability", when there are various protest/political groups inciting hatred, homophobia, bigotry and violence on a regularly occurring basis.
However unsavoury it may be, there still has to be scope for free-expression. It is a fundamental privilege of a nation that supposedly prides itself on free speech. There are many things I find distasteful, but at least I know by these expressions of hatred - the mindset of those pronouncing these words.
Any standard has to be set from the top though. If the process of parliament is to limit the topics of the songbook, then they must, by that same standard, judge themselves on their own actions and throughout society as a whole.
The problems in Scotland don't begin and end with football. They may be more identifiable at football grounds, but they are also evident in many other walks of life, including the political arena, media, and law.
The language may be less direct and industrial, but the sentiment remains the same.
The main issue I have with the "strict liability" proposal, is that there is very little the clubs can do to prevent paying fans from expressing themselves. Some clubs have tried harder than others, and it certainly appears that the newest club in Glasgow actively encourage the base to identify with a specific brand of supremacist behaviour; however "strict liability" will be used as a giant shitty stick to beat Celtic over the head with. They are petrified to deal with the ignorance and density of the huns, and by sheer numbers alone - their traditional supporters still make up the bulk of the electorate.
There are no alternatives TV1, for as long as folk have a voice then they're going to use it to express themselves in any way they see fit.
I agree wholeheartedly with missile throwing, pitch invasion, confrontation and intent to commit bodily harm, but as long as there are fans in the ground - then there's a high probability that the songs are going to be inflammatory, derisory, and designed to offend the defining characteristics of the opponent.
The issue I have is that football again is being used as the test case for "strict liability", when there are various protest/political groups inciting hatred, homophobia, bigotry and violence on a regularly occurring basis.
However unsavoury it may be, there still has to be scope for free-expression. It is a fundamental privilege of a nation that supposedly prides itself on free speech. There are many things I find distasteful, but at least I know by these expressions of hatred - the mindset of those pronouncing these words.
Any standard has to be set from the top though. If the process of parliament is to limit the topics of the songbook, then they must, by that same standard, judge themselves on their own actions and throughout society as a whole.
The problems in Scotland don't begin and end with football. They may be more identifiable at football grounds, but they are also evident in many other walks of life, including the political arena, media, and law.
The language may be less direct and industrial, but the sentiment remains the same.
The main issue I have with the "strict liability" proposal, is that there is very little the clubs can do to prevent paying fans from expressing themselves. Some clubs have tried harder than others, and it certainly appears that the newest club in Glasgow actively encourage the base to identify with a specific brand of supremacist behaviour; however "strict liability" will be used as a giant shitty stick to beat Celtic over the head with. They are petrified to deal with the ignorance and density of the huns, and by sheer numbers alone - their traditional supporters still make up the bulk of the electorate.