The Scottish Government yesterday suggested the SFA act unilaterally to introduce Strict Liability on the game, making clubs liable for the actions of their lunatic fringe, or else the government would impose measures. This is a curious stance for a government who are not prepared to accept ANY liability for their own lunatic fringe.
When the lunatics in charge only see other people’s lunatics, we’re all in trouble. And it should be noted, lunatics inhibiting a democracy cause vastly more damage than football fans fighting on a field once every 36 years.
The notion of Strict Liability in itself is a separate question, but I have serious concerns at the increasingly right wing, and selective, attitude to law and control at Holyrood.
If you want to impose Strict Liability on football, accept if for yourself first. Then come back after a year’s experience and talk to us about football. This, of course, will never happen. Not all lunatic fringes are equal.
454 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- »
RES12TANCE IS FUTILE
Making football clubs bear the responsibility for the misdeeds of their fans, or any other third party, would be vicarious liability, not strict liability. FACT.
BLANTYRETIM IS PRAYING FOR THE KNOX FAMILY on 2ND JUNE 2016 9:19 PM
Not on my part.
Keep the Faith!
Hail Hail!
AoW
‘Magic zlats’? ;))
Until we meet again…
Keep the Faith!
Hail Hail!
Over the years on CQN I have heard that Celtic should stick a cheeky bid in for Wayne Rooney, Michael Owen, Darren Fletcher, Xavi etc; because they once said something nice about Celtic.
It was always a fantasy. These guys would rather pick up easy money in the undemanding setting of Stoke or West Brom than get stick up here whilst being paid less than half of what they could earn.
Zlatan is the latest such fantasy and, in his case, we would be paying less than a quarter of what he could earn.
And when the fantasy rumours that we feed ourselves end up in failure, well, we can always blame Peter Lawwell for starting them in order to shift SB sales, eh?
EL- vicarious liability difficult to prove for a 3rd party, ie. fans.
Anyhow, is that not why we pay police and stewards? To take care of that part?
Interested.
I still shop at woolworths. No one can tell me any different. If they try to persuade me with their facts and legal argument I call them obsessed moonhowlers or shout ‘FACT’ at them.
Woolworths then, woolworths now, woolworths forever.
I Feckin love woolies.
Pick’n’mix ya bas
Babasonico71- lol, they’re only useful when the winds at your back.
I feel like a nice varied bag of sweeties but also want to buy a mirror. I’ll need some fittings to go with that. And by golly if I don’t have the urge to pick up the latest chart topping single and a poster of Kim wilde.
But I couldn’t be arsed going to more than one shop.
Woolies.
Pure magic.
setting free the bears for Res. 12 & Oscar Knox on 2nd June 2016 10:37 pm
Only read previous fifty minutes. Didn’t see anything that would’ve prompted that post. Gibberish.
And I need a grow bag. In January.
Re BHS
Wee bit of respect please 11,000 people are technically unemployed as of today…
Their case isn’t improved by the fact that Duff & Phelps are The Liquidators..
Not sure shabby one liners putting down BHS employees are apt tonight!
ART OF WAR
Was Bam-er the suit who lashed out?
GuyFawkes
“Only read previous fifty minutes. Didn’t see anything that would’ve prompted that post. Gibberish.”
Then you did not read the posts that prompted it.
But you made your judgement anyway.
Well Done
MASTY
Comply :)
HH
Always someone who politically corrects the feck out of you.
Whilst I am saddened by the demise of BHS, I was only taking the pash and was not meant to be a serious post.
Get of yer high horse and behave,
Did Charles Green not state he knew someone at UEFA who could fix things?
Either a Charlotte tape or leaked e-mail
setting free the bears for Res. 12 & Oscar Knox on 2nd June 2016 10:51 pm
Thanks.
I’m astonished that CQN posters’ attention span tonight is greater than fifty minutes. Fantastic news.
Let me trawl back to see the good stuff.
Who would win in a fight between Bomber Harris and Bomber Brown?
Ernie Lynch 1033
Correct but they are different matters.
Vicarious liability determines to whom liability can be attached.
Strict liability determines the standard of proof , or lack of it , required to establish that liability exists , irrespective of to whom it attaches.
The quicker Scotland moves to Independence the better. When that happens, perhaps Scotland can begin to assess political parties for what they really are, rather than being sidetracked into ignoring everything except for issues of sovereignty.
The SNP, stripped away from the Nationalist issue, are a bunch of dangerous liberal-progressive communists who are hell bent on imposing state control in every area of your lives. The Named Person act is something out of a George Orwell novel.
HUNDERBIRDS ARE GONE on 2ND JUNE 2016 11:01 PM
Who would win in a fight between Bomber Harris and Bomber Brown?
============
The pitch invasion, and as bomber harris got torn limb from limb the scottish govt would set up a think tank to blame Celtic fans and then lose years of data to prove a point.
Did that really happen?
THE LONG WAIT IS OVER on 2ND JUNE 2016 11:02 PM
What is being proposed is vicarious liability, not strict liability.
BIG PEAT OF ISLAY on 2ND JUNE 2016 11:03 PM
‘The quicker Scotland moves to Independence the better.’
###
Is that Independence from the EU or independence from the UK?
Or both?
EL 1105.
It’s both.
Tlwio
THE LONG WAIT IS OVER on 2ND JUNE 2016 11:08 PM
Well as far as I know that would be a first, vicarious and strict liability combined.
PAUL 67
I have serious concerns at the increasingly right wing, and selective, attitude to law and control at Holyrood.
BIG PEAT OF ISLAY
The SNP, stripped away from the Nationalist issue, are a bunch of dangerous liberal-progressive communists who are hell bent on imposing state control in every area of your lives
Increasingly right wing liberal-progressive communists? Hhmmmmmm :)
Onemansmeatisanothermanspoison CSC
ERNIE LYNCH on 2ND JUNE 2016 11:08 PM
Scottish Independence.
Ernie
Might well be but if I understand it what the
Government is suggesting is that
1 clubs are responsible for their fans behaviour – vicarious liability
2 no matter what steps the club may have taken to prevent what’s deemed illegal the very fact it has occurred makes fans and by extension the club liable – strict liability.
Crazy but there you go.
Incidentally if fans and clubs are to be inseparable would that allow UEFA to consider a Res 12 type complaint from fans without the backing of the club they support?
Not holding my breath…
BIG PEAT OF ISLAY on 2ND JUNE 2016 11:13 PM
Coherence and nationalism don’t really mix, do they?
TimGreen 7.27pm et al p6
Blantyretim 9.19pm et al p7
Good pages guys.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
Off topic, Boston Red Sox.
Having a Leicester-like season (minus the blood transfusions obviously) and tonight Xander Bogaerts is holding a current 25 game hitting streak, chasing his team-mate Jackie Bradley jnr’s 29 game hitting streak which ended last week.
Keep on hitting, Xander.
ERNIE LYNCH on 2ND JUNE 2016 11:20 PM
Well the facts are, that many Scots vote SNP for Independence, nothing else. They probably couldn’t tell you any details on their policies on law and order, health etc
The SNP have rode on the crest of this Independence wave for far too long.
Do we know when and where the next advert will be printed?
TLWIO
I think Paul’s editorial may be referring to the same loose link there would be between fan behaviour and fining the clubs that those fans support
AND
Prosecuting an MP or MSP for financial irregularities, arson, violence or internet abuse and punishing their parties financially for that.
Would the SNP be liable for MichelleThompson’s mortgage fraud or Bill Walker’s wife beating or Natalie McGarry’s missing donations or Mhairi Black’s twitter feed?
Would Labour accept liability for Lord Watson’s Arson, Tony Blair’s war crimes or too numerous to mention snout-in-the-trough MPs expenses claims?
Would the Tories accept liability for the bullying culture of the Young Conservatives, Boris Johnson’s sex scandals, David Cameron’s recklessness in spreading swine STDs, the backhanders given by firms benefiting from privatisation or the cash for questions guys?
Would even mild mannered Lib Dems be liable for Norman Scott’s dug being shot?
Aside from Charles Greens alleged ability to influence UEFA governance procedures…Did I not read that the Domestic and the UEFA licence conditions where almost 1 and the same. If Rangers did not have an overdue payable by June 30th 2011 no one has an issue. Well, apart from all the other issues.
Reagan states/feels that the SFA are in the clear as they had no involvement in the monitoring period. What about any rules for competing in Scotland post 2011? Are there any monitoring or governance rules for the domestic game post the end of March?
http://stv.tv/sport/football/302538-rangers-will-not-get-uefa-club-licence-insist-scottish-fa/
From above link – (this is on the 2012 licence)
It is understood however that clubs do not even apply to the Scottish FA for a licence. Instead, the powers that be at Hampden assess the suitability of all potential European competitors based on the information they submit in their application for a national licence, as well as any additional paperwork sent in required to meet UEFA criteria.
STV understands Rangers’ administrators hoped they may receive special dispensation, should the ownership of the club change hands and come out of administration in the coming weeks.
Despite their claims, the Scottish FA are adamant the club would not meet the criteria for a licence.
A failure to produce audited accounts by March 31, as well as the failure to meet overdue payables to the tax authorities due from up to December 31, 2011 by the same deadline, means the Scottish FA will not give their approval for them to participate in Europe in 2012/13.
Ernie
What type of liability is Labour’s support of the LOL ?