Glory Lurker
03-03-2019, 12:11 PM
I don’t have a problem with strict liability in principle. If it had safeguards to allow a club to show that, say, the person who chucked something was in fact an infiltrator before penalty was imposed I think that would take away one of the main objections.
Where I think there is a real problem though is in whether it could actually do anything about the biggie of them all, dodgy chants.
I can see that it would catch Rangers (and Hearts) songs that use terms that are accepted as religiously prejudiced. How many folk would have to sing it before it became actionable though? I hate the songs, but can see how Celtic could use the “not actually sectarian” defence. This would potentially mean that one side of the problem could get away scot-free. I don’t see an easy solution to this. At least, not one that isn’t the reintroduction of OBFA!
Would strict liability do anything about the main reason being put forward for its introduction?
Where I think there is a real problem though is in whether it could actually do anything about the biggie of them all, dodgy chants.
I can see that it would catch Rangers (and Hearts) songs that use terms that are accepted as religiously prejudiced. How many folk would have to sing it before it became actionable though? I hate the songs, but can see how Celtic could use the “not actually sectarian” defence. This would potentially mean that one side of the problem could get away scot-free. I don’t see an easy solution to this. At least, not one that isn’t the reintroduction of OBFA!
Would strict liability do anything about the main reason being put forward for its introduction?