Should we send people to prison for racist footy chanting?

Post Reply New Topic

I have followed a London non-league football club for over 30 years. The language is at times shocking. I have learned to love my fellow fans but not their language. That way I can manage to follow the team.

In recent times I have heard chants directed at players who are overweight, older in years, homophobic chants directed to opposition players whose strip looks even the slightest bit pink, the standard ref and lino abuse.....well, the list is endless.

Is their a distinction that can be made between colour, race, sexual orientation, size, age, etc ?

And what of the Tottenham issue?
Contrary to my aspie sensibility, I know the controversy surrounding spurs fans use of the yid word is not a black and white issue. ..........if you know what I mean

We have mad pride, Gay pride, queer, wrong planet, even the word quake being used against Quakers in the 17th century was offensive and all like the spurs fans they take the ball that's thrown at them and play by new rules.

Is this playing by new rules, as opposed to getting tangled up with tit for tat or seeking legislation to impose common decency and good manners more effective?

Like most good debates which include social, moral and ethical issues, I find what is most threatening and certainly most oppressive is the intense sense of superiority that one holds over the opposing fellows views.

Beware of opinions.

The greater the certainty the less the understanding.

Yes. Jail is too severe and I'll go as far as saying Orwellian. Just ban them from the games, possibly fine them if it's wasting resources. You can rarely change or "punish" a racist as they feel they have done nothing wrong, but you can at least remove racism from the beautiful game, one thug at a time.

Well, the article on which we're relying for our information is short on specifics, so neither of us can answer that question.

But the allegations were examined in a court, where the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence was found to be compelling, presumably multiple corroboratory witness statements. I would suggest that the evidence also consisted of CCTV footage, since CCTV is increasingly in operation on British public transport, precisely to provide evidence in cases such as this.

In any event, the evidence that the men had committed the specific offences was obviously compelling, which is why they were found guilty.

No. I think they should be identified, arrested, perhaps fined, and banned from attending football matches again for a period of, say, one year. If they re-offend, they can get another ban for another year. A bit like the system for drivers' licences. They accumulate "points," and if they get too many points for re-offending, they are given a permanent ban.

The men, aged between 22 and 31, were convicted of causing racially aggravated fear of violence after witnesses complained of sexual and racially motivated abuse.

Baljit Ubhey, CPS London Chief Crown Prosecutor, said: "These men were singing and chanting racist abuse in praise of the convicted murderers of Stephen Lawrence. To glorify and idolise these men was disturbing and upsetting.

"Their racially and sexually abusive language left members of the public shocked and disgusted.

"Witnesses said they felt intimidated and feared there was a real and significant risk of violence."

British Transport Police said the group chanted in support of Gary Dobson, three days after he was convicted of murdering Stephen Lawrence.


I would love to know what they actually said. But chanting in support of a murderer and a murder does seem to be a disruption of the peace.

The first principle of traditional English jurisprudence is that we are all assumed innocent until proven otherwise. And that can't be done if the specifics are ignored. Being more closely related to Soviet-style justice than English common law, with PC crimes, one must prove one's self innocent.

Nor is it the case with PC thoughtcrimes that any proof is necessary. Another principle of English common law is that truth is an absolute defense. This is not the case with PC crimes. When Nick Griffin was tried a few years back, one of the charges was that he was disseminating "racial hatred" when he would warn of Muslim rape gangs preying on English girls in Bradford. The fact that everything he said was factually true was no defense. The criterion was that he was guilty of a criminal offense if he spoke the truth with bad intentions. I would add that if truth doesn't matter in a trial, not only can one not be presumed innocent, but it becomes very difficult to defend one's self.

There are other similar incidents--many others.

I think you're making somewhat speculative generalisations there.

I find it somewhat unlikely that these men were somehow victims a politically-correct legal system penalising them for ThoughtCrime. I think it's rather more likely that they did indeed commit specific public order offences and were sentenced appropriately.

Ann, I agree that it is in bad taste; these are obviously very low-class people. But singing songs praising the convicted murderers of Stephen Lawrence is hardly a threat in itself. Bad taste doesn't strike me as a threat, nor is it criminal behavior, any more than using obscene language is.

What offenses? Ann brought up singing songs that are in very poor taste. That's it. I'm guessing that if anything serious happened that it would have been described in some detail. The reason the description of their offense is so vague is that they did nothing that a reasonable person would consider criminal.

Bottom line: Even scumbags deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Specifically: Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour causing fear of or provoking violence (section 4 of the Public Order Act (1986); Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour intending to and causing harassment, alarm or distress (section 4A of the Act); Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (section 5 of the Act).



Well, no, they were convicted of specific public order offences, of which 'singing an offensive song' was not apparently one.



That's a hell of a lot of inferences to draw from newspaper coverage.

I would suggest that, despite the lack of description in the newspaper article, there were specific breaches of public order mentioned by witnesses and that these formed the basis of the police's decision to press charges and the CPS's decision to prosecute.



They had the benefit of the doubt. The evidence was tested in court. They were found guilty.

Specifically: Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour causing fear of or provoking violence (section 4 of the Public Order Act (1986); Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour intending to and causing harassment, alarm or distress (section 4A of the Act); Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (section 5 of the Act).

I'm not interested in hearing the law recited. I am interested in the specifics of what they did. Exactly what did these people do that constituted running afoul of this law?

I would also question any law that makes "insulting words or behavior...or words "likely cause harassment, alarm, or distress" into an imprisonable offense. Would you favor turning murderers and rapists out of prisons to lock up people who use "insulting" or "distressing" language? Or are you prepared to argue that all laws are good, and should not be questioned? Could this be part of your religion of Political Correctness?

Well, no, they were convicted of specific public order offences, of which 'singing an offensive song' was not apparently one.

Again, specifically what did they do to violate this law that makes a mockery of English traditions of free speech?



That's a hell of a lot of inferences to draw from newspaper coverage.

How so? What makes you think the press wouldn't want to report salacious or violent details of racist behavior? Do you think the mainstream British press is some kind of clandestine racist conspiracy trying to hide white wickedness?

I would suggest that, despite the lack of description in the newspaper article, there were specific breaches of public order mentioned by witnesses and that these formed the basis of the police's decision to press charges and the CPS's decision to prosecute.



They had the benefit of the doubt. The evidence was tested in court. They were found guilty.[/quote]

If you want to fight with a straw man, I will leave you to do that. If you care to have an intelligent conversation, specifically what evidence was tested in court? And is a law that criminalizes speech that can cause "distress" to others really just? If somebody says something to me that I find "distressing" or "abusive", should I be able to have that person jailed? How would this be different than the Stalinist denunciations, in which people got rid of rivals by denouncing them to the secret police? Were those just laws too? Or is "insulting" or "distressing" only certain groups a criminal offense. Do you agree with Orwell's line that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

I think you underestimate the power of verbal expression.
I too would like to know what they said, but the description of chanting support for a murder is I think crossing into criminality. People can be influenced by others and to express your support of a crime is crossing the line. I know, "thought police" Annie, but people underestimate the power of words.

Ann, I'm the first to agree that words have meaning, and power too. But the old ditty is worth keeping in mind: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. If this law were applied fairly, all of us would be subject to prosecution and imprisonment, especially aspies. All of us have used language that others could find "insulting" or "likely to cause distress". The fact of the matter is that statistically, blacks or Muslims are much more likely to criminally assault or murder native Brits than vice versa. Yet these prosecutions are almost always of native Brits.

I don't.
And I think this is another one we have to agree to disagree on.

Then I suggest you conduct google searches to see if you can turn up a more detailed description of their offences.

Myself, I am willing to trust in the sensible application of the law.



Would you? Well, why don't you write to your MP then.



No of course not, don't be silly.



Generally, if I'm not hurting anyone else by breaking the law, I don't worry about it. However, I do uphold as a general principle the right for citizens to go about their everyday business without facing threatening behaviour. Do you have a problem with that idea?



Have a word with yourself, pal.



I have already cited the specific public order offences of which the men were convicted.

This is not a free speech issue, it is a public order one.



There might be many journalistic and/or editorial decision-making processes that resulted in the precise details of the offending behaviour being left to the imagination. But to suggest that the offending behaviour didn't take place because it wasn't reported is ... well, a bit silly.



Again, have a word with yourself.



To be quite honest, on the basis of this discussion I don't believe you are capable of discriminating between a 'straw man' argument and the hole in your own backside.



You're the one that is curious about this. Why don't you, you know, google it or something?



You are entitled to certain protections under the law. It's up to you whether you choose to pursue those protections.

I wonder how you would feel if you were subject to disablist abuse on the basis of what I presume is your particular case of Asperger Syndrome? No doubt, you would laugh off the waved fists and snarling faces with a 'boys will be boys' smile.



This is such a stupid line of argument that I'm not going to dignify it with a reasoned responses.



No, and if you had the slightest acquaintance with the law, you would know this is not the case. However in the interests of relieving your ignorance, I will state that some offences have what are known as 'aggravating features'.



I think you've lost the plot. What on earth are you babbling on about?

That has nothing to do with the recent types of racist chants received in the football games. If the chanting gets to the point of death threats then yes arrests should be made.
However in the case of it being racist, simply chucking non-violent racists in cells would take up space that would be better inhabited by actual dangerous people. In my view it's better just to have them in the cells a few hours, their details taken, passed onto the FA and have their rights to attend games removed and/or fines. A point system would do nicely, as suggested by LogicalMolly. Though I would advise the first time be a fine and a warning. Instant dismissal from football match attendance could see innocent people accused of joining in with the chants caught in the crossfire with no appeal.