Alleged sectarian breach of the peace

Young man in steamin drunk BoP shocker

He's a Dundee fan too.

(or was it Chelsea )

Daft young boy IMO. He'll learn the lessons soon enough.

 

There's a fair amount of people avoiding the ****ing point on here. I'll try and indulge some of you and explain as best I can (although RB has already tried this tactic).

Mr Adam was not espousing a political or anti religious stance, he was being a ****ing idiot in a public place and he is being charged with "Breach of The Peace" because of it.

In the eyes of the law he has "breached someone's peace" (meaning bystanders or even police officers) and he has been arrested. No new legislation has been used to charge him, he has been arrested and charged using existing laws and if you are trying to defend him or argue that he should be entitled to "freedom of speech" or somesuch pish then you are clearly as large a moron as he is whether you will admit it or not.

I don't know if Adam is a bigot or not and I don't particulary care but he has broken the law and should face the consequences.

If I was in Sauchiehall Street one evening and some ****wit was shouting **** The Pope at the top of his voice then it's fair to assume that he is only doing so to annoy others or "Breach their Peace".

 

charlie adam is a dundee fan anyway. heard it straight from the horses mouth.

my mate - awrite charlie am a rangers fan mate
teef - good for you, am a dundee fan <custardpie>

 

PC Provan, who's peace did I breach when I said "**** sake" in my mates house?

cuffed and carted all the way to mary hill for that. dicks

 

Mr Sake's ofcourse

 

Get your tongue out of RB's bigoted and blinkered arse.

****in putrid.

 

The point is he's a bit of a stupid prick. **** sake - he looks special needs and he's from Dundee. If found guilty Rangers should give him a slap as well.

If the SNP get their way then he would face being charged with a different offence and if found guilty punished differently purely because of what was said. The law as it stands saw him lifted and charged so why bring in something additional?

The government deciding what is and what is not acceptable to be said is the start of a slippery slope.

 

He has been charged under "existing laws", what do you suspect will be the charge in future?

 

But it's been that way for a long time including current laws. People are getting their knickers in a twist over this whole issue.

 

You are criticising someone for telling the truth (me) as opposed to having a go at people who are clearly avoiding the issue (several others)?


Do you think it's acceptable for people to shout "**** the Pope" in the middle of the street or outside a nightclub?

I don't think you do.

 

Shouting "**** the pope" isn't any worse than shouting "**** fat gingers".

 

And your point?

 

If several "fat Gingers" were in the street and he shouted "**** fat gingers" then doubtless Mr Adam would still have been arrested for Breach.

It's the Law

 

Were the Police there at the time and were you talking to them?

 

A 'religiously aggravated' aspect could be brought in by the SNP either in support of the exisiting law or by making a new law that again brings the whole religious hatred thing. Either way they have to define what constitutes sectarian/religious intolerance which again comes down to deciding what can and cannot be said.

 

Even if there weren't any fat gingers on the street he should still be arrested, my point is adding the sectarian bit on at the end of the charge. The last time they tried that in a high profile case, it didn't work out too well for the CPS.

 

He has already been charged with a "sectarian" offence, I doubt very much he would be charged with a hate crime even if the new laws did include that as an offence.

Perhaps in light of the Neil Lennon case the laws do need to be updated?

 

That's because it boiled down to one man's word against another.

It depends how many people witnessed the drunken twat shouting and/or singing whatever it was he shouted or sang. If it's more than one then they'll have a very good chance of making the case stick this time.

 

Why should shouting something about the pope be a more severe charge than shouting something about fat ginger people though? (I assume the whole point of adding the sectarian bit onto the charge makes it a more severe charge, with tougher penalties? I don't know the ins and outs of it.)