FA investigate racism

[HillmortonBlade]

The alternative is a Gestapo style court case or maybe Sharia law

No, the difference between mens rea and actus reus is a cornerstone of British justice and sets us above the alternatives you offer.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

And with a little more thought before I reply... How do we, as a society, deal with racist or any discriminatory chanting if every time we have to establish the mens rea?

I don't see how the question arises. As described this still reads like a presumption of guilt because it's not racist until mens rea has been established. You have to establish motive, then you may have a crime.

If it's racist then mens rea must already have been established.

I think this applies fundamentally in law and in common justice.

 

[vorpal blade]

I thought Hillmorton was wondering about the men's rea(sons for singing the song) but had been shot....What a relief

 

[HillmortonBlade]

I don't see how the question arises. As described this still reads like a presumption of guilt because it's not racist until mens rea has been established. You have to establish motive, then you may have a crime.

If it's racist then mens rea must already have been established.

I think this applies fundamentally in law and in common justice.

The point being that it is very difficult to prove an offence if you have to prove the persons intention each time. So the law will state that, say, for the offence of theft that the persons intention to permanently deprive another person of their property must be proven, but in offences of, for example, public order, the presumption is what a theoretical reasonable member of the public would assume the intention was to offend. I am amazed that so many on here claim to believe the moron singing meant anything other than a racist intent, keen as they (understandably) to protect the rightful integrity of our club.

I am not disagreeing that it is difficult to prove the chanters intentions, but I AM saying that the law, as it stands, does not require the intention to be proven, only that the words used would be construed as racist by (in the eyes of the Court) a reasonable member of the public.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Rather, there is no need to establish the motive of individuals when a "reasonable person" can make an assumption of motive. I return to the point that if the law has to establish the individual motive of people chanting something that the majority would recognise as racist then we are, indeed, fucked (legally).

(Firstly I'm not really concentrating on legal procedure, more common justice, which often overlaps but I think is ultimately separate.)

Aisi the quote presumes guilt, for instance in the use of the word recognise as a racist chant. This assumes it is racist and that all that had to happen was someone should recognise it.

Had to Google mens rea and Wikipedia turned up

The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged. [I don't think this is well worded because, again, it's not a guilty act till there's been a conviction.]

Again I'm not really talking about the law, more about common justice, but I think the legal terminology captures that here.

And this is not abstract. A Long Time Ago in A Thread Far Away him behind you mentioned a case at his work where banter led to a complaint, and has ended up with potential (or actual?) legal proceedings - the post illustrates the problems really well I think.

The same could happen to the people who were chanting - and possibly even to the ones cheering.

 

[judge]

Had to Google mens rea and Wikipedia turned up

make sure you delete your history

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

The point being that it is very difficult to prove an offence if you have to prove the persons intention each time. So the law will state that, say, for the offence of theft that the persons intention to permanently deprive another person of their property must be proven, but in offences of, for example, public order, the presumption is what a theoretical reasonable member of the public would assume the intention was to offend. I am amazed that so many on here claim to believe the moron singing meant anything other than a racist intent, keen as they (understandably) to protect the rightful integrity of our club.

I am not disagreeing that it is difficult to prove the chanters intentions, but I AM saying that the law, as it stands, does not require the intention to be proven, only that the words used would be construed as racist by (in the eyes of the Court) a reasonable member of the public.

In which case I would say a conviction is (a) likely and (b) wrong - and illustrates the difference between law and justice.

Banter can be pretty extreme - at its best and funniest it often is - and it may well turn "reasonable people" pale.

There are further freedom of speech implications if everyone has to behave as though a "reasonable person" is watching or reading.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

(Firstly I'm not really concentrating on legal procedure, more common justice, which often overlaps but I think is ultimately separate.)

Aisi the quote presumes guilt, for instance in the use of the word recognise as a racist chant. This assumes it is racist and that all that had to happen was someone should recognise it.

Had to Google mens rea and Wikipedia turned up

The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged. [I don't think this is well worded because, again, it's not a guilty act till there's been a conviction.]

Again I'm not really talking about the law, more about common justice, but I think the legal terminology captures that here.

And this is not abstract. A Long Time Ago in A Thread Far Away him behind you mentioned a case at his work where banter led to a complaint, and has ended up with potential (or actual?) legal proceedings - the post illustrates the problems really well I think.

The same could happen to the people who were chanting - and possibly even to the ones cheering.

But it does not take a mens rea to be an actus reus. My argument in all this is, and I believe accurately, that the intention to cause offence (to a criminal standard of proof) does not require the intention of the person committing such acts to be proven, only that the consequences of those actions to have been reasonably expected to cause offence (even if that was not the intention). The standards of proof for the FA will be lower than this, based on the balance of probability.

The issue of common justice (as opposed to Common Law) is clearly different and lends itself to the interpretation of the individual. But will have no relevance to the outcome of this matter (which I believe will be going nowhere given the paucity of evidence)

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Don't understand why everybody's worried about racist behaviour when Lee rigby got his head cut off in broad daylight and it wasn't deemed a racist attack.

Anyway, it's just a chant at a football match to the English,but to sorry cheese dicks it's a big deal..... I do feel sorry for the guy, and if he ever sets foot in the lane agin I'll be amazed, he looked like a rabbit in the headlights in the star..

The star, fuck that shit rag..

It's not been established that it was racist.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

In which case I would say a conviction is (a) likely and (b) wrong - and illustrates the difference between law and justice.

Banter can be pretty extreme - at its best and funniest it often is - and it may well turn "reasonable people" pale.

There are further freedom of speech implications if everyone has to behave as though a "reasonable person" is watching or reading.

On this I agree, but I am not debating from a moral point of view, rather from that which the current statute will say. Regarding your final sentence, this is already in statute within the Public Order Act at least.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

But it does not take a mens reus to be an actus reus. My argument in all this is, and I believe accurately, that the intention to cause offence (to a criminal standard of proof) does not require the intention of the person committing such acts to be proven, only that the consequences of those actions to have bee reasonably expectd to cause offence (even if that was not the intention). The standards of proof for the FA will be lower than this, based on the balance of probability.

The issue of common justice (as opposed to Common Law) is clearly different and lends itself to the interpretation of the individual. But will have no relevance to the outcome of this matter (which I believe will be going nowhere given the paucity of evidence)

Basically I think I agree with that.

My concern is that under these procedures a subculture of (extreme) banter could effectively be outlawed, and there are Freedom of Speech implications that follow.

I wonder what the situation would be in the States with the First Amendment.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

Basically I think I agree with that.

My concern is that under these procedures a subculture of (extreme) banter could effectively be outlawed, and there are Freedom of Speech implications that follow.

I wonder what the situation would be in the States with the First Amendment.

I can see this one moving to General Chat, but I believe we can say what we like in this country and be as offensive as we like, thank fuck (special nod to judge ) and we are a richer nation for it. But the legislative, slowly but surely, is increasing the amount of taboo subjects (the justification for which will be debated elsewhere hopefully)

 

[Darthblade]

We could do all that, or just ensure our fans don't sing racist songs aimed at the opposition fans and then try and defend it via the most pathetic of excuses.
At least the club seem to have done the right thing so far, just hope they follow it up with bans and show we don't accept any racial abuse at our club.
This defending and attempts to justify the actions of these morons is nearly getting as pathetic as the attacks on the girl Ched raped.

I'm not actually defending these few idiots mate and I have indicated my thoughts regarding their stupidity in singing the ISIS song ....... this was self-censored by OUR OWN fans, which is what should be being reported and congratulated.

The point I'm supporting is the one that highlights that this has gone from a tiny mole-hill to Mount Everest in a short period of time and there are individuals competing to see who can demonstrate the most indignation.

And I'm still to be convinced ( and it's by no means only me ) that this was "racism" despite all the abuse being dished out on here...... various people have quoted the Law and the appropriate Act I know, however, I also know that in many cases ..... the Law is an ass !!

I just hope that the stupid fu**ers involved don't repeat their stupidity today, because there will be every "Cherie Blair" in the Country listening with bat-like ears to our every word .......

UTB & FTP

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Totally agree that they are stupid fuckers, but they have created all this. Not the guy who reported it and then seemingly made a bit of a prat of himself.
I'm genuinely interested how even singing ISIS isn't clearly racist. It's a generalisation that Bradford has a large Asian population and therefore support ISIS. How can it be argued differently?

 

[Barney]

Totally agree that they are stupid fuckers, but they have created all this. Not the guy who reported it and then seemingly made a bit of a prat of himself.
I'm genuinely interested how even singing ISIS isn't clearly racist. It's a generalisation that Bradford has a large Asian population and therefore support ISIS. How can it be argued differently?

That's exactly the sort of baffling feeling I was confronted with when it came to my knowledge that even a single person had doubts over whether it was racist.

 

[Bert]

Totally agree that they are stupid fuckers, but they have created all this. Not the guy who reported it and then seemingly made a bit of a prat of himself.
I'm genuinely interested how even singing ISIS isn't clearly racist. It's a generalisation that Bradford has a large Asian population and therefore support ISIS. How can it be argued differently?

The generalisation was that Bradford has a lot of Muslims not Asians.

 

[sothall blade]

I'm not actually defending these few idiots mate and I have indicated my thoughts regarding their stupidity in singing the ISIS song ....... this was self-censored by OUR OWN fans, which is what should be being reported and congratulated.

The point I'm supporting is the one that highlights that this has gone from a tiny mole-hill to Mount Everest in a short period of time and there are individuals competing to see who can demonstrate the most indignation.

And I'm still to be convinced ( and it's by no means only me ) that this was "racism" despite all the abuse being dished out on here...... various people have quoted the Law and the appropriate Act I know, however, I also know that in many cases ..... the Law is an ass !!

I just hope that the stupid fu**ers involved don't repeat their stupidity today, because there will be every "Cherie Blair" in the Country listening with bat-like ears to our every word .......

UTB & FTP

My only surprise in all this, is this fat fucker has not waded in with his 10 penne th, such has SUFC are a disgrace and should be fined £10.000.000 and deducted 95 points

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

The generalisation was that Bradford has a lot of Muslims not Asians.

You think those fans checker the census first it was it just based on the colour of skin? I'm not buying that those fans would be able to identify the number of Muslims in Bradford out of those from just an seemingly Asian ethnicity. Still racist eitherway, but it's just the latest new excuse to try and justify it.
Careful now Bert, if you post on here any closer to kick off you'll be accused of not going to the match.

 

[dublin 10 blade]

I'm delighted that the FA is going to investigate, this racist chanting, must admit was a bit shocked
when at the match the chant of " stand up if you hate the fucking English "
Was shouted with gusto by the German fans , then taken up by certain elements in the Irish crowd ,
that's twice in the last 2 games Ireland v Germany I've heard that .
Bout time the FA got involved.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Not sure how would the FA have any jurisdiction over that?

 

[BushBlade]

The generalisation was that Bradford has a lot of Muslims not Asians.

But the point of the chant is that it is supposed to be a 'humorous insult'. Like 'you're just a bus stop in Chelsea' at Fulham fans. So you're saying it's OK to use 'town full of Muslims' as an insult?

 

[Bert]

But the point of the chant is that it is supposed to be a 'humorous insult'. Like 'you're just a bus stop in Chelsea' at Fulham fans. So you're saying it's OK to use 'town full of Muslims' as an insult?

Bert is saying no such thing.
Bert is one of the least racist people you could ever meet and he has a long history both past and at present which will confirm that.

 

[sitwell]

Bert is saying no such thing.
Bert is one of the least racist people you could ever meet and he has a long history both past and at present which will confirm that.

No Flatulent Bob won ,he gets the unracest person in the world award.

 

[super_pig]

i was thinking driving home about the convo in Parliament.. it goes like this:

did you hear about those disgraceful Sheffield United fans?
yes total racism, they should be fined/banned whatever..
anything else on the agenda??
yeah we have a bunch of air strikes pencilled in for later when we will be bombing the crap out of ISIS


eh??

 

[ChipButtyBlade]

Someone mentioned at the game today that a 6 point deduction is coming our way.

 

[yorkshirecoast]

Someone mentioned at the game today that a 6 point deduction is coming our way.

Absolutely no chance of a points deduction. Small fine at worst.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

The fans on the Kop were in good voice today and sang Blades tunes, a generic "everywhere we go" and my personal favourite "gerrit forward".

That won'r make Radio Truffle-Snuffle

 

[boo radley]

Bert is saying no such thing.
Bert is one of the least racist people you could ever meet and he has a long history both past and at present which will confirm that.

But you think it is trivial that other people get offended by what they class as derogatory terms?

 

[northsomersetblade]

The chances of Monty Python reforming and making the 'The life of Mohammed' must be about 100000000000000 to one against.

Anyone want a bet?