As far as I know bigotry and xenophobia are not illegal.
Racism is and I don't beleive anyone on here is racist as they would have been arrested straight after being red carded. I thought you were bright enough to see that; maybe you are the silly one!
Why do you constantly report posters after antagonising them?

It’s very simple. Racist abuse is against the law in the UK. I would always want the police to enforce the law whenever it is possible. I do not, however, expect the police to be able to enforce the law every time it is broken. Sometimes they will make a judgement that making an arrest is not safe or likely to inflame the situation. They do not and should not ever suggest that it is something that in certain situations and should be ignored.

I am not here to defend the police, I am here to defend the law. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 set out very clearly what is illegal.

If the police require the use of force to make arrests they have those powers. They should use force discretionally and proportionally.

Hrolf appears to be saying that he only wants some laws enforced and others to be ignored. The police, thankfully, do not as yet have the ability to make up laws to suit their or anyone else’s purposes.

If the police were to arrest supporters for calling the referee a ‘w***er’, they would be rightly required to say under what legislation they were doing so.

The key fact here is that racism is illegal, swearing is not.

I don't need you to explain anything thanks. Football grounds aren't magical zones where laws don't apply or need to be adhered to. If someone is acting in such a manner fobbing it off as doing what fans do is neither here nor there.

Your view is based solely on the usual racial 'sides' obsession stuff. Nothing to do with applying the same standard or adhering to law. I was contrasting you practically sucking off police one minute for 'upholding the law' when its a vigil for a slayed woman (while saying it's 'shameful' for people to criticise them for doing so) then having a complete about turn when its in favour of a 'cause' you believe in. It is what it is and you're not doing a very good job of spinning it as anything else. Let's leave it at that and save ourselves any further wasted time.

Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2021 12.33am)

Would you have advocated the same attitude when homosexuality was illegal then?

It's spelt punctuation.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I've already addressed the point in the first paragraph, if you disagree then fine, however my point isn't made in reply to this.

As for your response towards my point to Kuge....sure I wouldn't disagree. However, Kuge seemed to be suggesting that the law be followed or it's too the judge with you. Well ok, it's an expected attitude towards a law that you agree with.

I simply pointed out a past law that he would have likely felt differently towards. So I regard his tone as reductionist.

However, If he had the same attitude towards previously persecuted homosexuals then I'd accept that he was consistent.

However, I doubt it.

In my view laws that involve 'protected characteristics' on speech are unacceptable and bad law and I've come across no argument so far to change that view.

And ultimately that was all I said....that, in my view, Kube loves bad laws.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Oct 2021 4.57am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

This is not about whether you agree with the law, it is whether the law should be enforced. What happens if the police start only enforcing the laws that they think are good and ignoring those they think are less good? This is not their job. If there are laws that require changing it is up to politicians to seek that change.

Your point about homosexuality being illeagle is a strawman argument, there are now and there have been plenty of laws in past with which I disagree. If I broke any of these laws I would expect to be arrested. If I said, no, don't arrest me because I don’t think this particular law is important, well I think that’s not likely to work out well. I might say that my arrest is wrong because I am not guilty of the offence, but that would need to be argued in court.

It is I believe legitimate to expose that the law is wrong through deliberately breaking it. There is a long history of such actions. It is not legitimate for the police or the courts to decide this.