No charges against the 3 fans arrested for using the 'Y' word

[Smoked Salmon]

Smoked Salmon - Is this in danger of falling into a grey area where people are raked over the coals before the CPS just drops the case?

I wouldn't call that a grey area. I would call that not being prosecuted. While the experience is probably stressful, the reality is that the person is not convicted so there is no lasting impact.

It's also unlikely that a precedent would have been set had there been a hearing since it would likely only reach precedent stage if there had been a conviction and it was appealed. Public Order Act offenses are nothing new and it may simply have been a conviction at first instance with no further challenges.

I haven't yet read why this was dropped, but I suspect it was because of the difficulty of producing evidence beyond the statements of stewards and/or the officers who issued warnings. If I were fans I would not be cavalier and assume this is a free pass to say what they like at games without fear of action. It's possible that this will be tried again at a later date if the problems in this instance were evidence based and they can be overcome so I think people should keep this in mind when dealing with the police at games.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

In all serious can Smoked Salmon or anyone else with significant legal knowledge just confirm the significance of this verdict and what it means going forward to everyone

There is no significance. They are simply dropped cases. The CPS drops tens of thousands of cases a year. This does not mean the law has changed, nor does it mean a precedent has been set. As I said above, in theory they police and CPS could try this all over again if they thought their evidence was good.

You'd need a political campaign to get a change in the law for there to be any lasting effect. I suspect with the current climate of religious and racial hatred legislation the chances of that are pretty small.

 

[Furball man]

 

[Raiders]

I wouldn't call that a grey area. I would call that not being prosecuted. While the experience is probably stressful, the reality is that the person is not convicted so there is no lasting impact.

It's also unlikely that a precedent would have been set had there been a hearing since it would likely only reach precedent stage if there had been a conviction and it was appealed. Public Order Act offenses are nothing new and it may simply have been a conviction at first instance with no further challenges.

I haven't yet read why this was dropped, but I suspect it was because of the difficulty of producing evidence beyond the statements of stewards and/or the officers who issued warnings. If I were fans I would not be cavalier and assume this is a free pass to say what they like at games without fear of action. It's possible that this will be tried again at a later date if the problems in this instance were evidence based and they can be overcome so I think people should keep this in mind when dealing with the police at games.

I still don't understand the CPS's legal case to begin with. You can't charge spurs fans with racially aggravated section 5; the law just just not make sense. We have to be hostile or motivated by hostility specifically towards an ethnic group, which we aren't. I can understand section 5 on its own but you need to prove 'yid' is offensive. It is only offensive in a racial context.
Am I wrong here...?

 

[Spurs1882DW]

Brilliant news, finally common sense has prevailed, and I say that as a Spurs fan who comes from a Jewish heritage.

I would hope that the context in which Spurs fans use the word, has at last be understood and accepted.

YID ARMY!!!!

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I still don't understand the CPS's legal case to begin with. You can't charge spurs fans with racially aggravated section 5; the law just just not make sense. We have to be hostile or motivated by hostility specifically towards an ethnic group, which we aren't. I can understand section 5 on its own but you need to prove 'yid' is offensive. It is only offensive in a racial context.
Am I wrong here...?

Yes. Intent isn't required under the act, only that you be in the vicinity of people who may reasonably by distressed by the chant. Well, I can tell you personally that part of the Jewish community still find it offensive, and it's not a stretch to assume that there are Jewish people in the crowd at White Hart Lane, especially when the chairman himself is Jewish! Plus, Jews are an ethnic group as much as they are a religious group. So I actually think it does come within the scope of the legislation. Any more definition on this particular issue would need a case to get at least as far as the Court of Appeal so that judges could give commentary. But if people are hoping for Parliament or the courts to sign off on a "yid is not offensive" policy, I don't think you're going to be seeing it any time soon.

 

[Mensa]

Yes. Intent isn't required under the act, only that you be in the vicinity of people who may reasonably by distressed by the chant. Well, I can tell you personally that part of the Jewish community still find it offensive, and it's not a stretch to assume that there are Jewish people in the crowd at White Hart Lane, especially when the chairman himself is Jewish! Plus, Jews are an ethnic group as much as they are a religious group. So I actually think it does come within the scope of the legislation. Any more definition on this particular issue would need a case to get at least as far as the Court of Appeal so that judges could give commentary. But if people are hoping for Parliament or the courts to sign off on a "yid is not offensive" policy, I don't think you're going to be seeing it any time soon.

But with the outcome of this case will it prove more difficult for the CPS to charge fans for very similar offences in future? We know our fans do not mean it as a derogatory term can they not just cite this case if ever arrested?

 

[Raiders]

Yes. Intent isn't required under the act, only that you be in the vicinity of people who may reasonably by distressed by the chant. Well, I can tell you personally that part of the Jewish community still find it offensive, and it's not a stretch to assume that there are Jewish people in the crowd at White Hart Lane, especially when the chairman himself is Jewish! Plus, Jews are an ethnic group as much as they are a religious group. So I actually think it does come within the scope of the legislation. Any more definition on this particular issue would need a case to get at least as far as the Court of Appeal so that judges could give commentary. But if people are hoping for Parliament or the courts to sign off on a "yid is not offensive" policy, I don't think you're going to be seeing it any time soon.

Of course, I understand that section 5 (effectively) requires no mens rea. I was just talking about 'racially aggravated' and why they were charged under this. Anyway I find this all tenuous to say the least. A defense is 'it is reasonable'. It is all very vague and in my opinion does need amending. I think I could put a good defense for just a section 5 charge though. Just confused why they tagged racially aggravated onto the count. I presumed it was because they might have difficulty proving 'yid' to be offensive as I thought this was the first thing that needed to be done.

 

[zin]

and it's not a stretch to assume that there are Jewish people in the crowd at White Hart Lane, especially when the chairman himself is Jewish!

I wonder how many Chelsea fans are.

 

[ArtyB]

But with the outcome of this case will it prove more difficult for the CPS to charge fans for very similar offences in future? We know our fans do not mean it as a derogatory term can they not just cite this case if ever arrested?

I think it'll be more of a case that the cops will do nothing knowing that the CPS won't be pressing charges if they make an arrest.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

But with the outcome of this case will it prove more difficult for the CPS to charge fans for very similar offences in future? We know our fans do not mean it as a derogatory term can they not just cite this case if ever arrested?

There is nothing to cite since there was no case prosecution and therefore no outcome. Like I said, this could simply have been withdrawn because the CPS were not satisfied with the evidence available. It does not equate to a failed prosecution. The situation is no different to how it was before these arrests. I expect the debate will continue.

 

[Mad Yid]

Class action funded by Tottenham fans, Wow shoe would be on the other foot then!

this all day fuckn long

pc fake cunts need to be put in their place

beat them at their own game the fuckn no mark sons of bitches

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Of course, I understand that section 5 (effectively) requires no mens rea. I was just talking about 'racially aggravated' and why they were charged under this. Anyway I find this all tenuous to say the least. A defense is 'it is reasonable'. It is all very vague and in my opinion does need amending. I think I could put a good defense for just a section 5 charge though. Just confused why they tagged racially aggravated onto the count. I presumed it was because they might have difficulty proving 'yid' to be offensive as I thought this was the first thing that needed to be done.

Jews are a race as much as they are a religion. That's not open to debate. That's fact. Furthermore, the fact is that not all Jews are ok with the "yid" chants, and that includes non-religious Jews who have been targeted with the word because of their ethnicity.

Your defence would presumably be that the use of the word was reasonable and you did not think you were in the vicinity of people who make take offence. But I'm not sure I agree with that. The argument Spurs fans like to make that the word is being reclaimed and there is no intent to offend does not equate to the non-existence of Jews who may find it offensive and who may be attending football match - especially when said club has a partial Jewish fan base. It's the latter that the Act is concerned with. So I certainly think there is an argument to be made that it is and remains prosecutable, and I do think there would have to be an amendment to the Act or a court precedent that further explores this issue if there is going to be a proper structure whereby fans can escape future prosecutions. I just don't envisage us seeing such a thing anytime soon as I think it would potentially amount to judicial or state sponsored endorsement of racial labeling, which would be a political hot potato.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I think it'll be more of a case that the cops will do nothing knowing that the CPS won't be pressing charges if they make an arrest.

What makes you think the CPS won't prosecute in the future? You need to know why the cases have been withdrawn before you determine that. If the withdrawal was down to evidence it could simply be that they are waiting for a stronger evidential case so that they do get a conviction in the future. Unless there's a press statement it's unlikely we will know the answer to thus anytime soon so I think its risky and foolhardy to just to the conclusion that this is some sort of victory against the CPS and Police. Prudence suggests that fans should still be careful.

 

[Eskimo]

Jews are a race as much as they are a religion.

Not really anyone can convert to Judaism, and once converted they become a Jew surely?

Or am i missing something?

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I wonder how many Chelsea fans are.

Personally I think there is just as much scope, if not more, to prosecute Chelsea fans, and Spammers, under the Act and it bothers me that no attempt has been made to do so.

 

[1882]

WE WIN!!!!!!

 

[ArtyB]

What makes you think the CPS won't prosecute in the future? You need to know why the cases have been withdrawn before you determine that. If the withdrawal was down to evidence it could simply be that they are waiting for a stronger evidential case so that they do get a conviction in the future. Unless there's a press statement it's unlikely we will know the answer to thus anytime soon so I think its risky and foolhardy to just to the conclusion that this is some sort of victory against the CPS and Police. Prudence suggests that fans should still be careful.

How will future cases be any different? What difference will there be in the evidence, it'll still be bloke A was shouting Yid, he was warned then charged...how can a stronger case be made?

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Not really anyone can convert to Judaism, and once converted they become a Jew surely?

Or am i missing something?

Yes you are. Converting to the religion does not make you an ethnic Jew, but if you are of Semitic blood and descended from the original Israelites then you hold the ethnicity as well as the religion. It's a common misconception that Judaism is solely a religion. Jews have long been classed as an ethnicity as well and, indeed, there are plenty of non-religious Jews.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

How will future cases be any different? What difference will there be in the evidence, it'll still be bloke A was shouting Yid, he was warned then charged...how can a stronger case be made?

Video footage.