https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4714-5480
![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Based primarily on research into the policing of football fans in Scotland following the implementation of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act (Scotland) Act 2012 this paper examines the interplay of police techniques and surveillance technologies in the policing of Scottish football. There has been relatively little academic attention directed towards the Act, so the question of why and how this flagship legislation generated such intense opposition that it was repealed within six years of its introduction demands investigation. This paper explores the implementation of the Act from the perspectives of football fans, criminal justice agencies, and representatives of football clubs, with a specific focus on the impact of police surveillance practices. The research uncovered strong perceptions that such practices were considered intimidatory, which may have weakened the perceived legitimacy of the Act. This paper poses a challenge to simple readings of evidence in terms of the claimed benefits of particular forms of surveillance, arguing that the use of technologies such as powerful hand-held cameras and body worn video (BWV) has had a detrimental impact on police-fan relationships, interactions and dialogue.
Acknowledgements
The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/programme/exhibition are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 The political and media rhetoric around the Act focused on sectarianism; however, it is notable that the word ‘sectarianism’ – which has not been defined in law – does not appear in the text of the legislation. For a detailed discussion on how one might define the term see Advisory Group on Tackling Sectarianism in Scotland (Citation2013).
2 It is acknowledged here that the national 2014 Scottish Supporters Direct survey was skewed towards older, more conservative fans and under-represented younger sections of football ‘fandom’.
3 The 2014 survey did not measure fan support for the Act itself, largely because it was considered that levels of fan awareness of the Act’s provisions and enforcement were too low at this early point to make any measurement meaningful or robust.
4 Scottish Football Supporters Survey: 2017 Results. Available at: http://www.scottishsupporters.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Supporters-Direct-Scotland-Survey-Results-2017.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2019].
5 The official report into the disaster, the Taylor Report, made a number of recommendations to improve safety in football stadia.
6 The use of fans as informants is not well discussed in academic research, but has courted recent media attention in Scotland (see Evening Times Citation2018). Despite a general academic neglect, this issue was discussed in interviews with police officers as part of the lead authors’ research into the Act and his previous research into football banning orders, wherein officers reflected upon the value of such covert assets in football policing.
7 If an individual is convicted of an offence that dos not command a custodial sentence, the maximum football banning order period is five years, though, more exceptionally, if an individual receives a custodial sentence a banning order of up to ten years can be imposed (see Crown Prosecution Service Citation2019).
8 A ‘risk’ supporter is an official UK policing term defined by the College of Policing in England and Wales as: ‘a person, known or not, who can be regarded as posing a possible risk to public order or antisocial behaviour, whether planned or spontaneous, at or in connection with a football event’ (College of Policing Citation2018).
9 As of early 2019 Police Scotland’s capability in relation to BWV is still uneven, with only certain police divisions having access to BWV capability. The numbers of devices also vary considerably between these divisions: ranging from single figures in Glasgow to over 300 in Aberdeen. As of June 2018 FoCUS had access to 22 BWV devices.
10 83% of fans surveyed as part of the section 1 evaluation were aware of the Act, (Hamilton-Smith et al. Citation2015, p. 34).
11 These raids rapidly acquired the status of urban legend – accurate or otherwise – of being ‘dawn’ raids. Some arrests did occur in the morning. The perception of a particularly punitive approach was compounded by fact that some raids took place on Fridays, resulting in some suspects being held in custody over the weekend (Hamilton-Smith et al. Citation2015).
12 Fans Against Criminalisation (FAC) was set up in 2011 to challenge the drafting and implementation of the 2012 Act, and continued to campaign against the legislation until its repeal in 2018.
13 ‘RA is short for IRA, the acronym for the terrorist organisation the Irish Republican Army.
14 A perspective that was, at least superficially, supported in published official statistics, see Goulding and Cavanagh (Citation2013) and Skivington and Mckenna (Citation2014).
15 Under the UK’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers legislation, whereas routine ‘observation’ conducted in the course of a police patrol or during an event operation (like a football match) does not require authorisation as a form of ‘directed surveillance’, there is a point at which the duration and targeting of that ‘observation’ on any one individual, or group of individuals, might legally be viewed as a form of surveillance.
16 Now known in Scotland as an ‘event lead coordinator’.
17 There has subsequently been accusations, reported on in the media, that police officers have been trying to recruit younger fans to report on the activities of their fellow football fans (see The Herald Citation2018).
18 Outline details of these allegations can be found here: http://fansagainstcriminalisation.blogspot.com/.
19 MacQueen and Bradford attempted to replicate an Australian procedural justice experiment using a randomised control trial with Scottish traffic police officers, some of whom were given a ‘script’ to improve police-public encounters during traffic stops.