Bagpipes outlawed as weapons at soccer games?
Stanton McCandlish
Encounted the following. Surely this is a hoax?
Bagpipes banned from Euro 96 soccer matches
LONDON - Scottish fans have been banned from taking their
bagpipes to Euro 96 soccer matches because the musical instrument has
been included on a list of offensive weapons.
Anyone found carrying bagpipes to any match will have to leave
them at stadium entrances or face a hefty fine. Other offensive
weapons include knives, fireworks and gas cannisters.
"Bagpipes have been included in the FIFA rules of objects not
permitted in football grounds and we have to stick by those rules," a
Euro 96 spokesman said. "These rules are drawn up in the interests of
spectator safety. Bagpipes have obviously been seen as unsuitable for
a football ground."
--
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:me...@eff.org"> me...@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/A"> Online Activist </A></HTML>
Markus Heupel
Stanton McCandlish wrote:
>
> Encounted the following. Surely this is a hoax?
>
> Bagpipes banned from Euro 96 soccer matches
> LONDON - Scottish fans have been banned from taking their
> bagpipes to Euro 96 soccer matches because the musical instrument has
> been included on a list of offensive weapons.
(...)
No, I've heard of it, too. They talked about it on German TV. But in the
meantime they are allowed, as far as I know.
--
------------------------------------------------------
Markus Heupel
University of Cologne, Germany
Institute of Geophysics
Department of Atmospheric Environmental Research
m...@eurad.uni-koeln.de
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/eurad/mh
------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bramah
In article <4pnah8$9...@eff.org>, Stanton McCandlish <me...@eff.org>
writes
>Encounted the following. Surely this is a hoax?
>
>
>Bagpipes banned from Euro 96 soccer matches
> LONDON - Scottish fans have been banned from taking their
>bagpipes to Euro 96 soccer matches because the musical instrument has
>been included on a list of offensive weapons.
>them at stadium entrances or face a hefty fine. Other offensive
>weapons include knives, fireworks and gas cannisters.
> "Bagpipes have been included in the FIFA rules of objects not
>permitted in football grounds and we have to stick by those rules," a
>Euro 96 spokesman said. "These rules are drawn up in the interests of
>spectator safety. Bagpipes have obviously been seen as unsuitable for
>a football ground."
>
--
Jack Bramah
John Gilks
Well there is a 'good' legal precedent. Bagpipes were held to be 'weapons
of war' by the courts after the '45. This allowed pipers to be treated as
'rebels taken in arms' and thus subject to rather unpleasant legal
consequences.
John Gilks
jgi...@inforamp.net
hand...@ica.net
-------------------------------------------
Check out John and Katja's web page:
"The Internet Guide to Dummies Ž"
http://www.inforamp.net/~jgilks/index.html
Fraser Muir (EE)
John, what do you mean there is a 'good' legal precedent. What
courts are you referring to! It certainly isn't Scottish courts, that I
assure you! English Tyranny in Scotland lead to the Great Highland
Bagpipe being outlawed! I just cannot believe, that in todays society,
that such a story was used as an excuse to have the Bagpipes banned at
Euro 96. Unbelievable! The gutter press in England at its best.
How the nation of Scotland puts up with the bullshit that is
dished out to them year in and year out by the English eludes me!
Rob Say
Fraser Muir (EE) wrote:
>
> John, what do you mean there is a 'good' legal precedent. What
> courts are you referring to! It certainly isn't Scottish courts, that
I think he means good in the language known as 'legaleze'. In this
language the term 'good legal precedent' basically means it has been done
before in a court of law and hence the case can be argued.
Yours
Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------
R.J...@Sheffield.ac.uk Undergraduate,
World Wide Web Author, Control Systems Eng.
USIT Board Manager, US...@shef.ac.uk University of Sheffield
England
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Barrow
Fraser Muir (EE) (mu...@eng.usf.edu) wrote:
: John, what do you mean there is a 'good' legal precedent. What
: courts are you referring to! It certainly isn't Scottish courts, that I
: assure you! English Tyranny in Scotland lead to the Great Highland
: Bagpipe being outlawed! I just cannot believe, that in todays society,
: that such a story was used as an excuse to have the Bagpipes banned at
: Euro 96. Unbelievable! The gutter press in England at its best.
: How the nation of Scotland puts up with the bullshit that is
: dished out to them year in and year out by the English eludes me!
You want to come and live here then and experience it first-hand then, my
dear!
jb
Tracy
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.960616214525.4658A-100000@suntan>, "Fraser Muir
(EE)" <mu...@eng.usf.edu> wrote:
<snip re: legal precedent . . . bagpipes as weapons of war etc.>
> How the nation of Scotland puts up with the bullshit that is
> dished out to them year in and year out by the English eludes me!
Oh, probably because Scotland ceased to be an independent nation as
of 1707 with the Act of Union and the closing of the Scottish Parliament
all for the bargain price of £398,085 10s. Not quite the bargain of the
island of Manhatten for the $24 worth of trade beads, but still quite a
deal. About all the Scots have left to prop up their national pride is
football (soccer). If only they had made that penalty kick in Saturday's
EuroCup game against England (sigh).
--
Tracy Reith
tre...@hevanet.com
BILL TUBBS
hand...@ica.net (John Gilks) wrote:
>Well there is a 'good' legal precedent. Bagpipes were held to be 'weapons
>of war' by the courts after the '45. This allowed pipers to be treated as
>'rebels taken in arms' and thus subject to rather unpleasant legal
>consequences.
>John Gilks
>jgi...@inforamp.net
>hand...@ica.net
>-------------------------------------------
>Check out John and Katja's web page:
>"The Internet Guide to Dummies Ž"
>http://www.inforamp.net/~jgilks/index.html
Which makes me believe that the whole idea of 'pipe banning' at soccer
games is contrived and someone's idea of a publicity stunt. Or else
the National Enquirer got loose again....
Bill Tubbs
Dr John Barrow
Tracy (tre...@hevanet.com) wrote:
: In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.960616214525.4658A-100000@suntan>, "Fraser Muir
: (EE)" <mu...@eng.usf.edu> wrote:
: <snip re: legal precedent . . . bagpipes as weapons of war etc.>
: > How the nation of Scotland puts up with the bullshit that is
: > dished out to them year in and year out by the English eludes me!
: ... deal. About all the Scots have left to prop up their national pride is
: football (soccer).
I don't suppose you'd care to expand on that remark with some corroborative
information? A generalisation like that really must have something to
support it. If not, care to withdraw it? And then come over here and have a
look-see what really goes on. It is a grossly crass comment to throw in.
jb
Tracy
In article <960618035...@folkmus.demon.co.uk>, Dr John Barrow
<j...@folkmus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Tracy (tre...@hevanet.com) wrote:
> : ... deal. About all the Scots have left to prop up their national pride is
> : football (soccer).
>
> I don't suppose you'd care to expand on that remark with some corroborative
> information? A generalisation like that really must have something to
> support it. If not, care to withdraw it? And then come over here and have a
> look-see what really goes on. It is a grossly crass comment to throw in.
My apologies. I'm really just being silly. The comment was made to me by a
Scottish friend (resident alien 14 years in U.S.) after Scotland lost to
England 2-0 in the Eurocup 96 game Sat June 15.
--
Tracy Reith
tre...@hevanet.com
Pete McClelland
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.960616214525.4658A-100000@suntan>, "Fraser
> I just cannot believe, that in todays society,
>that such a story was used as an excuse to have the Bagpipes banned at
>Euro 96. Unbelievable! The gutter press in England at its best.
>
>dished out to them year in and year out by the English eludes me!
>
without checking your facts even vaguely. It certainly wasn't us who
came up with this stupid attempt to ban bagpipes at football matches.
The FIFA and EUFA are well known for daft rules, and are in charge of
Euro 96 rulemaking, not the English.
Some of us were even hoping Scotland would sneak through instead of
Holland tonight, though not all of us!
--
Pete McClelland
Paul McKeown
hand...@ica.net (John Gilks) wrote:
>Well there is a 'good' legal precedent. Bagpipes were held to be 'weapons
>of war' by the courts after the '45. This allowed pipers to be treated as
>'rebels taken in arms' and thus subject to rather unpleasant legal
>consequences.
I read in the Independant (UK newspaper) today that a Scot living in
London who had been playing the pipes on Hampstead Heath each day for
the last 15 or so years was being taken to court for playing a musical
instrument in the park, aparently you aren't allowed to play any
musical instrument. He had an agreement with the previous incarnation
of the local council that he would play before 10am, there's a new
local council now and they've ignored the agreement of the old one due
to some recent complaints..
His defense is that the pipes according to English law are not musical
instruments but actually weapons of war.
His lawyer thinks he has a good case as in 1747 in York, a Jacobite
piper was on trial for his life accused of bearing arms against the
english king. His defense was that he only every played the pipes on
the battlefield and never took up arms. That english court ruled that
the pipes were indeed weapons of war and the Jacobite was hanged.
As there has never been any court decision overturning this, it should
in fact still be law in england.
Paul
John Gilks
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.960616214525.4658A-100000@suntan>, "Fraser Muir
> John, what do you mean there is a 'good' legal precedent. What
> courts are you referring to! It certainly isn't Scottish courts, that I
> assure you!
Well let's see. Had you taken your tartan specs off you might have
noticed that 'good' was in quotes. I checked the precedents too. In one
sense you are right. All the rebels condemned after the '45, which I
think is when this precedent was set, were tried in England, but then
many of them were English. Over half of those executed for participation
in the '45 were English or deserters from the British army. I wouldn't be
so quick to assert the impossibility of Scottish courts being involved
however, see below.
> English Tyranny in Scotland lead to the Great Highland
> Bagpipe being outlawed!
Come back Sir Walter, all is forgiven. The myth of English tyranny in the
Highlands won't wash. The Highlanders principal and avowed enemy was the
Scottish population of the lowlands, who, not without reason, saw the
Gaelic speakers of the Highland zone as little more than barbarian cattle
thieves. Its hardly a coincidence that Cumberland's army contained a
strong Scottish contingent. The romantic myth of the 'noble Highlander'
is just that, conveniently created by a lowland novelist to please a
German king long after the people mythologised had been safely removed via
deportation en masse to the colonies or Glasgow by their own hereditary
chiefs.
>I just cannot believe, that in todays society
there are still people spreading these silly myths.
Of course I'll be accused of being a biased Englishman, with a name like
'Gilks' what could my family know of the clearances...
On a more serious note, why is that Americans of Scottish descent (or
Irish for that matter) are so much more inclined to spread hatred and
support violence than the people who still live in those countries?
And of course, I think the Scots should be allowed their pipes. I think
its FIFA that had a cow, not the English authorities, for what that is
worth.
Richard Robinson
In article <4qa0ol$o...@mojo.europe.dg.com>,
Paul McKeown <pmck...@mojo.europe.dg.com> wrote:
>
>I read in the Independant (UK newspaper) today ...
>
>His defense is that the pipes according to English law are not musical
>instruments but actually weapons of war.
>
>His lawyer thinks he has a good case as in 1747 in York, a Jacobite
>piper was on trial for his life accused of bearing arms against the
>english king. His defense was that he only every played the pipes on
>the battlefield and never took up arms. That english court ruled that
>the pipes were indeed weapons of war and the Jacobite was hanged.
That's a good case ?? What on earth is the penalty for playing a musical
instrument ?
--
Richard Robinson, Leeds, UK ric...@beulah.demon.co.uk
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
Fraser Muir (EE)
Dr. John Barrow, I experienced it long enough to the point where I
had enough. That's why I now live in Florida, and living quite well
thankyou very much!
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Dr John Barrow wrote:
> Fraser Muir (EE) (mu...@eng.usf.edu) wrote:
>
> : John, what do you mean there is a 'good' legal precedent. What
> : courts are you referring to! It certainly isn't Scottish courts, that I
> : assure you! English Tyranny in Scotland lead to the Great Highland
> : Bagpipe being outlawed! I just cannot believe, that in todays society,
> : that such a story was used as an excuse to have the Bagpipes banned at
> : Euro 96. Unbelievable! The gutter press in England at its best.
>
> : How the nation of Scotland puts up with the bullshit that is
> : dished out to them year in and year out by the English eludes me!
>
Ian Lawther
The proscription of bagpipes after the 1745 Jacobite Rising was not cited
as a precident in the (now overturned) ban of pipes at Euro 96 by the
European (not English) football authorities. They were listed with other
items that might be used as weapons (but quite how they thought they
would be used I don't know - though come to think of it the bottom joint
of a bass drone would make a good club).
Where the proscription of pipes is about to be tested in law is the case
of a London piper (Dave Brooks, I think) who has been banned by his local
authority from practicing on Hampstead Heath. He's played there for
fifteen years but a few complaints have led to a ban under the by-law
forbidding the playing of musical instruments on the heath. He is
appealling through the courts on the grounds that pipes are not a musical
instrument but a weapon of war, a definition set down two centuries ago
in English law.
The outcome should be interesting!
Ian Lawther.
Bruce Kirby
Pity about that penalty - really hurt!
I was on holiday in Scotland in Sept/Oct '94 (from South Africa) and
picked up a distinct undercurrent of dislike towards the English. I got
the same vibe in Wales, a less than subtle sense in France and the Irish
don't seem to enamoured with the English either! Now about the 5 Nations
......
Phil Britton
Living in Germany now I don't get to here much of cases of english
arrogance and if not racism (the scots aren't a race if the
biological, or whatever, sense of the word) then english nationalism,
like the banning of bagpipes at the football matches. I am however
reminded of a case a few years ago when British Airways tried to stop
someone from Aberdeen going to a wedding from boarding a plane in full
highland dress (the scotsman not the plane) because they considered
his Skean Dhu a weapon. I bet they never tried that with a Sikh, and
hopefully the Ninja Turtles don't have to fly BA.
I remember at Hampden there was always a flute band or two, a few
accordians ,various bagpipes and maybe a drum or two and they never
attacked the english (OK the flutes and drums were too busy attacking
people of the wrong religion rather than their political oppressors...
always reminded me the the Judean Liberation Front on the "Life of
Brian")
and another thing... did no one try to ban the dutch and their awful
brass band.... "Hoep Holland, Hoep" indeed. I'm glad they're out.
Phil
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Britton When I think of something clever I'll sell it.
Jack Bramah
In article <31cd2fd8...@news.hamburg.pop.de>, Phil Britton
<phbr...@mail.hh.provi.de> writes
Thai Airlines consider hockey sticks to be adangerous offensive
implement, and you may not carry them on their flights (except as
luggage).
As MANY people have said, it is not the English that tried to ban the
bagpipes at the matches, but FIFA.
BTW, what do you consider the skean dhu to be but a weapon, albeit a
fairly ineffectual one? There have also been various incidents with
sikhs getting into a stew because the police won't alolow them to go out
on the streets in public marches, rallies etc armed with swords.
--
Jack Bramah
Kirk Potter
<Pe...@mcmail.demon.co.uk> writes
---snip---
>I just cannot believe that you people keep slagging off the English
>without checking your facts even vaguely. It certainly wasn't us who
>came up with this stupid attempt to ban bagpipes at football matches.
>The FIFA and EUFA are well known for daft rules, and are in charge of
>Euro 96 rulemaking, not the English.
I think you will find that the local police constabularies are
responsible for security of this nature. Anyway, surely the other
nations have much more lethal weapons than us Scots! What would you
rather be hit over the head with, a bass drum which is larger than it's
player or a gore-tex pipe bag?
>Some of us were even hoping Scotland would sneak through instead of
>Holland tonight, though not all of us!
--
Kirk Potter
Ki...@tfif.demon.co.uk
Fraser Muir (EE)
Isn't it amazing that in today's society people can't even enjoy
music without taking the matter to court. There are more serious problems
to deal with, than prosecuting a musician for playing his pipes at the
local park.
These people should be ashamed of themselves. I'll say this about
Londoners, they only care about themselves and to hell with the rest of
Britain.
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Paul McKeown wrote:
> hand...@ica.net (John Gilks) wrote:
>
> >Well there is a 'good' legal precedent. Bagpipes were held to be 'weapons
> >of war' by the courts after the '45. This allowed pipers to be treated as
> >'rebels taken in arms' and thus subject to rather unpleasant legal
> >consequences.
>
> I read in the Independant (UK newspaper) today that a Scot living in
> London who had been playing the pipes on Hampstead Heath each day for
> the last 15 or so years was being taken to court for playing a musical
> instrument in the park, aparently you aren't allowed to play any
> musical instrument. He had an agreement with the previous incarnation
> of the local council that he would play before 10am, there's a new
> local council now and they've ignored the agreement of the old one due
> to some recent complaints..
>
> His defense is that the pipes according to English law are not musical
> instruments but actually weapons of war.
>
> His lawyer thinks he has a good case as in 1747 in York, a Jacobite
> piper was on trial for his life accused of bearing arms against the
> english king. His defense was that he only every played the pipes on
> the battlefield and never took up arms. That english court ruled that
> the pipes were indeed weapons of war and the Jacobite was hanged.
>
Michael Wodzak
>
> These people should be ashamed of themselves. I'll say this about
> Londoners, they only care about themselves and to hell with the rest of
> Britain.
(the above in response to the below)
> >
> > I read in the Independant (UK newspaper) today that a Scot living in
> > London who had been playing the pipes on Hampstead Heath each day for
> > the last 15 or so years was being taken to court for playing a musical
> > instrument in the park, aparently you aren't allowed to play any
> > musical instrument. He had an agreement with the previous incarnation
> > of the local council that he would play before 10am, there's a new
> > local council now and they've ignored the agreement of the old one due
> > to some recent complaints..
Oh come now, I love the sound of the pipes, but if one man is disturbing
the rest of the neighbourhood, surely he is the one who cares only about
himself.
The enjoyment of the music of any instrument is surely more a matter of
taste than anything else, and if a neighbourhood in Hampstead Heath is
disturbed by the pipes, why does this imply that the attitude of (I
infer) all Londoners is "to Hell with the rest of Britain"?
Michal
Pete McClelland
In article <onsCgDAu...@tfif.demon.co.uk>, Kirk Potter
<ki...@tfif.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>The FIFA and EUFA are well known for daft rules, and are in charge of
>>Euro 96 rulemaking, not the English.
>
>I think you will find that the local police constabularies are
>responsible for security of this nature. Anyway, surely the other
>nations have much more lethal weapons than us Scots! What would you
>rather be hit over the head with, a bass drum which is larger than it's
>player or a gore-tex pipe bag?
No! You are wrong on this one. It was the international football
authorities, and the ban was overturned in the end anyway.
--
Pete McClelland
Fraser Muir (EE)
John, last year I attended all the World Cup games that took place
in Orlando. Of course there was a huge Dutch Brass Band playing when the
Dutch national team played. There was no protest from FIFA.
When Morocco played, there was a section of their fans who were
playing instruments (including drums with long drumsticks (weapons!).
Again no protest from FIFA, or any intervention from the Orlando Police
which was present in strong force!
Both sets of supporters I might add were true soccer supporters,
and a credit to their countries.
Why I wonder is it that the Great Highland Bagpipe had become a
concern during Euro 96. If FIFA are toiling with banning instruments at
games then they need to encompass all instruments, not a select few!
The whole subject to be honest is absolutely rediculous. I wonder
what clown or clowns at FIFA/English FA came up with this beauty in the
first place.
Roger Gawley
On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Michael Wodzak wrote:
>
> Oh come now, I love the sound of the pipes, but if one man is disturbing
> the rest of the neighbourhood, surely he is the one who cares only about
> himself.
Have you ever been to Hampstead Heath?
Michael Wodzak
Yes. Which is why, in my complete posting, I spoke of "a neighbourhood
of" and not "the neighbourhood of" H.H..
If the man is disturbing "a neighbourhood of" Hampstead Heath, the place
is plenty big enough for him to go elsewhere.
Michal
Scott Mills
>Thai Airlines consider hockey sticks to be adangerous offensive
>implement, and you may not carry them on their flights (except as
>luggage).
>
>As MANY people have said, it is not the English that tried to ban the
>bagpipes at the matches, but FIFA.
>
>BTW, what do you consider the skean dhu to be but a weapon, albeit a
>fairly ineffectual one? There have also been various incidents with
>sikhs getting into a stew because the police won't alolow them to go out
>on the streets in public marches, rallies etc armed with swords.
>--
>Jack Bramah
Your still in better shape than here in the USA. I live in the
suburbs outside Washington D.C. Here air pistols, waterguns, toy
dart guns, cell phones, beepers, pocket knives and many other things
are unlawful to have within 100ft of a school. This includes public
roads and nearby houses. Any sort of gun, be it a toy water gun or a
BB gun is considered a "firearm" under some county laws here.
Scott
tin...@erols.com
PGP/1024 26CD5D03
Dr John Barrow
Scott Mills (tin...@erols.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 25 Jun 1996 09:19:08 +0100, Jack Bramah
: <ja...@catland.demon.co.uk> wrote:
.. and that seems to me to be absolutely sensible when viewed from over
here after the Dunblane massacre and now what seems to be a similar incident
in Wolverhampton. One of the parents from the Dunblane massacre remarked to
the effect that there were arguments going on about the rights of people to
keep lethal weapons, but the right of their child to live had been denied.
I thought that was a most potent remark.
jb
(no smiley)