Us plebs are easily amused.

Even more amused by guerilla toffs

I wonder what punishment you would suggest [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_DavisonEmily Davison should've received[/url, had she not been killed?

Deserved all she got.

Spoilt the King's day out at the races.

Where in the bible does Jesus say to his followers that they need to where a cross? Furthermore doesn't the bible have something to say about not making graven images and what did Jesus say about hyprocrites?



So you if you don't like black people you can turn them away, I'm sure there's a word for that.

What words do you not want hear after sex,

"how's about that then".

We all should be equal (well, all but X Factor viewers), but unfortunately there are members of any given ''minority'' group, including homosexuals, who believe their 'ilk' deserve special treatment.

A starting point would've been 6 months, but as she was a nasty, violent piece of work with several previous convictions, I expect it might have been longer.

Why?

Bloody radicals!
It's like a negress sitting in the white section of a Montgomery bus and refusing to move.

Thank fook the police were around to arrest her.
I'd wager she was a nasty piece of work to boot.

Have to take your word for that.



...and that...

There was a piece in today's Times in which Rowan Atkinson was putting the case forward for amending Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act which appears to be the legislation under which a lot of these kinds of cases are prosecuted. He claims that the reference to 'insulting words or behaviour likely to ...' is now being abused and should be withdrawn.

Since on principle I won't pay to go on the Times website, [url=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mr-bean-fights-insult-people-113236202.htmlhere is Yahoo's mini version of what the article said[/url. The groups supporting his view listed at the end of the article represent an interesting mix. Who would have thought that the Christian Alliance and National Secular Society for two would agree on something? I suppose they just want the freedom to insult each other!

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Bean. Things have gone too far and we need to redress the balance.

"special treatment" like being afforded the same rights as people not in "minority" groups.

I love it when someone uses the term "ilk".

I once worked for someone who used it constantly. When a colleague asked me "what exactly is an ilk?" I could only suggest it was "a c**t with horns"

Yes. You will. In just the same that you will have to 'take the word' of most everyone else here on many, many things.



No. You won't. [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/paul-gambaccini-claims-sir-jimmy-savile-used-charity-work-to-prevent-sexual-abuse-of-schoolchildren-being-exposed-8191761.htmlStory[/url

[url=http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Plymouth-Royal-Navy-diver-child-abuse-images-cops/story-17133926-detail/story.htmlThousands of kiddie porn images results in a suspended sentence.[/url

Once again, it appears completely bonkers to send someone to prison for saying nasty things on Facebook, compared with some of the crimes that result in a community order or suspended sentence.

In a ray of sunshine on the common sense front, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20033097Frankie Boyle[/url wins case against [iMirror[/i, which erroneously claimed he was a racist after misunderstanding his humour.

I don't like Boyle, personally, but this seems a sensible decision, on the basis of what I've read.

I think he's a big wuss, gives it out but cant take it. Of course he's not rascist, but when has he ever bothered about whether his insults have been accurate?

I'd go a long way with that. As I said, I don't personally like him – or find much of what he does remotely funny.

You can question whether he was right to pursue such a case, but on the other hand, it illustrates how comment (comedy or otherwise) can be misconstrued subjectively – and where would we be if the judgement had gone against him?

I don't disagree with them finding in his favour. But they should have awarded him token damages. I think the defense suggested the price of the newspaper. Or perhaps a voucher for a swimming session at the Rebecca Adlington Swimming Centre.

Live by the sword...

Personally I like Frankie Boyle. I have never heard him say anything which could be taken as being racist except in an ironic sense when he has been having a go at racists. He would appear to suffer from a similar sort of misinterpretation that Alf Garnett suffered from.

Yes, that's what I said isn't it....

Part of any damages award is punitive, how else are those who tend toward slander to be disuaded?

As it is, [url=http://www.reprieve.org.uk/Frankie Boyle has donated his award to Reprieve[/url

Back to the plot, now we've got an international ref, Klattenburg, being investigated not only by the FA, but also ludicrously by the Met, for alleged 'racialist' language, yet whilst the implication is that he has said a Very Bad Thing, we are not allowed to know what it was.

By trawling the depths of the net the only thing I've seen reported is the term, "Spanish tart". Klattenburg has been charged with nothing so nothing is sub judice. The FA have powers to act, but my question is, and irrespective of whether this ref used that term or not, do we really have the money and the time and resources to prosecute a person for calling another person a "Spanish tart"?

If I go down to my local Nick and report that a bloke at the pub last night called me a "Spanish tart", is he going to get his collar felt? Should he? The courts could soon become rather busy.

FA, you will love [url=http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/police-question-disability-activist-about-criminal-posts-on-facebook-update/this little story[/url, which, on the basis of what is known, could be even better than that.

If that's all he said then the whole thing is ridiculous, and I'm suspicious that the allegations just happen to have come from Chelsea.

Also, apparently the complaint to the Met was made by a lawyer who wasn't at the game, didn't watch it on tv and didn't listen to it on the radio. All he knows are the media reports.

I'm not surprised to be honest, I think there are too many police officers who push the boundaries of the law and relish taking on "easy prey".