But doesn't that make his sentence even more grotesque?

Presumably he would have benefited from some form of 'discount' for pleading guilty which means the sentencer was inclined to give an even longer sentence.

He got the usual one third discount for pleading guilty.

And what was JLC's sentence for actual abuse?

Now, I suspect that the community sentence handed down to Collins will have a positive effect (that and the damage to his career). But what it does make this other sentence look even more ridiculous.

Along with the epitaph, "It was good while it lasted"?

Thats the kind of thing i was talking about when I said.[i There are a lot of things which are coming out which there doesnt seem to be any evidence for, or seem to be taking on a different tone which has meant this story has begun to eat itself, where every remark is looked at in the context of being spoken by a highly active paedophile/conspiracy/coverup which in turn becomes evidence of a highly active paedophile/conspiracy/coverup[/i

He was encased in concrete because for some reason there was some incorrect information put out that the coffin was made of gold and some of his possessions (like jewelry etc) had been buried with him.

You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences.

Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down.

Yet you still argue one is worse than the other.

Is a physical act [ialways [/iworse than verbal offending? I wouldn't say so. But the law is often on the face of it like this, in that you could pick out a whole host of "lenient looking" sentences for a range of varying offences, and an equal number of "severe" looking sentences for a different range of offences, and say "Look at X, he should surely have got more than Y, as X is plainly far worse than Y". It's just pointless.

Indeed. But it's been exercising plenty of people on the intertubes since yesterday, so it kind of takes on a life of its own.



Indeed.



I should perhaps have made myself clearer. I was meaning to 'argue' that, given the number of people comparing the two, then it will inevitably [uappear[/u that the community sentence was 'light'.

I would, however, still maintain that, unless it involved incitement, what words can merit such a sentence?

And then the comparison is fair. Because if one allows that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate (or at least possibly appropriate, depending on one's personal view), then what words are so offensive that they merit such a sentence?

Who has decided what if merely offensive – and what is so über offensive that prison is the answer? Who has drawn the line? How was it drawn? Why is any comment/opinion ever a crime? How is 'offensiveness' weighed?

And so forth.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences. Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down. Yet you still argue one is worse than the other. Is a physical act [ialways [/iworse than verbal offending? I wouldn't say so. But the law is often on the face of it like this, in that you could pick out a whole host of "lenient looking" sentences for a range of varying offences, and an equal number of "severe" looking sentences for a different range of offences, and say "Look at X, he should surely have got more than Y, as X is plainly far worse than Y". It's just pointless.'" Here is what was said Quote ="SmokeyTA"It wasn’t tweeted, it was on his facebook page, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/0 ... ods-jailed'"

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences. Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down. Yet you still argue one is worse than the other. Is a physical act [ialways [/iworse than verbal offending? I wouldn't say so. But the law is often on the face of it like this, in that you could pick out a whole host of "lenient looking" sentences for a range of varying offences, and an equal number of "severe" looking sentences for a different range of offences, and say "Look at X, he should surely have got more than Y, as X is plainly far worse than Y". It's just pointless.'" Here is what was said Quote ="SmokeyTA"It wasn’t tweeted, it was on his facebook page, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/0 ... ods-jailed'"

There is [isome[/i of what was said - "Also posted were comments of a more sexually explicit nature."


And that is the correct argument. And identifies the correct wider discussion. The subjective answer is that a court has decided (has had to decide) that what was said was so offensive that only a custodial sentence would do. Which does get us into the greyest of grey areas - does the court decide on what the "imprisonable offensiveness" level is? Well, I suppose if there is an offence, then it has to. But the court isn't meant to be [imaking[/i the law, just applying it. So on what does it base its rulings?

Obviously it is impractical and impossible to have a complete lexicon of permissible and impermissible things to say. And that is also before you even get into greyer areas such as context, intention and ambiguity.

Should therefore people be allowed to say absolutely whatever they want, wherever they want, without any restriction or recourse? I would firmly say not. But if there are to be legal limits, who makes them, and how, and how does a person know what the rules are?

Given the impossibility of specifying every unacceptable phrase, is there any other way than allowing the courts to simply impose their views, in any individual case, on the (clearly inaccurate) basis that a court on any given day "knows" what is unacceptable and to what degree?

The worst laws in terms of causing offence are surely the blasphemy laws. Why should domebody be jailed for making remarks about a fictional being that doesnt exist because it offends somebody that is naive enought to believe in such a being?

The Go Compare man offends me, can i report that to the police?

No but abuse him on Twitter and plod will be round

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... l-chambers

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... l-chambers

[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/barry-thew-radcliffe-man-jailed-1373239And another – this time, jailed for wearing an 'offensive' t-shirt.[/url

That's actually a bloody good article. But I still don't knwo what Wood said, in order to be jailed. Some of his "jokes" have surfaced, but it seems to be the case that the "worst" excesses for which he is doing time are not for public consumption.

This is nuts.

The message in the case reports should at least be:

This man said x,y and z. X is bad, but y and z are imprisonable. So take note, and don't come out with stuff like this yourself".

Whereas I can take no lesson from Mr Wood's case. For I know there are things I may say on Facebook that are so bad, I will be jailed, but I am not allowed to know what those things are. However if ever up on a charge, I would presumably be jailed because I "should have known".

To report, in full, what he said that has got him jailed, would upset no-one. The upset (such as whatever it was) was caused by whoever it was that read his utterings and was grievously offended by them. No such person could possibly be re-offended by reading a report of what they already know he wrote.

So why can we not be told what it was, and if we are not to be told, then what is the point?

Keir Starmer announces review into new guidelines for policing social media, to avoid a "chilling effect" on free speech- "we have to protect the right to be offensive"

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19910865[/url

Not really thought of it from that angle but you are 100% right and makes it even more of a mockery.

Any coincidence that the butt of the jokes that got these two oddjobs sent down were young white females? Young white female victim = more public outrage, more public outrage = higher likelihood of prison term.

May as well wear a t-shirt saying 'F**king Bl*ck C**ts' on it. You'll just get a slap on t'wrist for that.

In the early 90's the Police were threatening to arrest anyone wearing an Inspiral Carpets "Cool As F" (you know the word) T-Shirt though not sure they ever did, before that it was court cases involving Never Mind The Bollocks same crap different decade springs to mind.

The feller with the t-shirt. That sentance is a joke. Who has he harmed? Nobody. He is a knobrash but he hasn't done anything to warrant a custodial sentance. Same with the facebook guy.

A few years ago a fan of the heavy metal band Cradle of Filth was arrested for wearing one of their T-shirts bearing the logo "Jesus is a c***". Can't remember whether they did him for a public order offense or blasphemy.

I remember a guy getting prosecuted for wearing a Dead Kennedys "Too Drunk to F***" back in the day. Think he got fined

I remember a guy getting prosecuted for wearing a Dead Kennedys "Too Drunk to F***" back in the day. Think he got fined.

Nick Griffin getting in trouble for tweets this morning, though in this case the police might have a point.