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.

Nick Griffin is a fat silly racist and bigot whose own party don’t even care what he is saying anymore.

His attempts to get back in the news and stay relevant by publishing the home address of a couple and promote retribution through an idiotic ‘british justice team’ is laughable.

The response from one of the couple who were discriminated against pretty much completely pricked the pomposity of Griffin’s crusade to protect the right of bigots to be bigots, and treated it with the seriousness it deserves

"We've been told that Nick Griffin is threatening to come to our house and hand out leaflets outside," Mr Black added.
"But, we live in a village where it wouldn't be easy for him or many people to come and gather.
"There's nowhere to park for a start and very few people walk past apart from school children.
"If anything happens it would be a damp squib."

Whilst I disagree with the judgement (and eagerly await the Bulls' SC case), I think you've summed him up perfectly there.

You can't go about inciting vigilante action, and, in any case, the only people who will be outraged by the judgement are people like me, and I would never dream of doing such a thing.

Why don’t you agree with the decision, it seems eminently sensible. You cant go around discriminating against people, that much should be self-evident.

If you want the freedom to live out your life choice however nonsensical and offensive it is to me, why cant they do the same?

Without getting into the same tired debates I've had over and over again on here, this is my view: reasonable adjustments should be made so that everyone is happy.

In this case I admit there is a clash of rights. The rights of the gay couple to live openly and freely ought to be respected, but likewise the Christian couple should have the freedom to manifest their sincerely held beliefs, even in the workplace.

The law is quite clear that, in cases like this, the Christians lose. I accept that decision, and can understand why the judges reached such a conclusion. However it is my view that the law is wrong and favours sexual orientation over religion. If you have a look at the Bulls' judgement, even the judge could see that this is a delicate legal balancing exercise and that a higher court might want to offer some clarity on the matter. That is why the Bulls were given permission to appeal.

You could say that the B&B owners shouldn't be running a business if they want to act in this way. However when they started their B&B business the UK did not even have civil partnerships. Why should they be forced out of business because the law now views civil partnerships as equal to marriage (even though the concept was never sold as such when it was being introduced)?

I'm sure some compromise could be reached whereby both parties are satisfied.

But the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving gay complainants refuse to turn the other cheek. Instead, they want revenge. How tolerant.

You mean like the relentless, vindictive, hate filled christians?

indeed, how tolerant

remind me, doesn't one of the commandments say "do unto others", or did you miss that page in your comic?

Not a commandment, I don't think, but one of Jesus's statements. But hey, Christians can ignore Christ too.

Quote ="kirkstaller"Without getting into the same tired debates I've had over and over again on here, this is my view: reasonable adjustments should be made so that everyone is happy. In this case I admit there is a clash of rights. The rights of the gay couple to live openly and freely ought to be respected, but likewise the Christian couple should have the freedom to manifest their sincerely held beliefs, even in the workplace. The law is quite clear that, in cases like this, the Christians lose. I accept that decision, and can understand why the judges reached such a conclusion. However it is my view that the law is wrong and favours sexual orientation over religion. If you have a look at the Bulls' judgement, even the judge could see that this is a delicate legal balancing exercise and that a higher court might want to offer some clarity on the matter. That is why the Bulls were given permission to appeal. You could say that the B&B owners shouldn't be running a business if they want to act in this way. However when they started their B&B business the UK did not even have civil partnerships. Why should they be forced out of business because the law now views civil partnerships as equal to marriage (even though the concept was never sold as such when it was being introduced)? I'm sure some compromise could be reached whereby both parties are satisfied. But the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving gay complainants refuse to turn the other cheek. Instead, they want revenge. How tolerant.'" So, As I find the Christian religion, its intolerance of homosexuality, the general subjugation of women in the bible, some of the fairly sick, incestuous, stories written in the bible, and organised religion as a whole, pretty offensive. Would you support my right to have beliefs manifest themselves in my workplace, should that include not giving Christians a job, not allowing them in to my place of business, if I do allow them to work for me, not allowing them to outwardly display their offensive beliefs through things like wearing a cross? And we can criticise the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving Shirley Chaplin? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klace.html How very Christian of her

Quote ="kirkstaller"Without getting into the same tired debates I've had over and over again on here, this is my view: reasonable adjustments should be made so that everyone is happy. In this case I admit there is a clash of rights. The rights of the gay couple to live openly and freely ought to be respected, but likewise the Christian couple should have the freedom to manifest their sincerely held beliefs, even in the workplace. The law is quite clear that, in cases like this, the Christians lose. I accept that decision, and can understand why the judges reached such a conclusion. However it is my view that the law is wrong and favours sexual orientation over religion. If you have a look at the Bulls' judgement, even the judge could see that this is a delicate legal balancing exercise and that a higher court might want to offer some clarity on the matter. That is why the Bulls were given permission to appeal. You could say that the B&B owners shouldn't be running a business if they want to act in this way. However when they started their B&B business the UK did not even have civil partnerships. Why should they be forced out of business because the law now views civil partnerships as equal to marriage (even though the concept was never sold as such when it was being introduced)? I'm sure some compromise could be reached whereby both parties are satisfied. But the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving gay complainants refuse to turn the other cheek. Instead, they want revenge. How tolerant.'" So, As I find the Christian religion, its intolerance of homosexuality, the general subjugation of women in the bible, some of the fairly sick, incestuous, stories written in the bible, and organised religion as a whole, pretty offensive. Would you support my right to have beliefs manifest themselves in my workplace, should that include not giving Christians a job, not allowing them in to my place of business, if I do allow them to work for me, not allowing them to outwardly display their offensive beliefs through things like wearing a cross? And we can criticise the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving Shirley Chaplin? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klace.html How very Christian of her

Quote ="SmokeyTA"So, As I find the Christian religion, its intolerance of homosexuality, the general subjugation of women in the bible, some of the fairly sick, incestuous, stories written in the bible, and organised religion as a whole, pretty offensive. Would you support my right to have beliefs manifest themselves in my workplace, should that include not giving Christians a job, not allowing them in to my place of business, if I do allow them to work for me, not allowing them to outwardly display their offensive beliefs through things like wearing a cross? And we can criticise the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving Shirley Chaplin? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klace.html How very Christian of her'" She is simply arguing for the right to wear her crucifix at work. She feels compelled to manifest her faith in her workplace and that should be respected. The bottom line is, you should be able to discriminate against customers on any basis you like, but not employees. It is unreasonable for someone to lose their livelihood, it is not unreasonable for someone to go to the B&B/shop down the road. In today's free market people can vote with their feet if they don't like it.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"So, As I find the Christian religion, its intolerance of homosexuality, the general subjugation of women in the bible, some of the fairly sick, incestuous, stories written in the bible, and organised religion as a whole, pretty offensive. Would you support my right to have beliefs manifest themselves in my workplace, should that include not giving Christians a job, not allowing them in to my place of business, if I do allow them to work for me, not allowing them to outwardly display their offensive beliefs through things like wearing a cross? And we can criticise the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving Shirley Chaplin? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klace.html How very Christian of her'" She is simply arguing for the right to wear her crucifix at work. She feels compelled to manifest her faith in her workplace and that should be respected. The bottom line is, you should be able to discriminate against customers on any basis you like, but not employees. It is unreasonable for someone to lose their livelihood, it is not unreasonable for someone to go to the B&B/shop down the road. In today's free market people can vote with their feet if they don't like it.