Inappropriate posts.

[Stingo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19863228

I'm not usually one to get on a high horse or anything, however in light of recent posts in the joke thread, and similar jokes that we all are possibly aware of, and the speed in which they can be circulated today, internet, text etc, it might be worth taking note of this article and perhaps in future pausing before posting. It's not necessarily what you think might or might not cause offence, it's what others think. I will certainly be pausing in future...

[Bluepete]

It's a good point, well made. The list if offences available to the CPS is so long and convoluted that even in a country with free speech, it is easy to find yourself on the wrong side of the book.

[Specialone]

Law aside, we should all be a bit more sensitive to things of this magnitude IMO.


I've been guilty before of laughing at some really distasteful jokes and it's just as bad.

Jimmy saville, Gary glitter etc are probably fair game, but families going through something like this aren't.

[maviczap]

It never ceases to amaze me over the stupidity of folk, with inappropriate posts, from the fairly trivial in the vein of Ashley Cole's tweets about the FA, to ones like this. I can't understand the mentality of someone making light about this missing girl.

Think before you press enter or send, good point well made Stingo.

[carelesschucca]

Jimmy saville, Gary glitter etc are probably fair game, but families going through something like this aren't.

+1

[SoulKiss]

I thought we had something called "Free Speech" in this country.

A "Offensive" is a subjective thing, it pretty much means you cant say anything without fear of being locked up.

[Spank86]

I think I see where you got confused soulkiss, you're thinking of America that has the free speech. It's also got limits even there.

[Specialone]

It's not about being allowed free speech, it's about responsibility and sensitivity.
Just because you can say these things, doesn't mean you have to.

Anyway, nowhere in the world can you have totally free speech, it will always upset someone.

When free speech includes vile posts designed purely to upset or offend, or anti religious placards or media that incites violence or terrorism then it should be censored IMO.

[svrich]

It's about rights AND responsibility. Nothing about anything that has happened to that family could be turned into a joke. And the victims of Garry Glitter and Jimmy Saville deserve things being taken seriously. I'm no stick-in-the-mud but comedy is about being funny not laughing at people. That's just cheap.

[Fruity-ya-ya]

And here's me thinking someone had come up with a thread to keep all the poor taste posts in one easy to reach place ;)

I have to concede I believe in freedom of speech but I would hope that those who have something to say do so appropriately.

[keith_d]

There's an interesting (if rather dated) blog on the subject of Section 127 here:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/section-127-paul

There's certainly scope for a debate on whether it's appropriate in a democracy to try and force self-censorship upon people by using an offence which is so broadly defined. Personally, I'd be willing to tolerate some fairly offensive postings without feeling the need for legislation to protect me or my family. Just on the principle that I don't think it's the government's responsibility to legislate on what constitutes good or bad taste.

Where posts are threatening or incite criminal offenses, then I would expect the state to get involved. But not in cases where someone writes something which is so tasteless as to cause offense.

[SoulKiss]

It's about rights AND responsibility. Nothing about anything that has happened to that family could be turned into a joke. And the victims of Garry Glitter and Jimmy Saville deserve things being taken seriously. I'm no stick-in-the-mud but comedy is about being funny not laughing at people. That's just cheap.

People's sense of humour vary, it may not be funny to you, but it may be funny to someone. How else do you explain Frankie Boyle's career...


I have to concede I believe in freedom of speech but I would hope that those who have something to say do so appropriately.

Sure, we all do, but is an arrest record/time in a cell etc an appropriate way of saying "whoa dude, there is a line you know"?

There's an interesting (if rather dated) blog on the subject of Section 127 here:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/section-127-paul

There's certainly scope for a debate on whether it's appropriate in a democracy to try and force self-censorship upon people by using an offence which is so broadly defined. Personally, I'd be willing to tolerate some fairly offensive postings without feeling the need for legislation to protect me or my family. Just on the principle that I don't think it's the government's responsibility to legislate on what constitutes good or bad taste.

Where posts are threatening or incite criminal offenses, then I would expect the state to get involved. But not in cases where someone writes something which is so tasteless as to cause offense.

Bingo, exactly.

You can call me anything you want, although be prepared to have to prove any allegations that cause me damage or loss.

Similarly, threats, or incitement, as mentioned, should not be tolerated regardless of the media over which they are made.

[Spank86]

Of course the telephone network and the Internet aren't public property as such.

So freedom of speech issues aren't so clear cut.

[SoulKiss]

Of course the telephone network and the Internet aren't public property as such.

So freedom of speech issues aren't so clear cut.

Care to tell me who owns the internet?

Telcos own the routers/cabling, Hosting Providers the Servers, and many individuals the content.

The Service Providers, like Twitter have the power, through your Terms of Use to take down anything you put down that breaches what they have said you can or cannot post.

These are the channels that complaints should go through, not the Police Stations, Courts and Jails.

[-Ralph-]

I understand the reaction, I agree with what is being said about free speech.

It's interesting to see the reaction however, citing insensitivity towards the parents as the reasoning, when nobody bothered about the Megan Stammers jokes higher on the page. 5 or 15, the parents are still going through hell.

I think the reaction is actually more down to the seriousness of the situation and the age and complete innocence of the victim, than what the parents are going through. You think of a small defenseless child being abducted, abused and hurt, it makes you angry. You see a joke posted about it it makes you angry too, but it is all about your emotions, and although you have real sympathy for the parents, thats not what provoked the reaction. Many would probably have a similar reaction to posts admitting cruelty to animals, it's not because you feel sorry for the animals mother (though personally I dont understand people getting as emotional about an animal as the would about a child, but it does happen).

Sure get angry about the joke, if thats the way you feel about it, but you don't need to find reasons to justify the way you feel to others on the forum.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[Dicky Ticker]

Everybody seems to have a different view,depending on your sense of humour but keeping sensitivity separate from incitement every comedian in this country would be out of work if its down to sensitivity

[Spank86]

Care to tell me who owns the internet?

Telcos own the routers/cabling, Hosting Providers the Servers, and many individuals the content.
Answer your own question much? ;)

It's like free speech in a shopping centre.


I do agree that jail time would be a massive overreaction but there are and always have been laws governing the use of communications systems, most of them actually benefit the users.

[SoulKiss]

Answer your own question much? ;)

It's like free speech in a shopping centre.


I do agree that jail time would be a massive overreaction but there are and always have been laws governing the use of communications systems, most of them actually benefit the users.

I listed the infrastructure of the internet, but nothing that is "The Internet" or do you believe that somewhere out there exsists a little black box with a flashing light on it, looked after by The Elders of the Internet.

There should not be laws purely based on subjective measure of an event.

[Spank86]

I listed the infrastructure of the internet, but nothing that is "The Internet" or do you believe that somewhere out there exsists a little black box with a flashing light on it, looked after by The Elders of the Internet.
The internet is in part a concept, but in other senses a collection of software and data on hardware.

If you boil it right down you could say the internet is the hardware it runs on (a little bit recursive I know) so ownership of the hardware is ownership of the net.

And no I'm not saying theres one owner, but that theres lots of owners of sections of it.

[Dabteacake]

I listed the infrastructure of the internet, but nothing that is "The Internet" or do you believe that somewhere out there exsists a little black box with a flashing light on it, looked after by The Elders of the Internet.

There should not be laws purely based on subjective measure of an event.

someone has been watching the IT crowd lol. I think it is over the top tbh. In my line of work black humour is all that can keep you going at times. If the guys was pointing and laughing at the mum that's insensitive and needs a slap, making a joke (however insensitive) on the internet and getting arrested is a bit steep. Not like it was cyber bullying and he was messaging the parents on twitter to give the grief

[Bluepete]

Well, the lad got three months in prison. Maybe the discussion should move towards sentencing guidelines. That's a long sentence for basically typing a few words on a computer. (Google Mark Woods and read the Guardian for what he typed)

[AndyBrad]

Absolutely shocking. While I agree posts are inappropriate that is surely suppressing free speech ? As you say if Frankie Boyle had said it nothing would have happened.

The original post by bluepete sent shivers down my spine !



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Mark_h]

If you work on the general rule of "What would my Mum think if she read what I was posting" then you shouldn't go far wrong unless of course your Mum is a totally immoral insensitive low-life in which case at least you have someone to blame when you get caught out.

[AndyBrad]

Not really the point that is it ?



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Stenno]

It's a toughie. Basically some dopey teenage layabout posts jokes he's seen on sickipedia.org onto his own facebook page and gets 3 months prison for it. I don't know the full story but I don't see what use it is putting him in prison? I could understand if he sent the messages to the family, but they were on his own facebook page (unless the family actually were his 'friends')?
I was sickened by the way the Daily Mail at least, handled Simoncelli's death, but was told by the PCC that unless the family had seen the paper and wanted to complain, nothing could be done. So I find it odd that this teenager ends up in prison.

I think we have a judicial system this year that has no idea what to do about speech on the internet.

Oh and although down for maintenance, sickipedia still seems to be running.

[MisterTommyH]

The sentence is completely dis-proportionate to sentences handed out for other crimes.

When you can get away without a jail sentence for things with much more serious consequences - dangerous driving etc. three weeks for a facebook comment seems far too much.

If it absolutly had to be a custodial sentence then a day or three might have been more measured.

[Spank86]

If you work on the general rule of "What would my Mum think if she read what I was posting" then you shouldn't go far wrong unless of course your Mum is a totally immoral insensitive low-life in which case at least you have someone to blame when you get caught out.

Thats me staying silent then, my mum doesn't approve of motorbikes.

[yorkie_chris]

I hope whoever reported them to the police for this "offence" gets mugged, their house burgled, beaten up or something this weekend :)

Nice way to protect the public there lad. F*** yeah. Some good been done here. Have a pat on the back.

[widepants]

carefull Chris , if they get battered you'll be had up for incitement ...you bad man............ 3 months

[-Ralph-]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-matthew-woods-jailed

So has the person responsible for the jokes on Sickopedia, also been arrested and charged? If not, why not? A Facebook page open only to people who choose to be his 'friends' (what a nonsense that is, another subject), versus a website totally open to the public. OK on Facebook you are essentially distributing a message which will appear on the wall of your 'friends', so you are in effect sending an electronic communication, whereas the sickopedia website is there and you can choose whether to view it or not, but these people chose to be on his friend list too.

three weeks for a facebook comment seems far too much.

If it absolutly had to be a custodial sentence then a day or three might have been more measured.

Three MONTHS Tommy.

[Mark_h]

At the end of the day, posting anything on a forum, twitface or anywhere else is not really different to standing outside Halfords and just telling jokes to passers by. People feel "protected" by the computer and so will say things they will never say to a real person in a normal situation.

If you started saying enough disrespectful stuff in a public place I'm sure some public order offence would eventually take place either due to your comments or someone giving you a slap and it would stop. Also when you stopped talking chances are there will be no lasting legacy unlike the internet where stuff tends to live for ever.

The law at the moment is clearly uncertain how to deal with this. Is it really worse to Tweet something offensive than to break into someone's house, nick stuff and put a whole family through grief; probably not but sentencing would suggest otherwise at times.

I suspect we'll have a few show-cases, eyebrows will be raised then it will settle down once we have precident. Seems to be happening right now for people who give a burglar a good defensive, protective, kicking when the find one in their kitchen at 3 in the morning.

Hopefully on here people will remember the common sensibility of the forum is an interest in Motorcycles which is different to that of other sites such as sikipedia beyond that this is a U-rated forum and as such my Mum should not be offended so regardless of whether you are pasting from elsewhere or creating something from scratch just think before you post.

We've already got enough reasons to get in trouble with the police, lets not add thoughtless posting to the list!

[-Ralph-]

At the end of the day, posting anything on a forum, twitface or anywhere else is not really different to standing outside Halfords and just telling jokes to passers by

Not quite. It'd be like writing the jokes down on a whiteboard in permanent marker, chaining the whiteboard to the pavement outside Halfords, so nobody could remove it, and subjecting every Halfords customer that passes day to reading it.

As you say being behind a keyboard makes people braver, at least if you stood outside Halfords telling jokes, a passer by can walk away from you, cross the street, punch you themselves, or ask the police to come and remove you, if they don't like your joke.

I don't agree with the sentencing, but I think the issue is the fact it's been put out there in black and white, and nobody but the user or the site admins have the power to remove it, and everyone on his Facebook page was presented with it.

[dizzyblonde]

Um not being funny, but how can one person be chastised for making an inappropriate joke on FB but another can be spared despite saying 'all soldiers should die and go to hell' or something to that effect.
Just been watching local news and an Asian youth was in court in Huddersfield for posting on FB, for as such today.

I'd link the story but on my phone.

Why a rule for one and not another?

[Thunderace]

At the end of the day, posting anything on a forum, twitface or anywhere else is not really different to standing outside Halfords and just telling jokes to passers by. People feel "protected" by the computer and so will say things they will never say to a real person in a normal situation.

If you started saying enough disrespectful stuff in a public place I'm sure some public order offence would eventually take place either due to your comments or someone giving you a slap and it would stop. Also when you stopped talking chances are there will be no lasting legacy unlike the internet where stuff tends to live for ever.

The law at the moment is clearly uncertain how to deal with this. Is it really worse to Tweet something offensive than to break into someone's house, nick stuff and put a whole family through grief; probably not but sentencing would suggest otherwise at times.

I suspect we'll have a few show-cases, eyebrows will be raised then it will settle down once we have precident. Seems to be happening right now for people who give a burglar a good defensive, protective, kicking when the find one in their kitchen at 3 in the morning.

Hopefully on here people will remember the common sensibility of the forum is an interest in Motorcycles which is different to that of other sites such as sikipedia beyond that this is a U-rated forum and as such my Mum should not be offended so regardless of whether you are pasting from elsewhere or creating something from scratch just think before you post.

We've already got enough reasons to get in trouble with the police, lets not add thoughtless posting to the list!

Now Dad, as you know I'm not one to sugar the pill when it comes to my opinions, but I seem to be the opposite of what you say? I have no problem screaming in the face of any body I feel deserves it, but on 'tinternet I try my damnedest to be all pink and fluffy so not to offend, especially on this forum as some of the orgers...erm... organs....erm you know what I mean would quite rightly take offence to some of the stuff I would love to say, but I don't for fear of being removed.

[DJ123]

with a lot of it it depends on the context, and how you, the reader, interpret the post and what has been written. You could write one sentence show it to 5 people and all 5 could take away something different from it.
Yes we should all count to 10 before posting, and read what we have written in order not to cause offence to anyone who may read it. Sometimes no matter what you do, you're going to upset someone-it may not be with what you have written but by their interpretation of it.

[yorkie_chris]

Um not being funny, but how can one person be chastised for making an inappropriate joke on FB but another can be spared despite saying 'all soldiers should die and go to hell' or something to that effect.
Just been watching local news and an Asian youth was in court in Huddersfield for posting on FB, for as such today.

I'd link the story but on my phone.

Why a rule for one and not another?

Might offend some towelhead, camel jockey cads who'd run around and set fire to a lot of things if they gave the same sentence to that sort of twit!
Or more likely some middle class white liberal bum bandit wazzocks would engage in a lot of hand wringing and tear-spattered letters to their MP.


There should be a simple case... you get no punishment if you have the bottle to say it to everyone you may have offended, face to face :)

[Sid Squid]

I'd be willing to tolerate some fairly offensive postings without feeling the need for legislation to protect me or my family. Just on the principle that I don't think it's the government's responsibility to legislate on what constitutes good or bad taste.
This.

The state should not be involved in such matters, the legislation on this is confused, politically motivated and ludicrously open to abuse.

I should have a right to offend if I choose to. We cannot hope to promote responsible use of any sort of freedom by arbitrary controls on what may or may not be 'correct' speech.

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

Have we really lost the plot on this? All speech however horrible should be free and above all there should be no legal control on it.

[Spank86]

I'd modify that to all speech that isn't an exhortation to illegal behaviour.

[Sid Squid]

The words themselves aren't the problem, if you are attempting to incite illegal acts that's a different matter, for which we already have legislation.

[widepants]

Might offend some towelhead, camel jockey cads who'd run around and set fire to a lot of things if they gave the same sentence to that sort of twit!
Or more likely some middle class white liberal bum bandit wazzocks would engage in a lot of hand wringing and tear-spattered letters to their MP.


There should be a simple case... you get no punishment if you have the bottle to say it to everyone you may have offended, face to face :)
holding back again I see cwissy

[Specialone]

For example, radical Muslims or whatever they call themselves, marching with placards saying 'behead those who oppose Islam" or variations of this, you saying this should be allowed and not an offence???

Free speech comes with responsibility, that type of bull **** isn't free speech it's incitement and should be legislated against (which I'm sure it is already).

That **** on FB who keeps posting about soldiers deserve to die etc, that shouldn't be allowed either IMO, but it's irrelevant anyway cos he's gonna receive karma one day, someone will make him disappear like magic.

[dizzyblonde]

It's like uttering Jehovah........

[hardhat_harry]

I'd like to point out that some of the best films ever made were at the time considered inappropiate or distasteful.

Life Of Brian
The Wild One

I'll think of some more in a bit

[Spank86]

Of course some of the worst ones were too.

[-Ralph-]

Words can be used as a means to harm others. There is and should be legislation to control what people can and can't say to each other. For instance it's illegal to make a death threat, or to bully in the workplace, and rightly so. Had these comments been posted on April's parents FB page then the prosecution would be justified. People unrelated to April in any way getting upset by a sick joke shouldn't result in a prosecution IMO.

I agree that the government shouldn't legislate on matters of opinion or taste.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[Sid Squid]

For example, radical Muslims or whatever they call themselves, marching with placards saying 'behead those who oppose Islam" or variations of this, you saying this should be allowed and not an offence?
You might find it strange but yes, I am. Every time one of those ******s squeals that **** we unarguably prove how our country, our people, our laws*, our sensibilities and our way of life is immeasurably better than the one they're shouting for.

In the countries that have the way of life they're arguing for, such actions would invoke a beating from the police, torture and a long disappearance.

In our country when they squeal, shout and insult and what we do is point and laugh, we demonstrate how much better we are then them.

We win.

Again.


*Until they're ****ed by the politics of the left, that is.

[femaleacid]

I think people don't know where that line is anymore.
I'm all up for a joke and a bit of banter but I know when things go to far.

Example:
There was a certain individual on Facebook, who got 'explicit' pictures leaked on Facebook. Yes, at first I was like woah! And even the girl learned to cope with it as it blew over and she finally started to laugh about it. Fine. But then somebody recently made a Facebook group about her in which hundreds of people joined this group and told her she's this and that and made horrible remarks.
I saw this as bullying and I genuinely felt sorry for the girl.

But staying on the subject, there was a group on Facebook that the guy who got charged for this April business should be hung, yes he's a horrible man IF he is guilty and yes I hope he suffers the consequences coming but I don't think people should be judgmental between taking a man's life. I feel it makes them just as bad as the minds of criminals?

Sorry for the essay :lol:
Amy x

[Specialone]

Sid, IMO once they start coming out with vile **** then the free speech privilege is removed.
I don't want our country to be that free, I don't want them to have a platform at all, it offends me.
We'll have to agree to disagree :)


Btw, I seen the hanging thing about Aprils alleged abductor, without getting all liberal, but ffs, find him guilty first along with the facts.
Has he got mental illness? He might have for all we know.

Castration is better IMO.

[Spank86]

You might find it strange but yes, I am. Every time one of those ******s squeals that **** we unarguably prove how our country, our people, our laws*, our sensibilities and our way of life is immeasurably better than the one they're shouting for.

SO you'd let someone repeatedly try to convince someone else to kill a guy and then lock up the person who actually does it whilst the speaker goes free to convince someone else?

[Sid Squid]

SO you'd let someone repeatedly try to convince someone else to kill a guy and then lock up the person who actually does it whilst the speaker goes free to convince someone else?
No, in that circumstance their intent is to incite an illegal act. Try to see the difference. Legislation exists for exactly that circumstance without compromising the freedom for me to say what I want, and the freedom for others to say things that I don't agree with.

If we are attempting to legislate responsible actions we've already committed ourselves to failure, you cannot legislate responsibility, only who is responsible.

Many people seem not to understand the concept of 'free', free speech means you can say what you like, if you contravene another law in doing so the legislation exists to account for that.

Free speech inevitably means hearing things that you don't like, once we start to erode that freedom we irrevocably move nearer to a situation in which thoughts and words you sympathise with will be censured.

Be careful what you wish for - you might just get it.

[Spank86]

No, in that circumstance their intent is to incite an illegal act. Try to see the difference. Legislation exists for exactly that circumstance without compromising the freedom for me to say what I want, and the freedom for others to say things that I don't agree with.
Whereas a placard saying "behead those who insult islam" ISN'T inciting an illegal act???

Which was the phrase in the post you replied to.

[Sid Squid]

Whereas a placard saying "behead those who insult islam" ISN'T inciting an illegal act?
No, and we both know it wasn't. It's a horrible ugly thing to say, but that's all it was - words. No more. No individual was mentioned, it was a hopelessly unspecific piece of barracking aimed squarely at provoking controversy. Rising to it, not dismissing it as the stupidity it obviously is, and actually aiming to constrain everyone's right to speak as they wish, (whether sensibly, proportionally and whether a majority view or not), plays directly into the hands of those like the fools who would squeal so horribly.
They want restriction, they want control by the earthly representatives of a radically invoked sky pixie, and by ranting so objectionably they hope to make us do it for them.

Which was the phrase in the post you replied to.
Thanks for that, I wouldn't know what I was replying to if you didn't put me straight.

[gruntygiggles]

I have to agree with Sir Sid of Squid here. If we get too worked up over blanket remarks, we will end up unable to have any authority in dealing with the truly inciting comments. Make the lines too wide and you weaken the structure type argument.

Had the phrase been, "behead joe blogs for insulting Islam" then yes, that is inciting specific violence and appropriate action should be taken.

The phrase mentioned here is no different in terms of exercising the right to free speech than people saying, "occupy London, stop the cuts" last year. Occupation is a pretty serious thing, but that message was taken as it should have been, a broad message to get a point across, not a direct call for people to occupy our countries capital.

There is a line, it is a blurry line, so there will never be anything clear cut, but if we make too much of a big deal when people try to get reactions out of us buy saying offensive things, we are playing right into their hands.

Remember, incitement and offensive are two very different things!

[Spank86]

No, and we both know it wasn't. It's a horrible ugly thing to say, but that's all it was - words. No more. No individual was mentioned, it was a hopelessly unspecific piece of barracking aimed squarely at provoking controversy.

I'd say it IS inciting people to behead those who insult islam.


Thanks for that, I wouldn't know what I was replying to if you didn't put me straight.
I was covering all bases in an attempt to forestall an "i never said that style post"

But thanks for your sarcasm, I was running low.

[Thunderace]

with a lot of it it depends on the context, and how you, the reader, interpret the post and what has been written. You could write one sentence show it to 5 people and all 5 could take away something different from it.
Yes we should all count to 10 before posting, and read what we have written in order not to cause offence to anyone who may read it. Sometimes no matter what you do, you're going to upset someone-it may not be with what you have written but by their interpretation of it.

Trust me Job, I can offend anyone!

In fact you've seen me in action, If I typed like I talk I'd be banned in an instant!

[Bluepete]

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1590965_jailed-man-who-wore-anti-police-t-shirt-on-day-pcs-fiona-bone-and-nicola-hughes-were-shot

For further discussion.

Pete

[dizzyblonde]

Sad as the circumstance was..... It's a flippin t-shirt... Coincidentally worn on the same day as something tragic.

I can remember a t shirt years ago by a death metal band, adorned with a nun being depicted as a dirty girl with a cross, in certain orifices. It was banned, but the wearers weren't burnt at the stake! I should imagine a few nuns got annoyed, but they weren't sat in the street burning piles of t-shirts in protest.

[-Ralph-]

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1590965_jailed-man-who-wore-anti-police-t-shirt-on-day-pcs-fiona-bone-and-nicola-hughes-were-shot

For further discussion.

Pete

It's getting silly now. Would the sentence have been the same had he worn the same T shirt on a different day? Or would he even have been charged? How did the court prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had heard the news that day and went out with the sole intention of causing offence? Are they employing mind readers now? Or did they stick him on a polygraph and ask him?

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[-Ralph-]

Just googled the t shirt, BBC news is showing it, so I guess it's OK for here.

'one less pig, perfect justice'

Ok so the guys a complete to55 pot, and the ladies families would be very upset to see that, as would the Manchester police be and they guy deserves whatever comes to him as a result in so much as I'm not going to hold sympathy for him, but I still agree with Sid Squid

'I dont like what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it'.

Public order offences are too woolly, something is either illegal or its not, it shouldn't be open to interpretation depending upon how the law enforcement community 'feels' on a particular day.

To make a lawful protest you have to be able to start with knowing what is lawful and what isnt, where the line is going to be drawn, and freedom of speech is one thing most people in the UK expect to be able to take for granted. Countless men have died on the battlefield to ensure we have it.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[-Ralph-]

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/resources/images/2186792/?type=articlePortrait

:toss: :toss: :toss: :toss: :toss: :toss: :toss: :toss::toss: :toss:

[gruntygiggles]

Just googled the t shirt, BBC news is showing it, so I guess it's OK for here.

'one less pig, perfect justice'

Ok so the guys a complete to55 pot, and the ladies families would be very upset to see that, as would the Manchester police be and they guy deserves whatever comes to him as a result in so much as I'm not going to hold sympathy for him, but I still agree with Sid Squid

'I dont like what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it'.

Public order offences are too woolly, something is either illegal or its not, it shouldn't be open to interpretation depending upon how the law enforcement community 'feels' on a particular day.

To make a lawful protest you have to be able to start with knowing what is lawful and what isnt, where the line is going to be drawn, and freedom of speech is one thing most people in the UK expect to be able to take for granted. Countless men have died on the battlefield to ensure we have it.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

+1

[yorkie_chris]

Surely he has reasonable grounds that it was unconnected, either that or he can't count to two?

Yes he's a prize bell-crust but bit of a waste of time. People get violently assaulted and have to see the perpetrators walk out with some pathetic slap on the wrist.