8 weeks suspended

Author
Discussion

kitz

Original Poster:

328 posts

176 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Ursuline Presgrave
Anyone born with Down syndrome should be put down,
It's just cruel to let them live a pointless life of a vegetable .
She has got 8 weeks suspended sentence for tweeting that .
This in a country where people routinely abort foetus with
the same syndrome ...
What happened to free speech..
Does it only apply to Charlie Hebdo ?

Axionknight

8,505 posts

134 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Free speech is one thing but advocating the killing of people because of a specific disability is another thing entirely in my opinion.

steveT350C

6,728 posts

160 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/call-ce...

I sometimes refer to people with Down's as 'the friendly people'; did some care work years ago.

What she said was very nasty and ignorant.

But this is seriously, seriously worrying.

1984

Pesty

42,655 posts

255 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Axionknight said:
Free speech is one thing but advocating the killing of people because of a specific disability is another thing entirely in my opinion.
How about aborting a baby with downs? Happens regularly the people that do it agree with her and do more than voice their opinions.


dandarez

13,244 posts

282 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
She so very obviously has problems, serious ones, look at her history. But as said, 'jail' (suspended) for words?

Words, once upon a time were so harmless.
Once upon a time:
'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.'

Words fail me.

Or perhaps not...
'Calling names can send me to jail, but sticks and stones and broken bones - I'll just have to suffer them.'

Wills2

22,666 posts

174 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Abortion is legal in the UK, killing people once they have been born isn't, the law is quite clear on this I'm not sure why people are equating the two situations unless they are coming from a religious God bothering view point. (especially as she didn't kill anyone)

Her statement is/was vile but not sure she should be sentenced like that but the court heard the full facts we didn't.


pork911

7,086 posts

182 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
It's not like she burnt a poppy or anything.

Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.


Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
steveT350C said:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/call-ce...

I sometimes refer to people with Down's as 'the friendly people'; did some care work years ago.

What she said was very nasty and ignorant.

But this is seriously, seriously worrying.

1984
This is one of those very difficult situations. There's free speech on the one hand, and offensive rhetoric on the other.

My wife was 41 when the youngest was born and her refusal to have the amniocentesis test was received with some concern by the hospital staff. The implication was that we should agree to an abortion if Downs was revealed. At the time a friend of ours fostered an adult DS sufferer whose mother had just died and the girl was very sweet. Obviously, I would not have wanted a DS child, but it is not, as they say, the end of the world. The president of my rugby club had two DS adult sons. They thoroughly enjoyed the match days. All three brought smiles to the face of all those they met. So I find the support for, it seems, a requirement to terminate, infuriating, vulgar and vile.

But, as you say, seriously concerned about the punishment for just mouthing off, and on social media. All she suggested was what a doctor would advise it seems.


Axionknight

8,505 posts

134 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Pesty said:
Axionknight said:
Free speech is one thing but advocating the killing of people because of a specific disability is another thing entirely in my opinion.
How about aborting a baby with downs? Happens regularly the people that do it agree with her and do more than voice their opinions.
Abortion is legal in the UK, whether you agree with the laws that surround it or not, so if people feel that the quality of life a child, then adult will have with such an ailment isn't fair then that's their choice to make.


Murdering someone is illegal.

unrepentant

21,212 posts

255 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Saying as she did;

"Anyone born with Down syndrome should be put down,
It's just cruel to let them live a pointless life of a vegetable" .

...marks her down as an ignorant and repugnant person but she's not saying she's going to kill anyone, she's expressing an opinion. This is all very Orwellian.

Makes me wonder how Anjem Choudary & co get away with seemingly far more seriously dangerous stuff?

The 1st amendment causes a lot of problems on this side of the pond but rather that than living with the thought police. EU to blame I assume?

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Who is she?

I'm perfectly ok with someone who publishes this sort of thing being charged with a crime (which it obviously is) and receiving a suspended prison sentence, some community service at a day centre or something would have probably been more worthwhile though.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
The CPS operate a high-threshold for this offence. The often-criticised Human Rights Act by those on here helps this to be the case. Having said that I have mixed feelings about this one, but then lots of people complained so perhaps that's an indication it should have been prosecuted.

CPS said:
The High Threshold at the Evidential Stage

Every day many millions of communications are sent via social media and the application of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 to such comments creates the potential that a very large number of cases could be prosecuted before the courts. Taking together, for example, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube, there are likely to be hundreds of millions of communications every month.

In these circumstances there is the potential for a chilling effect on free speech and prosecutors should exercise considerable caution before bringing charges under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. There is a high threshold that must be met before the evidential stage in the Code for Crown Prosecutors will be met. Furthermore, even if the high evidential threshold is met, in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be required in the public interest (see paragraphs 46 onwards).

Since both section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 will often engage Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, prosecutors are reminded that these provisions must be interpreted consistently with the free speech principles in Article 10, which provide that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers ..."

As the European Court of Human Rights has made clear, Article 10 protects not only speech which is well-received and popular, but also speech which is offensive, shocking or disturbing (Sunday Times v UK (No 2) [1992] 14 EHRR 123):

"Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society ... it is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also as to those that offend, shock or disturb ..."

Freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information are not absolute rights. They may be restricted but only where a restriction can be shown to be both:

Necessary; and

Proportionate.

These exceptions, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions convincingly established.

The common law takes a similar approach. In Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin), the Lord Chief Justice made it clear that:

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003]."

Prosecutors are reminded that what is prohibited under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is the sending of a communication that is grossly offensive. A communication sent has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. Just because the content expressed in the communication is in bad taste, controversial or unpopular, and may cause offence to individuals or a specific community, this is not in itself sufficient reason to engage the criminal law. As Lord Bingham made clear in DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40:

"There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates."

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
kitz said:
Ursuline Presgrave
Anyone born with Down syndrome should be put down,
It's just cruel to let them live a pointless life of a vegetable .
She has got 8 weeks suspended sentence for tweeting that .
This in a country where people routinely abort foetus with
the same syndrome ...
What happened to free speech..
Does it only apply to Charlie Hebdo ?
It's hate speech, pure and simple. Downs Syndrome children are more work, that's true, but there is absolutely no reason at all why a Downs sufferer can't have a happy life. Around 1% of sufferers have an IQ over 70 which would mean that they are probably more intelligent than Ursuline. Should we put her down too?

Crush

15,077 posts

168 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
She should have played it safe and tweeted killallwhitemen

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/03/bahar...

Jimmy Recard

17,540 posts

178 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
It's hate speech. It's very specific in law that insulting people as a result of disability, race, religion etc carries a harsher punishment than simply an insult.

As an example.

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
Not a difficult one for me. Free speech is something you either have or do not. We do not.

There's no 'shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre' nor any incitement to any particular action. She was prosecuted for expressing an opinion. The state has deemed her opinion to be unacceptable. Quite alarming.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
AJS- said:
Not a difficult one for me. Free speech is something you either have or do not. We do not.

There's no 'shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre' nor any incitement to any particular action. She was prosecuted for expressing an opinion. The state has deemed her opinion to be unacceptable. Quite alarming.
Exactly this.

Jimmy Recard

17,540 posts

178 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
AJS- said:
Not a difficult one for me. Free speech is something you either have or do not. We do not.

There's no 'shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre' nor any incitement to any particular action. She was prosecuted for expressing an opinion. The state has deemed her opinion to be unacceptable. Quite alarming.
That's utterly irrelevant though.

The punishment is because it comes under laws regarding hate speech concerning disability.

Jonesy23

4,650 posts

135 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
The punishment is because she was stupid enough to plead guilty.

Without that the case almost certainly wouldn't have proceeded.