What is the difference here?

[Chris_w666]

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

v

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/25/girl-a...

Why can a child be arrested for allegedly burning a book of fairy stories, but grown men wanting soliders to burn in hell and setting fire to a symbol of rememberance in public are just shouted at by some racists then protected by the police?

Bearing in mind that the piss boiling story of a child being arrested is from the Daily Lentil it make me wonder what kind of a grip on reality we have as a society.

[FraserLFA]

She's probably British, so is automatically wrong.

[Parrot of Doom]

Because one is the burning of a religious symbol, which is a statement about religion, while the other is the burning of a symbol related to war.

The first may be illegal, the second probably isn't. The problem here isn't that the ones burning the poppy weren't arrested, its that laws exist to protect religion. Those laws should be removed. Religion should have no state protection.

[12gauge]

The child should know better.

The grown men have the excuse of being grown men.

Wait...

[Eric Mc]

Children shouldn't play with matches - is all I know.

[Andy Zarse]

Parrot of Doom said:

Religion should have no state protection.

If religion wants state protection, and indeed a say in the political process via seats in the Lords (Dr Rowan Williamson I'm talking about your lot here) then it ought to at least pay the entry fee. Starting with paying taxes on it's considerable wealth.