8 weeks suspended
Discussion
wiggy001 said:
Absolutely no way in my mind that this should have received court time as there was no incitement and it wasn't directed at any person or group.
Unfortunately, as already said, we do not have freedom of speech in this country.
That is the crucial point to me. If somebody expresses an offensive view then it should always be allowed unless it's directed in a narrow way, eg. in this case on a charity's facebook page, or for example a letter through the door (and only their door) of a family with a DS child.Unfortunately, as already said, we do not have freedom of speech in this country.
I'd like to think she would have been found not guilty in court, but obviously she wasn't the sort of person to fight this, and probably not the sort of person that a pro-bono solicitor would have wanted to take on as a case. Perhaps if it was an "intelligent" person they might have, but on the other hand the police/CPS might not have even proseuted.
AJS- said:
I don't want to derail another thread with my horrid racist Islamophobia, but what it makes me think is that the Quran surely fills the definition of menacing, and displays great hostility towards a group. Several actually. It also incites violence.
Hmmm....
"Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey".Hmmm....
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks".
So that's the err... Bible banned then.
rohrl said:
La Liga said:
...lots of people complained so perhaps that's an indication it should have been prosecuted.
Lots of people complained about The Satanic Verses. Should Salman Rushdie have been prosecuted? Lots of people complained about Jerry Springer The Opera. Should Stewart Lee have been prosecuted?Lots of people are idiots and lots of people wish to live in a little bubble of "safe space" where they can say what they like but no-one else is allowed to say anything which offends their sensibilities. These people have have no conception of how their own free speech is protected by allowing other people to say offensive things.
We can't allow a test of whether a certain number of people complain about a statement to influence whether the CPS proceed with a case. I'm clear in my mind that this was a wrongful prosecution and that the defendant should not have plead guilty. Unfortunately that's an expensive gamble for the common person.
It doesn't come into play unless the evidential stage is met (there are two stages to deciding whether there should be a prosecution). People can complain about what they like, if the fundamental evidence of an offence is not there it is meaningless. It's relevance here may help to give an indication as to what meets the public interest stage and what doesn't after the evidential stage.
55palfers said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3332749/Dr...
...but not even a suspended sentence for this bag of s
t
The problem you have is what he was convicted for isn't that serious. The injuries are pretty much irrelevant since the driving standard 'only' amounted to the non-imprisonable due care and attention. Drink-driving carries a potential custodial sentence but it is nearly always dealt with via a disqualification. It usually takes repeat offences to result in a custodial sentence. ...but not even a suspended sentence for this bag of s
trohrl said:
We can't allow a test of whether a certain number of people complain about a statement to influence whether the CPS proceed with a case. I'm clear in my mind that this was a wrongful prosecution and that the defendant should not have plead guilty. Unfortunately that's an expensive gamble for the common person.
Agree with this.Even if we assume it fit the criteria for this 'crime', commonsense should tell the police that it is pointless prosecuting people for being idiots.
La Liga said:
Public interest is an important part of the criminal justice system...
The result of that depends on the type of interest and what the criminal justice system does with it."The law is reason free from emotion".
RIP to that. Still, it should be reason free from emotion.
Public interest as displayed on social media and reported in the news as well as on PH suggests that a fair slice of public interest is best left to Jeremy Kyle.
Prosecuting the woman and giving her a suspended custodial sentence didn't serve the public interest one iota, but it will have placated emotionally immature professionally offended types, so job done.
La Liga said:
Public interest is an important part of the criminal justice system...
I suspect that made some sense previously when those with a predisposition to being offended had to put pen to paper and find a stamp but in the dumb new world of social media the offended can whip up ten thousand bleats in ten minutes.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.turbobloke said:
"The law is reason free from emotion".
In terms of making an evidential assessment, absolutely. In terms of making a public interest assessment it can be relevant. This page https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown... talks of the impact on victims and 'the community' (not necessarily relevant here). Naturally there'll be emotion in these aspects and some offences will resonate with more people than others.
The alternative of a robotic system where anyone is prosecuted if the evidential state is met would not be a desirable situation.
fblm said:
La Liga said:
Public interest is an important part of the criminal justice system...
I suspect that made some sense previously when those with a predisposition to being offended had to put pen to paper and find a stamp but in the dumb new world of social media the offended can whip up ten thousand bleats in ten minutes.La Liga said:
The alternative of a robotic system where anyone is prosecuted if the evidential state is met would not be a desirable situation.
With respect that's not the only alternative, by a long way. There's no basis for considering that reason free from emotion is rigid or robotic in terms of implications for the justice system.The cause isn't lost, yet. Police have discretion, the CPS is more robotic but not completely so, Judges use judgement
all we have to do is make sure the emotionally unintelligent don't get any room to distort matters any further...and hopefully rein some of the worst carp back in as per this latest nonsense of a prosecution and suspended custodial sentence.Discretion is grounded in public interest. Is it in the public interest to send someone to court for multiple driving offences (two just-bald tyres) or issue an FPN to cover one offence? On the flip-side the tyres may be in an exceptionally bad state and the driver says he doesn't care and will carry on driving. That may be in the public interest to send him to court. Same offences, different outcomes.
If you use any form of public interest consideration then it involves emotion (by those who the crime has impacted upon) or a third party (the prosecutor) making a judgement about the emotional impact upon others.
If that doesn't exist you're left with a binary matter. There is enough evidence to prosecute, or there isn't. How you make decisions around that becomes quite challenging. An exhaustive list wouldn't work due to so many variables so consistency may take the form of a default approach.
If you use any form of public interest consideration then it involves emotion (by those who the crime has impacted upon) or a third party (the prosecutor) making a judgement about the emotional impact upon others.
If that doesn't exist you're left with a binary matter. There is enough evidence to prosecute, or there isn't. How you make decisions around that becomes quite challenging. An exhaustive list wouldn't work due to so many variables so consistency may take the form of a default approach.
unrepentant said:
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?
I'm disturbed someone could be jailed for making the statement."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?
I also think there is no way she could have spent any meaningful time with people who have Downs Syndrome. Far from being 'vegetables' the people I've met with Downs are engaging people who I'd rather spend time with than your average punter off the street.
I have met the "flipside". A DS person who to be honest was a nasty obnoxious piece of work. He decided that a hapless teenager helping all customers load their shopping bags was "insulting" him by doing exactly the same for him. The standard term for a Non-DS person spouting the level of vitriol this person did would probably be a vicious Chav. They do not seem to all grow up "sweetness and light".
The greatest irony of all is the readers comments in the papers, perhaps the police should follow up on them expressing their opinions on her, quite a few saying she should be killed or put down, etc. I see little difference.
Truly scary the loss of free speech and at the very least no consistency in prosecution sets a dangerous precedent, thought crime almost worse than physical crime, and probably because it can be investigated and evidence collected without leaving the computer/office.
Truly scary the loss of free speech and at the very least no consistency in prosecution sets a dangerous precedent, thought crime almost worse than physical crime, and probably because it can be investigated and evidence collected without leaving the computer/office.
XCP said:
Isn't a suspended sentence a warning? 'behave yourself for the period of the suspension or else' in simple terms?
It's rather a hindrance to finding employment though. How long will she have to disclose this conviction under the Rehab of Offenders Act?It was a horrible thing to say and she doesn't seem to be a very nice person but we don't prosecute people and give them suspended prison sentences just for being generally unpleasant.
rohrl said:
XCP said:
Isn't a suspended sentence a warning? 'behave yourself for the period of the suspension or else' in simple terms?
It's rather a hindrance to finding employment though. How long will she have to disclose this conviction under the Rehab of Offenders Act?It was a horrible thing to say and she doesn't seem to be a very nice person but we don't prosecute people and give them suspended prison sentences just for being generally unpleasant.
XCP said:
She has already got a conviction for having 'extreme' pron on her phone (2013). Maybe the court ( having all the facts that we don't) felt that she had exhausted her other non custodial sentence options.
Oh yes. We've given you every chance to have the right views and still you don't. What else is left?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff