8 weeks suspended
Discussion
Jimmy Recard said:
That's utterly irrelevant though.
The punishment is because it comes under laws regarding hate speech concerning disability.
It isn't irrelevant at all. It's exactly my point. 'Hate speech' laws have overridden free speech and she has been prosecuted for having an opinion and expressing it. The punishment is because it comes under laws regarding hate speech concerning disability.
AJS- said:
It isn't irrelevant at all. It's exactly my point. 'Hate speech' laws have overridden free speech and she has been prosecuted for having an opinion and expressing it.
You seem to think that it's relevant whether that law should exist or not.In reality she broke a law that exists and received punishment for that. There is little else.
Of course I think the existence of the law is worth discussing. Which is what I am doing. It would be a pretty drab politics forum if you simply accepted all written laws without question. It would be like discussing speed limits with a camera.
Edited by AJS- on Wednesday 25th November 04:04
The reporting is inaccurate. There is no 'hate crime' under the Malicious Communications Act. It's whether or not the sending of the message is 'grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing'.
A demonstration of hostility towards a group / individual based on disability can be an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing.
A demonstration of hostility towards a group / individual based on disability can be an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing.
La Liga said:
The reporting is inaccurate. There is no 'hate crime' under the Malicious Communications Act. It's whether or not the sending of the message is 'grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing'.
A demonstration of hostility towards a group / individual based on disability can be an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing.
This is the bit that I don't get. Presumably it's classed as 'grossly offensive' but that seems a very loose definition of the term. Unless there is some context I missed (eg. it was posted on a DS sufferers wall or something, 'directed at an individual or group'). Do you think she would have been prosecuted if she plead not guilty?A demonstration of hostility towards a group / individual based on disability can be an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing.
I'm sure she would have if she had pleaded NG. Whether she would have been found guilty is another matter. It appears as if she took legal advice so presumably she would have very likely been convicted in he event of a trial.
It's not an easy one to reach the threshold with (as per my post quoting the CPS). I wonder how much the volume of people who complained helped the judgement to be reached.
It's not an easy one to reach the threshold with (as per my post quoting the CPS). I wonder how much the volume of people who complained helped the judgement to be reached.
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.
But perhaps we shouldUnfortunately, as already said, we do not have freedom of speech in this country.
Very dangerous when the state starts prosecuting people for thought crimes.
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.
Derek Smith said:
There's free speech on the one hand, and offensive rhetoric on the other.
Taking offence is a matter of choice and the phrase tells all in that it's taken. The very simple solution for adults in control of their emotions is not to take it. Freedom of speech is far more important in terms of what would be lost if it truly disappeared, there's no real dilemma.There is a lovely =lady on here who does not post much these days who has a child with DS.
If you were lucky enough to know the couple and their child you would never even begin to think about terminating a DS foetus, let alone what this vile human was suggesting. I personally found it heartbreaking to hear that she has had a number of very negative experiences with the parents of other 'normal' children acting as if DS was either some sort of divine punishment or that it was contagious. In 2015 for flip's sake.
My late Aunt had DS and only passed away a few years ago well into her 60's. Christmas's with her when I was a child are some of my happiest childhood memories. A person with more empathy and compassion you would never find elsewhere.
All that said i still have a bit of an issue with an 8 week suspended sentence for those comments. Shun and point and laugh at her but we are going too far down the road of thought police right now.
If you were lucky enough to know the couple and their child you would never even begin to think about terminating a DS foetus, let alone what this vile human was suggesting. I personally found it heartbreaking to hear that she has had a number of very negative experiences with the parents of other 'normal' children acting as if DS was either some sort of divine punishment or that it was contagious. In 2015 for flip's sake.
My late Aunt had DS and only passed away a few years ago well into her 60's. Christmas's with her when I was a child are some of my happiest childhood memories. A person with more empathy and compassion you would never find elsewhere.
All that said i still have a bit of an issue with an 8 week suspended sentence for those comments. Shun and point and laugh at her but we are going too far down the road of thought police right now.
Rude-boy said:
There is a lovely =lady on here who does not post much these days who has a child with DS.
If you were lucky enough to know the couple and their child you would never even begin to think about terminating a DS foetus, let alone what this vile human was suggesting. I personally found it heartbreaking to hear that she has had a number of very negative experiences with the parents of other 'normal' children acting as if DS was either some sort of divine punishment or that it was contagious. In 2015 for flip's sake.
My late Aunt had DS and only passed away a few years ago well into her 60's. Christmas's with her when I was a child are some of my happiest childhood memories. A person with more empathy and compassion you would never find elsewhere.
All that said i still have a bit of an issue with an 8 week suspended sentence for those comments. Shun and point and laugh at her but we are going too far down the road of thought police right now.
exactly. She is an idiot and has opened her mouth to confirm it. Doesnt mean that all idiots who say stupid things get a custodial sentence (suspended). Make no doubt about it its a custodial sentence just suspended. So one of the most serious punishment the courts can make.If you were lucky enough to know the couple and their child you would never even begin to think about terminating a DS foetus, let alone what this vile human was suggesting. I personally found it heartbreaking to hear that she has had a number of very negative experiences with the parents of other 'normal' children acting as if DS was either some sort of divine punishment or that it was contagious. In 2015 for flip's sake.
My late Aunt had DS and only passed away a few years ago well into her 60's. Christmas's with her when I was a child are some of my happiest childhood memories. A person with more empathy and compassion you would never find elsewhere.
All that said i still have a bit of an issue with an 8 week suspended sentence for those comments. Shun and point and laugh at her but we are going too far down the road of thought police right now.
I think her 'punishment' is out of proportion to even her stupidity. May not agree with her view but FFS a custodial sentence.
There is that other vile woman katie s
teforHopkinsbrains whatever - point and laugh at her she is an idiot too but would not want her jailed for her stupid views.Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 25th November 11:43
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 25th November 11:44
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3332749/Dr...
...but not even a suspended sentence for this bag of st
...but not even a suspended sentence for this bag of s
tJimmy Recard said:
AJS- said:
It isn't irrelevant at all. It's exactly my point. 'Hate speech' laws have overridden free speech and she has been prosecuted for having an opinion and expressing it.
You seem to think that it's relevant whether that law should exist or not.In reality she broke a law that exists and received punishment for that. There is little else.
Thats AJS's point! The law is being used to stiffle free speech, unpleasant and idiotic though it may be. IMO the only reason this ever saw a court is she is so fvcking stupid she probably couldn't keep her ugly gob shut and let her brief do the talking.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th November 14:28
55palfers said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3332749/Dr...
...but not even a suspended sentence for this bag of st
Anyone born with the brain of Jon Morton should be put down,...but not even a suspended sentence for this bag of s
tIt's just cruel to let them live a pointless life of a sick paedo.
I look forward to a visit from the thought police.
Derek Smith said:
There's free speech on the one hand, and offensive rhetoric on the other.
Given that the difference between free speech and offensive rhetoric is apparently to be decided by you and presumably people you approve of, one wonders how potentially upsetting issues are supposed to be debated. Anyone born deaf, blind, severely mentally disabled and in excruciating pain with no prospect of life outside of intensive care should be allowed to die. Discuss that without offending someone.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....
Pretty difficult to arrest a book and the geezer who wrote it died some time ago. Hmmm....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff