Can someone please explain

Why Mr Compton has been arrested?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11736154

I really don't understand. At all.

 

Incitement to racial hatred perhaps?
One of those laws added by new labour a few years ago.
--
| | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique,
typed

Incitement to murder, I imagine.

Ridiculous, whatever it is.

 

Exactly the same reason Paul Chambers appeal failed today.

Section 127 of the communications act, plus the festering shit-stack
that calls itself the CPS, and obviously the judiciary.

Here's a little light reading:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/09/appeal-of-paul-chambers.html

Welcome to the future, be careful what you say.

 

I don't see race or murder came into it. He cracked a bad taste joke.
Since when were freedom of speech especially in comedy deemed an offence.

I just don't get it.

 

And this.

 

I agree *completely* but Mr Chambers did tread on slightly sensitive ground,
however his right to make black and sarcastic/caustic jokes should be
absolute.
Hopefully CamClegg will scrap that particular piece of legislation or the
Supreme Court will put it back in its intended context.

 

For the hard of googling:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/11/twitter-joke-trial-appeal-verdict

 

OK, I found the legal text... take note of the words "menacing
character"..


127

Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a
message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent,
obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing
annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a
message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications
network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable,
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to
both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course
of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the
Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

 

Oi Miliband your a ****. Your pal Mandy is a ****.

 

Same as this:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.r...read/thread/72ddeccb384dfe2a/447dbfa082d48d59

 

Except in legal terms that's *completely* different, as the
communication wasn't by electronic means so it's not an S.127 offence.

 

In that respect yes, but I was reminded of it due to Hog's use of
"tread on slightly sensitive ground".

 

...In Jackboots.

 

One hopes he can take the appeal to the next stage

 

It pretty much shuts down the internet

 

Surely the problem is that she's Asian and he suggested stoning her to
death which is a bit of a cultural/racial attack. If she was of
African descent would he have suggested nailing her to a burning cross
in her garden? I'd hope he's not that stupid.

 

Wonder if these cunts will get arrested?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3222753/Sick-protesters-torch-poppy.html

 

I'll book a few coaches, we best all go hand ourselves in

 

I don't think they've taken this as far as they ought. His 600
followers are at very least accessories after the fact, and probably
co-conspirators. At the very least, they should be sent down for
failing to denounce him to the authorities.