http://spiderplantland.co.uk/sir-olly-c-and-the-case-for-free-speech-in-bexley/

 

A blogger called a Bexley Council councillor a c*** on Twitter and ends up with a 45 day custodial sentence.

 

This goes against so many of my principles :@

1. *cunt.

 

2. From what I can make out reading that badly written post he hasn't received any such sentence as sentencing hasn't taken place yet.

 

3. I very much doubt he was prosecuted for calling someone a cunt. The site doesn't actually go into the details of what he was charged with other than 'a Section 127 offence' and I have no idea what that is. Presumably it relates to harassment, which he does indeed seem to be guilty of even based on this obviously biased report.

 

4. No country has an absolute right to free speech or expression. I can't express myself by stabbing you in the face, for example. The UK has no comprehensive, explicit definition of any such rights, only what is laid out in common law.

 

5. He sounds like a bit of a twat.

1. Correct.

 

2. Correct, sentencing has not yet taken place. The prosecution have asked for a sentence of "45 days for each leter in C word", which translates to 6 months (the maximum custodial sentence applicable to a section 127 offence)

 

3. 127 is the one about obscenity, offence and annoyance on a computer. And yes, he was prosecuted for calling Councillor Seymour a cunt on Twitter, but not until after the original charges of harassment were dropped due to a complete lack of any evidence.

 

<quote> Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message etc that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character and should be used for indecent phone calls and emails.</quote>

 

4. Yes you can, but you would expect to he prosecuted for GBH/murder/etc. Now stop being silly Nd trying to equate stabbing someone with sending a tweeter twit.

 

5. Yes, he does.

 

 

Why are the cunts asking for 45 days per letter?

Shouldn't it be 3 months for c, and 1 month for each of the others?

Because they are Cunts.

I wasn't. I was just illustrating that the notion of absolute freedom of expression is absurd.

The rest: fair enough.

Nobody is saying there's absolute freedom of expression? Your illustration doesn't make sense, because it's not on the same lines.

Stabbing someone is an active/aggresive act - it can't be ignored, has a lasting effect, and is an explicit attack.

Calling someone a name just requires walking away (or not visiting the site); it didn't appear that he was chasing after and individually assaulting anyone.

His knighthood should most definitely be revoked! :Y
(unless he's a baronet, I don't know what happens then)

That article was all like "Where's our right to free speech now?!?!?!?". And I was saying: We don't have one. And even if we did, it would not cover abusing and harassing someone.



I know nothing about this other than what was in the linked article but it doesn't sound like he just called the dude a cunt and then walked away, it sounds like he's harassing people.

He's complaining about his locally elected officials being shit at their jobs, which seems a perfectly valid thing to do.

The bit where it says...

...suggested to me that no actual harassment took place.


I've only looked briefly around a few bits, but haven't seen any actual "here is the precise words/context" stuff - maybe that's because of legal crap not allowing anyone to?

I meant harassment in the everyday sense, not necessarily to the level of a crime. This piece is clearly on his side but it still lists various thing he's done. He's not just complaining about them being shit at their jobs, he's been abusing and making a nuisance of himself.

 

The original claim that calling someone a cunt is a crime is ridiculous - it's not. I have called many people cunts and have not yet been charged with any offence. This dude is not being prosecuted for calling someone a cunt, he's being prosecuted for calling someone a cunt in a particular context. I very much doubt this would've gotten to court if this was all he'd done.

 

I'm not saying the councillors are not a bunch of corrupt cunts. And this doesn't sound like a valid reason to prosecute someone. Everyone involved in this sounds like a dick so ideally they'll all go to prison.

We need dicks like him to abuse cunts like them because it saves the rest of us from having to do it. :)

But yeah I think we're more or less in agreement.

(handshake)

(footwobble)

I'm pretty sure that counts as an obscene message under section 127.

The article keeps referring to "his barrister" when it clearly states he was being tried in the magistrates. Either the author is an idiot and doesn't know the difference between a solicitor and a barrister, or she's being liberal with some of the facts. Either way it makes me want a more reliable source.

Yeah, I noticed that. I think I also read a claim somewhere that they didn't get any evidence until the trial, which is just guff.

If he'd have called them a motherfucker, would he get a longer sentence?

Would depend on whether he fucked his mother or not.