(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.

Because adherence to the truth is so important in local politics.