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.

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