RonJeremy Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Happily the NI preacher who dislikes the doctrine of Islam who has been preaching to his own congregation, has been acquitted of being grossly offensive. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35232068 It is encouraging to hear that free speech is alive and well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Rightly acquitted too . Religion cannot and should not be protected from ridicule . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 If you banned being rude about religions you'd have to ban all the religions that are rude about other religions which is pretty much all of them. Dunno why the case was ever brought, complete waste of time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 If you banned being rude about religions you'd have to ban all the religions that are rude about other religions which is pretty much all of them. Dunno why the case was ever brought, complete waste of time and money. It's the police/cps trying to be "right on". Total nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Dunno why the case was ever brought, complete waste of time and money. Not really..it has set a precedent, which is likely to dissuade any other similar case with a result of wasting time and money.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Not really..it has set a precedent, which is likely to dissuade any other similar case with a result of wasting time and money.. I suppose so but thats an argument for making all sorts of frivilous prosections on the basis it will stop them being repeated in future. The first one is still frivilous even if it discourages further frivolous cases being brought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 Not really..it has set a precedent, which is likely to dissuade any other similar case with a result of wasting time and money.. I thought the same - but then thought, how much has it cost this unfortunate individual to defend himself against this malicious prosecution? It could have been financially catastrophic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) I thought the same - but then thought, how much has it cost this unfortunate individual to defend himself against this malicious prosecution? It could have been financially catastrophic. It could have but it didn't. The result as I said has set a precedent which will make those who feel aggrieved on such matters think twice before proceeding in the future. Laws have at some point to be tested..this one came out in favour of the defendant, and any other possible defendant in the future. Edited January 6, 2016 by cassity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 It could have but it didn't. The result as I said has set a precedent which will make those who feel aggrieved on such matters thing twice before proceeding in the future. Laws have at some point to be tested..this one came out in favour of the defendant, and any other possible defendant in the future. But all this case affirms it that this judge did not findthis particular language grossly offensive merely offensive. It doesn't prevent further silly prosecutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 But all this case affirms it that this judge did not findthis particular language grossly offensive merely offensive. It doesn't prevent further silly prosecutions. What it has done in this case is define 'grossly' and 'merely' in the context of law. For you to say 'silly' is an insult to due process. 'Silly' is subjective, which could be grossly or merely offensive depending on your viewpoint. Point being that in this case the offence was 'merely offensive' as defined by the summing up. Of course it will prevent silly similar prosecutions..if not it'll be because they're not similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now