Quik Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 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. Outside of the form of words used on this particular subject in this particular context it's defined nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Outside of the form of words used on this particular subject in this particular context it's defined nothing. Sorry that made no sense. Rephrase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 Outside of the form of words used on this particular subject in this particular context it's defined nothing. Outside of the form of words used on this particular subject, in this particular context, it has defined nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) What exactly did this <REMOVED> preacher say in his sermon that led to him being taken to court? ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 21:24 ---------- The title should say Satanic anti Islam preacher... Edited January 7, 2016 by esme offensive term removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) What exactly did this <REMOVED> preacher say in his sermon that led to him being taken to court? ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 21:24 ---------- The title should say Satanic anti Islam preacher... He said islam was satanic and born of hell, hence the OP's title. All rather silly, like me being prosecuted for saying Captain Hook is born of Mordor, its all made up so who cares what these people call each other. ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 21:31 ---------- Sorry that made no sense. Rephrase? Ron has kindly corrected my slack punctuation Edited January 7, 2016 by esme offensive term removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 He said islam was satanic and born of hell, hence the OP's title. All rather silly, like me being prosecuted for saying Captain Hook is born of Mordor, its all made up so who cares what these people call each other. ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 21:31 ---------- Ron has kindly corrected my slack punctuation I wish I'd corrected my own punctuation in the title to: "Satanic Islam". Preacher acquitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horribleblob 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.. Exactly - and English common law is based on precedent, if I remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 What exactly did this kaffir preacher say in his sermon that led to him being taken to court? ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 21:24 ---------- The title should say Satanic anti Islam preacher... search vimeo for 148898157 Have a listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) What exactly did this <REMOVED> preacher say in his sermon that led to him being taken to court? ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 21:24 ---------- The title should say Satanic anti Islam preacher... Nowt offensive what so ever. The plod and CPS should hang their heads in shame for arresting and prosecuting this bloke. Edited January 7, 2016 by esme offensive term removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae 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.. It hasn't set any precedent. Any future case will be judged on its own merits, not on what happened in this case. 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