laticsmad Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Welcome to a (latics)mad world. Anything he finds unacceptable must be punished by law. Nope not me mate. The lawarticle 10 (and rightly so) says he should be punished. That is why he is currently in Jail ;) Edited March 30, 2012 by laticsmad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 It seems that you actually disagree with how society/the law views free speech in the first place as you have mentioned many times, you have no interest in what the law says. Therefore, perhaps your question/statement could have been coined better. In regards to the tarriff given to Mr Stacey, I accept that there perhaps are inconsistencies and yes there is more of an argument for and against, though I myself are happy with the outcome. I agree. This is what I've been saying throughout the piece, the argument itself is now becoming ridiculous, and tiresome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 He was convicted of Inciting racial hatred. This offence refers to: deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group distributing racist material to the public making inflammatory public speeches creating racist websites on the Internet inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent. The tweets i saw didn't seem to match the charge, although i may have interpretated it wrongly?. The Judge also said "I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done" The medias reporting and the whipping up of the publics outrage has influenced the judges decision. That is quite worrying. I think his mistake was failing to realise that his drunken racist rants crossed the line between conversations with other tweeters, and publishing. I still think the sentence was a disgrace, seeing as rapists, paedophiles, benefit cheats, thieves,thugs, and more serious criminals are free to walk the streets with a suspended sentences. I could take issue with other points but, concentrating on the bit in bold, a conviction of rape will always carry a custodial sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I could take issue with other points but, concentrating on the bit in bold, a conviction of rape will always carry a custodial sentence. You would think so wouldn't you?? The FACT is, they don't. http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/8818983.Child_rapist_has_suspended_sentence_quashed/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 You would think so wouldn't you?? The FACT is, they don't. http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/8818983.Child_rapist_has_suspended_sentence_quashed/ That was a case of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under 13-years-old, which, fair enough, is to be treated as rape under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This was a case where the judge accepted the defendant's plea that the victim lied about her age, telling him she was 16, and said 'It doesn't seem to me to be fair to call you a predator or you groomed her. I think it is right to say she could pass for a 16-year-old.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 That was a case of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under 13-years-old, which, fair enough, is to be treated as rape under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This was a case where the judge accepted the defendant's plea that the victim lied about her age, telling him she was 16, and said 'It doesn't seem to me to be fair to call you a predator or you groomed her. I think it is right to say she could pass for a 16-year-old.' The offence was two counts of grooming a child, two counts of, engaging in sexual activity with a girl under 13. He pleaded guilty to statutory rape of a girl under 13 on a limited basis that he believed she was 16. Have to take the judges word for it, but as we know some judges don't always get it spot on. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020417/Judge-Mary-Jane-Mowat-frees-paedophile-teacher-David-Armstrong.html http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/9295107.Outrage_as_teen_sex_abuser_is_given_suspended_sentence/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.