From: Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com 
  
 On 8/19/25 23:26, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 > On 19 Aug 2025 at 19:32:00 BST, "GB"  wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 19/08/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >>> On 19 Aug 2025 at 14:40:22 BST, "Norman Wells"  wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> On 18/08/2025 17:13, JNugent wrote: 
 >>>>> On 18/08/2025 04:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote: 
 >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 14:01:33 +0100, Pamela wrote: 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> As we know, she had a 12-year-old daughter and sick husband which 
 made 
 >>>>>>> such detention a particular strain. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> I am a care for my wife. SWMBO. I have been for 20 years (at least). 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> It is for this reason that I do not go around rioting, or encouraging 
 >>>>>> others to riot, or even post nasty things on Twitter. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> I do my level best to make sure I am as fit and healthy and available 
 as 
 >>>>>> possible as a responsible carer. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> So LC gets very very very short shrift from me. Maybe she doesn't 
 really 
 >>>>>> care about her husband and daughter and the guilty plea was a 
 disguised 
 >>>>>> attempt to get some respite ? 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> I hate pithy sayings. But don't do the crime if you can't do the time. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> But whever thought that "the time" for saying rude or insulting things 
 >>>>> would so draconian? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> She knew what 'the time' was likely to be when she pleaded guilty as she 
 >>>> decided of her own volition to do.  She was given 31 months, of which 
 >>>> she would only have to serve 40%, or 12.4 months, in prison.  Which 
 >>>> would mean, if she hasn't been freed already, she is due for release 
 >>>> just about now. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Is that so draconian? 
 >>> 
 >>> I think that entirely depends on how likely she thought it would be for 
 gangs 
 >>> to start trying to burn down asylum hostels. I don't know the answer to 
 this. 
 >>>    But if she really thought that was a remote, unthinkable, outcome she 
 >>> shoudn't have pleaded guilty. 
 >> 
 >> That seems to be the conclusion of several other people, too. But for 
 >> the particular crime she was accused of it doesn't matter what she 
 thought. 
 >> 
 >> You really ought to read Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986. 
 >> 
 >> 
 >> 
 >>> 
 > 
 > Logically, you are right. But a jury could well have let her off if they 
 > believed she was naive and had no intention of causing misbehaviour. It is 
 > always a bit subjective whether a given statement is going to stir up 
 racial 
 > hatred, given that the racists are not going to be significantly more 
 racist 
 > because of it, and the rest of us are going be revolted rather than 
 converted. 
 >   So it is not so simple as saying: "This is definitely a statement likely 
 to 
 > stir up racial hatred" unless the jury also believes her culpable. 
 > 
  
 Publishing a correct account of a migrant committing a crime, even 
 publishing a court conviction of such, will tend to stir up racial 
 hatred. Councils banning immigrants from hotels in their area will stir 
 up racial hatred. 
  
 So interpreting the law one has to look at significance, how extreme the 
 views are compared to other views commonly expressed. That is nowhere 
 near as easy to establish as GB presents. 
  
 The man who originally, falsely, blamed a migrant, almost certainly 
 "caused" the events that followed in Southport, and yet he wasn't 
 prosecuted. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)