From: jnugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 29/08/2025 12:48, billy bookcase wrote: 
  
 > "JNugent"  wrote: 
 >> On 28/08/2025 02:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote: 
 >>> "JNugent"  wrote in message 
 >>>> On 26/08/2025 19:01, billy bookcase wrote: 
 >>>>> "JNugent"  wrote in message 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> When did it become a crime (in [England] and Wales, if not the 
 >>>>>> whole UK) to express one's opinion? 
  
 >>>>> How would any date after 1066, suit ? 
  
 >>>>> quote: 
 >>>>> Defamatory libel was originally an offence under the common law of 
 >>>>> England. It was established in England and Wales and in Northern 
 Ireland. 
 >>>>> It was or is a form of criminal libel, a term with which it is 
 >>>>> synonymous.[1] 
 >>>>> The common law offence of defamatory libel was abolished[2] for England 
 >>>>> and Wales and Northern Ireland on 12 January 2010. 
 >>>>> Section 4 of the Libel Act 1843 which created an aggravated statutory 
 >>>>> offence was also repealed. 
 >>>>> :unquote 
  
 >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamatory_libel 
 > 
 >>>>> One famous case being of course, Goldsmith v Pressdram Ltd [1977] 
 >>>> 
 >>>> You are aware that it is a defence against an action to publish one's 
 honestly-held 
 >>>> opinion, laws on defamation notwithstanding? 
 >>> 
 >>> It is only a defence, if that opinion is based on fact(s), such that any 
 honest 
 >>> person might form a similar opinion, based on those same fact(s) 
 >>> 
 >>> Otherwise it would fail. 
 >> 
 >> That's OK then. 
  
 It IS a defence. 
 > 
 > You asked (and for the umpteenth time, it would appear) 
 > 
 > "When did it become a crime (in [England] and Wales, if not the 
 > whole UK) to express one's opinion?" 
 > 
 > And I gave you the answer. At any time after 1066. 
  
 But you can't quote (or  haven't quoted) a recent date which would apply 
 to people who expressed their opinion on the way they have been treated 
 by the criminal justice system, including the police. 
 > 
 > Richard Ingrams could have ended up in prison in 1977, having been 
 > convicted of Criminal Libel. Having expressed the opinion that 
 > Jimmy Goldsmith along with others, had obstructed the Police in their 
 > enquiries about the disappearance of their chum, Lord Lucan. 
 > Which itself, obstruction, would have been a criminal offence. 
 > 
 > Although "Private Eye" never reveal their sources it was widely 
 > believed that their source was Dominic Elwes a former member 
 > of the Clermont Set who had attended the actual meeting,; but who 
 > unfortunately had committed suicide in the meantime, having been 
 > ostracised by Aspinall, Goldsmith and the others 
 > 
 > So that had push came to shove, Ingrams would have been totally 
 > unable to substantiate the story, and could well have ended up in 
 > prison 
 > 
 > As it was, Goldsmith backed down; as he was trying to buy "The Express" 
 > at the time; and imprisoning journalists made for bad PR. 
 > 
 > Although it should maybe come as no surprise that you were seemingly 
 > totally unaware of the offence of Criminal Libel; as had existed in England 
 > certainly, in the 944 years between 1066 and 2010. 
  
 No-one with a cursory knowledge of English history (stretching back into 
 the late C19) could be unaware of the exositence of "Criminal Libel". It 
 was the exact reason (alleged, of course) why Oscar Wilde sued his 
 nemesis the Marquess of Queensbury after the latter's "publication" a 
 scribbled nlote on a visiting card left with a club doorman. 
  
 And probably of at least as much relevance as your five paragraph 
 excursion above. 
  
 >>> While one possible condition for early release, might well be a total 
 acceptance 
 >>> on the part of the prisoner, both of their guilt, and of the fairness 
 with 
 >>> which they've been treated by the system. 
 > 
 >> That is what often (perhaps always) happens with a release dependent upon 
 a 
 parole 
 >> board appearance where the sentence was indeterminate (eg, a life 
 sentence). 
 >> 
 >> It doesn't apply to a release which happens squarely within the terms of 
 the normal 
 >> proportion of the sentence and is never referred to a parole board, which 
 seems to be 
 >> what was the case here. 
 > 
 > Time off for "good behaviour" being one description I believe. 
 > 
 > And why exactly do you imagine that "good behaviour" might consist of ? 
  
 It doesn't have to consist of anything at all once the prisoner's 
 minimum proportion of sentence has been served and as long as (a) they 
 have behaved as required and (b) are not wanted for any other alleged 
 offence. 
  
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)