From: billy@anon.com 
  
 "JNugent"  wrote in message news:mhe5m7F8j2u 
 1@mid.individual.net... 
 > 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 offence was also repealed.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. 
  
 So what are you now saying ? 
  
 That Criminal Libel doesn't amount to a crime ? 
  
 Or that nobody has ever been found guilty of Criminal Libel ? 
  
 Or  that nobody has ever been found guily of Criminal Libel as 
 a result of expressing an honestly held opinion ? 
  
 As would indeed have been the case with the Marquis of Queensbury 
 had the trial continued, and he'd lost 
  
 > 
 > 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. 
  
 So who is it exactly, who decides whether of not they have behaved 
 themselves ? 
  
 Because according to your account above, you appear to think that the 
 process 
 is 
 automatic. When it clearly is not 
  
  
 bb 
  
  
 . 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)