Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:33 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/dec/09/rowing-boat-race-oxford-cambridge Still, as long as you were mildly amused for a moment. Us plebs are easily amused. Even more amused by guerilla toffs

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/dec/09/rowing-boat-race-oxford-cambridge Still, as long as you were mildly amused for a moment. Us plebs are easily amused. Even more amused by guerilla toffs

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:12 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/dec/09/rowing-boat-race-oxford-cambridge Might have livened up a boreathon for you, but you don't seem to have much consideration for the athletes who'd trained a lifetime to be in those boats Still, as long as you were mildly amused for a moment. I wonder what punishment you would suggest Emily Davison should've received, had she not been killed?

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/dec/09/rowing-boat-race-oxford-cambridge Might have livened up a boreathon for you, but you don't seem to have much consideration for the athletes who'd trained a lifetime to be in those boats Still, as long as you were mildly amused for a moment. I wonder what punishment you would suggest Emily Davison should've received, had she not been killed?

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:21 pm  

cod'ead wrote: I wonder what punishment you would suggest Emily Davison should've received, had she not been killed? Deserved all she got. Spoilt the King's day out at the races.

cod'ead wrote: I wonder what punishment you would suggest Emily Davison should've received, had she not been killed? Deserved all she got. Spoilt the King's day out at the races.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:50 am  

kirkstaller wrote:

She is simply arguing for the right to wear her crucifix at work. She feels compelled to manifest her faith in her workplace and that should be respected.

Where in the bible does Jesus say to his followers that they need to where a cross? Furthermore doesn't the bible have something to say about not making graven images and what did Jesus say about hyprocrites?

kirkstaller wrote:

The bottom line is, you should be able to discriminate against customers on any basis you like

So you if you don't like black people you can turn them away, I'm sure there's a word for that.

[Durham Giant]

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:28 am  

What words do you not want hear after sex,

"how's about that then".

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:53 am  

Mintball wrote:

Because some appear to think that religion is special and religious people deserve special treatment.

We all should be equal (well, all but X Factor viewers), but unfortunately there are members of any given ''minority'' group, including homosexuals, who believe their 'ilk' deserve special treatment.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:40 am  

cod'ead wrote: I wonder what punishment you would suggest Emily Davison should've received, had she not been killed? A starting point would've been 6 months, but as she was a nasty, violent piece of work with several previous convictions, I expect it might have been longer. Why?

cod'ead wrote: I wonder what punishment you would suggest Emily Davison should've received, had she not been killed? A starting point would've been 6 months, but as she was a nasty, violent piece of work with several previous convictions, I expect it might have been longer. Why?

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:20 pm  

cod'ead wrote: I wonder what punishment you would suggest Emily Davison should've received, had she not been killed? Bloody radicals! It's like a negress sitting in the white section of a Montgomery bus and refusing to move. Thank fook the police were around to arrest her. I'd wager she was a nasty piece of work to boot.

cod'ead wrote: I wonder what punishment you would suggest Emily Davison should've received, had she not been killed? Bloody radicals! It's like a negress sitting in the white section of a Montgomery bus and refusing to move. Thank fook the police were around to arrest her. I'd wager she was a nasty piece of work to boot.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:44 pm  

Mintball wrote:

"As it happens (so to speak), I heard around 18 years ago, from a former Telegraph TV critic who had recently moved to the Mail as the film critic. His take on it was that Savile knew where other people's skeletons were hidden"

Have to take your word for that.

Mintball wrote:

I suspect that, by then, his celebrity and his 'charidee work' made it more difficult to come out and say anything.

There is a story that a newspaper was going to publish something, but he simply said: 'go ahead: just think of all the money Stoke Manderville will lose'. They didn't publish.

...and that...

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:56 pm  

There was a piece in today's Times in which Rowan Atkinson was putting the case forward for amending Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act which appears to be the legislation under which a lot of these kinds of cases are prosecuted. He claims that the reference to 'insulting words or behaviour likely to ...' is now being abused and should be withdrawn. Since on principle I won't pay to go on the Times website, here is Yahoo's mini version of what the article said. The groups supporting his view listed at the end of the article represent an interesting mix. Who would have thought that the Christian Alliance and National Secular Society for two would agree on something? I suppose they just want the freedom to insult each other! I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Bean. Things have gone too far and we need to redress the balance.

There was a piece in today's Times in which Rowan Atkinson was putting the case forward for amending Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act which appears to be the legislation under which a lot of these kinds of cases are prosecuted. He claims that the reference to 'insulting words or behaviour likely to ...' is now being abused and should be withdrawn. Since on principle I won't pay to go on the Times website, here is Yahoo's mini version of what the article said. The groups supporting his view listed at the end of the article represent an interesting mix. Who would have thought that the Christian Alliance and National Secular Society for two would agree on something? I suppose they just want the freedom to insult each other! I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Bean. Things have gone too far and we need to redress the balance.