That's actually a bloody good article. But I still don't knwo what Wood said, in order to be jailed. Some of his "jokes" have surfaced, but it seems to be the case that the "worst" excesses for which he is doing time are not for public consumption.
This is nuts.
The message in the case reports should at least be:
This man said x,y and z. X is bad, but y and z are imprisonable. So take note, and don't come out with stuff like this yourself".
Whereas I can take no lesson from Mr Wood's case. For I know there are things I may say on Facebook that are so bad, I will be jailed, but I am not allowed to know what those things are. However if ever up on a charge, I would presumably be jailed because I "should have known".
To report, in full, what he said that has got him jailed, would upset no-one. The upset (such as whatever it was) was caused by whoever it was that read his utterings and was grievously offended by them. No such person could possibly be re-offended by reading a report of what they already know he wrote.
So why can we not be told what it was, and if we are not to be told, then what is the point?
