What does it mean then? Lol I would have thought it meant exactly that
as I wrote in my next post, not a law degree, prob differs from country to country, but more or less …as long as it doesn’t conflict with other fundamental laws I think.
Either way this guy here is clearly baiting and trolling in poor taste imo, so removal from the scene makes sense… I’n not too upset about any punishment.
I agree with this. I think the guy deserves a good ol punch for such a distasteful shirt and message where people actually lost their lives. That’s not banter anymore that’s evil.
But, as for free speech. It’s a slippery slope and I would t want the law to ban anyone wearing this. Same for denying the holocaust, it shouldn’t be punishable in a society where we value freedom of speech. Better to know someone’s idiotic and ignorant ideas and opinion a on such matters than to suppress them and jail them.
2 Likes
A couple of people have floated the idea that assaulting the guy (which is illegal) is preferable to arresting him from the point of view of his own civil rights which seems an odd way of looking at things.
I don’t see it in the same bracket as the coronation arrests. He’s not making any kind of legitimate political point, he’s wearing that shirt to consciously be a nasty piece of work. I really don’t see what complaints he can have about an arrest that very likely doesn’t even have any repercussions beyond the actual arrest itself.
1 Like
I put it in the same bracket strictly in the sense that people were arrested for their speech/expression, and that while in both cases it likely went/will go no further than being arrested/cautioned, in both instances I don’t think even just being arrested was appropriate.
I compared them strictly in that sense, and did make the same distinction you did between one being valid politcal expression and the other being distasteful cuntery.
Arresting him probably did him a favour. If there were no repercussions at all for his disgusting display, please believe someone would have leaked his name/address and gave him a ton of abuse or even worse. Hell, that might still happen. Can’t see the families of the 97 taking kindly to this.
“public order offence” god the UK is so authoritarian
1 Like
When does this happen?
Seems unlikely to me as “death to royals” likely would be illegal, as it’s pretty easy to interpret that as incitement to violence.
Also, while it is possible it passed me by, I think I’d have heard about people going round wearing “death to royals” t-shirts around the time of the coronation as it would have outraged large numbers of the public and helped justify the arrest of republicans, so a big deal eould have been made of it.
1 Like
Compared to…?
The US, France, other western democracies.
Less authoritarian than China
Don’t act like a cunt in public or youll be done.
I see no wrong with a public order offence tbh
Dunno about France mate, their top administrative court upheld a ban on the “burkini”.
Maybe France is less authoritarian, as long as you aren’t a Muslim woman trying to make personal decisions about how you dress.
3 Likes
Their militant secularism and enforced commitment to national identity is a blind spot I’ll give be you that.
Yo @mhappy
James White, 33, of Warwickshire, was charged with displaying threatening or abusive writing likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2023/0604/1387395-hillsborough-uk/
Again the only law that it falls under is malicious communication, what don’t you get? It’s like you a deliberately looking for argument.
Literally when it’s staring you in the face that you’re wrong you still won’t say you could have been mistaken 
Lol telling what law it’s under escapes you huh don’t worry there are many people with sub level intellect
That quote is from the met. No mention of the law you’re talking about. Why is that I wonder? 
The girl from Liverpool I mentioned earlier on got arrested with the same line spewed by the police; however the law they claim she broke was the malicious communications act….
Do you get it now?