Personally I like Frankie Boyle. I have never heard him say anything which could be taken as being racist except in an ironic sense when he has been having a go at racists. He would appear to suffer from a similar sort of misinterpretation that Alf Garnett suffered from.

Yes, that's what I said isn't it....

Part of any damages award is punitive, how else are those who tend toward slander to be disuaded?

As it is, rlFrankie Boyle has donated his award to Reprieverl

Back to the plot, now we've got an international ref, Klattenburg, being investigated not only by the FA, but also ludicrously by the Met, for alleged 'racialist' language, yet whilst the implication is that he has said a Very Bad Thing, we are not allowed to know what it was.

By trawling the depths of the net the only thing I've seen reported is the term, "Spanish tart". Klattenburg has been charged with nothing so nothing is sub judice. The FA have powers to act, but my question is, and irrespective of whether this ref used that term or not, do we really have the money and the time and resources to prosecute a person for calling another person a "Spanish tart"?

If I go down to my local Nick and report that a bloke at the pub last night called me a "Spanish tart", is he going to get his collar felt? Should he? The courts could soon become rather busy.

FA, you will love rlthis little storyrl, which, on the basis of what is known, could be even better than that.

If that's all he said then the whole thing is ridiculous, and I'm suspicious that the allegations just happen to have come from Chelsea.

Also, apparently the complaint to the Met was made by a lawyer who wasn't at the game, didn't watch it on tv and didn't listen to it on the radio. All he knows are the media reports.

I'm not surprised to be honest, I think there are too many police officers who push the boundaries of the law and relish taking on "easy prey".

Not like the old days.

A mate of mine and his missus were well known to the local constabulary for the odd "domestic". One evening the local bobby (affectionately known as Fatty Friar) turned up with a green-as-grass new sidekick, in response to a neighbour's call about a "row next door". The discussion went along these liness[/iehole as usual, nothing to worry about

Young coppers[/ie over tit back into the garden. Faqtty Friar bent down to help his young colleague to his feet, looked at Ray and said: "It's tough but they've got to learn the hard way sometimes, give my love to Janice, g'night"

I'm certainly not condoning domestic violence but Ray & Janice each gave as good as they took, the community bobby knew them well and understood the relationship, the college kid didn't even know the law he was supposed to be upholding.

A serving police officer told me recently that his force is now under instruction that, when called to an alleged domestic violence incident, they must arrest one of the people at the address. They cannot leave the couple together overnight.

A good reason to keep the sound turned down if watching eastenders.

Forget the alleged domestic violence charge, I'd arrest them for watching Eastenders.

I find rugby union, Eastenders and The One Show offensive. I now expect Rob Andrew and the Controller of BBC1 to be arrested.

blimey mate, what's wrong with Eastenders my old china ?

better than all that Yorky Emmerdale e ! - can't understand a word they say...

I bet you know what's going on down in 'le Mistral'?

Plus belle la vie.

rlNine fined £624 each for naming rape victim online.rl

I'm not saying the sentence itself is bad or wrong (may well be perfectly apt), but within the context of some of the recent sentences for social media 'crimes', how does this sit?

Surely this case would be something like contempt, wouldn't it? In which case, how can it not be more serious than a subjective judgement on whether something is 'too' offensive?