You're big enough and oracle-like enough to be aware that "whole female population" was obviously a deliberate exaggeration. But nice of you to have one of your typical "overthetopness" holier-than-thou rants before admitting somebody has made a valid point.

The females thing was merely a reference to my facebook feed being filled with "hang this sick murderer" statuses even before he was charged of anything. P*sses me off. If it was anyone but a lil white girl they wouldn't be d.

I hear Saville's family will be dismantling his headstone out of respect for public opinion.

Pathetic

So you know someone that helped harbour a sex criminal?

I remember reading a quote by a senior police officer in a very thinly veiled reference to Saville circa 1980 "The public think he's a saint, we'd never get a conviction based on the testimony of a few lasses".

It partly reflects the way the polarised view that the public have towards celebrities. They're either saints or sinners, nothing in between. The idea that someone could raise millions for charity, run marathons, put in hours of voluntary work every week and also have a very dark side just didnt compute.

There is [isome[/i of what was said - "Also posted were comments of a more sexually explicit nature."


And that is the correct argument. And identifies the correct wider discussion. The subjective answer is that a court has decided (has had to decide) that what was said was so offensive that only a custodial sentence would do. Which does get us into the greyest of grey areas - does the court decide on what the "imprisonable offensiveness" level is? Well, I suppose if there is an offence, then it has to. But the court isn't meant to be [imaking[/i the law, just applying it. So on what does it base its rulings?

Obviously it is impractical and impossible to have a complete lexicon of permissible and impermissible things to say. And that is also before you even get into greyer areas such as context, intention and ambiguity.

Should therefore people be allowed to say absolutely whatever they want, wherever they want, without any restriction or recourse? I would firmly say not. But if there are to be legal limits, who makes them, and how, and how does a person know what the rules are?

Given the impossibility of specifying every unacceptable phrase, is there any other way than allowing the courts to simply impose their views, in any individual case, on the (clearly inaccurate) basis that a court on any given day "knows" what is unacceptable and to what degree?