You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences.

Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down.

Yet you still argue one is worse than the other.

Is a physical act [ialways [/iworse than verbal offending? I wouldn't say so. But the law is often on the face of it like this, in that you could pick out a whole host of "lenient looking" sentences for a range of varying offences, and an equal number of "severe" looking sentences for a different range of offences, and say "Look at X, he should surely have got more than Y, as X is plainly far worse than Y". It's just pointless.

Indeed. But it's been exercising plenty of people on the intertubes since yesterday, so it kind of takes on a life of its own.



Indeed.



I should perhaps have made myself clearer. I was meaning to 'argue' that, given the number of people comparing the two, then it will inevitably [uappear[/u that the community sentence was 'light'.

I would, however, still maintain that, unless it involved incitement, what words can merit such a sentence?

And then the comparison is fair. Because if one allows that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate (or at least possibly appropriate, depending on one's personal view), then what words are so offensive that they merit such a sentence?

Who has decided what if merely offensive – and what is so über offensive that prison is the answer? Who has drawn the line? How was it drawn? Why is any comment/opinion ever a crime? How is 'offensiveness' weighed?

And so forth.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences. Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down. Yet you still argue one is worse than the other. Is a physical act [ialways [/iworse than verbal offending? I wouldn't say so. But the law is often on the face of it like this, in that you could pick out a whole host of "lenient looking" sentences for a range of varying offences, and an equal number of "severe" looking sentences for a different range of offences, and say "Look at X, he should surely have got more than Y, as X is plainly far worse than Y". It's just pointless.'" Here is what was said Quote Ferocious Aardvark="SmokeyTA"It wasn’t tweeted, it was on his facebook page, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/0 ... ods-jailed'"

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences. Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down. Yet you still argue one is worse than the other. Is a physical act [ialways [/iworse than verbal offending? I wouldn't say so. But the law is often on the face of it like this, in that you could pick out a whole host of "lenient looking" sentences for a range of varying offences, and an equal number of "severe" looking sentences for a different range of offences, and say "Look at X, he should surely have got more than Y, as X is plainly far worse than Y". It's just pointless.'" Here is what was said Quote Ferocious Aardvark="SmokeyTA"It wasn’t tweeted, it was on his facebook page, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/0 ... ods-jailed'"

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?

The worst laws in terms of causing offence are surely the blasphemy laws. Why should domebody be jailed for making remarks about a fictional being that doesnt exist because it offends somebody that is naive enought to believe in such a being?

The Go Compare man offends me, can i report that to the police?

No but abuse him on Twitter and plod will be round

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... l-chambers

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... l-chambers

[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/barry-thew-radcliffe-man-jailed-1373239And another – this time, jailed for wearing an 'offensive' t-shirt.[/url

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?

Keir Starmer announces review into new guidelines for policing social media, to avoid a "chilling effect" on free speech- "we have to protect the right to be offensive"

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19910865[/url

Not really thought of it from that angle but you are 100% right and makes it even more of a mockery.