[CraigJPerry]

>> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them.

> This is blatantly disingenuous. The Public Order Act 1986 ... <snip>... criminalize "insulting" and "abusive" words ...

Do you know what i find disingenuous here, you hooked me with the words i quoted above so i went to the legislation:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

And the thing to stand out was the change of meaning when the full quote is provided:

____

Fear or provocation of violence. (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

____

If you have to rely on this kind of disingenuous trickery to make a point, then you don't have a point.

The GP is correct in their statement:

>> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them.

You are incorrect in yours:

> This is blatantly disingenuous.

[lurk2]

You aren’t quoting the same statute the grandparent comment is referencing.

Grandparent is quoting Part III 18 Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.

You are quoting Part I 4 Fear or provocation of violence.

[sanskritical]

The statute says "or" and an a) b) c) bullet point listing in a statute also means "or". Maybe you are unfamiliar with boolean logic, but I was listing the relevant lines of the statute which allow someone who did not call for violence to be prosecuted, and the standard interpretation used by prosecutors to prosecute people for non-violent, non-threatening, insulting speech.

What about Elizabeth Kinney, arrested for a simple slur in a private text message to a friend about the man who assaulted her, minutes after being beaten? What about the tens of thousands of people arrested who did not threaten violence?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c703e03w243o

Just like Elizabeth Kinney, this man did not threaten violence at all. He just said "they should not be allowed to live here."

[CraigJPerry]

> The statute says "or" and an a) b) c) bullet point

There is no c) bullet point, the part you misinterpreted as an or is an AND:

"with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him..."

>> A plasterer who admitted to stirring up racial hatred...

Admitted?

[sanskritical]

> There is no c) bullet point,

I was giving an example of the format. That you think that it is necessary for a c) to exist for the example to be valid belies your absurd lack of understanding of the subject matter, whether incidental or willful.

And that doesn't even matter, because the text of the a) part explicitly says or at the end:

> (a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III/crossh...

It clearly is not disingenuous nor deceptive to clip out a) when I highlighted the b) part explicitly showing that it was merely one bullet point, and that a) contains or at the end (meaning that you do not have to commit the behavior described in a to be guilty under the statute). I was being helpful, showing only the relevant parts of the statute for readers that don't want to waste their time. You responded by posting more legalese not relevant to the point, potentially maliciously to try to complicate and confuse readers.

"Admitted" in journalist speak means he pled guilty. It doesn't lend credence to the idea this idea:

> "with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him..."

There's no way to go from "they should not be allowed to live here" to the idea that he is making people subject to "immediate unlawful violence". I stand in awe that there is anyone that can argue that with a straight face. This thread is about whether the statute covers behavior that is violently threatening. Admitted spreading of "racial hatred" in the form of simple statements opposed to migrant presence is not violent or threatening. It is an inherently peaceful form of political lobbying.

[santoshalper]

I googled it and couldn't find anything credible about this. At this point, I don't believe it actually happened the way it is being discussed.

[sanskritical]

The UK is extremely litigious in regards to libel. Her lying would be an act of public libel against the crown prosecutor. She went on TV to talk about it. It's been well covered in everything from the IB Times to The Sun to the Daily Mail (as linked above), as well as fully televised on Piers Morgan. Naturally the team you obviously root for can just refuse to cover any prosecutions which are embarrassing for them and you can simply smugly say "well it's not in any source I trust so it didn't happen."

At this point, assertions such as these are a form of ad hominem fallacy against half of society. You are discrediting the multitude of sources who have covered this story because of the nature of the speaker while no hardline liberal outlets have covered this story at all and presented a counterargument. If you want to have an alternative narrative, you need to link a major outlet showing her to be a liar. The case has been presented to the public. You don't like the people presenting the case. That doesn't invalidate the case. You must, at this point, present a member of your team making a reasonable, evidenced based deconstruction of her claims. The fact that there isn't any coverage from your side at all of this incredibly well televised and written embarrassment for the legitimacy of crown prosecutors speaks volumes.

[delaminator]

So you are asserting that the 12,000 arrests in England/Wales (not the UK) were for direct threats of violence?