[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

The Public Order Act 1986 is designed to help police arrest those inciting disorder on the streets, through violence or abusive behaviour.

Sorry, but harassing, alarming and distressing behaviour comes in many different forms: The stalker, following a vulnerable teenage girl; the ex-wife sending abusive text messages; the yobs down the street vandalising bus stops; the playground gang, bullying the schoolboy on social networking sites; neighbours, playing loud music until three o'clock in the morning; the shop customer, being abused in the store by the staff; the elderly driver, intimidated by the thug ion a van because he wasn't not driving fast enough, the list goes on and on. All these examples are covered by the Public Order Act, which used to prosecute them every single day. This is not a new phenomenon, the authorities use the act to prevent this behaviour, from anyone they receive a complaint about. I cannot see any difference in it being used in these circumstances.

'It should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed,' said Neil Addison, a leading criminal barrister and expert in religious law. 'If someone is in a discussion and they don't like what they are hearing, they can walk away.'

But where do we draw the line? One man's debate is another's harassment. Myself and my family have suffered abuse in the past and there have been many occasions where I do just walk away, but there have been times when it goes beyond what is reasonable and I have had to take a stand. For example, Flyboy10 is disabled, he suffers with an ASD, amongst other things and has been ridiculed and abused because of it. Now, sometimes it is down to ignorance of the condition, but sometimes it is the result of downright bigotry, prejudice and the desire to cause distress and alarm. Should I let it go, or should I take action, such as making sure that the little gits don't get away with it again? Do we continue to allow the thuggish elements of our society to slowly whittle away what little dignity we have left. To constantly reduce our right to a peaceful existence, the right to live a life free of harassment and prejudice, all in the name of that so-called, misconceived phallacy that is "freedom of speech?"

If the christian faith does not hold the principles of freedom, democracy and justice as a basis of moral conscience who does?
Not any good looking into Islam either, because if we are unbelievers we should be killed according to them.
Sledgehammer/Nut.

One would hope, but then I do not believe this is the aims and objectives of the "Christian" Institute.