Gay couple claim they were ejected from pub for kissing

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Zing

if someone keeps taking the mick out of my red hair and I feel insulted is that then a public order offence?

If you deem it to be insulting or if it causes you distress then yes, it is.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

... and I think you'll find that it is not an offence of absolute liability. I.E. intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress must be proved.

It is not enough for someone to stand up and say they are insulted in order to secure a conviction.

The contention here was that expressing disgust about homosexual activity is, in and of itself, illegal. That is not true.

The facts (and indeed the law) say different.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If you deem it to be insulting or if it causes you distress then yes, it is.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------




The facts (and indeed the law) say different.

but there is no way on the face of the earth I would get a conviction out of it is there?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If you deem it to be insulting or if it causes you distress then yes, it is.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------




The facts (and indeed the law) say different.

I'm not sure what a statistical analysis of prosecutions is supposed to prove? At the heart of this issue remains definitions of terms such as 'reasonable' (used in the legislation) and 'verbal abuse or insults' (used in the Civitas document).

How high, exactly, do the courts place the bar on this? At what point does 'reasonable' commentary become 'verbal abuse'?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Zing

but there is no way on the face of the earth I would get a conviction out of it is there?

Why not? It's a prosecutable offence.

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

...How high, exactly, do the courts place the bar on this? At what point does 'reasonable' commentary become 'verbal abuse'?

When the person on the receiving end of it deems it to be distressful, abusive or insulting to them.

Thanks for info Mr A

The Law really is an ass but I should not say in case the law gets upset and does me lol

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Why not? It's a prosecutable offence.

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------



When the person on the receiving end of it deems it to be distressful, abusive or insulting to them.

Oh come on ... that won't do at all and I'm pretty sure you know it.

You're proposing a situation where this happens:

Complainant: I feel insulted.
Defendant: My comments were a reasonable expression of my personal feelings.
Complainant: But I feel insulted.
Beak: Guilty as charged.

Section 5(1) of the Act creates an offence, but 5(3)(c) creates a defence. If the defence is valid, you can't just go round in a circle and trump it by re-stating the offence.

Now, once again, I ask out of genuine interest for the views of one who is knowledgeable in these things: where do the courts generally set the bar, beyond which a defence of 'reasonable' comment is no longer acceptable? What makes the comment 'unreasonable'?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

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

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Do you see the word "deliberate" or "opinion" in there?

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

That seems to show that intent is required

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

What makes the comment 'unreasonable'?

The perception / interpretation of the court as to what is "reasonable" in the context of society - racism and homophobia most certainly are not.

---------- Post added at 15:19 ---------- Previous post was at 15:17 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

That seems to show that intent is required

Marty, What you think it "seems" to say and what it actually says are two very different things - that's the beauty of the law.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The perception / interpretation of the court as to what is "reasonable" in the context of society - racism and homophobia most certainly are not.

But you're still skirting around the issue rather than tackling it head-on. There is a level at which it cannot be a crime for a person to express a personal view about homosexuality (it happens, for example, in church pulpits).

Were the application as absolute as you are suggesting, it would be an offence to print the Bible or to read certain passages of it aloud in public. Yet clearly Christian ministers are not being rounded up and prosecuted en masse. I mention Christianity as it's an example I'm familiar with. I daresay there are others.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The perception / interpretation of the court as to what is "reasonable" in the context of society - racism and homophobia most certainly are not.

---------- Post added at 15:19 ---------- Previous post was at 15:17 ----------



Marty, What you think it "seems" to say and what it actually says are two very different things - that's the beauty of the law.

no i'm pretty sure that it means intent must be shown,i would be curious as to what your interpretation of it is

[Derek]

Personally I would think there has to be intention to cause offence.

Stating clearly and calmly "I don't like gays" wouldn't earn you many friends but wouldn't get you a night in the cells.
Screaming "You're a *bleeping* *bleep* and I think you should all burn in hell" will almost certainly get you a pair of shiny bracelets linked in the middle and a night in one or her majesties finest B&B establishments for the evening.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

But you're still skirting around the issue rather than tackling it head-on. There is a level at which it cannot be a crime for a person to express a personal view about homosexuality (it happens, for example, in church pulpits).

Were the application as absolute as you are suggesting, it would be an offence to print the Bible or to read certain passages of it aloud in public. Yet clearly Christian ministers are not being rounded up and prosecuted en masse. I mention Christianity as it's an example I'm familiar with. I daresay there are others.

Context Chris, context.

The christian minister / church analogy is a perfectly defensible (as such - non prosecutable) scenario in that those doing as you posit are quoting the "word" of a third party in the context of their job.

They could, arguably, offer the defence that they are exercising their religious freedom (which is also protected under the Public Order Act).

Marty

Section 5 of the Public Order Act "Harassment, alarm or distress" makes no mention of "intent". The offences stated are prosecutable under that particular section whether intentional or not.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Context Chris, context.

The christian minister / church analogy is a perfectly defensible (as such - non prosecutable) scenario in that those doing as you posit are quoting the "word" of a third party in the context of their job.

They could, arguably, offer the defence that they are exercising their religious freedom (ironically also protected under the Public Order Act).

Marty

Section 5 of the Public Order Act "Harassment, alarm or distress" makes no mention of "intent". The offence is prosecutable whether intentional or not.

It is a defence ,as stated in the act ,that a person has no reason to believe that someone is likely to be caused harassment,alarm or distress ,in other words ..did not intend offence to anyone .It also has to be noted that to cause distress or harassment by saying something like "i don't like gays" has to be directed to someone ,simply stating an opinion in general cannot cause either .If a person says "i don't like you because you are gay"you may have a point especially if it is said in a threatening manner

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

It is a defence ,as stated in the act ,that a person has no reason to believe that someone is likely to be caused harassment,alarm or distress ,in other words ..did not intend offence to anyone .It also has to be noted that to cause distress or harassment by saying something like "i don't like gays" has to be directed to someone ,simply stating an opinion in general cannot cause either .If a person says "i don't like you because you are gay"you may have a point especially if it is said in a threatening manner

Again, Section 5 of the Public Order Act "Harassment, alarm or distress" makes no mention of "intent".

Additionally it is not a defence for a defendant to "state" that he or she had "no reason to believe that someone is likely to be caused harassment,alarm or distress" the defence requires the defendant to prove that to be the case.

"(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove"

As such the opinion of the defendant as to whether his / her statements were insulting or causing distress - whether directed at an individual or not - is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Context Chris, context.

I agree completely - this is the point I have been trying to make. Karrington asserted earlier that making certain statements was simply 'unlawful', without any qualification at all. My position is that it plainly is not unlawful in any absolute sense. There is a defence, explicitly stated in the Act right alongside the offence itself.

It is for the courts to weigh up the defence in each case, but a defence there most certainly is, and I am quite sure it is not limited to preachers with Bibles (or any other religious text for that matter).