A judge or juryHow would that be judged?
People need to take responsibility for whom they choose to electWhat to do when a government becomes violent towards its own citizens?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A judge or juryHow would that be judged?
People need to take responsibility for whom they choose to electWhat to do when a government becomes violent towards its own citizens?
Yes totally. Never been keen on incitement to riot by racists.Anybody here support this police policy?
Age is irrelevant. I'm 64 and if I acted like a **** I wouldn't be surprised to get banged up.He was a part of a mob
He contributed to violent disorder
I think 18 months is fair
Hopefully he will learn from this
AbsolutelyAge is irrelevant. I'm 64 and if I acted like a **** I wouldn't be surprised to get banged up.
David Spring attended the "enough is enough" demonstration at Richmond Terrace. Police asked the 700-strong protest to remain in Richmond Terrace and then disperse leave at 8.30pm. The demonstrators did not disburse and Spring was one of the demonstrators who became violent and broke through barriers at Richmond Terrace, advancing towards Whitehall and confronting police officers. He shouted obscenities at police and engaged in threats. Spring pled guilty to the charges. the judge ruled: "At that point you did that [shouting and swearing at police] you must have been well aware it was a particularly volatile situation and police were doing their best to keep order. Your actions showed a complete contempt for the police at that time. What you were doing, could and did encourage others to threaten the police and add to the disorder. Violent protests can't be tolerated, and neither can violence towards police officers who do their duty to protect the public from disorder, and those who do can expect to receive severe sentences, to punish you and deter others from disorder."
I should think the context is crucial.But how does censoring images of the riot help stop these things? Shouldn't the public be informed of what is occurring?
Indeed. Complex isn't it.And violence can be caused by speech
Everything has consequences
Can you provide a link to this in English law please?For several centuries now the test for limits to free speech has been whether a bit of speech is likely to cause IMMINENT violence.
The relevance of that is?2 - What to do when a government becomes violent towards its own citizens?
Way too biased for my taste. E.g., if I say Islam is not peaceful, a judge or jury could decide I was inciting violence. yikes!A judge or jury
People need to take responsibility for whom they choose to elect
You're late to the discussion..Yes totally. Never been keen on incitement to riot by racists.
In the US, we have a right to sayDefinitely not,a 61 year old man has just been jailed for 18 months for chanting “who the **** is allah” and calling police a four letter word,he has no previous convictions,police bodycam video shows he was not violent,the judge could have fined and given him a suspended sentence,we are in bad times imo.
By the wording
If a play or a TV programme actually calls for real life violence then that should be an issue
Phew, they really saved Allah's and the police's asses. Who knows what migh've happened to them had he said it a few more times.Definitely not,a 61 year old man has just been jailed for 18 months for chanting “who the **** is allah” and calling police a four letter word,he has no previous convictions,police bodycam video shows he was not violent,the judge could have fined and given him a suspended sentence,we are in bad times imo.
Obviously some speech needs to be protectedWay too biased for my taste. E.g., if I say Islam is not peaceful, a judge or jury could decide I was inciting violence. yikes!
I think there is a difference between portraying and glamorisingWhat wording would involve riot imagery, though? Hiding things that are happening in reality from the public just seems Orwellian to me.
A little more information would be helpful.
Way too biased for my taste. E.g., if I say Islam is not peaceful, a judge or jury could decide I was inciting violence. yikes!