Discrimination -

You cannot be convicted of a crime for saying "I hate methodists, they smell"
What is the law that you think prevents you from saying "all plumbers should go back to Surrey?"
Methodists? Plumbers? The CPS won't take any notice. But replace those words with 'Muslims', 'blacks' or 'gays' and (if a policeman hears you say it) you will be arrested under Section 29 of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 or Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. Whether or not you will be charged, or convicted, is another matter, but just to be arrested is frightening enough.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
"If he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred"

Is what it says.

Show me where it specifies which religion.

Show me where it says saying you don't like them (where you are expressing an opinion and not trying to stir up religious hatred).
"If he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred"
Is what it says.
Show me where it specifies which religion.
Show me where it says saying you don't like them (where you are expressing an opinion and not trying to stir up religious hatred).
The police are not expert lawyers, they only have a sketchy understanding of what the law allows, so they often arrest first and figure out the legality later. What the law says is open to interpretation; that's what lawyers are for. The CPS brings cases to prosecution all the time which are ultimately thrown out. But just the arrest / referral is distressing enough, and can still be enough to ruin a person's repution/job, making it a tacit oppression of free speech. Would you dare say those things in a public place, confident that the police won't touch you? I doubt it. Then there are cases like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond and one day this:
Sponsored Links
It's good to see that the European Convention on Human Rights offers some protection to people expressing opinions.

It's a pity that Theresa intends dUK to abandon it.

Have you read 29J yet?

In the case you quote, are you suggesting he was wrongfully convicted?
Remember what "Free Speech" means.

It means that you can't be arrested and imprisoned by the government for expressing your opinion (unless, for example, you are trying to stir up violence or hatred).

It doesn't mean people have to agree with you, or listen to you, or to sit quietly while you rant.

Did this lady try to stir up violence or hatred? Or was it just a drunken racist rant 'expressing her opinion'? Did she harm anything other than his feelings, or did he seem frightened? She got convicted and has a criminal record.

For the record, I don't agree with these kinds of rants.
What was she convicted of?

Note that in the Public Order Act 1986. "Section 4A makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of causing someone else harassment, alarm or distress. The offence is only committed if it has that effect."

It need not be racist or religionist. You could be yelling abuse at someone in a threatening manner because they were wearing the wrong football scarf, or because they were a homeless person on the street, or you were a drunk, and it would be an offence. Even if they were a Surrey Plumber.

Are you under the impression that only religion or racist abuse is banned?
Are you under the impression that only religion or racist abuse is banned?
No, but isn't that what's being talked about? I can't remember the last time someone went to court for calling a homeless person names or being nasty or a opposition footie fan.
Was she being threatening? Or just insulting?

Anyway, there is no such thing as free speech as you've pointed out with your links.
Last edited by a moderator:
yes, I agree that abuse and attacks on the homeless need to be taken more seriously

"The 2015-16 crime survey for England and Wales found that 3.6% of the population of England and Wales experienced being intimidated, verbally abused or harassed within the past 12 months. In the survey of people who had slept rough in the past 12 months, 55.5% had experienced being verbally abused or harassed – 15 times higher than the general population."


"Homeless women are even more vulnerable on the street than men. Research by Crisis, the homelessness charity, found 58% of women sleeping rough had been intimidated or threatened with violence and force in the past 12 months compared to 42% of men."


I don't know if it's mentioned in the right-wing press.
Last edited:
I can't remember the last time someone went to court for calling a homeless person names or being nasty or a opposition footie fan.

Neither do I. Maybe it never happens, or maybe it's so common it hardly makes the inside pages of the local paper. Maybe the only abuse that ever gets to court is racial.


Maybe none of these were on the TV news. There wouldn't be time for anything else.
The only discrimination that goes on is discrimination against facts.
Your first two links I quickly scanned as don't have much time left but it gave me an idea of the content.. Both stories were threatening violence so they're not really relevant to this discussion so don't know why you spent so much time putting them up.. If someone is threatening violence then yes, it should of course be a criminal matter as someone will be scared, rightly so.
As for the homeless, of course it's bad. But you have to ask, why have they not been given a voice as strong as religious minorities have? Because of people like you. You banged on and on after brexit about the rise of racism and still do. You mentioned Harlow again just the other day. It's people like you who have pushed it to the front, which isn't a bad thing btw. And I suppose I should find it refreshing now that you seem to be so concerned about the homeless and football rivals and if they get some verbal abuse. I hope you continue your concern.

The woman with the bouncer wasn't threatening as far as I could tell in the video. She was expressing her (racist) opinion.
As I asked you, was the bouncer scared or threatened? You didn't answer. Was she inciting violence, hatred? No, she was being verbally abusive, the silly girl.

As I said, you've proved that there is no thing as freedom of speech. You are either done for threatening, abusive or insulting language or they are done for inciting hatred or violence. So I ask you, what's left? I am afraid I agree with EFL. It has got to the stage where people are very wary of voicing their opinions or being seen as racist even if have genuine concerns. Before you disagree entirely, I will say a few more words to you. Rotheram child abuse.
Jersey child abuse.

Kincora child abuse

Jersey child abuse.

Kincora child abuse

So are you denying the fact that the Rotherham abuse went on for so long because people were afraid of rocking the racism boat?

Again, your examples have nothing to do with what I am saying - and you know it.
Sponsored Links