13 1 min 10 yrs

For committing no crime, but for posting heartless comments on facebook about the missing girl Alice Jones, an idiot gets twelve weeks in prison.

For intimidating, harassing, abusing and hitting his girlfriend – in a sustained campaign of domestic violence and following recognition by the judge that it was “not a run-of-the-mill case of domestic violence” – the TV presenter Justin Lee Collins gets 140 hours community service.

Just as well he didn’t say something about her on facebook. He’d have really been in trouble then.

UPDATE: Azhar Ahmed (what d’you reckon?), for posting on facebook that “all soldiers should die and go to hell” after six British soldiers fell in Afghanistan, gets 240 hours community service. He’ll breeze through the 140 hours when he gets done for smacking his daughter about.

Ain’t the law great?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. From Pete’s first link:

    Members of the public reported the offensive online post about April Jones to police

    Those members of the public shouild be awarded The Order of Stalin for their actions. Of course, if the idiot had been a freemason, nothing would have happened as the police take no action against their own.

    Btw, what exactly was the offence committed?

  2. The govt should not touch the one who said vicious things about the lost child.

    However, should someone bust his jaw for him some night, I’d not prosecute whoever is accused of it.

  3. A moral failing is not necessarily a criminal crime. However disgusting his “jokes” he should not be locked up.

  4. Don’t know about this one in particular but in the past it has boiled down harrassment. The nutters become obssessed.

  5. There are two reasons why this idiot (and others recently) have found themselves in trouble.

    The first is Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003:

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

    (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
    (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

    (2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
    (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

    (b)causes such a message to be sent; or
    (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

    (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

    (4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

    You have to admire (4) in there. The plebs can be done for something offensive but TV productions are just fine. The principle of free speech aside, there are obvious problems coming down the road with this totalitarian drivel. I fully expect someone to end up in the dock for saying that (for example) muslims should be kicked out. See, what is an opinion to someone might be deemed offensive by someone else, and the ruling class has accepted the idea that something is racist if it perceived to be racist by someone, whether or not that was the intent (and notwithstanding that whether or not something is rsacist is no business of the state).

    It can’t be long before this principle is applied to Section 127.

    The second reason is that during the Blair Terror the Crown Prosecution Service and Home Office recruited and promoted loyal apparatchiks, proto-Stalinist curtain twitchers who would investigate and prosecute Britons for things they say.

    We’ve seen since 2003 that the CPS has been zealous in investigating things said on twitter and facebook and other idiot filters. These people genuinely don’t believe that our thoughts belong to ourselves and they genuinely don’t recognise the principle of free speech. They’re so zealous they will prosecute men for obvious jokes and take it to the point that judges tell them to shut up and go away.

    In the end it’s not about communication or what might or might not be offensive. It’s about power and intimidation and cowering the people into watching their tongues. When you’ve done that you’ve taken away a great weapon of resistance to power.

  6. Pete – I’m looking at parts 1 and 2 and it is clear that the word ‘sends’ means an intended recipient. Surely it cannot be the case that a message on Facebook/Twitter is intended to be received by everybody? If I call you a c*nt, someone who reads me calling you that cannot be offended because he/she is not the intended target of the insult. If there were no intended recipient, the term should be ‘broadcast’, but individual members of the public don’t have any licence to broadcast.

    Disclaimer – I’m NOT calling you a c*nt

Comments are closed.