Discussion in 'News and Current Affairs' started by User, 8 Mar 2018.
That's funny as fark but I just read the comments. Jesus Christ.
Blimey. Well, they do say one shouldn't read the bottom half of the internet...
Yeah I should know better but I'm bored and need to finish my beer before I can go to bed.
Could always drop her a line, BF have published her prison number and address on facebook.
I think that is exactly the thought that went through my head, that and sadness for these people.
I couldn't believe the amount of comments. Maybe it was from a handful of people with multiple accounts?
Don’t underestimate how many people think that way in the UK.
Good that the both of them are facing justice for what they have done. I disagree with the release of the images of being in the public interest as I think the people with the mindset which agrees with the BF ideology will have their prejudices reinforced by the decision.
Jailing someone for their political ideology is not a path we should be taking.
They were jailed for religiously aggravated harassment which, while not the same thing, is a worrying offence which anyone with strong views could find themselves on the wrong end of.
Another point to ponder is this matter was dealt with by a district judge, who sits alone in a magistrates' court.
He is in a uniquely powerful position because he hears your case, decides on your guilt, and then decides to send you to prison.
A judge at crown court cannot do that, he needs a jury to find you guilty - or for you to plead guilty - before he can lock you up.
It might have been better if this case had been dealt with as most trials in magistrates' court cases are by a panel of three experienced, but lay, magistrates.
Only 328 comments. Even if all of them were from UK residents, all of them were from different people and all of them were supportive of the racist idiots that's a really tiny insignificant bunch of people
What is it that worries you about it?
Nah. Just avoid calling innocent people rapists and paedophiles. Easy as anything!
My bold, and my addition in italics, but yeah, pretty easy and not exactly
It's very wide ranging which could lead to someone being criminalised who does not deserve it.
Having seen many paedophile priests in court, I've been known to make some strong comments about the proportion of paedophile priests.
I've seen similar comments on here.
If made within the hearing of a member of the church, those comments could be taken as religious harassment.
We might also examine what these two did.
Distributed some, no doubt, very nasty leaflets, and Ms Fransen apparently banged on the window of a takeaway and shouted 'foreigners' and 'paedophiles' - the occupants possibly being the former but almost certainly not the latter.
Yet those getting a pizza were 'religiously harassed'.
Seems to me we are in PC Savage territory where 'looking at me in a funny way' and 'walking on the cracks in the pavement' are deemed to be offences.
Accepting what she did were offences, we might consider the penalty.
Rightly or wrongly, there is a presumption against sending women to prison.
Stab your boyfriend in a drug-fuelled frenzy and you will walk - provided you have a promising career ahead of you.
But bellow some abuse through a takeaway window and it's off to pokey for you my girl.
The coppers than seek to heap further shame on you by releasing your mughshot in circumstances where they otherwise would not, but for the nature of your offending.
There's too much box ticking going on here for this to be quite the glorious day for British justice some seem to think it is.
Separate names with a comma.