Umm... Velorution?

Tynan, I respect you; you're a bit of a radical, and cerebral with it, but we (you and I) have the right to disagree. Yes, it is preferable to air views and argue to resolve them, or just accept the difference. BUT, if one can see that another's views are not just silly, but harmful to some (not me Tynan, I'm harder than that), then it is up to somebody (just about anybody), to do something about it. And I have.

But I don't think you have, you have handed the problem over to the state, this man expressed views you found offensive and you have asked Boris Johnson, Diana Abbot and the police to protect you from his views.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure we share at least some contempt for this mans idiotic views, it is just that we differ on the best way to respond.

I would rather live in a society where people can express any views they may have and those views live or die in the court of public opinion, not in a society where your views are reported to the state to establish whether you are allowed to express them.

After all what use is this, what are you hoping to achieve outside of the personal satisfaction of seeing him punished for his views ?

We have to take responsibility as adults for what we do and what we say (much less what we publish).

Agreed, see above.

The only question I would ask is what, for you, would be the ideal outcome from getting the state to deal with your offense at what this man has said ?