In the news

Certainly for the police officer - not sure about the "buyer"?

Coulson should've done a deal and shopped the lot of 'em... Massively, totally fucked himself now... Dave will come out smelling of roses, obvs... This country makes me sick...

well - cuntydave did employ him as his press advisor, so he's not going to be popping the vueve quite just yet.

I'm sure the dirty deals have already been done... Coulson will keep schtum and get a massive pay-off sometime down the road...

anyway - prisons are like holiday camps. i know, i read it in the news of the world.

Good to know we still have the very best justice system money can buy.

A bad 12 months for justice :-/

I can't wait for Dave's unemotional and calculated yet 'profound' apology.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/worse-than-what-happened-to-theon

Coulson should've done a deal and shopped the lot of 'em... Massively, totally fucked himself now... Dave will come out smelling of roses, obvs... This country makes me sick...

This. It's so convenient for him. He'd already virtually disowned Coulsen but stood by Brooks. The only hope left is for him to fall off one of her horses.

she has closer ties to murdoch doesn't she ?
the right one to save

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-28003999
Buster!!

Not really news but not sure where else it would go:

Tony Blair, dread creature of the forbidden swamp

Fucking ridiculous.

Burning cars should be the only red glowing tonight... Cam and Bliars pal, fucking Coulson, whose hubby tried to dump evidence, not guilty. Right. It is coming up to an election after all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-27941589

Grade A scum

Hmmmmm....

What do you think of the imprisonment of those pussy riot members who went about offending catholics in church and their subsequent incarceration?

Quite. A sense of proportion would be nice.

They threw a bit of bacon into a building. An offence requiring no punishment harsher than a fine for littering.

Fair enough they did it specifically to cause offence, but offence against people who believe in gods should not be considered worse than offence against people who believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden and get upset by someone mowing the lawn.

^ ha!

Is it really that simple? I'd be fucking surprised if this were the act of two hardcore atheists and not a pair of racist assholes.

The court heard that during a police interview Lambie had admitted being a member of the Scottish Defence League.

Oh look.

It shouldn't matter that they were racists or that they did it specifically because they are racists. In almost all other matters British law prosecutes the act, rather than the motivation. You have to get to serious crime like killing someone before your intent results in a separate offence being prosecuted.

Religion should not get special privileges over anything else. Gods are not real, and choosing to believe in them and choosing to be offended by foodstuffs should be ridiculed, not given special protection in law.

True dat. Although i might swap 'ridiculed' for 'barely tolerated'.

It shouldn't matter that they were racists or that they did it specifically because they are racists. In almost all other matters British law prosecutes the act, rather than the intent. You have to get to serious crime like killing someone before your intent results in a separate offence being prosecuted.

Religion should not get special privileges over anything else. Gods are not real, and choosing to believe in them and choosing to be offended by foodstuffs should be ridiculed, not given special protection in law.

Unfortunately religion **is **institutionally an aspect of the British legal and political system.

Religion should not get special privileges over anything else. Gods are not real, and choosing to believe in them and choosing to be offended by foodstuffs should be ridiculed, not given special protection in law.

It's not the delicious bacon that worries various religions and vegetarians and vegans and those other ones who don't eat meat but do like the small baddy from Home Alone, it's the fact it's a bit of a manky old dead pig. Haven't you seen Pulp Fiction?

And Gods might actually be real. Agnosticism or GTFO.

It shouldn't matter that they were racists or that they did it specifically because they are racists. In almost all other matters British law prosecutes the act, rather than the motivation. You have to get to serious crime like killing someone before your intent results in a separate offence being prosecuted.

Religion should not get special privileges over anything else. Gods are not real, and choosing to believe in them and choosing to be offended by foodstuffs should be ridiculed, not given special protection in law.

That's bollocks. Mens rea is a requirement in most crimes.

It shouldn't matter that they were racists or that they did it specifically because they are racists. In almost all other matters British law prosecutes the act, rather than the motivation. You have to get to serious crime like killing someone before your intent results in a separate offence being prosecuted.

Religion should not get special privileges over anything else. Gods are not real, and choosing to believe in them and choosing to be offended by foodstuffs should be ridiculed, not given special protection in law.

So crime is only serious when you kill someone?

Unfortunately religion **is **institutionally an aspect of the British legal and political system.

Well, aren't you supposed to put your hand on a bible and mutter some old bobbins about (a) God prior to giving evidence?

That's bollocks. Mens rea is a requirement in most crimes.

I'd argue that mens rea is intent, not motivation, and the two are separate - e.g. the intent to burgle, not one's reason's for having that intent.

Bu yes I wasn't clear. I mean it doesn't become a whole new and more harshly punished offence because of that mens rea. The only other offence I know of where it arguably does is when manslaughter becomes murder because you have to prove intent. That's intent rather than motivation though. IANAL though.

So if you punch someone a man in street then it's assault or ABH or whatever - the charge will reflect the severity of the act but not my motivation for committing it, except in one case.
If you punch a person in the street because he is wearing a green suit, you don't like his hair, because she is a woman, because he is gay or because he is disabled then it is still assault and sentencing will reflect the severity of the assault.

If, however, the victim is of the opinion that you did it because you didn't like their race or their religion then you will be prosecuted for a distinct and more serious charge of racially aggravated assault. This is the only instance I know of where the opinion of the victim as to the perpetrator's motives is even taken into account, never mind enshrined in law, and the only case where it results in a different charge being brought. There are a quite a few distinct racially-aggravated offences that have been added to the statute books, which result in a person's religious delusions being enshrined in law as more special, fragile and worthy of legal protection than someone's sexuality, dis/ability, or (leaving aside the race aspect of the statutes) physical appearance. And quite frankly they shouldn't be.