Two protesters were “reasonable” in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory
scum” outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.

Judgment available here:
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx

On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:06:23 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

> Two protesters were “reasonable” in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory
> scum” outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
> ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
>
> Judgment available here:
> https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx

Do you know to what extent the recent Tory anti-demonstration laws may have
modified the reasonableness defence the magistrate accepted and the appeal
court confirmed?

--
Roger Hayter

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 19:06:23 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

>Two protesters were “reasonable” in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory
>scum” outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
>ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
>
>Judgment available here:
>https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be offensive. Seems the right
result, to me. Whether someone is justified in using offensive and insulting
language is a matter for public opinion, not a court.

Mark

On 21 Nov 2023 20:46:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

>On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:06:23 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> Two protesters were “reasonable” in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory
>> scum” outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
>> ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
>>
>> Judgment available here:
>> https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx
>
>Do you know to what extent the recent Tory anti-demonstration laws may have
>modified the reasonableness defence the magistrate accepted and the appeal
>court confirmed?

I don't think it would make any difference to this case. The question wasn't
whether they were acting lawfully by protesting, it was whether they were
acting lawfully in the words they used. Specifically, in this case, it
essentially boiled down to whether "Tory scum" was threatening, harassing or
distressing (unlawful), or merely offensive (lawful). The court concluded
that it was the latter. It is not unreasonable to be offensive, even if many
people may, with justification, find it distasteful.

It's possible that changes in the law may make the type of protest that the
defendants were engaged in no longer lawful[1]. But that wouldn't affect the
question of what form of words constitutes an offence. If the protest itself
wasn't lawful they would simply be charged with unlawful protest, it
wouldn't be necessary to consider whether their words were lawful.

[1] FWIW, I suspect not. The changes in the law relating to protests are
mainly targetted at those who wilfully cause significant disruption to
people going about their normal, everyday lives. It doesn't affect the right
of people to stand outside a political event and shout abuse at those
attending, because the general public are not being disrupted and, in any
case, the attendees are not being disrupted from attending.

Mark

On 2023-11-22, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2023 20:46:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:06:23 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
>>> Two protesters were “reasonable” in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory
>>> scum” outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
>>> ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
>>>
>>> Judgment available here:
>>> https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx
>>
>>Do you know to what extent the recent Tory anti-demonstration laws may have
>>modified the reasonableness defence the magistrate accepted and the appeal
>>court confirmed?
>
> I don't think it would make any difference to this case. The question wasn't
> whether they were acting lawfully by protesting, it was whether they were
> acting lawfully in the words they used. Specifically, in this case, it
> essentially boiled down to whether "Tory scum" was threatening, harassing or
> distressing (unlawful), or merely offensive (lawful). The court concluded
> that it was the latter. It is not unreasonable to be offensive, even if many
> people may, with justification, find it distasteful.

Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't
even allowed to call politicians rude names?

>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> Wrote in message:
>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 19:06:23 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
>>Two protesters were “reasonable” in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory
>>scum” outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
>>ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
>>
>>Judgment available here:
>>https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx
>
>Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be offensive. Seems the right
>result, to me. Whether someone is justified in using offensive and insulting
>language is a matter for public opinion, not a court.
>
>Mark
>

I'm glad that this was brought up, because it is SO IMPORTANT with
regard to freedom of speech. I may not always agree with what
people say, but I will always protect their right to express
their opinion (of course providing it does not cross the bounds
of protected characteristics), and "the right to offend, and
indeed to abuse another". The US's equivalent of freedom of
pspeech is their First Amendment right.

Part of the quote from the 2020, Scottow v Crown Prosecution Service
"The prosecution argument failed entirely to acknowledge the
well-established proposition that free speech encompasses the
right to offend, and indeed to abuse another."

--
Iain

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On 22/11/2023 15:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't
> even allowed to call politicians rude names?

"Civilised"?

It's not so much that it shouldn't be allowed as that we should
exercise a degree of self-restraint in the language we use to describe
those we disagree with. Those who fail in that regard should be called
out for it -- not least by those on the same side as the targets.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Pridham

On 2023-11-23, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/11/2023 15:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't
>> even allowed to call politicians rude names?
>
> "Civilised"?

No - in fact quite the opposite.

> It's not so much that it shouldn't be allowed as that we should
> exercise a degree of self-restraint in the language we use to describe
> those we disagree with. Those who fail in that regard should be called
> out for it -- not least by those on the same side as the targets.

The Tory scum have gone far, far beyond the realm of "polite
disagreement" or "agree to disagree". They are responsible for
the deaths of, at least, tens of thousands of people, and for
the on-going destruction of the country. "Restraint" is not
"civilised", it is dishonesty.

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 13:37:50 UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2023-11-23, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 22/11/2023 15:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> >> Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't
> >> even allowed to call politicians rude names?
> >
> > "Civilised"?
> No - in fact quite the opposite.
> > It's not so much that it shouldn't be allowed as that we should
> > exercise a degree of self-restraint in the language we use to describe
> > those we disagree with. Those who fail in that regard should be called
> > out for it -- not least by those on the same side as the targets.
> The Tory scum have gone far, far beyond the realm of "polite
> disagreement" or "agree to disagree". They are responsible for
> the deaths of, at least, tens of thousands of people, and for
> the on-going destruction of the country. "Restraint" is not
> "civilised", it is dishonesty.

It's an interesting judgment, and worth a read. The behaviour in question is described thus:

"5. On 4th October 2021, the Conservative Party annual conference was taking place at the Midland Hotel in Manchester. Outside the hotel were a large number of protestors with placards and some with drums. At approximately 15:50 Iain Duncan Smith left the Midland Hotel to walk to the Mercure Hotel for a conference about ‘Brexit’. He was accompanied by his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, and by Primrose Yorke.
6. Between five and eight protestors, including Ruth Wood, began to follow Mr Duncan Smith remaining some distance behind them at all times.
7. Witnesses gave evidence that some of those following Mr Duncan Smith were shouting and swearing. There was no evidence as to what, if anything, Ruth Wood said or did at this stage.
8. As Iain Duncan Smith crossed a side road, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head. This individual was said to be Elliott Bovill who stood trial with the two defendants but was found not guilty following a submission made at the close of the prosecution case that the identification was so weak that, following the guidance in Galbraith and Turnbull, no tribunal of fact could properly convict the defendant.
9. Mr Duncan Smith removed the traffic cone, called the protestors ‘pathetic’ and continued on his way.
10. The prosecution case against Ruth Wood was based upon video footage taken at this point in the incident, after the traffic cone had been removed and shortly before Mr Duncan Smith arrived at the Meridian hotel. In the footage, Ruth Wood can be seen and heard banging a drum and shouting, still some distance behind Iain Duncan Smith and his party.
11. The prosecution case was that in the footage Ruth Wood had called Iain Duncan Smith a ‘Tory cunt’. However, after the footage was played in cross-examination to the Officer in the Case, DC Foy, the Crown accepted that she clearly said ‘Tory scum’. Officers confirmed that some of the other protestors who had been part of the group following Iain Duncan Smith were arrested but not charged.
12. Iain Duncan Smith, Betsy Duncan Smith and Primrose Yorke gave evidence that they felt alarmed as a result of the events."

Personally, although "Tory scum" isn't a phrase I'd choose to use myself to someone, I think it's quite right that mere use of that phrase, or other similar abusive language, to a politician isn't enough to constitute "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress". Apart from anything else, I strongly suspect that mere verbal abuse is water off a duck's back to an experienced senior politician such as Duncan Smith.

What is interesting, though, is that the defendants apparently followed him (albeit at a distance) whilst repeating the abuse. I could imagine that there must be a point whereby following a person down a street whilst verbally abusing them crosses the line in respect of this particular offence. Evidently the judge didn't think that line had been crossed, but there must be a point where the recipient would start to feel alarmed and/or distressed - I suppose the issue would be whether the perpetrator intends such alarm and/or distress.

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 19:06:23 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>>Two protesters were ?reasonable? in calling Iain Duncan Smith ?Tory
>>scum? outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
>>ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
>>
>>Judgment available here:
>>https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx
>
> Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be offensive. Seems the right
> result, to me. Whether someone is justified in using offensive and insulting
> language is a matter for public opinion, not a court.
>
>

In fact, though, the defendants did a lot more than using offensive and insulting language:

"5. On 4th October 2021, the Conservative Party annual conference was taking place at the Midland Hotel in Manchester. Outside the hotel were a large number of protestors with placards and some with drums. At approximately 15:50 Iain Duncan Smith left the Midland Hotel to walk to the Mercure Hotel for a conference about ???Brexit???. He was accompanied by his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, and by Primrose Yorke.
6. Between five and eight protestors, including Ruth Wood, began to follow Mr Duncan Smith remaining some distance behind them at all times.
7. Witnesses gave evidence that some of those following Mr Duncan Smith were shouting and swearing. There was no evidence as to what, if anything, Ruth Wood said or did at this stage.
8. As Iain Duncan Smith crossed a side road, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head. This individual was said to be Elliott Bovill who stood trial with the two defendants but was found not guilty following a submission made at the close of the prosecution case that the identification was so weak that, following the guidance in Galbraith and Turnbull, no tribunal of fact could properly convict the defendant.
9. Mr Duncan Smith removed the traffic cone, called the protestors ???pathetic??? and continued on his way.
10. The prosecution case against Ruth Wood was based upon video footage taken at this point in the incident, after the traffic cone had been removed and shortly before Mr Duncan Smith arrived at the Meridian hotel. In the footage, Ruth Wood can be seen and heard banging a drum and shouting, still some distance behind Iain Duncan Smith and his party.
11. The prosecution case was that in the footage Ruth Wood had called Iain Duncan Smith a ???Tory cunt???. However, after the footage was played in cross-examination to the Officer in the Case, DC Foy, the Crown accepted that she clearly said ???Tory scum???. Officers confirmed that some of the other protestors who had been part of the group following Iain Duncan Smith were arrested but not charged.
12. Iain Duncan Smith, Betsy Duncan Smith and Primrose Yorke gave evidence that they felt alarmed as a result of the events."

In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.

There were two women with IDS, too. What happened to all the stuff we've been hearing about zero tolerance for violence against women? Does it not apply when the women are Tory Cunts?

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 06:16:56 -0800 (PST), Brian W
<brianwhitehead@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>What is interesting, though, is that the defendants apparently
>followed him (albeit at a distance) whilst repeating the abuse.
>I could imagine that there must be a point whereby following a
>person down a street whilst verbally abusing them crosses the
>line in respect of this particular offence. Evidently the judge
>didn't think that line had been crossed, but there must be a
>point where the recipient would start to feel alarmed and/or
>distressed - I suppose the issue would be whether the perpetrator
>intends such alarm and/or distress.

Context matters. Politicians are used to being verbally abused. Whether they
should be or not is, of course, a valid point of debate, but the fact
remains that they are. So it isn't going to come as a surprise to them.

In particular, at major party conferences there is always a significant
gathering of protestors. Running the gauntlet of chanting protestors is
normal for conference attendees. I've done it myself. But it's all theatre.
There is no intent to cause harm to attendees, even high profile ones. It's
as much about getting noticed by the media as it is by the people you're
yelling at. And, again, the more experienced a politician you are, the more
you will be aware of this. So the prospect of the target of such verbal
abuse feeling genuinely threatened is low. They may well, of course, feel
annoyed. But the line, on the whole, lies somewhere between causing
annoyance and causing distress. The type of protest engaged in in this case
does not cross it.

I was at a party conference a few years ago (quite possibly the one which
led to this case, I can't remember precisely) when we were faced with the
usual throng of screaming protestors as we entered and left the venue. On
the last day, as we were leaving, I walked up to one of the protestors,
shook his hand and said "Thanks for coming, it wouldn't be the same without
you". He looked at me and said "thanks" in return, almost automatically,
before realising that he'd just accidentally fraternised with the enemy and
turned and walked away.

Mark

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com (Handsome Jack)
wrote:

>In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob,
>one of whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them
>all with threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.

The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him. That is, obviously,
unfortunate, and may well have contributed to their rather unwise decision
to try to charge the others with something else. But the fact that one
individual did assault him doesn't make the rest guilty. There's no evidence
that they were acting in concert, it's more likely that the cone wielder
just happened to find himself in the right (or wrong) place at the right (or
wrong) time.

>There were two women with IDS, too. What happened to all the stuff we've been
>hearing about zero tolerance for violence against women?

The court concluded that it wasn't violence.

>Does it not apply when the women are Tory Cunts?

Tory scum, if you read the report again.

Mark

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 22:54:44 UTC, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 06:16:56 -0800 (PST), Brian W
> <brianwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >What is interesting, though, is that the defendants apparently
> >followed him (albeit at a distance) whilst repeating the abuse.
> >I could imagine that there must be a point whereby following a
> >person down a street whilst verbally abusing them crosses the
> >line in respect of this particular offence. Evidently the judge
> >didn't think that line had been crossed, but there must be a
> >point where the recipient would start to feel alarmed and/or
> >distressed - I suppose the issue would be whether the perpetrator
> >intends such alarm and/or distress.
> Context matters. Politicians are used to being verbally abused. Whether they
> should be or not is, of course, a valid point of debate, but the fact
> remains that they are. So it isn't going to come as a surprise to them.

That's exactly what I said. Verbal abuse is water off a duck's back to politicians. Verbal abuse coupled with other behaviour, such as following the politician as they walk away, will at some point cross the line. The judge decided in this case that it didn't, but in other circumstances it might.

> In particular, at major party conferences there is always a significant
> gathering of protestors. Running the gauntlet of chanting protestors is
> normal for conference attendees. I've done it myself. But it's all theatre.
> There is no intent to cause harm to attendees, even high profile ones. It's
> as much about getting noticed by the media as it is by the people you're
> yelling at. And, again, the more experienced a politician you are, the more
> you will be aware of this. So the prospect of the target of such verbal
> abuse feeling genuinely threatened is low. They may well, of course, feel
> annoyed. But the line, on the whole, lies somewhere between causing
> annoyance and causing distress. The type of protest engaged in in this case
> does not cross it.
>
> I was at a party conference a few years ago (quite possibly the one which
> led to this case, I can't remember precisely) when we were faced with the
> usual throng of screaming protestors as we entered and left the venue. On
> the last day, as we were leaving, I walked up to one of the protestors,
> shook his hand and said "Thanks for coming, it wouldn't be the same without
> you". He looked at me and said "thanks" in return, almost automatically,
> before realising that he'd just accidentally fraternised with the enemy and
> turned and walked away.
>
> Mark

On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
>
> The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.

Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?

> That is, obviously, unfortunate, and may well have contributed to
> their rather unwise decision to try to charge the others with
> something else. But the fact that one individual did assault him
> doesn't make the rest guilty. There's no evidence that they were
> acting in concert, it's more likely that the cone wielder just
> happened to find himself in the right (or wrong) place at the right
> (or wrong) time.
>
>
> [SNIP}

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 22:55:28 UTC, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Ja...@handsome.com (Handsome Jack)
> wrote:
> >In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob,
> >one of whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them
> >all with threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
> The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him. That is, obviously,
> unfortunate, and may well have contributed to their rather unwise decision
> to try to charge the others with something else. But the fact that one
> individual did assault him doesn't make the rest guilty. There's no evidence
> that they were acting in concert, it's more likely that the cone wielder
> just happened to find himself in the right (or wrong) place at the right (or
> wrong) time.
> >There were two women with IDS, too. What happened to all the stuff we've been
> >hearing about zero tolerance for violence against women?
> The court concluded that it wasn't violence.
> >Does it not apply when the women are Tory Cunts?
> Tory scum, if you read the report again.
>
> Mark

IDS is definitely a Tory and scum is a matter of subjective opinion.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 +0000, Pamela wrote:

> On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
>>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
>>
>> The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
>
> Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?

from which collective punishment seems a logical step.

Lidice ?

On 24 Nov 2023 at 20:47:30 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 +0000, Pamela wrote:
>
>> On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
>>>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
>>>
>>> The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
>>
>> Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
>
> from which collective punishment seems a logical step.
>
> Lidice ?

We do have "joint enterprise". It has been used for really unjust punishments
for peripheral or junior members of mobs/crowds. But the courts have
restricted its scope in the last few years. If applied to political
demonstrations in its original form it would probably have got us a place next
to North Korea or China in human rights terms, but it was mainly used against
criminal gangs, the underclass and racial minorities. Perhaps someone knows
more about the relevant cases?

--
Roger Hayter

On 20:47 24 Nov 2023, Jethro_uk said:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 +0000, Pamela wrote:
>
>> On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
>>>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
>>>
>>> The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
>>
>> Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
>
> from which collective punishment seems a logical step.
>
> Lidice ?

I was thinking whether this case could be considered a joint enterprise.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 GMT, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:

>On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
>>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
>>
>> The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
>
>Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?

Only if it can be proven that the group were acting collectively.

Mark

On 23/11/2023 13:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't
>>> even allowed to call politicians rude names?
>> "Civilised"?
> No - in fact quite the opposite.

But calling people [not only politicians, but anyone with or about
whom you are having a discussion] rude names does nothing to advance your
argument and alienates anyone who does not already agree with you. Indeed,
name-calling suggests that you have no sensible argument to propose.

>> It's not so much that it shouldn't be allowed as that we should
>> exercise a degree of self-restraint in the language we use to describe
>> those we disagree with. Those who fail in that regard should be called
>> out for it -- not least by those on the same side as the targets.
> The Tory scum have gone far, far beyond the realm of "polite
> disagreement" or "agree to disagree". They are responsible for
> the deaths of, at least, tens of thousands of people, and for
> the on-going destruction of the country.

So are you claiming, extraordinarily, that "they" deliberately set
out to slaughter people and destroy the country [examples?]; or merely that
they made [in your opinion] mistakes and that the policies of other parties
would [in your opinion] have been better? Assuming the latter, that is the
sort of thing that gets debated at a General Election. Better that. and a
secret ballot, than mob violence whipped up by demagogues shouting "scum,
scum" or worse, and disrupting meetings.

> "Restraint" is not
> "civilised", it is dishonesty.

Lack of restraint is either self-defeating [in that whatever message
you may have is lost in the shouting], or leads to the triumph of those who
manage to whip up the mobs. I don't see that either of those is more honest
[or desirable] than calmly making your case.

Further, while I agree with Mark and others, elsewhere in this sub-
thread, that experienced politicians are well used to dealing with hecklers
and worse, and don't need legal protection from that, I think it is worth
pointing out that /prospective/ politicians see MPs and councillors [and
even scientists] being murdered, having death threats made against them and
their families, and being howled down, jostled and assaulted, and must think
twice about whether it's worth it. The result can only be that some good
people decide it isn't and are lost to public service.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Hause

On Friday, 24 November 2023 at 22:42:29 UTC, Pamela wrote:
> On 20:47 24 Nov 2023, Jethro_uk said:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 +0000, Pamela wrote:
> >
> >> On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
> >>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Ja...@handsome.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
> >>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
> >>>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
> >>>
> >>> The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
> >>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
> >>
> >> Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
> >
> > from which collective punishment seems a logical step.
> >
> > Lidice ?
> I was thinking whether this case could be considered a joint enterprise.

I don't think you can really make a case for that unless you can prove there
was some sort of common purpose to make the assault, rather than just
one of them doing their own thing.

On Friday, 24 November 2023 at 19:31:48 UTC, Pamela wrote:
> On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Ja...@handsome.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
> >> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
> >> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
> >
> > The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
> > assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
> Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?

Yes if a group of people act together to commit a crime - e.g. a robbery where a victim gets killed - they had a common purpose in committing a crime.

No if a group of people are doing something legal - e.g. barracking a politician - and one of them decides to assault him / her.
Same if you are drinking in a pub and one of your mates gets into a punch up with another customer. OTOH if you join in it can become affray.

> > That is, obviously, unfortunate, and may well have contributed to
> > their rather unwise decision to try to charge the others with
> > something else. But the fact that one individual did assault him
> > doesn't make the rest guilty. There's no evidence that they were
> > acting in concert, it's more likely that the cone wielder just
> > happened to find himself in the right (or wrong) place at the right
> > (or wrong) time.
> >
> >
> > [SNIP}

On 2023-11-25, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/11/2023 13:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't
>>>> even allowed to call politicians rude names?
>>> "Civilised"?
>> No - in fact quite the opposite.
>
> But calling people [not only politicians, but anyone with or about
> whom you are having a discussion] rude names does nothing to advance your
> argument and alienates anyone who does not already agree with you. Indeed,
> name-calling suggests that you have no sensible argument to propose.

If you say so.

>>> It's not so much that it shouldn't be allowed as that we should
>>> exercise a degree of self-restraint in the language we use to describe
>>> those we disagree with. Those who fail in that regard should be called
>>> out for it -- not least by those on the same side as the targets.
>> The Tory scum have gone far, far beyond the realm of "polite
>> disagreement" or "agree to disagree". They are responsible for
>> the deaths of, at least, tens of thousands of people, and for
>> the on-going destruction of the country.
>
> So are you claiming, extraordinarily, that "they" deliberately set
> out to slaughter people and destroy the country [examples?];

Did I say that?

> or merely that they made [in your opinion] mistakes and that the
> policies of other parties would [in your opinion] have been better?
> Assuming the latter, that is the sort of thing that gets debated at a
> General Election. Better that. and a secret ballot, than mob violence
> whipped up by demagogues shouting "scum, scum" or worse, and
> disrupting meetings.

No, you don't get to "debate" whether killing tens of thousands of
people was "reasonable policy", or whether illegally looting the
country for the corrupt enrichment of your friends was just something
politicians do. You get to argue whether your term of imprisonment
should be very long or merely long.

On 24/11/2023 11:25 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 GMT, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
>>>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
>>>
>>> The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
>>
>> Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
>
> Only if it can be proven that the group were acting collectively.

Or mass-hysterically?

On 25/11/2023 12:29 am, David McNeish wrote:
> On Friday, 24 November 2023 at 22:42:29 UTC, Pamela wrote:
>> On 20:47 24 Nov 2023, Jethro_uk said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 +0000, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Ja...@handsome.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
>>>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
>>>>>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
>>>>>
>>>>> The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
>>>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
>>>
>>> from which collective punishment seems a logical step.
>>>
>>> Lidice ?
>> I was thinking whether this case could be considered a joint enterprise.
>
> I don't think you can really make a case for that unless you can prove there
> was some sort of common purpose to make the assault, rather than just
> one of them doing their own thing.

Assault?

Or battery?