There was a piece in today's Times in which Rowan Atkinson was putting the case forward for amending Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act which appears to be the legislation under which a lot of these kinds of cases are prosecuted. He claims that the reference to 'insulting words or behaviour likely to ...' is now being abused and should be withdrawn.



Since on principle I won't pay to go on the Times website, [url=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mr-bean-fights-insult-people-113236202.htmlhere is Yahoo's mini version of what the article said[/url. The groups supporting his view listed at the end of the article represent an interesting mix. Who would have thought that the Christian Alliance and National Secular Society for two would agree on something? I suppose they just want the freedom to insult each other!



I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Bean. Things have gone too far and we need to redress the balance.

"special treatment" like being afforded the same rights as people not in "minority" groups.

I love it when someone uses the term "ilk".



I once worked for someone who used it constantly. When a colleague asked me "what exactly is an ilk?" I could only suggest it was "a c**t with horns"

Yes. You will. In just the same that you will have to 'take the word' of most everyone else here on many, many things.







No. You won't. [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/paul-gambaccini-claims-sir-jimmy-savile-used-charity-work-to-prevent-sexual-abuse-of-schoolchildren-being-exposed-8191761.htmlStory[/url

[url=http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Plymouth-Royal-Navy-diver-child-abuse-images-cops/story-17133926-detail/story.htmlThousands of kiddie porn images results in a suspended sentence.[/url



Once again, it appears completely bonkers to send someone to prison for saying nasty things on Facebook, compared with some of the crimes that result in a community order or suspended sentence.

In a ray of sunshine on the common sense front, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20033097Frankie Boyle[/url wins case against [iMirror[/i, which erroneously claimed he was a racist after misunderstanding his humour.



I don't like Boyle, personally, but this seems a sensible decision, on the basis of what I've read.

I think he's a big wuss, gives it out but cant take it. Of course he's not rascist, but when has he ever bothered about whether his insults have been accurate?

I'd go a long way with that. As I said, I don't personally like him – or find much of what he does remotely funny.



You can question whether he was right to pursue such a case, but on the other hand, it illustrates how comment (comedy or otherwise) can be misconstrued subjectively – and where would we be if the judgement had gone against him?

I don't disagree with them finding in his favour. But they should have awarded him token damages. I think the defense suggested the price of the newspaper. Or perhaps a voucher for a swimming session at the Rebecca Adlington Swimming Centre.



Live by the sword...

Personally I like Frankie Boyle. I have never heard him say anything which could be taken as being racist except in an ironic sense when he has been having a go at racists. He would appear to suffer from a similar sort of misinterpretation that Alf Garnett suffered from.

Yes, that's what I said isn't it....

Part of any damages award is punitive, how else are those who tend toward slander to be disuaded?



As it is, [url=http://www.reprieve.org.uk/Frankie Boyle has donated his award to Reprieve[/url