You Lucky Peeps Up There........
ChatterBank0 min ago
When Does A Racially Aggravated Public Order Offence Become Political Satire?
//A teacher who held a placard at a pro-Palestine protest depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts has been found not guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence.
The judge ruled that Marieha Hussain’s placard was “political satire”. //
It's difficult not to think that it depends upon who's holding the placard.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
My main takeaway, as they say these days, is that Symeon is a bit 'street', even for Channel 4.
The judiciary do need to take a long hard look at themselves as they fall over each other, desperate to 'do the right thing' as seen by their political masters.
It's all a delicate balancing act where brown people are involved, going forward.
Free speech has definitely left the building for most of m'lords though.
"When the judge is not impartial, but is politically aligned with the accused."
This case demonstrates why it is unwise to hold trials in Magistrates' Courts before a District Judge sitting alone.
No disputed allegation which turns on matters of fact should be judged by a single person. Such trials in Magistrates' Courts should be heard before three randomly chosen lay Magistrates.
It is not a great poster.
Who is holding it is a complete red herring.
Sunak is a hindu and Suella a christian. The Gazans are muslims. So there is no broken loyalty anywhere. Not recial motive, but the satire is very tenuous. It is neither clever or funny. A complete fail, but ridiculous that it ever got to court.
"If the decision were to go to appeal, how many judges would consider it?"
Appeals from the Magistrates' Court are heard in the Crown court. The tribunal there consists of a Crown Court judge and two lay magistrates (from a different bench to the one where the defendant was convicted). The judge rules on matters of law, but each of the three has an equal say on matters of fact (meaning the judge can be overruled by the magistrates).
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.