Eight Months for wearing a T-Shirt?

[Guest MattP]

Am I the only one that finds this quite repulsive? Would he really be going to jail if the shirt was about a Fireman, Mick Philpott or a soldier?

Is it a sick opinion? probably to most.

Does it warrant being sent to prison for 8 months? Not at all.

Freedom of speech is being eroded more and more each day, with some of my "opinions" that people would find offensive I think I had better be getting ready to be in court eventually.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jailed-tshirt-police?newsfeed=true

A man who wore a homemade T-shirt containing an offensive anti-police sentiment in the immediate aftermath of the deaths of PCs Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes has been jailed for a total of eight months.

Barry Thew, 39, of Radcliffe, Manchester, was sentenced at Minshull Street crown court in Manchester to four months in prison, after admitting a section 4a public order offence – displaying writing or other visible representation with intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress. Thew also admitted breaching a suspended sentence imposed for a previous offence of cannabis production for which he was ordered to serve another four months concurrently.

The court heard that at 2.15pm on 18 September, less than three-and-a-half hours after the officers were killed, he was seen in Radcliffe town centre wearing a white T-shirt with the handwritten message on the front and back. He was arrested and taken into custody after complaints from outraged members of the public.

The T-shirt said on its front: "One Less PiG Perfect Justice." On the back: "KiLL A COP 4 Fun.co.uk HA, haaa?"

Inspector Bryn Williams, of the Radcliffe neighbourhood policing team, said: "While officers on the ground were just learning of and trying to come to terms with the devastating news that two colleagues had been murdered, Thew thought nothing of going out in public with a T-shirt daubed with appalling handwritten comments on."

[Webbo]

Hmm. Hard one. On one hand he appears to be a despicable willy puller and it's hard to have any sympathy for him. On the other hand I believe in free speech no matter how awful peoples views are.

On balance he shouldn't be jailed.

[Fox92]

We all have freedom of speech, but that is too far. He should go to prison, in my opinion.

[Guest kristianity77]

Youve only got to take one look at the bloke to see that its probably the best place for him. He looks the sort that if he wasnt in jail he'd be robbing grannies and pinching car stereos anyway. Because in all fairness, what "normal" person would wear something like that, freedom of speech or not?

[Rusko187]

What he wrote is sick but on the same hand I thought there was a freedom of speech? When I heard it on the radio my initial reaction was "can they do that?"

[Finnegan]

I hope the people that put him away never find themselves listening to Leftover Crack.

[Guest Bilo]

On first thoughts, ridiculous decision.

The more I think about it though, the more I think that there's more to this. No way would a man with a clean criminal record go down for eight months for a shit, bad taste T-shirt.

[z-layrex]

I'd rather he go away for much longer than that tbh, look at him.

[Guest BlueBrett]

Ridiculous.

I'd imagine it will get overturned at appeal.

[Raj]

Deserves it.

We'll see how hard he thinks he is in Prison!

[FoxyPV]

Reactionary nonsense.

If he'd raped someone, he'd have got a shorter sentence.

[Dan]

Eight months for that, what the fvck.

The irony of his shirt saying "perfect justice". That's the last thing he's got. He's obviously an absolute twat but it's like that nobhead on Twitter to Muamba, is it really worth putting him in prison?

It's the sense of injustice when you see scum nicking cars on police programmes, driving them off risking peoples lives, ON CAMERA for everyone to see, and they're given bail.

Laughable.

[m00nie]

On first thoughts, ridiculous decision.

The more I think about it though, the more I think that there's more to this. No way would a man with a clean criminal record go down for eight months for a shit, bad taste T-shirt.

it says in the report he got 4 moths for this and 4 months for breaching a suspended sentence for drugs ( growing cannabis).

[Jimothy]

Isn't it just 4 months for the t-shirt and 4 months because he breached a suspended sentence for canabis production?

[Raj]

Reactionary nonsense.

If he'd raped someone, he'd have got a shorter sentence.

Only cos the Judges/Laws in this country are doolally where you can get more for wearing a sick T Shirt than for being a drunk driver and killing someone(just a random scenario)

[Captain...]

What he wrote is sick but on the same hand I thought there was a freedom of speech? When I heard it on the radio my initial reaction was "can they do that?"

We don't really have true freedom of speech in the UK

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[60] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[61][62] incitement,[63] incitement to racial hatred,[64] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[63][65] glorifying terrorism,[66][67] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[68][69] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[70] sedition,[70] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[71] defamation,[72] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[73][74] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[74] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[74][75] time, manner, and place restrictions,[76] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. However, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 guarantees freedom of speech (within institutions of further education and institutions of higher education) as long as it is within the law (see section 43 at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61). UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of Lords—the then highest court of appeal—revived the so-called Reynolds Defence, in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time. The ruling removed the awkward—and hitherto binding—conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3–2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding. Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to "the jargon of the old Soviet Union."

The Video Recordings Act 2010 requires most video recordings and some video games offered for sale in the United Kingdom to display a classification supplied by the BBFC. There are no set regulations as to what cannot be depicted in order to gain a classification as each scene is considered in the context of the wider intentions of the work; however images that could aid, encourage, or are a result of the committing of a crime, along with sustained and graphic images of torture or sexual abuse are the most likely to be refused. The objectionable material may be cut by the distributor in order to receive a classification, but with some works it may be deemed that no amount of cuts would be able to make the work suitable for classification, effectively banning that title from sale in the country. Recordings refused a classification by the BBFC may still be shown in cinemas providing the local authority, from which a cinema must have a licence to operate, will permit them

It is freedom of speech with a huge amount of caveats, more so than in many other countries.

What he wore was clearly offensive and deserved to be punished, whether he deserved 8 months is for the courts to decide, it seems harsh, but this is not his first offence.

[Captain...]

Reactionary nonsense:

"If he'd raped someone, he'd have got a shorter sentence."

Fixed it for you

Minimum sentence for rape is 4 years.

[BoneDog]

The grammer is flippin awful.

You've got to be quite a bit of a twat to wear that t-shirt, but a punch in the mouth from an off duty officer would be more suitable than prison.

[pSinatra]

He's probably had quite a few run-ins with the police over the years & his opinion of the police is somewhat tainted. I don't agree with the sentence & I don't think he would have got such a sentence had it been against anybody else but the police.

I don't particularly like British Gas at the moment, but I wouldn't expect a 4 month sentence for wearing a t-shirt saying "British Gas are a bunch of thieving cvnts!!"

[Captain...]

it says in the report he got 4 moths for this and 4 months for breaching a suspended sentence for drugs ( growing cannabis).

There seems some confusion in the article, he was given 4 months for the t-shirt and 4 months for cannabis, to run concurrently, at the same time, so he has only been sentenced to 4 months inside, and if his conviction for the t-shirt is quashed on appeal then he will still serve 4 months for month for the other offense.

[Ross-Kemp]

He was on a suspended sentence.

[m00nie]

There seems some confusion in the article, he was given 4 months for the t-shirt and 4 months for cannabis, to run concurrently, at the same time, so he has only been sentenced to 4 months inside, and if his conviction for the t-shirt is quashed on appeal then he will still serve 4 months for month for the other offense.

no point appealing then. not worth risking getting longer. be only 2 months of the 4 to do anyway i imagine.

[Parafox]

Isn't it just 4 months for the t-shirt and 4 months because he breached a suspended sentence for canabis production?

Yes.

He got four months IN TOTAL.

Four months for the T shirt and four for the cannabis. The sentences run CONCURRENTLY. That means together as opposed to consecutively, where they woiuld total 8 months.

Whatever, he's clearly a complete twat. hope he gets assraped in prison but they'll probably admire him.

[MooseBreath]

This doesn't seem a 4-month stretch worse than calling them plebs. The police are obviously a bit touchy at the moment, but you can't go around dishing out jail terms like that for a bit of bad taste printed on a t-shirt, regardless of how much of a total **** the guy is. We're in danger of going a bit overboard on police protection at the moment. They'd do well to remind of themselves what they are actually employed to do, rather than attempting to impose themselves as our untouchable masters. Between Hillsborough and Mark Duggan and doubtless countless more cases besides, they really should just stfu and get on with their jobs.

[Kitchandro]

The grammer is flippin awful.

You've got to be quite a bit of a twat to wear that t-shirt, but a punch in the mouth from an off duty officer would be more suitable than prison.

This