Crown courts decide guilt or innocence and convict the guilty.

Mr Melia was convicted of taking actions intended to produce reactions in others. Encouraging others to commit illegal acts is itself a crime.

He was not convicted of simply thinking about something and intending at some time in the future to possibly take action. He was convicted of doing it. It was the actions that held the intentions. Mr Melia took the actions.

As for myself. I have no idea why it is being suggested I have “lost” two cases. I have never been charged with one, let alone two.

A civil claim, defended by my insurer, went against us recently. Prior to that the only cases I have been involved in were in the small claims court more than 20 years ago. Two were won. I lost a claim against a bank for excessive fees. The only other things have been reviews by a Tribunal and an appeal to an Ombudsman. Not Courts.

Running businesses tends to result in more necessity for the use of the courts to settle disputes than staying at home and occupying your time on football forums.

My recent case was the first since I retired. It could have been settled by the insurers, who had total control over it that having been delegated contractually by the terms of the policy.

They though decided to fight it as they too were convinced it was fraud and wanted to expose it. They believed they had a compelling witness in me. It would have been much cheaper for them to have settled.

As this could have happened to any one of us this is a lesson for all. Not something to try to make personal due to a dislike.

The statements on Mr Melia are factually incorrect. The Court convicted him on his actions not on his opinions.

Do you think that right wing activists are treated the same as those on the left?

Could you provide a list of convicted leftist activists?

What about Islamists? Have you got a list of Islamists who were convicted for the same things as this guy?

If you can, it will strengthen your argument.

I am not going to bother to look up the thread, but my dim memory was that it was you who posted the report with the police statement.

Anyway, an analysis of the mental state or mens rea, the cogency of evidence, aggravating factors and so on are all parasitic elements of the critical core: the acts themselves or actus rea. Without the acts, there is nothing to aggravate, or evidence to amass to prove, or indeed thought and intention behind those acts to consider.

In this case, as much as I detest this man and all he stands for, he took pains to stay on the side of the law. He published small stickers describing what he believed to be a supportable fact. There was no terrorism, there was no fear, there was nothing to provoke anything in anyone. Also, a civil claim in defamation would have failed as it would have been considered by a court as fair comment. Yet, it meets the stiffer criminal burden of proof?

The racially aggravated criminal damage was not putting a brick through a mosque or synagogue - acts of the sort intended by the legislature to deter - it was handing out small stickers to be placed on lampposts.

TWO YEARS prison for those acts is madness.

You asked me about how we deal with activists here who break the law. Not what happens elsewhere.