Do you think the police and security forces ignore known threats from terrorists or fail to pursue them if they commit atrocities? Seriously?

I don’t know who you think are “protected groups” but I don’t see any. I see some who are difficult to penetrate but none that get protection.

People like Mr Melia and those who support the aims of the likes of “Patriotic Alternative” are not “pushing back against the dismantling of our society”. They are creating division and hatred in our society.

Such people are real problems and I am far from surprised to see them targeted.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

"2 + 2 plus the enthusiasm of the workers = 5" [Soviet poster]

On a real life matter where someone has been sent to jail people should not make claims that have no evidence to support them.

The man was convicted entirely on 'intent'. That is an outrageous law. In my opinion we are not a country with any real freedom anymore. The state can, if it chooses, jail you based upon disliking your opinions....removing someone's liberty is the real hate.

Encouraging others to put up stickers with opinions you don't like is not breaking any law a sensible person would support....stickers and leaflets are put out all the time with opinions people don't like.

People can look at real crimes and see what sentences are being given out for them.

Once again, the judge who convicted Melia can be seen showing support for Mandela....a man who blew people up for his politics.

Not only is this judgement sick but how this judge came to sit on this case should be investigated.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Mar 2024 9.15am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I don’t know how many times it needs to be said but Mr Melia was not simply convicted for intent. Intending to do anything, but not doing it, is not a crime.

He took actions which had the intention of encouraging others to commit illegal acts. The use of “intention” merely conveys his motivation for taking the action.

These attempts to excuse him by suggesting that he has been jailed simply for thinking something are pathetic nonsense.

If all he did was sit and think that what was happening was wrong and get internally angry about it nothing would have happened and he would be a free man. Holding opinions about things is not a crime. It’s only when you start to act on those opinions in ways which are illegal that are.

Thinking that these illegal acts ought not to be illegal is another matter entirely. That’s a respectable view that can be campaigned for quite legally. Not one I share, but one I can respect. Right now though the law says it is illegal and this needs to respect.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (09 Mar 2024 9.41am)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Posting anything on public property is illegal. Spreading racially based hate messages is illegal. Mr Melia did both and encouraged others to do both. Inciting others is also a crime.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The use of the word “hate” isn’t anyone’s opinion and certainly not mine. It’s the law. Law that is either defined or interpreted by Judges.

As I said campaigning to redefine that is perfectly respectable but until then the law is what it is and applies to all, Mr Melia included.

Putting up stickers looking for lost dogs or advertising garden shows are unlikely to be controversial and attract attention. Lost dogs and garden shows not being illegal. Spreading racial hatred is illegal. It has nothing to do with what people “like. Only what is legal or illegal.

Trying to present this as me just giving an “impression” seems like a desperate last attempt to excuse what this guy was convicted for. The law doesn’t do “impressions”! Any.instinct I might have gained on the pathway taken to the way the law was broken is completely irrelevant and to introduce it an obvious diversion. The only thing that matters is that he was convicted.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.