PC Thought Police

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

NickIT replied

11 August 2006, 14:45
He said it during a mayoral reception - therefore official biz as he is also a councillor.

If he was a private citizen and made that comment...then this would be a rubbish prosecution. He might be wrong in what he said both in factuality and deed but I suspect that the majority of people would not be offended and point out his age and that in his day things were different.

Not a big deal really is it? Now if he had said that and added that therefore they should all be killed...then there is clearly an issue.
Leave a comment:
Phoenix replied

11 August 2006, 14:34
Originally posted by Fleetwood

You're missing the point, AtW.
He was allegedly "heard" to utter the remark. Clearly he didn't shout or the word "shout" would have been used.
So someone has said they heard him say something, and the guy is put on trial, just like in Salem. It's surreal.

So Fleetwood if I wispered to you "ATW is Gay" would that be OK?
Leave a comment:
AtW replied

11 August 2006, 14:22
Ah, it was not clear from article if he is going to deny he said words or not, just says he was heard saying words and entered not guilty plea, which could be because he never said words or said them but does not believe they were crime.

If he denies saying words then it would be harder to convict him, though from what I can see if such words were proven to have been said that maximum he is going to get is losing councillor place for putting office in disrepute: one has to be Red Ken to avoid such happening to him.
Leave a comment:
Fleetwood replied

11 August 2006, 14:19
You're missing the point, AtW.
He was allegedly "heard" to utter the remark. Clearly he didn't shout or the word "shout" would have been used.
So someone has said they heard him say something, and the guy is put on trial, just like in Salem. It's surreal.
Leave a comment:
AtW replied

11 August 2006, 14:14
The problem for him is that he was blatantly wrong - quiet clearly there are at least some gays who are above legal age of concent, hence they are not peadofiles. He will certainly lose, though actual harm (and thus punishment) from his words should be minimal - its not like he said it on live BBC program.
Leave a comment:
Fleetwood started a topic PC Thought Police

11 August 2006, 14:11
PC Thought Police

Interesting to see what will happen here
Tags: None