Uk Citizenship Application.
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
15
Thai - Cambodia Conflict Trump Threatens Tariff Talks Freeze Unless Thailand-Cambodia Ceasefire Is Reached
No problem. My friend in Kantaralak says loads of arti being fired. -
30
Thai Baht and it's continued strength
With the tensions fighting at the border and tarrifs you would think that the baht would fall but while the elites are investing overseas they will keep it as high as they can they rule Thailand not the politicians something has to happen eventually -
4
Crime Romanian Tourist Caught Smuggling 3.5kg of Heroin at Suvarnabhumi Airport
Another daredevil. Wonder how many make it through… -
63
UK British Woman Caught Smuggling 49kg of Cannabis from Thailand into the UK Avoids Jail
I did read up on the case. Lucy Connolly was charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for publishing or distributing threatening or abusive written material with the intent to stir up racial hatred, or where such hatred was likely to be stirred up given the circumstances. This stemmed from her X post on July 29, 2024, which called for mass deportation and setting fire to hotels housing immigrants, viewed 310,000 times in 3.5 hours. The problem is the law is very ambiguous, on purpose. The law in question, particularly Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 is ambiguous because terms like “insulting material,” “intent,” and “likely” to stir up racial hatred are inherently open to interpretation. Insulting material: The Act doesn’t precisely define “insulting,” leaving it to courts to decide based on context. In Lucy Connolly’s case, her use of “b*******” and calling for arson against hotels housing immigrants was deemed insulting and abusive, as it dehumanized a racial group. But what’s “insulting” can vary—courts rely on a “reasonable person” standard, which critics argue is subjective and risks overreach. Proving intent to stir up racial hatred is tricky. The law allows conviction if intent is present or if the material is likely to cause hatred, even without intent. Connolly’s defense claimed she was venting anger, not inciting, but the court inferred intent from the post’s violent language and timing post-Southport attack. This dual threshold (intent or likelihood) lowers the bar for prosecution, making it vague. The “likely to stir up racial hatred” clause is again ambiguous! No one was incited to do anything, no one was physically harmed. The sentence, 31 months, was a total disgrace! -
70
Report British Embassy Alerts Pattaya Expats to Growing Risks
Just avoid the hookers and yiou'll be fine .... -
-
-
Popular in The Pub
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now