Especially in groups of 3 or 4 there is power in numbers.Most homophobic attacks are done in a pack mentality.They think they are so cool and self rightous.

“So you can be punished for expressing yourself in England?”

If the form of expression you choose to use incites hatred or violence, or is considered obscene, then yes, you can and should be punished for expressing yourself. And before you get all high and mighty about it, the US has exactly the same laws, it’s just a little more lax about enforcing them.

I believe that freedom of expression is one of the most important of all human rights, and there should be few restrictions imposed on that freedom. However, there are circumstances where people should not be able to say whatever they want or express their ideas in whatever form they want. It is these restrictions that prevent people from inciting hatred against minority groups and then escaping responsibility because they personally took no part in any ensuing violence. It is these restrictions that allow us to walk down the street without being confronted by obscene images.

Some restrictions on freedom of expression are not only sensible, they are essential.

I don’t know exactly what the defendants in this case shouted, or what other behaviour they engaged in. Neither do you. That’s why we have to trust in the sense of the court to avoid imposing unjust restrictions on basic human rights. And if the court is unnecessarily harsh, we have an appeals process in place to minimise the risk of injustice.

So how’s about you shove your “quirky differences”, because you can be punished for expressing yourself in the US too, and frankly US courts tend to impose much greater restrictions than are ever found in the UK.

The UK isn’t perfect. The legal system here isn’t perfect. It doesn’t, however, deserved to be ridiculed by people who are not in possession of the facts.

“And as far as being punished for speaking out in the US you’ll have to forgive again as I cannot for the life of me recall a case within the last century where people inside the US have been fined for speaking their minds except for speech that threatens an individual or group or a libel or slander case. Both scenarios that I’m sure this lot’s chant could easily fall into.”

I can think of a number of examples, some of which have been mentioned on this site, of courts in the US censoring speech or imposing restrictions on freedom of expression. I’m too tired to go looking up individual examples right now, but take my word for it when I say that there have been instances where your courts have stepped in to restrict what people can say.

“The only real difference is you expressed faith in you courts judgment, whereas I simply wished I could have more information so I could make up my OWN mind.”

Please don’t misunderstand me – I know that courts make mistakes, particularly when it comes to the magistrates court, where the majority of magistrates are unqualified volunteers. However, we have a system of justice in place that works well and minimises the risk of abuse. People have the option to appeal against their sentence, as well as conviction, and to appeal to the European Courts if necessary.

I don’t know what was said. I do know that it is rare for a UK court to impose such a strict punishment in a case such as this, which is doubtless why it has received media attention.

Given what I know of the press in this country, if the journalists covering this case thought for one second that the magistrate had been unjust, they would have torn strips off her. The press are fierce advocates of free speech and will defend even hatemongers if they feel censoring them would set a precedent that might jeopardise their future freedom (I cite, as an example, the press reaction to attempts to censor the British Nationalist Party, a political party founded on racist principles and not much better than the KKK).

However, I’ve taken a look at the press coverage of this story and two things stand out:

1. The press have been careful not to report EXACTLY what was said by these people; and,

2. The press appear to be supportive of the magistrate in this instance.

These two things tell me that the journalists covering this case considered the language used by these people to be so strong/obscene that they didn’t dare print it, and didn’t fear that this would set a precedent that would risk their own free speech in the future.

Summation and recap: I don’t know exactly what was said, but based on the evidence I am reasonably confident that the sentence imposed was justified.

And for the record, I didn’t take offense – I merely object to people belittling the legal system in the UK. It may not be perfect, but it is one of the few things the UK has to be proud of. That and our National Health Service – again, not perfect but worthy of pride.

Kieth, Richard, Stuart and Oliver must be very insecure with their own sexuality. Which is usually the case with “BONZOS” like these guys. Maybe they will grow up (which is doubtful). Good luck guys.