Pigs and Poppies – Are the Judiciary trying to provoke a Revolution?
Which is in itself a thought provoking question. Or is it the Crown Prosecution Service, which decides upon charges to be brought, which is determined to be the catalyst for unrest?
We have here two incidents, both designed to provoke outrage – one is instigator, one an entirely predictable response.
One offence committed apropos of nothing in particular, by a professional agitator; one committed by a man who had every reason to be personally offended.
Emdadur Choudhury, professional agitator, decided to insult his ‘enemies’ – shorthand for non-muslims in a Christian country – by burning Poppies, that enduring image of remembrance of fallen soldiers, whilst chanting ‘British soldiers burn in Hell’ during the two minute silence – on Armistice Day of all days. He was arrested under public order offences and convicted of causing alarm and distress. He is fined £50. A derisory sentence, but we are urged to show restraint in the name of freedom of expression….
Two days later, Simon Parkes, an ex-soldier, is outraged, and with a friend, ties a pig’s head outside a mosque in Cheltenham in the dead of night – not during a public ceremony. He is also convicted of causing alarm and distress. He is jailed for four months. The Judge says: “Freedom of expression is a much-cherished privilege but it carries with it responsibilities, the principal responsibility being to act within the law.”
Both offences were prosecuted on the grounds of the danger to ‘Public Order’ – am I alone in thinking that the disparate sentences pose a greater risk to public order?
September 2, 2012 at 08:53
-
Did Choudry pay his fine? If not, are there any plans to follow
up?
Also, who paid for his (obviously succesful) defence? Legal Aid?
- September 2, 2012 at
09:52
-
September 1, 2012 at 06:20
-
Having said that, I know an EXCELLENT butcher that can supply pigs blood by
the gallon, if any one wishes to “make a point”.
-
September 1, 2012 at 06:17
-
You all seem to be missing the point, that under British law, the
magistrate/judge has free will.
In an old “Seseme street” jingle “one of these things is not like the
other….,.”
Whether that is right or wrong is a matter for legal philosephers, and IS
the question.
Start getting into “tarrifs” and you end up with Joe Bloggs getting a
parking fine for stopping out side “the pemitted area” whilst rushing his
about to sprout wife to hospital, just because “that is the “tarrif””.
“Judge each case accordingly” is, I believe, the saying.
- September
1, 2012 at 11:05
-
No such thing as British law as the Scottish legal system has always been
separate.
Choudhury was prosecuted under the Public Order Act 1986 and Parkes under
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended). The tariffs for each offence
are stated in each Act, a fine not exceeding level 3 (£500) on the standard
scale; and up to two years imprisonment, respectively. The magistrate or
judge assesses the severity of the offence, mitigating factors, the need to
set an example etc against the benchmark tariff and sets the sentences
accordingly. I understand Parliament sets the tariff on advice from the Law
Commission when passing the legislation. Each case is indeed judged
“accoordingly” as you state.
It could be argued that the CPS could have prosecutd Choudhury under the
same Crime and Disorder Act (have a read of it sometimes), but a public
interest decision not to make him the martyr he wanted to be with a spell in
chokey, but to give him a token fine was a better expression of the
widespread contempt for him and his insignificance.
- September 1, 2012 at 02:17
-
Far too much tollerance these days.
- September 1,
2012 at 00:45
-
Any thoughts about this “Restrictive Muslim Background” excuse? Before reading this
case I understood that devout Muslim men wouldn’t allow themselves to be in
such close proximity with women. At least not with Muslim women. I wonder if
the Dignity at Work course was this two-and-a-half hour one? If not, I found one taking a
whole day.
Compare and contrast with recent employment tribunals in which a Muslim
female assistant hairdresser was unfairly expected to remove her headscarf whilst working .
- September 1, 2012 at 07:01
-
XX a Muslim female assistant hairdresser was unfairly expected to remove
her headscarf whilst working . XX
UNFAIRLY!?!? As a hairdresser, the hair of the “styler” is an advert for
the firm. Covering it with an old bin bag does NOT reflect well on the
abilitys of the staff.
- September 1, 2012 at
11:33
-
There is no requirement to have a full head of beautiful hair in order
to be a hairdresser. There are plenty of egg-bald, pot-bellied aging men
making a healthy living without the benefit of luxurious locks. They have
full client lists because they do their best to make the clients look
pretty; not because they are oil paintings themselves. An advert is what
you put on the wall but utltimately a salon thrives on the quality of its
cutting and styling, not the looks of the staff. The staff are expected to
be clean but above all competent, and that is a function of their eyes and
manual skills, not their hair. The lady lost her case the moment it could
be shown she tried to discriminate on an irrelevant ground. She would have
similarly lost the case if she refused to employ someone with a wonky face
on the grounds that they weren’t beautiful enough. The job is cutting
hair, not modelling.
- August 31, 2012 at 20:30
-
Simon Parkes, whilst wrong to stoop to the behaviour of the professional
agitator Choudhury and other idiots, was in breach of todays hymn sheet.
Tomorrow the hymn sheet will have turned several pages, or it might not, or
it might have been turned back to suit…do keep up at the back.
Choudhury’s behaviour is what one would expect from some low life benefit
scrounger high on drink or drugs, i doubt our fallen would feel insulted by
the fool, they didn’t give their lives for the likes of him, their sacrifice
has been far more foully insulted by politicians and their owners who have
given and sold the country, that they defended, to the devil.
Our own have
dishonoured our fallen far more than any low life possibly could.
I hope Choudhury and his brethren continue with such mad blind hate, they
are their own worst propaganda, they make a far better job of ridiculing
themselves than any who object to them could possibly manage.
Lew
-
September 2, 2012 at 11:42
-
The problem here is that”No publicity is bad publicity”. Choudray ma well
be attemptigto incense the wider public but do not forget he is attracting
the disafected young muslim to join a group where he can be groomed to
become a potential suicide bomber.
- August 31, 2012 at 19:28
-
Sorry, have no idea what happened there – lack of computer knowledge (and
spelling) I’m afraid!
- August 31, 2012 at 19:27
-
I understand that the pig’s head was stuck onto the gates of a mosque. My
knolwedge of law may be out of date but if the gate was in the curtilage of
the mosque, then it should surely not have been tried as a public order
offence as it would have taken place on private property? A mosque is a place
where the public have access, and therefore a public place, but only when it
is open. If it was closed, it’s private property. If the gate was on public
land, then the offence could be under the Public Order Act, but then so could
the display of a pig’s head in a butcher’s shop just down the road from a
mosque. There would have to have been proof that the intent was to cause
harrassment, alarm or distress and a good brief at interview would have
knocked this intent into a cocked hat – don’t know if he asked for legal
advice. It’s a shame he didn’t go for Crown Court as then he would have had
the opportunity of putting his case under the full gaze of the public and
jury, probably leading to a not guilty plea..
- August 31, 2012 at 19:21
-
I understand that the pig’s head was stuck onto the gates of a mosque. If
the gate was in the curtilage of the mosque, then it should surely not have
been tried as a public order offence as it would have taken place on private
property? A mosque is a plce where the public have access, but only when it is
open. If it was closed, it’s private property. If the gate was on public land,
then the offence could be under the Public Order
- August 31, 2012 at 18:52
-
Anna, I agree with your assessment of Brian’s comment re the legal
situation in this case. However, this doesn’t appear to be the only
discrepancy in sentencing on racial religious grounds that I’ve come across.
All should be equal under the law I agree with that..
- September 1, 2012 at 14:04
-
Did you not point out the comparator case: offensive words daubed on war
memorial in Burton. It was held to be political, not religiously aggravated
and he got a conditional discharge after admitting criminal damage.
http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/War-memorial-the-final-insult.htm
It looks inconsistent to me; white bloke scribbles on mosque and
convicted of a racially aggravated offence and jailed. Muslim scribbles on
war memorial and is given a jolly good talking too and told not to do it
again.
- August 31,
2012 at 15:34
-
Part of the discrepancy in sentencing was due to the different tariffs of
the laws that the two gentlemen were charged with breaking. I would not think
it reasonable to upgrade the burning of poppies, however disgusting any
reasonable Briton finds it because that would take us down as a society to the
level of those who riot and kill at the mere suspicion that pages of
particular religious books have been burned.
- August 31, 2012 at 16:01
-
August 31, 2012 at 14:17
-
I found burning Poppies offensive. But I had to stifle a giggle at The
Pig’s Head. Are either of my reactions illegal?
- August 31, 2012 at 14:36
-
Eleana ‘andcart
The fact that you have to even consider whether or not a joke would be
legal or illegal is an indication of just how much freedom of speech has
been lost.
- August 31, 2012 at 14:46
-
I was more worried about finding The Poppy Burning offensive. This
could be seen as an attack on his Yuman Rites. I could always talk my way
out of laughing at The Pig’s Head. Pig’s Heads are funny.
- September 1, 2012 at
06:09
-
XX The Pig’s Head. Pig’s Heads are funny. XX
Ae. And they have more brain than the entire congregation.
- August 31, 2012 at 14:10
-
Surely, the important point is that BOTH were convicted? The fact of their
disparate sentences speaks much either for their respective defence teams
ability to offer compelling points in mitigation.
- September
1, 2012 at 06:32
-
Oh, yes, mitigation. That’s a whole other can of worms, eh?
- September 1, 2012 at
11:09
-
Smashes head on desk. I almost hope it is discrimination because
otherwise the RCP are a complete bunch of turnips which is by way of an
insult to the intelligence of root vegetables.
-
August 31, 2012 at 12:52
-
Mr Stevens,
What were Choudhary’s actions if not racially and
religiously motivated?
- August 31, 2012 at 13:02
-
Belsay Bugle – that is correct. Nearly all of Choudhary’s actions are
religiously motivated. Basically he hates the kufar, the non muslim, cos his
god told him so. Personally I don’t think you can get more racist or
religiously prejudiced an attitude than that.
Nobody seems to be rushing to use the law to shut up loons like Choudhary
just those who stand up to him. It boils my piss.
-
August 31, 2012 at 13:07
-
A fair point, he did, after all, refer to the soldiers as British.
-
August 31, 2012 at 12:49
-
Yes, LJAR, you are quite right. Morality has been turned on its head;
everywhere you look badness is encouraged whilst goodness is either
discouraged or illegal.
That’s why much of the law is viewed with such
distaste by most people who come into contact with it.
It is now a means of
enforcing the hegemony of the left/liberal establishment; we are no longer
under the rule of law, but control by the state as these cases make it quite
clear.
But people still cling to their outworn idea that the judges have
autonomy and apply laws which conform in most respects with what most people
would think as right and wrong – the common law in other words.
Wake up!
The people no longer have any say in it!
- August 31, 2012 at 11:40
-
Question: Could it be that we expect higher standards from an ex-soldier
than we do from a professional agitator? Or is it that we don’t want to make a
martyr out of a professional agitator but are happy to do so to an ex-soldier?
Discuss.
- August 31, 2012 at 12:02
-
Surely we are all equal before the law?
Both acts were offensive, but neither should be criminal IMO.
Part of the problem with the law today is that so many things are illegal
which are considered perfectly moral, and many immoral things are legal. (cf
recreational drug use and MPs expenses)
-
August 31, 2012 at 12:03
-
In all fairness, the ex-soldier did perform to a higher standard. He not
only managed a religiously aggravated public order offence, but threw in
some racially aggravated criminal damage for good measure.
- August 31, 2012 at
12:42
-
Choudary was somewhat handicapped in this contest though – you can’t be
racist if you are Muslim, so he couldn’t have achieved the high score of
‘racially aggravated criminal damage’. We should demand a restart with
Choudary suitably handicapped.
- August 31, 2012 at 13:01
-
Or extra time with attempted arson, perhaps.
- September 4, 2012 at 17:25
-
Got to this late but isn’t he already handicapped? Not just from
being a lawyer but also from being thick as pigshit. Unless that is
offensive to bigotted Islamists. In which case, any reading this feel
free to substitute “brain dead”. Not as good, in his case, for society
as being “dead dead” but we can’t have everything, can we.
- August 31, 2012 at 11:38
-
When did ‘sentencing’ become ‘anything of a legal nature’? Straw man
arguments are never attractive.
Comment on what you like but it is better to do it from a factually
informed viewpoint, don’t you agree? A sentencer takes into account all sorts
of matters which aren’t apparent from a news report or even a blogpost such as
this one, which has omitted facts about Parkes – easily found in the Mail, by
the way.
- August 31, 2012 at 10:46
-
Robert, I wasn’t in court for either sentencing – where did I suggest I
was? Nor were you, nor was Anna Racoon. Therefore none of us possesses all the
facts to enable a balanced comment. Sorry to spoil your fun.
- August 31, 2012 at 10:57
- August 31, 2012 at 10:58
-
You couldn’t spoil my fun with a hundred yard run up, but thanks for your
concern.
You implied by your criticism that you were the possesser of
better info, which I invited you to share; you could do precisely the same
to me in a similar situation and I would respond.
I note your statement
that I was not there, how do you know? If you merely presume such, that is
one thing, but not yer actual fact.
My comment was based on the public
records of the previous form of choudry.
- August 31, 2012 at 18:06
-
None of the watching reading public were privy to the court details of
either case. However a lay person reading any press coverage of both cases
would be hard pressed not to conclude that the members of certain minority
communities in our country may be able to get away with stuff that members
of other communities do not.
Is this “idea” not what so aggravates black people who are clearly
subject to police harassment? Did this sort of partial justice not irritate
Irish people? Ms Racoon thus poses a perfectly rational question. Personally
I have no time for any of the skypixies, but accept that some respect is due
to all peoples belief systems, however daft. But insulting our war dead does
not bring credit to anyone, however clever they think they are. I would
suggest that perhaps both should have been charged with racially motivated
incitement and treated equally by the law.
-
August 31, 2012 at 10:29
-
I presume these were dealt with in what used to be a magistrates’
court?
If I’m right they would have been before a ‘district judge’, who
used to be called a ‘stipe’ – stipendiary magistrate – a rareish type
introduced in certain cities to deal with cases deemed too difficult for lay
magistrates because they often involved some law.
These ‘district judges’
(copied from the US) are the type of judge most ready to do the state’s
bidding. They also have little room for independent judgment because
everything is subject to ‘guidelines’ from the Ministry of ‘Justice’.
If
the matters had come before a robust lay bench or a less craven judge and jury
the outcome might have been different. But I suspect they would never reach a
jury because there is no right to jury trial for such offences.
- August 31, 2012 at 11:14
-
Could he not have opted for the Crown Court, or am I behind the times
again.
It is what I would certainly try, knowing some magistrates seem to
ignore actual law and base decisions on how they feel about an issue, or at
least that is how it often seems.
- September 7, 2012 at
12:54
-
Point 1: Trial by jury is a right for every British subject. This is laid
out in Magna Carta. For those who believe that Magna Carta was repealed in
part under the Wilson government of 1969/70 had better take another look,
for Magna Carta contains a non-repeal clause that states that anything
seeking to deminish the validity of the charter, is itself null and void.
The constitutional ramifications of this are quite enormous. No act of
Parliament, no court order since 1970 etc has any validity whatsoever. The
right to a trial by jury was not repealed.
Point 2: For those interested enough to read the Qoran will find that all
this fanaticism that some Muslims seem to be spouting are not part of the
Islamic religion. Christ is revered in Islam as one of the great prophets.
There are but 2 commandments in the Qoran, Love God, and do no harm. Now
that sounds like a pretty good rule for life!
Point 3: I once saw an engraving showing a coach drawn by 4 horses
passing through a town’s high street. Leaping from the pavement was a little
guy brandishing a stick and shouting at the horses which reared up and
caused an incident, presumably a traffic offence. The caption to the picture
was something like “The Magistrates mischief maker at work!” This
illustrates exactly what the legal system is all about – making money. I
rest my case.
-
August 31, 2012 at 10:23
-
You are most certainly not alone.
-
August 31, 2012 at 10:16
-
Richard: Perhaps you could give us all the bounty of your experience then,
since you obviously WERE in court to hear it all.
This ragheaded pigfucker
choudry is a known professional agitator who exists to cause grief; he should
have done three years as a piss taker.
- September 1, 2012 at 06:02
-
Fucking good come back laddie! Like it.
- August 31, 2012 at 09:57
-
Posting comments about disparate sentences when you weren’t in court to
hear, for example, full details of the offences (I note you omit to mention
some of the things Parkes did) details of mitigation or previous convictions
is always problematic.
- August 31, 2012 at 09:51
-
Spot on Anna.
-
August 31, 2012 at 09:43
-
The sentences suggest that the judges believe Muslims are more likely to
breach public order in response to a provocation than are non-Muslims.
Therefore the judgements themselves are arguably public order offences.
-
August 31, 2012 at 09:33
-
To attack/insult the British and their institutions appears to be
fashionable and a minor nuisance. To attack Christians and their beliefs is a
cause for regret. To attack the more violent outpourings of religious fanatics
is an offence against the very fabric of society. This is the law according to
the Guardianistas, apologists and other empty vessels.
- August 31,
2012 at 09:15
-
I’ve often wondered that myself.
How does that old Kipling poem about the English and ‘fair play’ go
again?
- August 31, 2012 at 09:02
-
No.
{ 52 comments }