I see that the police have arrested the owner of a beauty slalon who posted on her facebook advertisment as follows;
“Blinks of Bicester are no longer taking bookings from anyone from the Islamic faith whether you are U.K. granted with passport or not,"
The police force concerned posted this on their website; [complete with the grammatical error]
"We have arrested a 43-year-old woman in Bicester today after a number of complaints about a racially abusive post on social media.
The woman was arrested under section 19 and the Public Order Act which relates to the display of written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications.
We take all such complaints seriously and will investigate.
If you suspect that racially aggravated crimes are being committed please report them to Thames Valley Police on 101"
No worries about those that stand in the street with signs stating; "behead the non believer" then????? Do not see then being arrested......
One law for them, another law for the rest of us..... Who the owner of "Blinks" chooses to serve is a matter for her.
She will of course be convicted, because today, anyone that defends "us" or christianity WILL be found guilty REGARDLESS of the law. You see, when interpreting the law, a judge must obey the following rules;
1, Words are to have their "ordinary" meaning. In other words, a reference to "animals" would be taken to mean dogs cats horses pigs etc, and not lions and tigers. This is why you would not be permitted under town planning rules [leaving aside other specific statues] to keep a 14 foot siberian tiger out your back!!
2, The judge is to look at the "disease which inflicteth the commonwealth" that the law was intended to prevent when interpreting it, the judge is to decide what it was that parliament intended...
I cannot see that the owner of "Blinks" did anything that was; threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, nor did she; "produce malicious communications" she merely decided she would not serve these people.
BUT, as with political prisoner Tony Martin, she is going to be found guilty, trust me on that... [unlike those that as i speak are praising the Paris murderers]
john...
“Blinks of Bicester are no longer taking bookings from anyone from the Islamic faith whether you are U.K. granted with passport or not,"
The police force concerned posted this on their website; [complete with the grammatical error]
"We have arrested a 43-year-old woman in Bicester today after a number of complaints about a racially abusive post on social media.
The woman was arrested under section 19 and the Public Order Act which relates to the display of written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications.
We take all such complaints seriously and will investigate.
If you suspect that racially aggravated crimes are being committed please report them to Thames Valley Police on 101"
No worries about those that stand in the street with signs stating; "behead the non believer" then????? Do not see then being arrested......
One law for them, another law for the rest of us..... Who the owner of "Blinks" chooses to serve is a matter for her.
She will of course be convicted, because today, anyone that defends "us" or christianity WILL be found guilty REGARDLESS of the law. You see, when interpreting the law, a judge must obey the following rules;
1, Words are to have their "ordinary" meaning. In other words, a reference to "animals" would be taken to mean dogs cats horses pigs etc, and not lions and tigers. This is why you would not be permitted under town planning rules [leaving aside other specific statues] to keep a 14 foot siberian tiger out your back!!
2, The judge is to look at the "disease which inflicteth the commonwealth" that the law was intended to prevent when interpreting it, the judge is to decide what it was that parliament intended...
I cannot see that the owner of "Blinks" did anything that was; threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, nor did she; "produce malicious communications" she merely decided she would not serve these people.
BUT, as with political prisoner Tony Martin, she is going to be found guilty, trust me on that... [unlike those that as i speak are praising the Paris murderers]
john...
