Finally Some Sense From The Judiciary..........

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579
Bullied by the TROB hordes, of course but 100% correct from the start. It seems though that these days that's not enough.

[Zacs-Master]

'He was arrested, yes. Amongst others.'

He wasn't, he was given a verbal waring.

[ToraToraTora]

...praise the lord!

[jim360]

That actually isn't the point at all. Setting aside the topic itself, the judgement affirms that the legality of a belief should have nothing whatsoever to do with its basis in fact (to take an obvious example, religious beliefs are protected even though the existence of God is, at the very least, not an objective fact).

[pixie374]

He was arrested. And then released.

[Zacs-Master]

Without charge.

[pixie374]

Botox jim :-). Tie yourself in as many knots as you like. She spoke the truth- that is not affected by democracy, it just is the truth. That should never be illegal. Wouldn't you say?

[Zacs-Master]

Hard work, innit, Jim?

[pixie374]

Yep- agreeing that people are arrested for truthful views... is a start.

[Zacs-Master]

Jim is actually untangling the knots you seem hell-bent on introducing, Pix.

[pixie374]

It isn't hard work, if you just go with honesty and fairness, actually. It's the gymnastics that are hard :-)

[Zacs-Master]

I concede he was arrested. That is in no way criminalising someone. And the case has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

[pixie374]

I'm not! Blimey.

[Zacs-Master]

Honesty and fairness has been seen to have been done in so far as a court has upheld that you are allowed to believe what you want (and that it is not the basis for losing your job).

[pixie374]

I'm responding to other posts too, including yours- who suggested people weren't arrested for having "the wrong view".

[pixie374]

So it should be. But taking someone to court for speaking the truth- should never have happened in the first place.

[Zacs-Master]

Ah, you seen to be finally grasping what the case was all about.

[pixie374]

Maybe read from the start of the thread next time?

[jim360]

Ah, but who decides what is "the truth"? It isn't enough merely to assert it, or to appeal to a majority; or even to science (para 87). But the point is still that, to a large extent, it does not matter. A view doesn't need to have any basis in truth at all to deserve at least some level of protection as a matter of law.

[THECORBYLOON]

"But taking someone to court for speaking the truth" who was taken to court?

[pixie374]

Don't be daft, Jim. You're a scientist.