BBC defends Jo Brand over 'battery acid' joke

Agreed. It is absurd that that attracted outrage. That it attracted criminal proceedings and, subsequently, a criminal sentence is troubling.

We don't solve that by turning around and insisting that Jo Brand be prosecuted for, essentially, the same thing.

If you want to make a fuss about double standards, fine, but it shouldn't be by way of trying to make Jo Brand face the consequences that we say people in that position shouldn't face.

If you hold the view that Count Dankula ought not to have been treated as he was following his obvious joke, you should be lining up with me to condemn Farage's reaction to Brand's.

Quote from the Met:

Incitement to hatred
The offence of incitement to hatred occurs when someone acts in a way that is threatening and intended to stir up hatred. That could be in words, pictures, videos, music, and includes information posted on websites.

Hate content may include:
- Messages calling for violence against a specific person or group.

"Why bother with milkshakes when you can get some battery acid" would definitely fall under that by the current standards of hate speech. If "I wouldn't even rape you" or teaching a pug to Nazi salute counts, then this definitely counts. Where's the outrage brigade then? Ahh, the double standards.

Remember the outrage over Borris’ letterbox joke, the demands for an apology, the accusations of racism. Apparently it was islamophobic and incited hate against Muslims. Even though it was literally just mocking the ridiculousness of the burka and a religion that tells woman to wear it.

Is Jo Brand a BBC employee? Baker was.
Brand was on a comedy show. Baker posted it on his own website.
There was no doubt that Brand was attempting a joke.
It was unclear and mystifying with Baker.

You need to compare like with like.

My opinion: She's a ****, but free speech ceases to be free when you put limits on it. Even incitement to violence should be covered under free speech, though the idiots who act upon said incitements to violence should of course be prosecuted for their acts of violence. As Voltaire said; 'I may disagree with what it is you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it'. Something like that, anyway.

- Rabid lefties should be free to say 'battery acid instead of milkshakes'

- Nazis should be free to say 'the all-controlling Jews are the enemy of all Europeans'

- Muslims should be free to say 'convert or die, it's Jihad time'

- White nationalists should be free to say 'black people are less intelligent and shouldn't be in our countries'.

Thats rather stupid. The incitement is the offence. Good job your opinion isnt the law.

You called me stupid. I take offense. Therefore it's incitement to violence.

Good job your opinion isn't the law.

Its clear you dont even understand what incitement is and why we have it as an offence.
Your chain of reasoning is laughable.
Actually my opinion coincides with that the law actually is.

Its clear you dont even understand what incitement is and why we have it as an offence.
Your chain of reasoning is laughable.
Actually my opinion coincides with that the law actually is.

Incitement is defined as provoking or calling for acts of violence. In UK law, incitement is defined as 'persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime'.

I'd say that's flexible enough that I could make an argument in court that your comment was incitement, even if ultimately the judge or jury disagreed (after all, law in Britain can be highly subjective and especially in minor civil law cases 'common sense' can overturn the exact letter of the law).

By the way, when I said 'I take offence' I was making a bad pun, using the multiple meanings of the word 'offence' to mean both a criminal offence, and subjective personal offence.

You know I have bigger concerns elsewhere but would you agree it can be seen as an incitement to hatred?

Not often I agree with Nige but yeah, poor form here.

Is there such a crime? There are obviously hate crimes, but care to show me which law applies in this case?

In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of people. The statutes forbid communication that is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin colour. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Legislation against Sectarian hate in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches,[citation needed] does not criminalise jokes about people's beliefs, nor outlaw "harsh" comment about their religious faith.

Incitement is defined as provoking or calling for acts of violence. In UK law, incitement is defined as 'persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime'.

I'd say that's flexible enough that I could make an argument in court that your comment was incitement, even if ultimately the judge or jury disagreed (after all, law in Britain can be highly subjective and especially in minor civil law cases 'common sense' can overturn the exact letter of the law).

By the way, when I said 'I take offence' I was making a bad pun, using the multiple meanings of the word 'offence' to mean both a criminal offence, and subjective personal offence.