Henri07

Are you confusing party politics with an attempt to save lives? Let me be clear, I would back any common sense policy that would save lives regardless of age, IF, that group was responsible for an over proportionate amount of deaths on the road.

The stats I quoted were in reference to the number of deaths involving young drivers, relevant to the content of this thread. Question for you, how many accidents wont have been reported that involved a death? As an aside and to remove any doubt, my stance on this thread is not an attack on the youth and neither do I attack them on other threads.

At times our youth get a bad rep or bum deal, but you can't ignore fact! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/young-drivers-would-only-be-allowed-to-carry-family-members-as-passengers-under-new-plans-8326009.html

Stupid is a little harsh. Your example highlights a flaw in a cover all idea that would save lives. However, I grant you, the latter idea is better. Wasn't aware of it either.

Really? can you not see or understand the logic behind it?

A simple but hopefuly effective idea. Sure there will be objection by some, viewing it a civil liberty issue. For me any reduction in death and serious injuries on our roads has to be good. Any unfortunate inconvenience to the young drivers, should be set aside for the sake of the bigger picture.

Incitement is not at all the same thing as legal protest. However, when the intent of a protest is to incite, that's when it is no longer legal.

Seriously?! Then why go to the bother of posting it online?

Whether it be content online a posted letter or email, if it's hateful the purpose remains.

Good question. One I admit I don't have a clear answer to. What I will say, any hate fuelled message an individual makes at say speakers corner, is gone in an instant. Where as online, if left unchallenged could stay around indefinately. Having said that, any hate fuelled messages at speakers corner, reported or even recorded are and will be investigated. There is however, a clear differnce between a private conversation and broadcasting/publishing views. As for content of the like in a newspaper, simply wouldn't (shouldn't) get past the editor!

The "individual" is of course hypothetical. From India you ask? The origin of a person in this instance is irrelevant. Fail to see the purpose of this question quisquose. The point being, both are prosecuted by the same law. The prosecution of posting the poison letter is and has been an accepted consequence. The prosecution of posting poisonous material (agreed pretty much by all) online hasn't been. This is hypocritical.

....of course, adjectives inherentlty are! For the avoidance of doubt, let's state the police & courts believe the letter to be vile, therefore deemed distressful for the recipient. Same question, would you be averse to the prosecution of the indidvidual for sending a vile letter?

Would you be averse to the prosecution of an indidvidual for sending a vile letter, causing distress to the recipient?

You would imagine the 1988 MCA is not as relevant or in line as it could be, but then back in 88; who would have foreseen the explosion of social media as it is. Time to ammend, possibly, odd, no! As for prosecuting for overhearing an offensive conversation down the pub, absolutely not. Difference being, the person down the pub is having a private conversation, they are not publishing or broadcasting their views.

Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1, "deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient". Please tell me, if it wasn't the kids intention to cause distress however naive, what was it? Let be me clear here, If someonewants to burn a poppy in the privacy of their own home, then let them get on with it. When you make views such as this public, either for personal ego stroking reasons, or just to kick up a sh*t storm for the hell of it, then thats where you cross the line into wrecklessness and stupidity that could give rise to violence.