Monday, 22 March 2010

When You Are Accosted By A Man Outside Debenhams Imploring You To Stop Coveting Your Neighbour's Ass...

...blame District judge David Cooper:
Mr Cooper dismissed the case, but warned any future complaints might land Mr Shaw back in court, facing a sentence.

He asked: “There are other sorts of ‘sins’. Do you think you could concentrate on those for a bit?”
Damn! Just as I was about to do some guilt-free idol worship, too...

18 comments:

manwiddicombe said...

Hand on heart I can say I've never coveted my neighbour's arse .. .. .. it's HUGE.

PJH said...

District judge David Cooper told him: “You said you were spreading God’s word and when interviewed you said children needed to be protected[...]

Hmm.

I know, send him to the Vatican to preach there? I believe that there might be things that most people consider worse than being gay going on within the catholic church, which the pope seems reluctant to deal with.

Chuckles said...

The prosecution was unable to offer any evidence, Mr. Shaw addressed the court at length, the court in turn directed some admonishments to Mr. Shaw, yet the case was dismissed without charge, but if it happens again, he'll find himself in court facing sentence.

Under the auspices of what legal system exactly is this transpiring???

KenS said...

I don't understand...

He appeared at Colchester Magistrates’ Court yesterday, charged with using threatening words or behaviour

Yet he was

been released from court without charge

woman on a raft said...

The prosecution offered no evidence, saying without written statements from the complainants and with Mr Shaw insisting on his right to free speech, they could not proceed.

How much did it cost to try to use the court system against him cynically and vexatiously, knowing there was no case? However much it is, the cost should come out of the wages of Ken Caley, head of Essex CPS. There might also be a case of abuse of process to be brought against him.

The reaction of District Judge "Custody Cooper" is fairly typical - for him - though. He's an ex-defence solictor and has a jaundiced view of people in the dock i.e. they are mostly a bunch of crooks who get of very lightly, considering.

In this case he seems to have got on his high horse about a bloke who was being a pain outside Debenhams, which is covered by the right of free expression, otoh, Cooper would see it as provoking and an attempt to use religiousity to have a pop at other citizens.

He probably shouldn't have given in to the urge to lecture someone against whom there is no case and it would have helped if he'd had a few words with the CPS.

DJ Custody Cooper (1)
DJ Custody Cooper (2)

See also anecdotes in the comments.

Stewart Cowan said...

I agree with everything Mr Shaw said.

All those straights who supported 'gay rights' should realise that it is being used to destroy free speech.

We might not want to stand outside Debenham's preaching, but we might be overheard telling a joke or making an 'illegal' comment.

Note how the paper calls him an "Anti-gay preacher" rather than, say, a "Preacher of morality".

Stonewall have received £millions of public money to help them get into schools to talk to children about their perversion and re-engineer teachers to promote it too, but this preacher who works for no financial reward goes to court for expressing his *reasonable" concerns in public.

This is unacceptable on so many levels.

PJH said...

Note how the paper calls him an "Anti-gay preacher" rather than, say, a "Preacher of morality".

Probably because not everyone accepts the perverted set of morals he and his religion purports to hold?

For example, in part:

To justify its persecution of homosexual people the Catholic Church draws on just three brief texts scoured from the thousands of pages of the Bible: a) the ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ story in Genesis, b) the Leviticus holy code and c) reference to ‘unnatural relations’ in a couple of letters of St Paul.

In the Old Testament, which was written in the Bronze Age some three and a half thousand years ago, the Sodom and Gomorrah story is about the failure to afford hospitality to strangers, a dreadful sin in the ancient Middle East.

Leviticus is a long list of so called ‘abominations’ which include eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics and having sex with menstruating women.

Leviticus even prescribes the death penalty for disobedient children.

Why does the church single out one sentence in Leviticus, whose relevance to gay people is highly dubious, and ignore hundreds of others?

[...]


This is the religion, remember, that constantly bangs(!) on about sex between consenting adults of the same sex because "their religious texts forbid it," but at the same time seek to hide and silently condone sex between an adult and a child, presumably because the same texts don't forbid it.

You may find the rest of that article educational, but given your total agreement of Mr. Shaw, I somehow doubt it.

I have my own reservations about Stonewall, but they don't match up with your clearly prejudiced views.

Stewart Cowan said...

PJH,

You have very conveniently used the perverts in the Roman Church to try and justify sodomy.

It's not clever.

Homosexual behaviour is almost universally condemned whether in religious societies or ones controlled by atheists: Marxists, Commies, etc.

That's because they know that countries that fall prey to depraved behaviour are soon destroyed and taken over.

English Viking said...

'The prosecution offered no evidence, saying without written statements from the complainants and with Mr Shaw insisting on his right to free speech, they could not proceed.'

These pesky defendants will insist on there actually being some evidence against them, and on their rights, as enshrined in the Law.

Why are Gay Pride allowed to parade around in their hundreds, in bumless trousers, funded by taxpayers, handing out literature on the benefits of anal sex, but one man may not voice a dissenting view without fear of prosecution?

PJH

You confuse Catholicism/Religion with Christianity. Apples and oranges.

BTW, The history of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about rudeness to strangers (unless you count the attempt at homosexual rape as rudeness), as you would know if you had read the passages in context, instead of cribbing them off atheist websites.

'...but they don't match up with your clearly prejudiced views.'

Pot and kettle, Sir.

Greencoat said...

PJH: 'but at the same time seeks to hide and silently condone sex between an adult and a child'

The Church does neither of these things. Priests who have committed these offences have contravened the Church's teachings.

But - the number of Priests who have done these things is minute compared to the wonderful work done by the virtuous majority.

The secular materialists who try to judge the Church only pretend to care about morality. Just look at the world they wallow in!

They are liars hypocrites - vipers,Jesus called them - and they will not prevail.

Obsidian said...

@Stuart Cowan

"Homosexual behaviour is almost universally condemned whether in religious societies or ones controlled by atheists: Marxists, Commies, etc."

Greece and Rome also indulged in homosexuality, luckily they never hung around long enough to have an impact in history or anything...

I don't get the fear of who sticks what where, or the really rather idiotic idea it leads to the downfall of civilization.

I'd be a bit more concerned about the feral little bastards that are breeding more feral little bastards. They're all straight though, so they'll probably just mug you in non-depraved way.

Stewart Cowan said...

Obsidian,

As I have just written on my blog...

"Let me remind you that the early homosexual activists knew they would have to destroy the traditional family unit in order to feel fully ‘equal’. And as a strong and free society depends on strong family bonds, they are actually destroying our society. The same is true of the use of pornography and New Labour’s sex ‘education’. By changing the natural bonding rules, those human bonds become weaker – one night stands, homosexual liaisons, single parents – and thus society becomes weaker and collectively we are less able to stand up to the increasing amount of authority which is depriving us of our freedom."

The feral children are one of the results of the behaviour you seem to be laughing off.

English Viking said...

Obsidian said:

'Greece and Rome also indulged in homosexuality, luckily they never hung around long enough to have an impact in history or anything.'

Not after they gave themselves over to all sorts of sexual depravity, they didn't.

Ask yourself why languages which rivaled modern day English in their world wide use are now dead?

Rome? That dirty, small, smelly, corrupt and weak capital of their enemies, the Italians?

Greece, the morally and financially bankrupt backwater that needs the help of the IMF?

Wake up and smell the truth; depraved leaders will inexorably lead to depraved peoples; depraved peoples lead to depraved laws; depraved law leads to the destruction of the depraved, and all those around them, depraved or not.

You might have been convinced by the Gov propaganda concerning the sexual attractiveness of another man's excrement; I have not.

JuliaM said...

"Under the auspices of what legal system exactly is this transpiring???"

Alledgedly, ours. But increasingly, I no longer recognise it. Cheers, Labour!

"How much did it cost to try to use the court system against him cynically and vexatiously, knowing there was no case?"

Ahh, it's only money...

"See also anecdotes in the comments."

Oh, yes. Delicious! Wonder why he's not popular with the other mags?

JuliaM said...

"All those straights who supported 'gay rights' should realise that it is being used to destroy free speech."

It's the problem with any law - it can be highjacked by the single-issue crazies more keen to push a point to it's nth degree than to just get on and live their lives, and allow others to live theirs...

"Probably because not everyone accepts the perverted set of morals he and his religion purports to hold?"

Then why make a point of seeking out a Christian guesthouse to stay at?

I like a dring, and a pork sausage in the morning (steady! I meant for brakfast!).

I know I'm not likely to get those at a Muslim or Jewish-run establishment. So I tailor my choice accordingly.

"These pesky defendants will insist on there actually being some evidence against them, and on their rights, as enshrined in the Law."

And long may they be allowed to!

JuliaM said...

"I don't get the fear of who sticks what where..."

Me neither, so long as it's not used as the basis for a political statemernt, as I'm starting to think it certainly was in this case...

Mike said...

What’s the alternative to demonstrating someone’s guilt byway of the production of evidence that is capable of being questioned called, other than an opinion beyond proof? And why is it right to consider people innocent until an accepted and recognised test is applied to suspects identified as such by a commonly understood predetermined approach that employs the existence of a greater than equal amount of evidence suggesting guilt as opposed to evidence suggesting innocence? On balance I find it hard to accept that because some people are guilty of something they are automatically guilty of everything or alternatively entirely innocent and in conclusion predict we all answer ultimately to ourselves amongst others.

I propose therefore we must all have sinned according to at least one other person. It also seems convenient that a god generally requires no amount of proof to exist. Can anyone tell me what a robot would make of a casino?

woman on a raft said...

Cranmer points out

"Today is the appointed time by our wonderful Government for Section 74 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to come into force. It creates the new offence of intentionally stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation."

s.74 refers to schedule 16 so you have to go down to page 33, and it requires a cold flannel on the forehead and a dose of Ibuprofen to ward off the migraine if you try to read it. These things are getting more like grimoires every day.

Schedule 16 amends the Public Order Act 1986 and at point (14) says:

After section 29J insert—
“29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)

In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.


Don't know if this would have affected this case, but it sounds like the CPS will have a go at using it and they never bother reading down to the bottom. (You can understand why).

I've no idea if it will work, but advise the police/PCSO/CPS/district judge/your own solicitor to read Schedule 16 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and point them to where schedule 16 (point 14) inserts the defence/clarification clause 29JA in to the Public Order Act 1986.

(N.B. I haven't checked Cranmer's assertion that today is the date in force. He's usually right, but you should check for yourself. Usual disclaimers etc.)