I see that the case against Stephen Green has been dropped.
Today, at Cardiff magistrates’ court, the Crown Prosecution Service said it would not proceed due to “insufficient evidence.”
Well, that was obvious to everyone but the police and CPS. This case should never have been brought as I argued when it first hit the headlines. Mr Green was simply expressing his opinion. In a liberal democracy, people do that. We might not like what they say, but we value their right to do so.
There is a moral here and one anyone faced with a similar situation should take note:
Mr Green, who last year led protests against the BBC’s broadcast of Jerry Springer: the Opera, was charged by South Wales police’s minority support unit after refusing to accept a formal caution.
If faced with similar bullying, refuse the caution and let them prove their case in court. Okay, standing up to the boys in blue takes a certain degree of nerve, but if you are right, it is worth the effort and the more that do, hopefully, the more likely they will get the message that they are wrong to be bringing these cases.
Free speech – as I have frequently argued here – must be sacrosanct, no matter what we think about the content of that speech. I abhor Mr Green’s views, but will defend absolutely his right to voice them. However, as the Devil’s Kitchen points out, not everyone places the same value on freedom of expression. This, from the Morning-Star for instance.
This is one face of religious intolerance in the UK. Stephen Green is the national director of Christian Voice and thinks he has the right to shove his biggoted religious views in your face.
He hates anyone who has views different to his own, and hopes, if your views are different to his, that you will burn in hell.
Yeeeeesss…
he should have got a kicking for being an intolerant wanker,
Riiiiight… So it’s okay to indulge in freedom of speech providing it isn’t intolerant bigotry – or, more precisely, as long as it fits in with your intolerant bigotry. Gotcha! Hypocrisy is not in your dictionary, then 
?
Anyway, for once I find myself in mild disagreement with DK as, like Tony at the Morning-Star, he believes Mr Green should not sue the police:
That’ll be great, Stephen, you fucking moron; they could be out “nicking villains” instead of appearing in court to defend their—admittedly pathetic—actions to you.
While I go along with the overall sentiment about wasting police time and effort; in this case, I think legal action is right and proper. Yes, it’s trivial, but that’s the point. Mr Green was prosecuted over trivia. The police wasted time and resource over something that they should never have become involved with. Police officers poking about in matters that don’t concern them has become a developing trend lately; the bollocks to Blair T shirts, the “shit” metal detector, the “gay” police horse are just three such; and it’s high time it stopped. Yes, damn right they should be out nicking real villains instead of wasting time defending trivial litigation. However, that litigation might just concentrate their minds – particularly if it keeps happening. So, for that reason, I hope Mr Green does sue and wins.
I’ll admit I’m a hypocrite on the subject of free speech, I think most people are to a degree, but my ire (and hypocrisy) tends to rise proportionally with the religious content of the free speech.
Inevitably we find that those who demand free speech the most are those that wish to remove it from one sector or another, Mr. Green was happy to demand that Springer the Opera should not be shown because it offends him and yet he wants to espouse his views that might offend others.
Muslims are just as bad as we’ve seen recently, they want free speech but want to restrict that of others. I’ll be happy to say that we should have free speech for all as long as veryone else accepts that free speech applies to all and not just one section of society that they agree with.
Tony, welcome.
The irony in Mr Green’s position hasn’t escaped me. I took him to task over his attempts to get Jerry Springer shut down. Equally, I defended the right of Iqbal Sacrine to espouse ant-gay sentiments, while at the same time castigating him for attempting to stifle criticism of Islam.
I am, if nothing, consistent. Free speech is an absolute for me – and that means acknowledging that people with views I utterly abhor (the above two being a case in point) have those rights too. Sometimes, it makes for strange bedfellows.
You are right, and I know that if we really want free speech we have to let the likes of Stephen Green and Iqbal Sacrine have their say.
But as a member of a minority that is under attack on freedom of speech issues at the moment by the religious right within the government, it’s becoming all to common to see and hear the truth being distorted and false linkage being provided.
Have a look at this webpage… http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/
Mmm, I had something to say about that case, myself recently.
I’m with Longrider all the way on this.
Concerning suing the police, whether Mr Green pursues this, with or without a reasonable case, is up to him to decide.
However, I also see a case for maladministration, through misuse of tacpayers’ funds that would be better spent on other, more useful activity.
Also, I believe in agreement with Longrider, if Mr Green did bad things concerning “Jerry Springer the Opera” (and I don’t know for certain), he should be prosecuted for that. It is not the job of the police (nor any other branch of government) to persecute disagreeable people; it is their job to uphold the law and to bring criminals to justice.
Best regards
Longrider,
Correct though you may be on the substantive issue, you have missed something equally important:
the Crown Prosecution Service said it would not proceed due to “insufficient evidence.â€
That’s bollocks. The CPS COULD not proceed because NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED. That is something entirely different. Insufficient evidence implies that a crime HAS been committed, but that the CPS lacked sufficient evidence to pin it on a particular individual.
Arresting someone before you even know that there is a crime for them to answer to is a monstrous abuse of process.
And if Mr Green does sue and does win (and half of me hopes that he does), it will be us taxpayers who pick up the ticket. AGAIN. We really need to get individual responsibility on the part of individual officers who sanction this sort of bullying.
PG
I didn’t miss it. 😉 I understand “insufficient evidence” to be the face-saving euphemism that it is.