[url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/04/15/tweeter-harassed-and-prosecuted-for-swearing/Tweeter facing 6 months in chokey for swearing[/url

Looks like Bexley council and the local rozzers have little better to do. I can't help but feel that there must be something a little more serious for them to be spending their time on

[url=http://www.bexley-is-bonkers.co.uk/blogs/2012/april.shtmlBexley is bonkers website[/url

I agree all this seems excessive.

Nevertheless, people do seem to think that they are somehow protected from prosecution if they post comments on Facebook / Twitter. These places basically amount to a public forum, and it is no surprise that the old bill come knocking when people post stuff that would have landed them in hot poop had they said it down the local boozer or on the high street.

I fail to see how he'd be in bother for referring to his local councillor as a c*nt in the pub.

As always, when you read beyond the headline there is a little more to the story.

If you wish to engage anyone in conversation, whatever their point of view, then there are ways and means and generally speaking that doesn't involve the use of the sort of language that the blogger used, its not really a freedom of expression issue, more an issue of intelligence and a lack of it.

The Public Order Act can be moulded and bended to suit all circumstances if a particularly bloody minded copper is in the area. I have known of people getting prosecuted for what amounts to little more than swearing in public.

So we should be prosecuting people for lack of intelligence? Whatever your opinion of the language used, there's no reason whatsoever that this should become a criminal matter. They guy expressed an opinion.

If he had said 'I think he is a c*nt instead of he is, he might have got away with it, unless thoughts are now policed.

Just as Gary Stephens did to me in an infamous Friday night match between Leeds & Halifax at Headingley. I knew I was on a loser as soon as I saw that the scrum halves were Stephens and Ray Ashton, I should've gone down with an ankle injury in the first minute.

Again, read the report, if he'd just blogged that opinion once then there would probably no such reaction.

He can express his opinion as frequently as he likes, can't he?

When someone expresses a particularly offensive opinion, repeatedly, and with the intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress, they fall foul of the criminal law.

The fact that the person in question chose to use Twitter as his vehicle, and was charged with some sort of offensive communication, seems by the by.

No, not really - see above.