nigeleccles![[Admin]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_admin.gif "This user is an admin"){kind=icon}
Will the London teenage anti-Scientology protestor be convicted?
Officers confiscated a placard with the word "cult" on it from the youth, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. A spokeswoman for the police said:
City of London police had received complaints about demonstrators using the words 'cult' and 'Scientology kills' during protests against the Church of Scientology. Following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service some demonstrators were warned verbally and in writing that their signs breached section five of the Public Order Act. One demonstrator continued to display a placard despite police warnings and was reported for an offence under section five. A file on the case will go to the CPS. (The Guardian)
The teenager has posted for advice on the Enturbulation forums. The best response to date has been:
As it's a criminal charge, the standard of proof is "beyond all reasonable doubt". This means:
a) Police need to prove use of word cult is threatening, abusive or insulting. [...] Such a determination would I think be for a jury to decide, and they would need to take context into account. A considerable part of that context is that Scientology is a cult - just consult a dictionary. It's not the same to call Scientology a cult, as it would be calling say, a traditional religion a cult.
Not allowing context to be considered would result in the ridiculous situation of not being allowed to call a spade a spade. Scientology is a cult. It's not insulting to call it one. It's a statement of fact, and a necessary and well intentioned warning to the easily lead.
b) That such use is intentional.
As I mention, it's up to the prosecution to prove that the use of the term "Cult" is intended to insult. For a criminal conviction, proof needs to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". This is a conclusion so far beyond the boundaries of the available facts, that I am well hopeful you'll get this thrown out of court inside 5 minutes. On the basis of probabilities, you can argue the use was well intended.
[...]Case dismissed, imo. Of course, legal history is full of cases that should have been won, but for bad luck or just bad representation. Make sure to get the best legal defense you can afford. [somnombulist]
Settled
|
|
Yes |
|
||
|
|
No |
|
Settlement details:
Question will be settled as Yes if the teenager is convicted under the Public Order Act relating to events occuring on May 10. If the Crown Prosecution Service announce that the case has been dropped or the teenager is found not-guilty then the question will be settled as a No.
Suspend date: Fri 1st Aug 12:59am PDT
Settlement date: Fri 23rd May 1:05pm PDT
Prediction cut-off: Predictions on this question after Fri 23rd May 12:59am PDT have been voided because they were made after the question could be settled
Initial likelihoods:
Yes: 25%
Action history:
nigeleccles 
mork![[Power User]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_superuser.gif "This user is a super user"){kind=icon}
: see settlement request mork: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7416425.stm (market suspended) 
lesley: Charges have been dropped
Settlement details: Question will be settled as Yes if the teenager is convicted under the Public Order Act relating to events occuring on May 10. If the Crown Prosecution Service announce that the case has been dropped or the teenager is found not-guilty then the question will be settled as a No.... read all
Predictions
23 predictions
epicur
hilly
skirvir
robuk
jedc
rogi
drtiki
andrew
bigken1
anaverageamerican
chris
skipper
ryanj
jenniandboysComments
New to Hubdub?
Hubdub lets you play at predicting the outcomes of real running news questions
Related tags
Related News
This news is selected automatically based on the question, its background, options and tags
More questions by
nigeleccles
48 settled, 13 voided
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7416425.stm
Please log in or join to post a comment.