m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ … 0154542220
Anyone know this fella?? I think he needs to keep his head down for a bit
I’ve just Googled the word “moron”
There was a picture of this charmer
There’s gonna be a lot of angry people after him,his address has been published in Facebook too…
Wonder if he still maintains his hardman act when people turn up in his doorstep.
Apparently Stobarts are investigating him and he’s been arrested. Apart having loads of stuff delivered to his house presumably cash on delivery. He’ll be happy about his t shirt now.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Why would anybody wear something as offensive as that 
It’s as bad as that ■■■■ end on here with his Holocaust denial theories. 
To be honest though, as much as I find what he wore and has said repulsive I’m not sure about him being arrested, there is meant to be such a thing as free speech whether you like what’s being said or not.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
dani1972:
Apparently Stobarts are investigating him and he’s been arrested. Apart having loads of stuff delivered to his house presumably cash on delivery. He’ll be happy about his t shirt now.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What’s that got to do with stobarts?
happysack:
dani1972:
Apparently Stobarts are investigating him and he’s been arrested. Apart having loads of stuff delivered to his house presumably cash on delivery. He’ll be happy about his t shirt now.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What’s that got to do with stobarts?
He works for them apparently.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
dani1972:
To be honest though, as much as I find what he wore and has said repulsive I’m not sure about him being arrested, there is meant to be such a thing as free speech whether you like what’s being said or not.
I do agree with your sentiments with regard to free speech. But by Christ there has to be limit on what you can reasonably do in public, I don’t think this is any different to fundamentalists inciting hatred or riots really. The chap has gone out there wearing this t shirt to knowingly and deliberately upset people.
As far as I’m concerned you can believe in whatever horrible things you like, but you do not have the right to attempt to deliberately upset people through the spreading of poisonous ideas.
dani1972:
To be honest though, as much as I find what he wore and has said repulsive I’m not sure about him being arrested, there is meant to be such a thing as free speech whether you like what’s being said or not.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
A law was brought in about a year ago that makes it illegal to do/say anything that may cause disorder…it could fall under that which would see him charged.
Edit,here it is…
Section 4 (Causing Fear or Provocation of Violence) One of the most common Public Order Offences charged by the Police is the offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act. This offence is referred to as Threatening Behaviour or intending to cause someone to fear or to provoke violence.
dani1972:
happysack:
dani1972:
Apparently Stobarts are investigating him and he’s been arrested. Apart having loads of stuff delivered to his house presumably cash on delivery. He’ll be happy about his t shirt now.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What’s that got to do with stobarts?
He works for them apparently.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And? If I wore a t shirt with " I love carryfast and ■■■■ ■■■ " to the pub, then it’s got ■■■■ all to do stobarts
He’s obviously a particularly nasty piece of work and I would have no trouble with him losing his job and though I don’t agree with violence would only have himself to blame if someone did go down that route, however I’m still not sure about him being arrested.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
happysack:
dani1972:
happysack:
dani1972:
Apparently Stobarts are investigating him and he’s been arrested. Apart having loads of stuff delivered to his house presumably cash on delivery. He’ll be happy about his t shirt now.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What’s that got to do with stobarts?
He works for them apparently.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And? If I wore a t shirt with " I love carryfast and ■■■■ ■■■ " to the pub, then it’s got [zb] all to do stobarts
Their argument would be he’s damaging their reputation.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Bloke called Voltaire once said, I abhor what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.
His comments are out of order but isn’t there always sick jokes about every tragedy? I must have had dozens when Michael Jackson died.
dani1972:
happysack:
dani1972:
happysack:
dani1972:
Apparently Stobarts are investigating him and he’s been arrested. Apart having loads of stuff delivered to his house presumably cash on delivery. He’ll be happy about his t shirt now.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What’s that got to do with stobarts?
He works for them apparently.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And? If I wore a t shirt with " I love carryfast and ■■■■ ■■■ " to the pub, then it’s got [zb] all to do stobarts
Their argument would be he’s damaging their reputation.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Hardly. It’s improving it!
xichrisxi:
dani1972:
To be honest though, as much as I find what he wore and has said repulsive I’m not sure about him being arrested, there is meant to be such a thing as free speech whether you like what’s being said or not.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
A law was brought in about a year ago that makes it illegal to do/say anything that may cause disorder…it could fall under that which would see him charged.
Edit,here it is…
Section 4 (Causing Fear or Provocation of Violence) One of the most common Public Order Offences charged by the Police is the offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act. This offence is referred to as Threatening Behaviour or intending to cause someone to fear or to provoke violence.
Its section 5 of the public order act actually that he has been arrested for
Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable.
Section 4 (Causing Fear or Provocation of Violence)
One of the most common Public Order Offences charged by the Police is the offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act. This offence is referred to as Threatening Behaviour or intending to cause someone to fear or to provoke violence. If you are accused of an offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act, the Prosecution will need to prove that:
That you have used threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour towards another person;
And intended to either cause them to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against them or to provoke them to use immediate unlawful violence.Offences of threatening behaviour are relatively common charges to appear before the Court, although many of the offences are less serious than this charge would suggest. Often, though speaking to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police it is possible to amend the charge to a Section 4A, or Section 5 offence.
As he wasn’t threatening violence against anyone sect4 doesn’t apply
happysack:
dani1972:
happysack:
dani1972:
Apparently StobartsSent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And? If I wore a t shirt with " I love carryfast and ■■■■ ■■■ " to the pub, then it’s got [zb] all to do stobarts
Did not think you liked carryfast that much 
Colin_scottish:
happysack:
dani1972:
happysack:
dani1972:
Apparently StobartsSent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And? If I wore a t shirt with " I love carryfast and ■■■■ ■■■ " to the pub, then it’s got [zb] all to do stobarts
Did not think you liked carryfast that much [emoji14]
Illustration purposes only!
F-reds:
I do agree with your sentiments with regard to free speech. But by Christ there has to be limit on what you can reasonably do in public, I don’t think this is any different to fundamentalists inciting hatred or riots really. The chap has gone out there wearing this t shirt to knowingly and deliberately upset people.
Therein lies the problem. If you put a limit on free speech, then firstly free speech doesn’t exist anymore, secondly we will end up with processing centre with a revolving door for fundamentalists of all creeds and faith, which the government don’t want as it undermines their immigration policy, and the tax payer can’t afford. I remember seeing an interview with Trey Parker and Matt Stone. They said the reason nothing is off limits with South Park, is if you say racism is a step to far for comedy, the minute you take the rise out of disability you’re saying that’s ok. Then it stops being comedy and starts being offensive. I think the whole country needs to stop taking offence on other peoples behalf. The only people who should be up in arms are the families of the 96. The rest of us should do no more, than pass the judgement that the bloke is a ■■■■. But he works for stobart, so we knew that already 
OVLOV JAY:
F-reds:
I do agree with your sentiments with regard to free speech. But by Christ there has to be limit on what you can reasonably do in public, I don’t think this is any different to fundamentalists inciting hatred or riots really. The chap has gone out there wearing this t shirt to knowingly and deliberately upset people.Therein lies the problem. If you put a limit on free speech, then firstly free speech doesn’t exist anymore, secondly we will end up with processing centre with a revolving door for fundamentalists of all creeds and faith, which the government don’t want as it undermines their immigration policy, and the tax payer can’t afford. I remember seeing an interview with Trey Parker and Matt Stone. They said the reason nothing is off limits with South Park, is if you say racism is a step to far for comedy, the minute you take the rise out of disability you’re saying that’s ok. Then it stops being comedy and starts being offensive. I think the whole country needs to stop taking offence on other peoples behalf. The only people who should be up in arms are the families of the 96. The rest of us should do no more, than pass the judgement that the bloke is a ■■■■. But he works for stobart, so we knew that already
I think he took the free speech to the extreme.Thats just shocking and maybe the familys that lost loving family members should pay him a visit see what he says then.