"If you've done nothing wrong" & section 7

[french frank]

it sometimes feels as though its ENTIRE readership contribute here.

Well, this is the Radio 3 Forum ...

[zoomy]

My only partly serious point was more intended to highlight the fact that there seem to be a much higher proportion of Guardian readers contributing to these boards than there is in the population at large. In fact, given the dwindling readership of that publication, it sometimes feels as though its ENTIRE readership contribute here.

A much higher proportion of the readership of these boards enjoys classical music than the general population and similarly probably with the Guardian. We are a self selecting, rarified breed of poster here, Pee.

Or should we also echo the opinions of the general population - now, where shall we start - bring back hanging ? grrr those immigrants taking all our houses etc etc.

[Richard Barrett]

a much higher proportion of Guardian readers contributing to these boards than there is in the population at large

The words "so what?" spring uncontrollably to mind. I would imagine the average age, and level of education, oh yes and (as zoomy says) interest in music of forum contributors is also higher than the UK average - so what? (By the way, the readership of ALL "quality" newspapers in the UK has fallen by about half since the turn of the century.) But just to even things up, here's a link to an interesting article in the Daily Mail about people with right-wing views being on average "less intelligent".

[Mr Pee]

The words "so what?" spring uncontrollably to mind. I would imagine the average age, and level of education, oh yes and (as zoomy says) interest in music of forum contributors is also higher than the UK average - so what? (By the way, the readership of ALL "quality" newspapers in the UK has fallen by about half since the turn of the century.) But just to even things up, here's a link to an interesting article in the Daily Mail about people with right-wing views being on average "less intelligent".

I'm just glad wasn't paying for that laughable piece of research....

[ahinton]

I'm just glad wasn't paying for that laughable piece of research....

How do you know that you weren't?

[Mr Pee]

How do you know that you weren't?

Because, as you would know if you had bothered to read the article, this pointless survey was conducted by a Canadian university, and based on UK data from 1958 and 1970-(up to date then!)- when I was not yet old enough to pay tax, even if such research was taxpayer funded.

OK?

[Bryn]

Because, as you would know if you had bothered to read the article, this pointless survey was conducted by a Canadian university, and based on UK data from 1958 and 1970-(up to date then!)- when I was not yet old enough to pay tax, even if such research was taxpayer funded.

OK?

I do hope you intend to avail yourself of any adult literacy and English comprehension courses provided locally to your abode. As is eventually made quite clear in the article, the years 1958 and 1970 were the birth years of those in the samples, not the dates of the studies themselves (admittedly, being the Daily 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' Mail, the first mention of those dates is very misleading. I very much doubt that neonates have either left or right wing views, or that their levels of intelligence can be assessed with any useful accuracy.

[french frank]

I do hope you intend to avail yourself of any adult literacy and English comprehension courses provided locally to your abode. As is eventually made quite clear in the article, the years 1958 and 1979 were the birth years of those in the samples, not the dates of the studies themselves (admittedly, being the Daily 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' Mail, the first mention of those dates is very misleading. I very much doubt that neonates have either left or right wing views, or that their levels of intelligence can be assessed with any useful accuracy.

And indeed is on-going, no doubt with public funding. The Canadian study analysed this data. And.

[ahinton]

Because, as you would know if you had bothered to read the article, this pointless survey was conducted by a Canadian university, and based on UK data from 1958 and 1970-(up to date then!)- when I was not yet old enough to pay tax, even if such research was taxpayer funded.

OK?

No, as will be clear from the responses provided by Bryn and FF and, as one would hope (even if in vain) that you would know if you had bothered to read the links provided by the latter, my answer here is perectly reasonable - but then, as your post #283 deomstrates, your reading choices are conveniently selective.

Incidentally, your gratuitous references to what you allege (albeit with no credible evidence) is disproportionate Guardian readership among members of this forum are not merely unfounded but themselves disproportionate, to the extent that I imagine very few members here read no journalism other than that of the Guardian;furthermore, I do not imagine that everything published in The Daily Telegraph has the full seal of Pee approval in any case.

[Mr Pee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23870616

[french frank]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23870616

Good spot, Mr Pee. But in that case she appeared to be appealing against Sect 7 itself, as breaching her human rights, not that it had been invoked wrongly by the police. She lost her case because the High Court ruled that the legislation itself was sound.

[ahinton]

Good spot, Mr Pee. But in that case she appeared to be appealing against Sect 7 itself, as breaching her human rights, not that it had been invoked wrongly by the police. She lost her case because the High Court ruled that the legislation itself was sound.

But even if that is accurate, one paragraph in that article reads "Lawyers for Mrs Beghal are expected to appeal and try to take the case to the Supreme Court", which is hardly surprising and clarifiesthat, like the Miranda case and those other 25+ currently under IPCC investigation, it ain't over yet by any means.

[Mr Pee]

But even if that is accurate, one paragraph in that article reads "Lawyers for Mrs Beghal are expected to appeal and try to take the case to the Supreme Court", which is hardly surprising and clarifiesthat, like the Miranda case and those other 25+ currently under IPCC investigation, it ain't over yet by any means.

Well of course they will try to appeal; they wouldn't be much cop as lawyers if they did not. But the fact they might appeal doesn't alter the judgement as it stands.

[french frank]

But even if that is accurate, one paragraph in that article reads "Lawyers for Mrs Beghal are expected to appeal and try to take the case to the Supreme Court", which is hardly surprising and clarifiesthat, like the Miranda case and those other 25+ currently under IPCC investigation, it ain't over yet by any means.

That doesn't seem to me to tie in with the Miranda case at all. In one case the challenge is that the legislation was wrongly used (i.e. was against the police action). In the other that the legislation was against her human rights (against the legislation, rather than the police).

[ahinton]

That doesn't seem to me to tie in with the Miranda case at all. In one case the challenge is that the legislation was wrongly used (i.e. was against the police action). In the other that the legislation was against her human rights (against the legislation, rather than the police).

Much remains to be seen, of course - and you're quite right to distinguish between complaints about the nature and stucture of the law itself and instances in which it might have been abused - but both of these are going very much to be up for grabs in the next few weeks, months and years because, once the efficacy, practicality and morality of the law itself is brought into question, the entire edifice risks becoming suspect until deliberations are made that meet with the majority agreement of the electorate as long as that electorate cares sufficiently.