[CraigJPerry]

>> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them.

> This is blatantly disingenuous. The Public Order Act 1986 ... <snip>... criminalize "insulting" and "abusive" words ...

Do you know what i find disingenuous here, you hooked me with the words i quoted above so i went to the legislation:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

And the thing to stand out was the change of meaning when the full quote is provided:

____

Fear or provocation of violence. (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

____

If you have to rely on this kind of disingenuous trickery to make a point, then you don't have a point.

The GP is correct in their statement:

>> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them.

You are incorrect in yours:

> This is blatantly disingenuous.

[lurk2]

You aren’t quoting the same statute the grandparent comment is referencing.

Grandparent is quoting Part III 18 Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.

You are quoting Part I 4 Fear or provocation of violence.

[sanskritical]

The statute says "or" and an a) b) c) bullet point listing in a statute also means "or". Maybe you are unfamiliar with boolean logic, but I was listing the relevant lines of the statute which allow someone who did not call for violence to be prosecuted, and the standard interpretation used by prosecutors to prosecute people for non-violent, non-threatening, insulting speech.

What about Elizabeth Kinney, arrested for a simple slur in a private text message to a friend about the man who assaulted her, minutes after being beaten? What about the tens of thousands of people arrested who did not threaten violence?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c703e03w243o

Just like Elizabeth Kinney, this man did not threaten violence at all. He just said "they should not be allowed to live here."

[CraigJPerry]

> The statute says "or" and an a) b) c) bullet point

There is no c) bullet point, the part you misinterpreted as an or is an AND:

"with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him..."

>> A plasterer who admitted to stirring up racial hatred...

Admitted?

[santoshalper]

I googled it and couldn't find anything credible about this. At this point, I don't believe it actually happened the way it is being discussed.

[delaminator]

So you are asserting that the 12,000 arrests in England/Wales (not the UK) were for direct threats of violence?