I'd like to start by saying that it's a sad state of affairs. I don't agree with what he said but the fact that he was found guilty is unreasonable and sets a h

I'd like to start by saying that it's a sad state of affairs. I don't agree with what he said but the fact that he was found guilty is unreasonable and sets a horrible precedent moving forward. The article states that he was convicted under the Communications Act whose Wikipedia page[1] lists some other "notable prosecutions" - worth checking to know the other times where the UK government has overstepped themselves. The Scottish Crown Prosecution Service has some guidelines[2] for prosecuting the "offensive content". In my eyes this tweet does not fulfil the criteria (although this may be covered under "national tragedy"so I hope he can appeal. From the COPFS document: Prosecutors should only consider action in this category of cases where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication goes beyond being: • Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or • Satirical, iconoclastic or rude; or • The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it; or • An exchange of communication that forms part of a democratic debate In some instances the context in which the comments are made will weigh in favour of prosecutors being so satisfied, for instance where comments are made following a particular incident, national tragedy or catastrophic event. Such instances will most likely be readily apparent to prosecutors however it may be that particular instructions are issued to prosecutors in response to such incidents where the situation demands it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003 [2] https://www.copfs.gov.uk/images/Documents/Prosecution_Policy_Guidance/Book_of_Regulations/Final%20version%2026%2011%2014.pdf https://www.copfs.gov.uk/images/Documents/Prosecution_Policy...