Very true, however when a legal institution deliberately and obviously decides to ignore both the spirit and letter of the law in order to pursue a course of appeasement, financial and political expediency at the cost of undermining the whole basis of western jurisprudence (ie freedom of expression and speech) we risk far more than an increases public ignorance and prejudice, we risk the destruction of our entire way of life, social ethics and an semblance of justice, in favour of plutocracy under the ,ask of theocracy.

Reading this and the other comments here, you come off as a dog with a bone absolutely unwilling to consider letting it go. Have you stopped to wonder if, perhaps, your (rather bullish) expression of this view in the face of many people urging caution and pointing out that the situation is more complex, is in fact a lot like a religious person resolutely refusing to entertain the notion that their world view might be wrong?

Very well put, however in this case I am not concerned with which religion or religious personage feels itself insulted, I am worried about the destruction of free expression and the reporting of truth bu the perverting of existing laws under the guise of religious freedom, in to de facto blasphemy laws placing religion both outside of and above secular law.

@LenHazell53 I absolutely agree. I think there should be no such thing as blasphemy laws at all, anywhere.

Why should we be forced to tolerate undue privilege given to any religious institution born of primitive superstition and ignorance.

@LenHazell53 I agree. But some are more threatening than others. Personally I don't have a problem with Taoism and Buddhism. Abrahamic Theism though stinks through and through, whatever its complexion.

I am not simply pointing at Muslims, I am pointing at the power of religion to wheedle it's way back in to a privileged place in the law, where they hold an untouchable position that would not be tolerated for any other institution, organisation, individual or ideology.

Stating facts cannot be allowed to become a legal offence, no matter how offensive some people may find it.

@LenHazell53 stating facts has been a criminal offence for years I'm a signatory to the OSA. If you have some fact that you believe will cause a public order offence then you should be very quiet about it. This is not new.

Appeasement, well that has a fine history of success when dealing with fanatics doesn't it.

IN what possible context is it permissible for someone to be arrested for stating an historical fact?

The Prophet Mohammed did marry a six year old girl and consummate that marriage when she was nine. No one disputes that, not even Islam itself, that makes him a paedophile, how is stating that an illegal action?

@LenHazell53 Not sayign I agree with it, but the backgrouhnd behind it seems very limited, One comment said that it was only under certain circumnstances, so there are some limitations which they never mention in the video. I jus think it is bad enough. They dont' have to spin it to make even more controversial than it othersie would be.

@LenHazell53 it must be great to have a monopoly on the facts. You just want to be inflammatory without taking responsibility for the ramifications.

@Flettie No. I wtn honest accounts in news and the webcasts. Leving stuff out isn't really beign honest and it does change the context. Not that it isnt' bd eithr way, but liekI said they really didnt' have to spin it to make it worse.

@webspider555
So?
He is held up by Muslims as the perfect man, one to be followed and emulated, incapable of wrongdoing FOR ALL TIME so pointing out his faults (and he still did want to marry and consummated a marriage with a child) is for Muslims as relevant today as it ever was.

We are probably talking about a time when it was okay to sacrifice babies

are you saying that was okay too, because it was a long time ago? Of course you are not, time does not mitigate barbarism, on the alter or in the bed chamber.

True, this sets a precedent, a dangerous precedent when the highest is openly backing a decision to make telling truthful comments on the lives of religious figures is an illegal action, punishable by law.
OTHER than when it is done by another or the same religion.
Religion is not above the law, but is being afforded the privilege of being so.
WHY?

I have never been pro brexit, but after this I'm beginning to feel the sooner the better.

@LenHazell53 I smell gammon

frighteningly so