Not to be pedantic but this wasn't a hate crime (despite the BBC saying otherwise). He was found guilty of malicious communication. For it to be a hate crime the prosecution would have had to prove he hated Jews.
It's farcical that we have these ridiculous laws and it's even more farcical that lower court 'judges' are deciding what is and isn't grossly offensive. The judge was right in his interpretation of the law. It's the law itself that's dumb. Ironically the way we get rid of these laws is to commit a more serious crime alongside the hate/offensive crime so that the case goes to Crown Court and a jury can nullify them. A Glaswegian jury would probably lynch the judge and prosecutor for good measure. These cases stay in the lower courts on purpose. There's no right to jury trial or legal aid (in some cases) and the defendant is likely to plead guilty to get the case over and done with. They still achieve their aim of sending their message to the rest of the population.
Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)
Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!
