Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

Count Dankula fined but no custodial sentence.
Idiot tax set at £800.
Cheap considering how much world wide attention he got for his comedy channel.
He must be delighted.

So you agree its a bad law then.

Glad to see you coming around.

Not really, I am happy to see he got fined but a custodial sentence would have been too much.
I don't want to see an end to offensive jokes but I think there are boundaries which shouldn't be crossed. This case crossed a boundary IMO.

Edit, I have said all along that I didn't want to see him sent down and that I thought he would receive a small fine. £800 is a larger fine than I expected but I'm sure his supporters in the EDL would have a whip round to pay it for him if he asked them to.
Those panic monkeys who talked of 5 year sentences and totalitarian states are free to admit they were wrong now...

[de officiis]

The problem with your rule is that its boundaries are only known retrospectively.

[nmoore63]

Count Dankula fined but no custodial sentence.
Idiot tax set at £800.
Cheap considering how much world wide attention he got for his comedy channel.
He must be delighted.

So you agree its a bad law then.

Glad to see you coming around.

Not really, I am happy to see he got fined but a custodial sentence would have been too much.
I don't want to see an end to offensive jokes but I think there are boundaries which shouldn't be crossed. This case crossed a boundary IMO.

Edit, I have said all along that I didn't want to see him sent down and that I thought he would receive a small fine. £800 is a larger fine than I expected but I'm sure his supporters in the EDL would have a whip round to pay it for him if he asked them to.
Those panic monkeys who talked of 5 year sentences and totalitarian states are free to admit they were wrong now...

From your prior response, you seem to be implying that you think the criminal recieved more benefit from the crime than punishment.

Seems like definition of bad law.

[Montegriffo]

The problem with your rule is that its boundaries are only known retrospectively.

Ignorance is no defence in law.

Words can have consequences. 800 consequences in this case. This particular boundary has now been defined.

[nmoore63]

The problem with your rule is that its boundaries are only known retrospectively.

Ignorance is no defence in law.

Words can have consequences. 800 consequences in this case. This particular boundary has now been defined.

In the United States, the law being vague IS defense against the law.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Not difficult to do in SQL, actually... You could set up a stored proc to run this process nightly.

Yes, almost done with that. I had 80 data fields that store an employee ID.

There's no sql, though, that will scan documents attached to the database for names of employees and their company name that will automatically tap into some system that will tell the sql if the person who signed the contract still works for our client;.

That's the task I was originally told I had to accomplish, but they've backed down on that. The sql part is easy.

How are they ‘attached to the database’? You mean there’s a reference number or file location stored in a field?

You may have use some Visual Basic or XML code, but you could set up a keyword scanner to be kicked off by your stored proc.

[Montegriffo]

So you agree its a bad law then.

Glad to see you coming around.

Not really, I am happy to see he got fined but a custodial sentence would have been too much.
I don't want to see an end to offensive jokes but I think there are boundaries which shouldn't be crossed. This case crossed a boundary IMO.

Edit, I have said all along that I didn't want to see him sent down and that I thought he would receive a small fine. £800 is a larger fine than I expected but I'm sure his supporters in the EDL would have a whip round to pay it for him if he asked them to.
Those panic monkeys who talked of 5 year sentences and totalitarian states are free to admit they were wrong now...

From your prior response, you seem to be implying that you think the criminal recieved more benefit from the crime than punishment.

Seems like definition of bad law.

Well I do think that it's unfortunate that he will likely profit from breaking the law but that doesn't mean I think he should have been free to post anti semetic videos. I don't believe his story about playing a prank on his GF, I think it was a cynical attempt to gain hits for his comedy channel.

[Speaker to Animals]

He made a joke, Monty, and to prosecute him your government had to literally defend Nazis.

[nmoore63]

Not really, I am happy to see he got fined but a custodial sentence would have been too much.
I don't want to see an end to offensive jokes but I think there are boundaries which shouldn't be crossed. This case crossed a boundary IMO.

Edit, I have said all along that I didn't want to see him sent down and that I thought he would receive a small fine. £800 is a larger fine than I expected but I'm sure his supporters in the EDL would have a whip round to pay it for him if he asked them to.
Those panic monkeys who talked of 5 year sentences and totalitarian states are free to admit they were wrong now...

From your prior response, you seem to be implying that you think the criminal recieved more benefit from the crime than punishment.

Seems like definition of bad law.

Well I do think that it's unfortunate that he will likely profit from breaking the law but that doesn't mean I think he should have been free to post anti semetic videos. I don't believe his story about playing a prank on his GF, I think it was a cynical attempt to gain hits for his comedy channel.

That is my point.
It seems to me you are making the case for a harsher punishment.

[BjornP]

Well I do think that it's unfortunate that he will likely profit from breaking the law but that doesn't mean I think he should have been free to post anti semetic videos.

Are the Nazi sketches and references in Monthy Python and Fawlty Towers also not allowed to be broadcast in Britain anymore?