Sean
Maybe it’s time to wake up to the idea that malicious and libelous postings on the Internet which include bullying with horrific outcomes are not without legal consequences. For example people post vicious material on this website every day of the week with most of it aimed at Bankers or Politicians and the posters are immune to the legal risks they are taking under current Irish law both of a civil and criminal nature.

Yer warned!

@Garry: This is relevant to this story how exactly? As far as I’m aware this boy didn’t break any law, he simply expressed himself. Not everyone has to believe in the poppy or what it stands for. Isn’t that one of the first key principles of democracy?

@ mark. You r right about not everybody having to believe or support the poppy but IMHO that does not give one the right to be disrespectful.

What about freedom of expression, Garry? It’s one of the most important freedoms in any society. You can see from the extract from that 1988 act that the intention was to prevent someone harassing an individual. But this guy put up a facebook posting so unless he has only one FB friend, he’s clearly not targeting anybody for harassment. We mightn’t agree with what he did, but that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t have a right to do it. There are several necessary protections against abuse of freedom of expression, such as incitement to hatred libel/slander legislation. But nobody has a right not to be offended.

I would love to know what was said and where it was posted but to arrest somebody for voicing a different opinion to the status quo is a step to far. In this world of political correctness it literally is becoming illegal to cause offense to somebody and i really believe that people who are so outraged and so hurt by what strangers say on Facebook or Youtube or whatever message boards need to take a good hard look at their lives. If you’re that insecure about what strangers you’ll never meet are saying on websites that only exist inside wires and computers then maybe its time to log off and go spend some time with you’re friends and family in the real world

I really think its a non issue. He wants to spent money for a poppy and burn it, so be it.
For the police to get involved is plain absurd!

Actually Jane, we do have the right to be disrespectful and you have the right to be offended by that, however you’re wounded feelings have no rights

@ Jane everyone has the right to be disrespectful. Everyone also has the right to feel offended. The idea that everyone has the right not to be offended is ridiculous though. Such a right would require everyone in society to live their lives while making sure that they offend no one. Imagine the consequences for political discourse, or any discourse for that matter, in society.

@jane…you cannot be serious if you think the kid should get arrested for being disrespectful??? I’ve just disrespected you by finding your comment ridiculous and hilarious in equal measure…is that a siren? Uh oh…

@ Martayyy….. Seriously? Where did I say that he deserved to be arrested? If you had read my other post you would see that I believe he is an immature kid. I don’t believe he should have been arrested but neither do I think he should have shown disrespect in the manner in which he did. If you are going to try and belittle my comments at least read them properly first.

@ ciaran. You mixed up the names in your comment. It wasn’t I who said nobody had the right not to be offended.

@jane….did you just write that or am I imagining it?? Where in my reply does it state that you said it? I merely suggested that if it had entered your mental capacity that it was a crime then you my friend scribe ridiculous comments …calm down now love, or is love a disrespectful term when directed at a female?? If so, I’m on a crime spree today….

@ Ciaran, you have confused me with another poster. It wasn’t I who said that nobody has the right not to be offended.

@ Martayyy, you are being childish. I merely said that it wasn’t right to be disrespectful. You are putting words in my mouth which I did not even imply in my comment. As for you trying to insult my mental capacity Nd calling me ‘ love’ that is pathetic

Only the first sentence was for you Jane. The rest of the comment was to the thread.

@jane…now now, down with this sort of thing…nobody insulted anybody’s mental capacity, I clearly said if you let it enter your mental capacity then I find it ridiculous…awfully grumpy here on the journal today…the aul Monday blues I suppose

No Martayyy, not grumpy I just don’t suffer fools lightly. I believe people should be able to express their opinions without somebody like you coming on a berating and belittling them. Have a pleasant afternoon.

No Martayyy, not grumpy. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me but I do mind people passing comments without fully understanding the original opinion. Have a pleasant afternoon

@jane…I’m already having a blinder love ;)

Ah he’re… Leave it out!

Agreed.

#blamejamesmcclean

‘Malicious Communications Act – worst punishment is 6 months in jail

Punishment for blasphemy under sharia – Depending on the particular branch of islam, the worst punishment is death by stoning.

So they don’t really compare. I agree that this kind of thing is starting to get pretty worrying though. You shouldn’t be able to imprison someone for causing offence or hurting someones feelings. There far more people deserving of jail time.

Don’t forget guys Ireland has a Blasphemy law, you too can be jailed for saying back things about religions….though its not happened yet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Ta, your majesty..

But don’t forget that offending the martial gods can result in rendition, torture, judicial execution on suspicion or trial for treason, as with Bradley Manning, Assange, Vanunu..or summary execution by drone just for being a neighbouring villager.

Mark Downes et al

The idea that people are entitled to “Freedom of Expression” is rather silly when those freedoms are abused by slanderous conduct or harassment which we see frequently on these pages and particularly as far as politicians and bankers are concerned. The idea that these people should be thick skinned is a form of stupid justification frequently expressed on these pages. Say that to the young people who in recent weeks have taken horrific steps to protect themselves from these brave digital warriors.
Read the foregoing and the self righteous crap that they spout to allow them continue their disgusting behavior.

‘..self-righteous crap they spout …’, Garry?

You do a bit.

Go and iron your big blue blouse…we have a job for you in the politburo; you’re taking over from Colonel Quaggy Mires at Pravda.

You’ve passed the audition. Your comparison of the burning of a military symbol used to justify the mercenary imperial wars hypocritically commemorated while covertly glorifying its values with recent tragic events represents services to cupidity above and beyond the call of queanly duty.
Take a bow.
Censorship is always at the cutting edge of fascistic ideation.

Mark Vieregge.
“as far as I know this boy didn’t break any laws”…….well you see Mark the British police don’t agree with you and it’s their function to uphold the law. I’m sorry but I would prefer that people who use the Internet to abuse, harass, intimidate and bully others need to get their come uppance and perhaps if we behave just a bit more like the UK police , we wouldn’t have lost some of our children to desperate acts of self violence in the past few weeks. Act first Mark and apologise later should become our normal form of behavior.
Have a look at the way people on these pages describe bankers and politicians and tell me that this is acceptable in a decent society. According to critics our Taoiseach is regularly accused of being a traitor and a corrupt politician. Is that acceptable because the medium is electronic or because Mr Kenny should be thick skinned.

‘..act first… and apologise later should become our normal form of behaviour.’

Nicely put, Garry.

I’ve been wondering how long it would take before our 21st century Generalissimo O’Duffy School of Jackboot Philosophy would wheel out its vocalisers.

Which cumann of FG is your bunker lodged in?Or are you just freelancing in hopes of a career with Kaiser Dermo, or some new Fingers on the invisible hand of the sacred market?Let me guess, young FG students unionist?

Under Sharia Blasphemy Law, you’d get your head or balls lopped off.

Whereas under Garrya Law…you’d get Guantanamoed or droned out on suspicion of upsetting a banker..

or (c) enforce state censorship and punishment as we don’t really live in a free world with a right to free speach.

is this a problem of self making with so many immagrants years ago coming to England not adopting the host country values and fully intergrating with English

posted before finishing.

….. society and generations later still not adopting the host country values.

Anyone else see the irony….” Those soldiers fought and died for your freedom, now get in the cell”

What has WW1, for which the poppy originates, got to do free speech or democracy? It was an imperial chess game- nothing nobler.

Despite the overt imperial nature of the First World War, that conflict was fought against a kind of militaristic ideology that was completely incompatible with the parliamentary democracies that had developed during the previous two to three centuries. That war had everything to do with democracy, even if it does not appear so on the surface.

Iran and then maybe China or Russia or both. Was watching American coverage of the NFL last night and the amount of war propaganda was sickening, have no doubt we are heading for world conflict as all the signs are there as its the best depression buster for the rich old white men, blow everything up and build it again. As for poppy day, i think Harry Patch, the last British veteran of WW1, said it best” Its the best day of the year for warmongers and arms companies to network”.

Perspective, gentlemen, please! No lives have been lost, no goods stolen nor property damaged. You’d hear and see more offensive in any pub in the country on a weekend. There’s a contingent on here whose almost continual refrain, irrespective if the crime is as minor as throwing a cigarette butt on the ground start howling for life imprisonment and a thrashing for the perpetrators.

It costs 90k to keep someone in prison for a year, yet some of you want to jail half the population for looking askance or not saying their prayers at night. Cop on.

He could have been more tactful and chosen another. Day To do it on the 11th November, he was being deliberately offensive, as opposed to demonstrating. We have 364 other days to spare on which to demonstrate.

Bad taste or not; the right to protest is either a right or it is not.

Absolutely, Colm. This chap wasn’t protesting in any coherent way, though, he was just being deliberately offensive in order to get attention.

Granted that he shouldn’t have been arrested for this, though. Oddly excessive.

Are you even subject to UK law?

Your attempt to belittle me offends me.

I’m not belittling you, if you aren’t subject to a law your attitude to it is somewhat academic.

“a tradition that I believe was started by General Haig”

It wasn’t.

It was started by his wife, they were called Haig’s Poppies!!!

Ironic that a poppy is used to remember the dead of the British army, because it is around the 150th anniversary of the second opium wars. Opium is made from poppies and Britain fought a war with China because they wanted to force Chinese people to buy opium off them, and the Chinese state wanted to ban it because of the amount of opium addicts it had!

No, it was started by an American woman called Moina Michael in 1918, it was only picked up in the UK 3 years later.

In Flanders Field was a poem by a Canadian called John McCrae after the death of his friend Alexis Helmer.

Opium is made from a different variety of poppy.

Maybe so…

But the tradition really kicks off after the construction of Haig’s poppy factory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppy_Factory#Lady_Haig.27s_Poppy_Factory

No, not maybe, actually.

@ Damocles, well put.

The original mass wearing of poppies, which I was referring to, was started by Lady Haig, and it was called the Lady Haig appeal according to Robert Fisk.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-do-those-who-flaunt-the-poppy-on-their-lapels-know-that-they-mock-the-war-dead-6257416.html

I think I trust a world class journalist over an idiot like you any day!

You’ve gone from “started by General Haig” to “mass adoption by the UK through the patronage of General Haig”.

http://www.greatwar.co.uk/article/remembrance-poppy.htm

The fund that the poppies raise money for was started by Field Marshal Douglas Haig in 1921, it was called the Haig fund. The factory for producing them was set up by his wife. Really Damocles you can only nit pick at my comments to avoid the core point of it, that is that the poppies glorify war and that the only correct way of remembering WW1 is as a massive waste of life.

“the poppies glorify war”

No. They mark the remembrance of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the many. That’s why I wear mine, in remembrance of two generations of my family who put themselves in harm’s way so that I can sit here in relative freedom in this fluffy office and argue the toss on the internet.

The “ultimate sacrifice for the good of many,” seriously what planet do you live on???? Oh so the mask has slipped now, you do believe it was a war for freedom! And therefore worth glorifying. You’d want to have some serious blinkers on to believe that. No wonder you nit-picked at my comments because you have no argument at all. Freedom?

The UK didn’t even have universal suffrage at that time. Good on your ancestors for saving you from the hun!!! What freedom did the people who were occupied by the British empire have?

Ironically, when your family was out fighting for the British empire my grandfather and grand-uncle were shooting them, probably more of an argument for them having put themselves in harm’s way for our relative freedom.

Your forefathers fought for Germany?

No they fought in the war of independence.

My grandfather was in Egypt and East Africa during the great war, during your war of independence he was in South Africa and no longer with the Army. It’s reasonably unlikely that your grand father and great uncle were shooting at him.

Seriously, I wasn’t been literal, even if they were in Ireland its unlikely they were shooting at them. I’m just saying we have those sort of people to thank for our relative freedom.

All I’m saying is that whatever the narrative you choose ascribe to the wearing of poppies (which I personally believe to be selective and erroneous, but that’s by the by) I know what my forebears did in those two conflicts and I understand why and I honour them by wearing that poppy. That’s a matter for me. I don’t try to force you to wear it so I don’t know why you choose to ascribe all sorts of motivations to me or to them. My freedom came to me from the sacrifice of those who came before me, as yours does from those who came before you. I honour mine as I’m sure you honour yours.

As far as this burning is concerned it’s at one level a simple regard for people’s traditions. When England’s playing Ireland you don’t chitter and chatter through our anthem any more than I do through yours. Because it’s impolite to piss on the traditions of others. This guy burned this poppy and made his post as a simple and calculated attempt to cause offence. Whatever your narrative, do you agree with that?

I’d quite happily p*ss on your tradition, because the British Empire was an oppressive empire, I’d quite happily burn the Union Jack (and your poppies) because it is the butchers apron. Traditions stand in the way of truth. If thats the tradition you defend, i.e. one of defending the most brutal empire that ever existed and one of glorfying one of the most brutal wars ever, I have no prob offending you.

“I’d quite happily p*ss on your tradition”

And there we see the difference between you and I.

The sun never set, but the blood never dried.

Damocles. I wonder what the Egyptians and East Africans thought about your fore fathers fighting in their countries at that time and about what they thought about those freedom loving occupiers who were there both before and after the conflict?

Yes, that is incredibly ironic.

We seem to be dealing with an imbecile. The Irish War of Independence was necessary and right, I don’t think anyone disputes that. However, to look at the early 20th Century world wars in such a two dimensional and frankly, idiotic, fashion (this is 2012, I think), is pathetically narrow. This moron wouldn’t even have the luxury of bitching about the Brits. He would be too busy getting thrashed in order to produce more and more food for whatever grotesque militarised monster would be running things. You are intoxicated by such a luxurious freedom, sir, you are not even aware of it.

Sorry, that was a direct response to Dave Gaughran. I have rarely read such poorly informed drivel as this. Again, be grateful for your freedoms. The Irish War of Independence would have been entirely irrelevant if those against which the Allies fought had won either of the world wars. We have little idea how lucky all of us are.

Spencer. The second world war was indeed a war against tyranny, though the allies were part of the cause of that conflict. The first world war was far more nebulas. It is illogical to describe the conflict as democracy vs militarism. The Germans were seen as militaristic even though though they merely mirrored British in building up a navy and grabbing colonies. The war was essentially imperialist and capitalist.

Exactly, and all the more reason to understand that young people can by nature be impetuous – arresting and charging him is shameful…

There’s a 24 year old act there – the police are obliged to investigate under the law.

I don’t think we can assume that this guy is immature. We don’t yet know what the “offensive” comment was. This guy could be a complete neo-nazi or could actually have a very mature world view and have a genuine, honest and valid point behind what he has posted.

At this point, who knows – regardless, that act is absolutely a joke in itself. We need free speech now more than ever.

Anyone of the age 18 or over is considered an adult under UK law.

It’s an outdated law that doesn’t quite grasp the new mediums that are out there. It’s very inequitable too – I’m sure you’d hear worse in any pub of a Friday night.

And aside from anything else it’s an awful waste of money.

It is also the soldier who without question is prepared to commit the most heinous crimes at the behest of his masters.

Jingoistic, self-serving and anti-democratic rubbish designed to recruit young men into dehumanising armies.

I used both ‘man’ and ‘teenager’ in the piece to describe him. Generally ‘man’ is used to refer to someone who is over 18 (and similarly ‘woman’ is used for the female equivalent) because ‘boy’ isn’t accurate.

It depends on what he would be burning the cross for?

Probably the same reason… Attention

Why? Yes it is disrespectful and the person should be pulled up on it. But imprisonment is a bit overkill in this situation. Can you imagine what would happen if the United States reacted every time someone burned a US flag?

Burning of anything that is likely to cause insult…be it a poppy, Union flag or Irish flag is an extremely childish and pointless act. Ignoring that kind of behaviour is generally the best response. The only thing to “worry” about it the persons who posts such pictures could be at risk of attack from members of the general public. But that is their problem.

Might as well make some use of the bible!

Because there’s a growing tendency for people to act like utter arsehats and when they’re pulled up on this they squeal “Ooh it’s my freedom of speech”.

Well I don’t know about yours but my forefathers didn’t put their lives on the line so that pointless little tools could act like imbeciles and then squeal “Ooh it’s my freedom of speech” and use that as a sort of cover all excuse to get away with it.

If you want freedom of speech you better take the responsibility that goes with it.

If you’ve got a problem with what I say, for instance, then tell me and I’ll back up what I say and if your argument is sufficiently compelling I might even change my mind. If you don’t want to challenge me directly you can click on the “report this comment” link and complain to the site owners. If they want to remove my comment because they think it renders them liable to prosecution or something then that’s their call. And I’ll take my lumps and live with the deletion and I won’t start squealing “Ooh you can’t do that, I’ve got rights”, because unlike some people I appreciate the responsibilities that go with those rights and I appreciate what my rights actually are.

nope, Damocles, you’re fully entitled to your opinion.

But so is the kid to his. Lighten up.

Well actually your forefathers probably did put their lives on the line so little tools could do exactly that, they probably would have worded it slightly better than that but i suppose when they putting their lives on the line we were still speaking the Queens English. So i wear the poppy and thank your forefathers for our limited vocabulary.

And this man is equally entitled to the repsonsibilty that goes with his actions and the full measure of the law, Damien.

People will be idiots. I’m not saying they should go without punishment…I’m just saying that imprisonment is a bit much which I presume is what you meant by throw the book at them, as in give them the full punishment.

Putting a 19 year old lad in jail for 6 months over something that he did to be cool or make some misguided political statement is pretty short sighted. It could ruin the rest future and set him on a path for much worse things. By all means, he should receive a fine or be sent on community service or make him join the TA…some sort of punishment is required. I’m just saying he won’t really learn anything from it and it will cost the tax payer more money than it is worth. The kid is barely out of school and probably just an immature little shit.

Nearly everybody in Ireland has a relation who fought for the British Army. I’m glad I could wear a poppy without much hassle this weekend because I have a number of relations from all generations who served and also have a friend on deployment at the moment.

Is it illegal to burn a poppy then?

Allow me ‘..throw a book at you..’, Damocles.

Catch 22.

Showing this man the full measure of the law will provide an example to others who would do the same. A slap on the wrist won’t do much at all.

And if he doesn’t like it, maybe he should have thought a little before he did it.

David, I suspect I have slightly more insight into the motivations of my forebears than you. After all, I’ve met them.

Damocles – your argument could be seen the other way too.

If this, or any, controversial comment/image is posted and someone says it’s freedom of speech then law can undermine a valid point by calling the person a bullsh**ter and hiding behind freedom of speech.

At some point, laws which might intend to reasonably act on hate messages etc fail because they become too strong, are abused by enforcers or rubbished by “offenders”.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and even when the majority would agree that a particular message might be very hard to justify under freedom of speech, generally debate exists and values like freedom of speech persist.

As for the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech, far too often people jump to take offense and take the easy way out in terms of tackling the origins of certain beliefs. Our time would be far better spent engaging with the social origins & impact of such messages.

I’m sure you’ve heard this before, it’s very very true: offense is taken, not given.

A contradiction on this:
“muslim thugs burn poppies” as a headline in a british newspaper today.

“I’m sure you’ve heard this before, it’s very very true: offense is taken, not given.”

But were talking about a malicious act with an offensive comment included. Whether offence is taken or not, it’s certainly intended. If someone acts unpleasantly and with malice of forethought then they should be taken to task for it and when they squeal “Ooh it’s my freedom of speech” that shouldn’t be a get out clause.

Say someone, in a spirit of rather malicious satire, set up a website asking for donations to buy potatoes for impoverished Irish children whose parents are restricted by the recession to only being able to spend less than 200 euros on them each this Christmas. Can you see there not being a rather massive amount of self righteous ire, indignation and calls for it to be taken down?

I would find that quite funny actually – and not at all offensive.

Unless of course they actually were taking money from people – at that point I’d need some proof that it wasn’t a scam and was getting the money to where they said they would.

And you’re making assumptions:
“But were talking about a malicious act with an offensive comment included” assumes that the intent was malicious and not making a genuine point (I could list some that I could see in the act of burning a poppy but I won’t because I won’t make assumptions on it).
As for the comment being offensive – maybe it was, but to who? Maybe offense is deserved sometimes? Maybe it’s offensive to the hyper-sensitive? None of us have seen the comment – perhaps it was genuinely inciting hatred or something – the point is, we don’t know and to blanket it that way is just mad.

“I would find that quite funny actually – and not at all offensive.”

And you think that would be the majority view? Yeah, right.

It’s for the law to determine if it was malicious and prosecute accordingly. But generally people don’t post abusive and provocative things without some malicious intent.

No, I agree it probably wouldn’t be the majority view. But satisfying the majority is not what freedom of speech is about.

Incidentally the words he used starts with c and rhymes with hunts. I believe that word is universally considered offensive.

“satisfying the majority is not what freedom of speech is about.”

Neatly dodging the question.

Can you see there not being a rather massive amount of self righteous ire, indignation and calls for such a site to be taken down?

Don’t know where my comment went there….

I didn’t avoid the question Damocles. I VOIDED it.

Free speech needs to exist – it’s that simple. If there is broad indignation and anger that does not mean that the majority have seen the point.

In the isolated example you give then yes, there would be widespread ire.

I’m not in favour of silencing people over a single specific incident that people may or may not understand. Nor am I in favour of any law that would restrict people expressing their opinion no matter how distasteful or hate filled that might be.

@Damocles
Your c-word illustrates the subjective nature of the issue. It perfectly illustrates the perversity of a culture that finds the female organ, from which we all were conceived into existence, a target for association with denigration and offense..while being unfluttered by the word GUN or Drone or bullet or war..instruments and words of homicidal design and premeditated intent. And your sacred poppy is being cynically used to recruit for the maintainance and reinforcement of that parasitic war-culture. I find the poppy offensive. But I ain’t singing and dancing about it.
Destruction is venerated while the generative act and its organs of operation are vilified. We are not even primitive. We are degenerate.
I can write tank or napalm or nuclear bomb and no offense is taken. If I called you a bullet down the pub you’d laugh. But I probably cannot even write your word on the Journal. Insane. Collectively and culturally.

So its not entirely ‘universal’. Lock me up.

“Lock me up.” With or without your thesaurus?

“Free speech needs to exist”, and it does, but this isn’t a free speech issue. This is some little tool who knew that his language was almost universally offensive (except to people like Damian), who knew that the act of burning a poppy was going to cause offence, doing something malicious and unpleasant in the full knowledge that if he was brought to book for it was going to be able to squeal “Ooh it’s my freedom of speech” and knew that a million damp liberals would stand up for him whether he cares about freedom of speech or not. In fact the only way that this is about freedom of speech is the way in which this man is urinating on it.

I could take offence at that facetious and supercillious remark, D…but can’t be arsed(I hope I will be forgiven for not substituting a longer term).

I suspect you are looking for offense.

Sorry. Nil point.

..and quit with the big wurdz like malicious and urinating.

Congratualtiuons, by the way, on your telepathic insights into motivation.

Most impressive.

“I suspect you are looking for offense.”

Nope. I’m not overly offended by the term myself but it is considered to be universally offensive. I tend to use the retorts “At least c***s are useful.”, or the excellent “I’d say the same of you but you have neither the depth nor the capacity to please”. I do think that gratuitous swearing tends to show the paucity of a person’s argument, though.

‘paucity’ no less…how very unBritish.

If they arrest many more people under this ridiculous travesty of a law, surely public interest will educate itself as to what a proxy server is. Then it’s good night Vienna for the thought police.

“surely public interest will educate itself as to what a proxy server is. ”

Not much use when you post it under your real name in facebook.

Damocles. You might be happy to live within the strictures of what you imagine your fore-fathers fought for, but I for one, would prefer to help shape the society in which I live today, based on my values. Freedom of expression for me is crucial to democracy.

The responsibilities that accompany rights argument does not apply in this case. It was his facebook page which functioned like a blog. If the guy had sent hate mail to elderly war widows I could understand him being arrested, but what he did was make a political statement through aesthetic means in a semi public space.

It reminds me of Jasper Johns American flags or Jimi Hendrix’s Star Spangled Banner.

Damocles your potato analogy is weak- many calls to take it down may follow but few people would argue that the person should be arrested for creating the website.

“our potato analogy is weak”, Well we all recall the Daley Thompson and Daily Telegraph incidents during the Olympics, they showed how people here don’t over react to an incident at all.

“The responsibilities that accompany rights argument does not apply in this case.”, It does. He may have the right to put things on facebook, but he has the responsibility to front up to the consequences too.

If I burned Easter Lilies and on being confonted came out with some half baked nonsense about it being in protest at Gerry Adams’ refusal to acknowledge his role in the IRA no one would give me the time of day, and rightly so.

But Daley Thompson wasn’t arrested and nor should you be, in my opinion, is you say what ever you like about Gerry Adams or do whatever you like with the lily. That’s the point.