Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst

wrote:
Man hit woman who called him a paedophile

snip

Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman.

That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me.

Man is insulted and provoked. Assaults person who insulted him
causing ABH, and is convicted of assault, with close to the minimum
sentence for such an offence (presumably the provocation being
considered a mitigating factor).

Happens every day, and the fact that the specific insult was to call
him a paedophile seems of only very minor interest.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I went to the Net and all I got was this stupid tagline.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

You think?

"Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman. "

Why would someone take exception to being called a 'paedophile' and
why would that warrant some kind of mitigation?

That's easy. It is a huge stigma to be labelled as a paedophile - the
merest suggestion that a person is a paedophile would be enough to cause
bystanders to inflict physical violence upon them.

Whether or not the insult was justified, it must warrant mitigation just as
if the insult had been "Thief!".



Would one be so offended if they were called a 'depressive' or
'broken- legged'?

No, I really don't think so.