> There is no c) bullet point,

I was giving an example of the format. That you think that it is necessary for a c) to exist for the example to be valid belies your absurd lack of understanding of the subject matter, whether incidental or willful.

And that doesn't even matter, because the text of the a) part explicitly says or at the end:

> (a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III/crossh...

It clearly is not disingenuous nor deceptive to clip out a) when I highlighted the b) part explicitly showing that it was merely one bullet point, and that a) contains or at the end (meaning that you do not have to commit the behavior described in a to be guilty under the statute). I was being helpful, showing only the relevant parts of the statute for readers that don't want to waste their time. You responded by posting more legalese not relevant to the point, potentially maliciously to try to complicate and confuse readers.

"Admitted" in journalist speak means he pled guilty. It doesn't lend credence to the idea this idea:

> "with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him..."

There's no way to go from "they should not be allowed to live here" to the idea that he is making people subject to "immediate unlawful violence". I stand in awe that there is anyone that can argue that with a straight face. This thread is about whether the statute covers behavior that is violently threatening. Admitted spreading of "racial hatred" in the form of simple statements opposed to migrant presence is not violent or threatening. It is an inherently peaceful form of political lobbying.