Blackpool Council fined £109k for advert ban

[JJpool]

Council fined £109k for banning preacher advert - BBC News

Blackpool Council breached human rights laws by removing bus adverts for preacher Franklin Graham.

www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

Just annoying in an area desperately needing money and deprived to be fined when the people suffer more. The council afraid of the backlash from LGBT groups made a call to cancel it, now has less to spend on its people.

Poor all round?

 

[JJpool]

Blackpool has one of the worst tax collections rates in the country

Only Liverpool and Hackney had worse collection rates than Blackpool

www.lancs.live

Add that in and doesn't help the area either.

 

[Chunkylad]

Makes my p@ss boil this. Some fairy tale mentalist from the land of the oppressed has sued a council in the most deprived areas of the country as they didn’t want to advertise his bullshit.
Shouldn’t have accepted the adverts in the first place but once again, fairy tale merchants damaging the world. If it’s not Islamists treating women like it’s 1492 it’s nutters like this who without me googling I can imagine is a creationist and believes Dinosaurs are fictional beasts……

Sorry rant over

 

[rockontommy]

Council shouldn't have got involved and certainly shouldn't have pandered to the woke lot. It appears there was nowt wrong with the adverts, even if the 'seller' was a bit questionable (like 99.9% of companies btw).

 

[Lytham_fy8]

Council shouldn't have got involved and certainly shouldn't have pandered to the woke lot. It appears there was nowt wrong with the adverts, even if the 'seller' was a bit questionable (like 99.9% of companies btw).

They should have ran it but next to adverts for the LGBT community. Billy Graham wasn't the worst as far as religious nutter types go, a massive homophobe and chauvinist, he did a lot for civil rights though, quite 'woke' in that regard, no idea about his son.

Anyway, I guess that's the chance of our street being cleaned and weeded gone for another 5 years.

 

[southshorepool]

Council shouldn't have got involved and certainly shouldn't have pandered to the woke lot. It appears there was nowt wrong with the adverts, even if the 'seller' was a bit questionable (like 99.9% of companies btw).

Sometimes you have to take a stand against people who think gay people are a scourge, women are relegated to merely 'helpers' whilst believing snakes can talk.

 

[JJpool]

Yeah so a disappointing situation and the main thing is less money for Blackpool, regardless of whose to blame.

You cant always bow to pressure and cancel stuff.

I guess kind of a sign of the tricky times councils etc find themselves in, where no matter what they did they would have had someone upset.

The money should never have ben taken though, make a point yes, but don't take money away from the people who need it.

 

[rockontommy]

Sometimes you have to take a stand against people who think gay people are a scourge, women are relegated to merely 'helpers' whilst believing snakes can talk.

Not worth the £100k hit and actually the council employ expensive legal teams who are meant to keep the local authority on the right side of the law for this exact reason.

 

[southshorepool]

Not worth the £100k hit and actually the council employ expensive legal teams who are meant to keep the local authority on the right side of the law for this exact reason.

And they obviously counselled them and got it wrong. They will appeal no doubt.

 

[Cuthbert]

So I am assuming this is on their own land / assets. If that is the case then the decision is a disgrace as its saying the Council cannot select what it wants to promote. The Council is democratically elected so they represent the views of the people.

 

[rockontommy]

They will appeal no doubt.

Doubt it. They've blatantly acted unlawfully, whatever you think of the yank nutjob.

 

[Blackpool Are Back!]

And they obviously counselled them and got it wrong. They will appeal no doubt.

Seems unlikely.
A costly lesson for the council.
---------------------------------------------

In a statement responding to the fine, council leader Lynn Williams said it accepted the judge's ruling.
She said the advertisements "were not in themselves offensive" but acknowledged that by removing them the council did not take into account the offence it might cause to other members of the public.
It may have suggested "that some voices should not be heard", she said.
"We sincerely apologise to the organisers of the event for the upset and inconvenience caused," she added.

The council said the fine included VAT, which it can recover, so will have a net cost of £95,000 split between the council and Blackpool Transport Services, which it operates.

​

 

[Bottle]

Maybe the Council was trying to protect its Citizens from shameless exploitation and manipulation by a bunch of scheming fraudsters pretending to have their best interests at heart - unfortunately Scott Benton and Paul Maynard both got returned to Parliament!

 

[seasiderjohn]

And they obviously counselled them and got it wrong. They will appeal no doubt.

council should sue their legal team for bad advice

 

[JJpool]

Doubt it. They've blatantly acted unlawfully, whatever you think of the yank nutjob.

I think the might of Jesus Christ our Lord and savior won't save that yank from plunging to the depths of fiery hell to pay for his sins to Satan itself!!!

I say itself as its probably not a male or female and also might sue for gender misidenficatition.

 

[Mark_GT]

These god squad cockers are some of the worst scum out there. Conning gullible people, happy to raid anyone's credit card and always quick with a call to mi learned friends when under pressure. Nearly as bad as freeloading local politicians

 

[TSSeasider]

Here's the thing.

The adverts weren't discriminatory. So legal.

The bloke holds sincere Christian beliefs, and the adverts were banned beggar of those beliefs.

He was discriminated against on the grounds of his faith.

It really is that simple.

If it had been a Muslim preacher, who holds Islamic beliefs (which aren't a million miles apart regarding sexuality) the Council would have lost.

Universal rights are just that; you can't start picking and choosing the ones you want to uphold.

Stupid decision by Blackpool Council and was always going end up losing in court.

The law is pretty transparent and clear on this type of thing; just follow it.

 

[tangerinenotorange]

Here's the thing.

The adverts weren't discriminatory. So legal.

The bloke holds sincere Christian beliefs, and the adverts were banned beggar of those beliefs.

He was discriminated against on the grounds of his faith.

It really is that simple.

If it had been a Muslim preacher, who holds Islamic beliefs (which aren't a million miles apart regarding sexuality) the Council would have lost.

Universal rights are just that; you can't start picking and choosing the ones you want to uphold.

Stupid decision by Blackpool Council and was always going end up losing in court.

The law is pretty transparent and clear on this type of thing; just follow it.

Correct. The council was clearly in the wrong. Just another bad and costly council decision.

What's the nonsense about "The council said the fine included VAT, which it can recover, so will have a net cost of £95,000 split between the council and Blackpool Transport Services, which it owns."? There's no VAT on fines.

 

[TSSeasider]

Correct. The council was clearly in the wrong. Just another bad and costly council decision.

What's the nonsense about "The council said the fine included VAT, which it can recover, so will have a net cost of £95,000 split between the council and Blackpool Transport Services, which it owns."? There's no VAT on fines.

I've never heard of VAT on a fine ether; it might be VAT on some fees to collect it, but I've no idea.

I'd like to think somebody made a decision on good faith (NPI) but they are paid well to make lawful decisions and they failed.