> You realise that winning on appeal means the original conviction didn't happen right?

As previously explained I don't think the whole series of events should have happened.

The conviction was only overturned because she was diagnosed with autism. If she hadn't have been diagnosed with the condition the conviction would have stayed.

> First of all you claimed he was imprisoned for this, and he wasn't.

I never claimed he was. However he could have been and probably didn't see jail time because of the amount of publicity and support he had outside of the court.

> He chose to use the "it was just a joke bro" defence, and failed because he couldn't show that she had even seen the video.

As I said he was arrest before she could have seen it. It was clearly intended as a joke against his girlfriend. He clearly states this twice in the video, you conveniently ignore this fact. It is also convenient you don't acknowledge this or the part where he crudely photoshops a hitler tash onto his dog and plays an old horror sound effect from the 1960s television.

> He uploaded it to Youtube with the intent that it would be seen by other people, thus completing the crime.

It should not be a crime.

The other people were his mates, conveniently you ignored this when I stated it. It was obviously not intended to be seen by a large number of people. They misused a law meant for television broadcasts and applied it to youtube.

This is disingenuous interpretation of events. Again you are being disingenuous because you want to be right.

> This is what was found at his original trial. He has not appealed against this finding.

He did file appeals, they were rejected and if you read the rejections their reasoning was ridiculous. Also the courts reading of the situation is obvious bullshit. He had 8 subscribers when he posted the video (I know because I saw the reddit thread that made the video go viral) and I remember seeing his subscriber count at the time. Those people were most likely his mates.

Again this is disingenuous interpretation of events.

> You claimed he'd been imprisoned for it and he hasn't.

I never claimed this.

> You still haven't named the cases. You're getting the genre wrong btw, it's drill not grime.

It like saying modern R'n'B and Garage are different. They are basically the same beats played at a different speed with a slightly different style.

They Drill, Grime etc are all basically people rapping over a beat and is pretty much just Hip Hop really. This is a silly point to make.

> and they were imprisoned for breaking an injunction that was aimed at tackling gang violence: they made credible death threats to other members of gangs.

The injunction should not exist, it will be another thing that will be abused by the police. As for credible threats of violence Rappers used to make threats against each other all the time back in the 1980s.

In the album Hijack "The Horns of Jericho", the rapper is instructing a man with a sword to abduct, torture and kill Andrew Lloyd Webber. No such chain of events occurred because of the song lyrics.

The knife crime epidemic in London has nothing to do with the type of music being played. As previously stated politicians will demonise the music to distract from the real problem.

People should not be locked up for song lyrics. This is ridiculous. There is no credible threats of violence through song lyrics.

> For you to claim that these 2 cases equate to widespread human rights abuse in China is laughable.

I never said they equatable. I never claimed that. Another misrepresentation of what I said.

I think the UK is going down a very dangerous path because of these laws and I think we will eventually lead up in a similar state as what is happening in China.