Green, unusually in this case, was not inciting hatred against gays. His statements at this Mardi Gras were perfectly reasonable. However his past record may have given the police reasonable grounds to fear that his behaviour could have led to a breach of the peace and public disorder may thereby have arisen. Green has no qualms in using his website to propergate misinformation about gays and gays in the police in particular, which itself could lead to others using violence towards gays, whether or not he deliberately sets out to incite this sort of conduct. The Human Rights Act does not entitle him to do this as he has overstepped the mark in seeking to deny gays their rights and freedoms - a prohibited act. He is entitled to say that in his opinion, penile-**** penetration (PAP) is sinful because the Bible appears to say so. Whilst his theological beliefs entitle him to condemn PAP they do not entitle him to condemn any other activity by gays on grounds of religion. Other beliefs about gays and what homosexuality entails are opinions and not faith positions. If opinions that are not faith positions, and not thereby protected speech breach the Public Order Act or OAPA he should not be protected. When a Christian or Muslim asserts gays spread disease this is not a legitimate faith position - it is personal opinion and not protected. Sadly there is a reluctance to fully test the scope of the law in this area by the DPP and CPS. The religious faith of many CPS & DPP staff may explain this reluctance to act.