Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
It's getting ridiculous.
For spreading hatred and negativity against Carly Rae Jepsen.
Though it was fair dos.
(but yeah, this is ridiculous and scary).
I mean, they can't arrest all of us, and it might set a new precedent.
remember when Nick Griffin got arrested for tweeting the address of that gay couple who won their case against the discriminating B&B owners and inciting a 'British Justice Team' to go and give them some 'drama' ??
how we all cheered that time
Maybe because Nick Griffin was never arrested over this. The police investigated the tweets after they received complaints (because they have to do that) and his Twitter account was suspended, but that was the end of it. No charges. Nothing.
is blatantly worse than saying or doing things over the Internet that, though intentionally offensive, doesn't necessarily hurt anybody.
Whether on the internet or real life, there is an important between someone making a general offensive joke or statement and someone explicitly/implicitly threatening someone directly. If someone makes comments that makes someone reasonably believe their physical safety is at risk (which I think the B and B comments could have done) then the Police should investigate. Similarly if someone starts harassing someone via direct messages/posts on their Facebook page that's reasonable too.
But if someone burns a poppy or makes a sick joke about a dead child on their own Facebook page then clearly the Police have no business.
It's not (or at least it shouldn't be) a difficult, slippery slope as to what should be prosecuted and what shouldn't - it'd be pretty easy for someone to draw up clear, reasonable rules here and stop abusing a Criminal Act drawn up long before any of this was thought possible.
But its just a bit of a wind up really isn't it. I'm sure plenty of more 'criminal' things have been posted on the internet today.
But no-one listened. Now, even farting in public can be an arrestable offence.
Hopefully the amount of guff you've spouted since your return will get you life.
He did say "how about that you squaddie cunts" underneath it. Seems to aim it quite squarely at specific people, perhaps he is facebook friends with some people in the Army? Still a bit uneasy about arresting someone for this really, we shall see what happens.
I mean I can't imagine any individual squaddie would take it as being specifically about them... Even he's Facebook friends with people in the Army, I can't see how he could justifiably be arrested for it...
There can be no excuses, and zero tolerance, for disrespecting our armed forces.
But what is "disrespect" exactly. Yes burning a poppy is pretty bad, but is being anti-war disrespect? Not holding a minute's silence? Not banging on about "our boys" all the time - zero tolerance for any of those?
(but let him sign up again with the same name).
This is a photo of the man who molested you? That's Lord McAlpine!
Oh sorry, we were joking, it wasn't Lord McAlpine. Anyway, shhh. I don't think anyone's noticed.
uh, anyway what we talking about again? Something about some old 70's TV show or some old tory politicians or something i don't remember. MOVING ON...
that he posted that put the film into context and made them realise that it was meant to inflame, rather than a protest against any glorification (i.e. the quite legitimate protesting that its better to honour the dead by trying to reduce the number of unecessary casualties)
Again I think that the police can arrest if they believe that something is lilkely tpo cause a breech of the peace, (although they didnt use this bit of law exactly, i think that this might be what is in mind)
All sides of the media are disappointingly full of commentaries that fail to recognise the difference between saying and being 'allowed' to say "well the poppy appeal has become a bit tiresome really, I don't agree with it" and "haha look what I'm doing purely to piss you off because of what you think you cunts, I'm devaluing an issue on which you place import, lalalala, FUCK YOU, wheeee".
Essentially picking this fool up is no different to Theo deleting the russian trolls threads. It's some poor sod choosing to fuck people off purely for the sake of fucking people off, because they have a handy issue to exploit and access to a communications media enabling them to do so.
and the likelyhood is that it was to an extent where if squaddies were to know who he was they would punch him, so I guess the 'malicious communications' thing is like 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace'
by accident, because he was just so drunk, obviously there was no intent there, here there is,
I think that its not unreasonable that authorities might wish to prevent members of the public deliberately starting a fight, when there appears to be no benefit that would come of it.
now where squaddies/rugby clubs etc are the likely target of a malicious communication there's probably a breach of the peace consequence by nature and reputation, but the law is focused on the intent, not any speculative Angry Mob-esque outcome
I'd agree it'd be fair enough to ban someone from Facebook for that. I'm just far from convinced police action is required.
any more than it's the postal services function to check the content of the letters it delivers
I need to know if I should be outraged or not. Can't a tabloid tell me or something?
I lived in the same halls as the guy who pissed on the war memorial in Sheffield (never met him) but we had to have police 'on guard' there for a few days, it was just silly. I think he got treated harshly tbh.
As for this, a completely sober person taking the time and effort to burn it, take a picture and upload it? Idiot is asking for it.
Don't know what they're whinging about.
people could so easily undermine whatever point he's trying to make by just saying that. it's way more effective than the borderline self-parody of tabloidy outrage, too.