Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
For fuck's sake.
I probably shouldn't have tweeted them though...
at least I now know not to bring any spuds back with me from my holidays.
sounds like a shit mafia boss
Same sort of thing, really. pre-dates this recession, in fact.
Who all check their Twitter feed every morning in order to feel safe when they leave their house in rural Mid Sussex
I had to meet someone who is a Tory local councillor a couple of weeks back. For some reason he felt it necessary to tell me about how he "had to move house after some blacks moved in next door".
The use of the words "suspected immigration offenders" and publication of photos of alleged suspects, which according to some legal experts this appears to contravene the 1982 contempt of court act by suggesting people are guilty of a crime before trial
Sends a fucking chill down my spine. eugh.
It's just the Home Office tweeting about what its day job: arresting suspected criminals.
I've never seen their twitter feed before, but I can't imagine anyone would be fussed if they were tweeting about the number of suspected drug dealers they've arrested broken down by region, or similar. Why is this any different?
if it was done in the same way: publishing photos of suspects and calling them "offenders" prior to charges/trial
according to the twitter feed at least.
do not engage moments?
The use of the word "offenders" is potentially breaking the law
I'm not so sure. They report about suspected/alleged criminals in the news all the time, often directly naming them and showing a clear picture of them, not the anonymous blurred out photos the Home Office are tweeting.
makes a presumption of guilt
Known as the "strict liability rule"
Contempt of court act 1981
From the act:
"Subject to this section a person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith."
I would agree that the tweets are a bit off but they're not against the law
like this one
and the use of "suspected" is not a "get out"
Didn't see the tweets that didn't have the "suspected" attached tbf. In those cases it is against the law.
He clearly says several times that the use of suspected is NOT a get out
That guy just saying that the word is not a get out without backing it up doesn't mean he's right. Also the word is always in the media, along with accused, alleged etc.
Again, referring to the act you posted, "not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings" It is accurate to say that they are 'suspected', that is the reason they have been arrested.
Offenders is not
If the word offenders is preceded with suspected then the meaning of "offenders" changes. You can't just take a word in sentence and use it completely out of the context of the original sentence.
Again, as I've already said, the same thing is used constantly in all parts of the media. And also, as I've already said, those tweets where the word "suspected" are not used could well be against the law.
in situations where the emphasis is firmly on offenders changes the meaning of the phrase suspected offenders.
see also: illegal immigrants. immigrants all too often gets lumped in with illegal immigrants.
In terms of the 'message' that this is conveying then yes I wholeheartedly agree and I think its an extremely misguided use of a public mouthpiece. However, in the eyes of the law, it is not illegal to use the phrase 'suspected illegal immigrants'.
You're a foreigner and I've absolutely no evidence you're not over here illegally.
Better safe than sorry.
what the fuck?
you get it just fine
Where he was born.
I have a British passport. As a legal immigrant they have no interest in me.
Politically active (aka potential terrorist).
Marriage of convenience scheduled for this October.
Friends never suspected anything.
Text Sam Uel to 78070.
Now... we can do this the easy way, or the hard way.
Get in the back of the van or be put in the back of the van.
UKIP and Farage have waded in
Surprisingly suggesting that the spot checks are wrong. When you've got UKIP stating the Home Office strong stance on illegal immigration is wrong, you know you've gone too far
isn't going to gain him votes...