View Full Version : Another person arrested over some dark humour, that's what offends and distresses me
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/troll-arrested-over-april-posting-1-5002096
Again this was posted on his own Facebook page, not to a group or the page of another person. This country is filled with sensitive idiots. If you don't like what someone said then just don't listen - don't get offended and have someone branded a criminal because they didn't have your type of humour or what they say offends your sensibilities. No one should be arrested for saying anything unless it's a threat or a direct risk to someone.
If he is arrested then anyone who makes any joke at the expense of anybody should be arrested too. It's a wonder Frankie Boyle isn't serving consecutive life sentences at this point or random people from pubs.
Being offended by a dark joke like this is a true first world problem. It shows that people have so little to worry and fret about in their day-to-day lives. Yes it's in bad taste, but seriously, there's far far more serious stuff to get up-in-arms about.
It's getting ridiculous that people get arrested over these things this is just a waste of police time, a waste of a the court's time and a waste of money at every stage, especially if he ends up spending any time in prison.
What he said was "So April Jones has Cerebral Palsy. I really feel for the poor b****** - If you're going to abduct a kid you at least want a working one."
It's getting to the point where people may want to consider emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving freedom and liberty -- to China or Russia perhaps, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
Invisible
08-Oct-12, 13:32
I take it the police have never heard of Sickipedia
The whole of last week made me feel sick. Waking up to look at the news to see if she had been found and the realisation that this wee lassie was not going to be found had me in tears several times. My wee girl is three and my wee boy is five and it felt personal - close and painful. When the wee one stopped in a shop and I kept walking and turned round and she wasnt there I felt the cold hand of dread. Even my big lads knew there was something bothering me when I was texting them wanting to know if they were ok and where they were. What this man said was despicable, unkind, thoughtless and quite frankly sick. But was it criminal? No i dont think so. If he was my son I would be ashamed of him and I would be letting him know in no uncertain manner that i thought he was horrible to post something like that but to have him arrested - i dont think so.
Nice to see the police rounding up yet another troll [lol]
Big N Rich
08-Oct-12, 16:02
Nice to see the police rounding up yet another troll [lol]
Think they've missed one.
The law is unequivocal in my opinion, there are no ifs and buts.
He posted a grossly offensive electronic communication and people were grossly offended. Open and shut case.
He has got 12 weeks imprisonment for that.
Invisible
08-Oct-12, 16:36
It's a wonder Frankie Boyle isn't serving consecutive life sentences at this point or random people from pubs.
So if this guy was a stand up comedian is there a possibility he would have got away with it?
He has got 12 weeks imprisonment for that.
But is the 'crime' really worth 3 months?
In comparison to other crimes where people are physically hurt or financially damaged and the perpetrators often get off with fines of a few hundred pounds, or at worst a few hours community service. Does this justify a custodial sentence at all, never mind 3 months?
No one was injured or suffered financially, offended maybe but I doubt they will have deep emotional scars that will reduce their quality of life. After all isn't it a matter of opinion as to what is offensive, grossly offensive or a bloody stupid comment?
I was grossly offended when two scumbags damaged and broke into my property, and I have the photo evidence, but alas they seem to have gotten off without charge.
EDIT:
Lets compare this 'crime', which was after all a generalised statement rather than a direct attack at somebody (i.e. sending an offensive email to an individual) to that of an individual hurling abuse at copper because they wouldn't open a gate for them.
I don't see Andrew Mitchell getting locked up for his offensive remarks which were directed at an individual.
John Little
08-Oct-12, 18:04
It's against the law and an easy capture. Simples! (squeak)
"Improper use of public electronic communications network -
Communications Act 2003, section 127. The Communications Act 2003 section 127 covers the sending of improper messages. Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message etc that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character and should be used for indecent phone calls and emails. Section 127(2) targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; it includes somebody who persistently makes silent phone calls (usually covered with only one information because the gravamen is one of persistently telephoning rendering separate charges for each call unnecessary).
If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. The test for "grossly offensive" was stated by the House of Lords in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 to be whether the message would cause gross offence to those to whom it relates (in that case ethnic minorities), who need not be the recipients. The case also said that it is justifiable under ECHR Article 10(2) to prosecute somebody who has used the public telecommunications system to leave racist messages.
A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both. This offence is part of the fixed penalty scheme.'
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/
But is the 'crime' really worth 3 months?
I think the police are totally undermanned to police all electronic communications so I think the only course that is open to them that might make a difference is to make an example of this bloke in the hope others will be too frightened to do the same.
I take it the police have never heard of Sickipedia
It seems like they have, Sicki has been offline since Nov 2010
Invisible
08-Oct-12, 19:20
It seems like they have, Sicki has been offline since Nov 2010
sicki .org is still active, the apple app is still updated with jokes everyday
sicki .org is still active, the apple app is still updated with jokes everyday
ah ok, I looked on their twitter and the last tweet was back in 2010 and the website was down so I put 2&2 together.
3 months for a joke? fair enough its pretty tastless but the guy on the news this afternoon only got a year for videos of wee babys being abused!! thats a far more offensive joke in itself!!
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/troll-arrested-over-april-posting-1-5002096
It's getting to the point where people may want to consider emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving freedom and liberty -- to China or Russia perhaps, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
Feel free to leave if you are not happy. People tend to only respect the laws of the land when it affects them personally or it suits their argument.
Ooh, a ringpiece got banged up simply for speaking his mind. Jesus, I don't think I'll manage to sleep tonight worrying about that.
It's against the law and an easy capture. Simples! (squeak)
"Improper use of public electronic communications network -
Communications Act 2003, section 127. The Communications Act 2003 section 127 covers the sending of improper messages. Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message etc that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character and should be used for indecent phone calls and emails. Section 127(2) targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; it includes somebody who persistently makes silent phone calls (usually covered with only one information because the gravamen is one of persistently telephoning rendering separate charges for each call unnecessary).
If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. The test for "grossly offensive" was stated by the House of Lords in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 to be whether the message would cause gross offence to those to whom it relates (in that case ethnic minorities), who need not be the recipients. The case also said that it is justifiable under ECHR Article 10(2) to prosecute somebody who has used the public telecommunications system to leave racist messages.
A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both. This offence is part of the fixed penalty scheme.'
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/
Ah yes it's one of those ambiguous catch-all ambiguous anti-terrorism laws passed by fearmongering that only seems to be used against a countries citizens. Some laws are unjust regardless of what the government says.
Lots of you people should consider China, you'd all love it there. I'm just surprised we'd don't have a Handicapper General yet.
Ah yes it's one of those ambiguous catch-all ambiguous anti-terrorism laws passed by fearmongering that only seems to be used against a countries citizens. Some laws are unjust regardless of what the government says.
Lots of you people should consider China, you'd all love it there. I'm just surprised we'd don't have a Handicapper General yet.
"you people" appears to be everyone but you at the moment. Very hip, but..........
People who would express these veiws in jest are in fact sociopaths. They need help but failing that need to be watched very very closely.
"you people" appears to be everyone but you at the moment. Very hip, but..........
People who would express these veiws in jest are in fact sociopaths. They need help but failing that need to be watched very very closely.
It's a joke. The target just happens to be current. I've heard worse and nothing happens to those people. I'd bet all of us have heard worse. I've heard and read worse on the TV and in the media. There were 101 Madeleine McCann dark jokes and black humour back when that happened.
rich62_uk
09-Oct-12, 11:49
I hate the things he said I really do not think I would like him if I met him .... But 12 weeks is a bit harsh considering the punishments handed out by Judges these days.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828
Grossly Offensive Facebook comment gets community order!
A bit more realistic but is the difference in sentence due to trial by 'internet / media' or based on the ethnicity of the perpetrator?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828
Grossly Offensive Facebook comment gets community order!
A bit more realistic but is the difference in sentence due to trial by 'internet / media' or based on the ethnicity of the perpetrator?
I think it's more to do with the one that was jailed made sexual references about a five year old girl. I hope everyone who comments on here have actually read all the comments that Woods wrote about April and Madeline. There were very despicable and very upsetting and I am not one to be easily upset!! I think his penalty was about right but I would have made him serve all 12 weeks and not eight as he most certainly will do.
C3.
One concern with this piece of legislation is who decides what is 'offensive' there are no definitions in the legislation itself and two people can have radically different ideas of what they find offensive. I always like to quote this story in discussions like these: 'Mythical' swan photo taken down after 'bestiality' fears (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9232512/Mythical-swan-photo-taken-down-after-bestiality-fears.html)
This is another example or version of the Streisand effect.
When the bloke made his despicable comment, only his followers on Facebook would have been drawn to his comments or those positively given a link to follow. They would have been the ones that would have judged him, follow or unfollow. Simples
Chances are, people close to April jones would have been none the wiser. However, surely now after this high profile case, the family would be ensured to know the content of what was said on Facebook? Did the person who reported the comment to police have the feelings of all those who would be shocked in mind when they reported it?
do any of you have a heart! how would you feel if someone was writing these terrible things about your kid! lets just hope and pray little april jones is found alive and well, i cant even begin to imagine what her mother and father are going through at this point in time! :(
I have an idea about what to do with this sort of person (sociopath that proves it) A special court hearing in which the perp is required to set forth their case for belonging to and being of use to society.
If they can't even come up with a moderately good case, then it is "right sunshine, take one of these once" :eek:
Then processed into fertilizer and be useful at last. And yes, Frankie B should just get a free pass to the fertilizer plant, no need for the expense of the hearing.
There's a new component apparently one person saw the joke, copied it to a Facebook page and basically said the the people should go after him - kind of like incitement to riot, that got some people into court last year - and 50 people basically turned up at the guys house and started harassing him and demanding his arrest, nothing happened to the 50 people BTW or the original inciter that copied the guys joke to a group page.
So wait a minute, they're sending this guy to prison for 3 months, ruining his future career prospects/life because he copied a joke from Sickipedia onto his Facebook page? That's an utter disgrace & shows a complete failure in our justice system. We've now forced the guy into that zone where his only real options are crime or destitution. Over a bad joke. I'm sure this will have an overall benefit to society at large. It is quickly becoming apparent the Americans have this right. The enforcement of offence is becoming a joke and is creating real harm in resistance to imagined harm.
The 50 people who went around to his house are the ones who should be in the dock.
Here's a question if I can get together 49 other people, should I be allowed to force the arrest of someone. I'm should be surprised and disappointed that people are advocating death and torture over a bloody joke, yet sadly I'm not.
There's a new component apparently one person saw the joke, copied it to a Facebook page and basically said the the people should go after him - kind of like incitement to riot, that got some people into court last year - and 50 people basically turned up at the guys house and started harassing him and demanding his arrest, nothing happened to the 50 people BTW or the original inciter that copied the guys joke to a group page.
So wait a minute, they're sending this guy to prison for 3 months, ruining his future career prospects/life because he copied a joke from Sickipedia onto his Facebook page? That's an utter disgrace & shows a complete failure in our justice system. We've now forced the guy into that zone where his only real options are crime or destitution. Over a bad joke. I'm sure this will have an overall benefit to society at large. It is quickly becoming apparent the Americans have this right. The enforcement of offence is becoming a joke and is creating real harm in resistance to imagined harm.
The 50 people who went around to his house are the ones who should be in the dock.
Here's a question if I can get together 49 other people, should I be allowed to force the arrest of someone. I'm should be surprised and disappointed that people are advocating death and torture over a bloody joke, yet sadly I'm not.
Glad to oblige.
Ironic though, that an aspect of the internet, the ability to instantly complain and start a riot, is seen as a bad thing by the very anochist types that advocate it's unrestricted to extremes peramaters.
A double edged sword that will undoubtedly eventually self regulate by being policed by the users. Just shows that what you do on the web has consequences. I would have loved to see this guys face when 50 actual people from the real world showed up at his door :lol:
Glad to oblige.
Ironic though, that an aspect of the internet, the ability to instantly complain and start a riot, is seen as a bad thing by the very anochist types that advocate it's unrestricted to extremes peramaters.
A double edged sword that will undoubtedly eventually self regulate by being policed by the users. Just shows that what you do on the web has consequences. I would have loved to see this guys face when 50 actual people from the real world showed up at his door :lol:
Evidentially the fact I was making a comment on a double standard seems to have eluded you or you purposely choose to ignore it. I'd love to see your face when what you advocate comes to pass. Your standard go to position is any discussion that gets too deep or where your side seems to be losing appears to be to make vain attempts at being witty or flippant.
Screw it, I don't care any more. I'm just going to let people bargain again freedom and civil liberties and laugh when they finally realise what they've let happen.
Evidentially the fact I was making a comment on a double standard seems to have eluded you
So was I. :roll:
Evidentially the fact I was making a comment on a double standard seems to have eluded you or you purposely choose to ignore it. I'd love to see your face when what you advocate comes to pass. Your standard go to position is any discussion that gets too deep or where your side seems to be losing appears to be to make vain attempts at being witty or flippant.
Screw it, I don't care any more. I'm just going to let people bargain again freedom and civil liberties and laugh when they finally realise what they've let happen.
What you don't seem to understand is that a standard of behaviour exists. It isn't written in law, it is understood by normal people. (and it is developing and changing all the time) If you step beyond these bounds, people are far more likely these days to do something about it.
I blame the internet.
So trial by internet it is! But does the punishment fit the crime?
Justin Lee Collins has received a sentence of 140 hrs community service for abusing and harassing his ex partner, this guy wrote some words on the internet and got 3 months inside.
So wife beating is OK just don't write about it on the internet!
The law, in this case, isn't particularly at fault. The Justice system that delivers it is still stuck in some institutionalised dark age, with punishment meted out by computer illiterate social retards that are so far detached from reality they may as well be on another planet.
(and no doubt I'm gonna get locked up for that now)
I am not expecting many to agree with me when I say that making suggestive sexual jokes about a murdered 5 year old girl is on a level with having indecent images on your PC. Both are a form of paedophilia, both are sick and disgusting, both give pleasure to the perpetrators at the expense of children and both need to be come down heavily on by the courts. On reflection, 12 weeks is not nearly long enough and I would have given 18-24 months to Wood.
C3.
equusdriving
10-Oct-12, 20:06
I am not expecting many to agree with me when I say that making suggestive sexual jokes about a murdered 5 year old girl is on a level with having indecent images on your PC. Both are a form of paedophilia, both are sick and disgusting, both give pleasure to the perpetrators at the expense of children and both need to be come down heavily on by the courts. On reflection, 12 weeks is not nearly long enough and I would have given 18-24 months to Wood.
C3.
oh I see, its only making jokes about young sexual assault victims that give you pleasure, and the perpetrator of what seems to be growing into a huge amounts of sexual assaults on children you make light of and say they are "jumping on the wagon"
i've said it before and I will say it again you are a HYPOCRITE!
Der Flouft
11-Oct-12, 09:07
It's getting worse.
Reports are coming in that Captain Birdseye has been accused of being a paedophile, reports claim that professional hysteric's and grief addicts claim that sailing the world with a boat full of pre-pubscent children "proves it"
Whipped up by these claims professional complainers have been seen taking time off work, and reports indicate that others have even missed Jermey Kyle so they can stand outside the factory and bang on the side of trucks leaving with loads of Fish Fingers yelling "scum", Sky News have reported live from the scene of several assaults in Tesco and ASDA where frozen food shelf fillers have been assaulted amid shouts of "that's what you get for supporting that paedo". Elsewhere corwds of teary eyed women with nothing else to do have been wearing breadcrumb bracelets and holding midnight candle vigils to show their support "fir all yoose por kidies".
A man has been arrested for making an inappropriate joke involving fish fingers. The resultant mob, caused by someone who told others about the joke the man posted on his private Facebook page were only pacified when the Police arrested him under communication laws. No one from the mob was cautioned or arrested under public order offence's. No one from the mob was available for comment, well, no one coherent anyway and most had drifted away to monitor the internet for something else that might upset them.
I myself have to go now. I wish to report Rod Hull for animal abuse. Seriously, have you seen what he does to Emu with his hand ??
Stephen Fry was way ahead of you!
What you don't seem to understand is that a standard of behaviour exists. It isn't written in law, it is understood by normal people. (and it is developing and changing all the time) If you step beyond these bounds, people are far more likely these days to do something about it.
I blame the internet.
Read a tabloid there's plenty of hate speech and stuff that causes offence in that but nobody cares because these reactionary hypocrites are usually tabloid reading won't-someone-think-of-the-children types. What society considers acceptable is constantly changing and varies by region and as I've said and illustrated with the swan art story - two people could have wildly different opinions of things. This law is too ambiguous and too open to interpretation, nothing it talks about has any definitions or examples.
People get entirely too emotional about something - justice and the legal system - that is supposed to be cold, impartial and unemotional. Whatever happened to sticks and stone will break your bones but names will never hurt you.
If I got enough people together and we said we were offended by something Prince Charles said, would he be arrested? I'm tempted to do something like that just to illustrate to people in favour of this law why it's such a bad idea.
Oh and as for comparing jokes or the even the written word to pictures of paedophilia and child abuse, what the hell are those people smoking. If we expand that and someone makes a joke about murder or writes about someone dying do we equate that to murder itself.
Read a tabloid there's plenty of hate speech and stuff that causes offence in that but nobody cares because these reactionary hypocrites are usually tabloid reading won't-someone-think-of-the-children types. What society considers acceptable is constantly changing and varies by region and as I've said and illustrated with the swan art story - two people could have wildly different opinions of things. This law is too ambiguous and too open to interpretation, nothing it talks about has any definitions or examples.
People get entirely too emotional about something - justice and the legal system - that is supposed to be cold, impartial and unemotional. Whatever happened to sticks and stone will break your bones but names will never hurt you.
If I got enough people together and we said we were offended by something Prince Charles said, would he be arrested? I'm tempted to do something like that just to illustrate to people in favour of this law why it's such a bad idea.
Oh and as for comparing jokes or the even the written word to pictures of paedophilia and child abuse, what the hell are those people smoking. If we expand that and someone makes a joke about murder or writes about someone dying do we equate that to murder itself.
I doubt you have read all that Woods put on Facebook Requery. If you had I would think that you will have changed your mind about being offended by it!
Oh, and Btw..................I smoke Golden Virginia!!
C3.
equusdriving
11-Oct-12, 22:25
If you had I would think that you will have changed your mind about being offended by it!
C3.
I find it hard to believe you are offended by anything reading your sick recent posts about sexual abuse and your open support of Jimmy Saville and your location description
secrets in symmetry
11-Oct-12, 22:43
It's getting worse.
Reports are coming in that Captain Birdseye has been accused of being a paedophile, reports claim that professional hysteric's and grief addicts claim that sailing the world with a boat full of pre-pubscent children "proves it"
Whipped up by these claims professional complainers have been seen taking time off work, and reports indicate that others have even missed Jermey Kyle so they can stand outside the factory and bang on the side of trucks leaving with loads of Fish Fingers yelling "scum", Sky News have reported live from the scene of several assaults in Tesco and ASDA where frozen food shelf fillers have been assaulted amid shouts of "that's what you get for supporting that paedo". Elsewhere corwds of teary eyed women with nothing else to do have been wearing breadcrumb bracelets and holding midnight candle vigils to show their support "fir all yoose por kidies".
A man has been arrested for making an inappropriate joke involving fish fingers. The resultant mob, caused by someone who told others about the joke the man posted on his private Facebook page were only pacified when the Police arrested him under communication laws. No one from the mob was cautioned or arrested under public order offence's. No one from the mob was available for comment, well, no one coherent anyway and most had drifted away to monitor the internet for something else that might upset them.
I myself have to go now. I wish to report Rod Hull for animal abuse. Seriously, have you seen what he does to Emu with his hand ??Welcome back! I suppose...:cool:
In related news someone was now arrested for wearing a T-shirt http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100184713/jailed-for-wearing-a-t-shirt-our-justice-system-is-broken/
Of course he was. :roll:
What would you prefer? If he walked down the street in New York he would have been shot in the head by a concerned citizen.
secrets in symmetry
12-Oct-12, 09:33
Anyone for "Make Scotland better: kill a moron from the SNP today" t-shirts?
That's a serious question. You can replace SNP by Tory or a derogatory term for an Old Firm fan if you wish.
Serve him right, wearing something like that in Manchester, and part of his sentence was for breaking another suspended sentence, so he is the kind of person to look up to........aye right!!!
rich62_uk
12-Oct-12, 10:34
What I find upsetting is that an adult can abuse a child over 11 years and only go to prison for a year, he has ruined her childhood and more than likely affecting her adulthood for the worse but only gets a year ?
Saying offensive things or wearing offensive clothing seems to be taken more seriously than actual abuse.
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?189244-Thurso-man-jailed
Mrs Bucket
12-Oct-12, 17:57
Its quite worrying the amount of sick people there appears to be around. it may happen to their family then it may not appear so funny.
Mrs Bucket
12-Oct-12, 18:00
Maybe the birch would be a more appropriate punishment
This guy didn't post anything online and is a sort of celebrity so he's free to go it seems... the best justice system money can buy. Mustn’t appear insensitive to the pseudo-celebrity. Let's make excuses for him. He just attacked people didn't post a joke or rage online after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-19951220
This guy didn't post anything online and is a sort of celebrity so he's free to go it seems... the best justice system money can buy. Mustn’t appear insensitive to the pseudo-celebrity. Let's make excuses for him. He just attacked people didn't post a joke or rage online after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-19951220
Or.... you get to decide what is a crime and what isn't, is that it?
weezer 316
15-Oct-12, 21:48
I must agree. The whole point of offensiveness is quite literally a joke. The US aint great but they have their freedom of speech spot on and how you define offensive an prosecute something as such is fast becoming soemthgin akin to footballs bringing the game into disrepute rulings.
Potentially anything could be grossly offensive. So do you prosecute everything, or just the stuff that has broad appeal?
Infact what the hell does offensive even mean.
Even if we leave the decision about what is offensive aside, my concern is the apparent 'sentence by kneejerk public opinion'.
If we go out and physically assault someone, including the coppers, we can expect a slap on the wrist and a bit of a fine. Even if we go and bully, verbally abuse, threaten and psychologically harm someone we can get off with maybe a warning from a copper or at worst a few hours of community service.
Type some drunken ranty on the 'tinterweb and you can expect to spend 3 months inside.
Is this in the public interest? Is this protecting the public? Is this the best value for money from the justice system? Is this justice?
rich62_uk
15-Oct-12, 22:25
I agree with you Phill, some of the law is a joke.
For those that wish to be outraged and march on some individuals home to have him locked up for 3 months I suggest you have a look at the trend for Nick Griffin and see if justice via media works.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.