At 9pm last night, with a knock on the door of a 19-year-old man, Kent police hammered another nail into the coffin of free expression in the UK.
Earlier in the day the unnamed man from Aylesham had allegedly posted a photo of a poppy being burned, with a crudely worded (and crudely spelled) caption. He was arrested under the Malicious Communications Act and held in the cells overnight to await questioning.
Any thoughts ?
Poppy descration ?
Poppy descration ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Poppy descration ?
There's plenty of nonsence going on about his freedom of speech rights being violated by the police and It's not about freedom of speech.
Emdadur Choudhury was arrested and prosecuted last year for publicly burning a poppy because It was an outrage of public decency.
The silly little show off who thought It would be terribly hilarious to burn a poppy and post It on facebook also outraged public decency but because the Internet was used, It comes under the Malicious Communications Act.
Why should he be treated any different.?
I know It's emotional claptrap but my Grandfather was not blown to pieces on The Somme aged 29 years old for some little prick to show such disgusting disregard for his country and war dead.
He's got all he deserved.
Emdadur Choudhury was arrested and prosecuted last year for publicly burning a poppy because It was an outrage of public decency.
The silly little show off who thought It would be terribly hilarious to burn a poppy and post It on facebook also outraged public decency but because the Internet was used, It comes under the Malicious Communications Act.
Why should he be treated any different.?
I know It's emotional claptrap but my Grandfather was not blown to pieces on The Somme aged 29 years old for some little prick to show such disgusting disregard for his country and war dead.
He's got all he deserved.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Poppy descration ?
The next part of the article.......should you want to read it......
It is of course just the latest in a succession of police actions against individuals deemed to have caused offence: mocking a footballer as he fights for his life on Twitter; hoping British service personnel would "die and go to hell"; wearing a T-shirt that celebrated the death of two police officers; making sick jokes on Facebook about a missing child, the list goes on. A few months ago, these could have been dismissed as isolated over-reactions or moments of madness by police and judiciary. Not any longer. It is now clear that a new criminal code has been imposed upon us without announcement or debate. It is now a crime to be offensive. We are not sleepwalking into a new totalitarianism – we have woken up to find ourselves tangled in its sheets.
It is of course just the latest in a succession of police actions against individuals deemed to have caused offence: mocking a footballer as he fights for his life on Twitter; hoping British service personnel would "die and go to hell"; wearing a T-shirt that celebrated the death of two police officers; making sick jokes on Facebook about a missing child, the list goes on. A few months ago, these could have been dismissed as isolated over-reactions or moments of madness by police and judiciary. Not any longer. It is now clear that a new criminal code has been imposed upon us without announcement or debate. It is now a crime to be offensive. We are not sleepwalking into a new totalitarianism – we have woken up to find ourselves tangled in its sheets.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Poppy descration ?
Bruv;1410279 wrote: At 9pm last night, with a knock on the door of a 19-year-old man, Kent police hammered another nail into the coffin of free expression in the UK.
Earlier in the day the unnamed man from Aylesham had allegedly posted a photo of a poppy being burned, with a crudely worded (and crudely spelled) caption. He was arrested under the Malicious Communications Act and held in the cells overnight to await questioning.
Any thoughts ?
Whilst I wholehartedly deplore the sentiment of what he did, I do not believe that we are yet in a society where any action that offends is illegal.
This is taking Big Brother too far.
Earlier in the day the unnamed man from Aylesham had allegedly posted a photo of a poppy being burned, with a crudely worded (and crudely spelled) caption. He was arrested under the Malicious Communications Act and held in the cells overnight to await questioning.
Any thoughts ?
Whilst I wholehartedly deplore the sentiment of what he did, I do not believe that we are yet in a society where any action that offends is illegal.
This is taking Big Brother too far.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Poppy descration ?
Bruv;1410285 wrote: The next part of the article.......should you want to read it......
It is of course just the latest in a succession of police actions against individuals deemed to have caused offence: mocking a footballer as he fights for his life on Twitter; hoping British service personnel would "die and go to hell"; wearing a T-shirt that celebrated the death of two police officers; making sick jokes on Facebook about a missing child, the list goes on. A few months ago, these could have been dismissed as isolated over-reactions or moments of madness by police and judiciary. Not any longer. It is now clear that a new criminal code has been imposed upon us without announcement or debate. It is now a crime to be offensive. We are not sleepwalking into a new totalitarianism – we have woken up to find ourselves tangled in its sheets.
Yet when my war memorial was vandalised for 8 years causing distress to the relatives of the war dead, the British legion members and offence to most local residents and despite numerous complaints to local police and council, the police choose to overlook It for it was deemed too trivial for police to Intervene.... funny old world eh?
Where do you draw the line then ?
Burn a Koran and see what happens.
It is of course just the latest in a succession of police actions against individuals deemed to have caused offence: mocking a footballer as he fights for his life on Twitter; hoping British service personnel would "die and go to hell"; wearing a T-shirt that celebrated the death of two police officers; making sick jokes on Facebook about a missing child, the list goes on. A few months ago, these could have been dismissed as isolated over-reactions or moments of madness by police and judiciary. Not any longer. It is now clear that a new criminal code has been imposed upon us without announcement or debate. It is now a crime to be offensive. We are not sleepwalking into a new totalitarianism – we have woken up to find ourselves tangled in its sheets.
Yet when my war memorial was vandalised for 8 years causing distress to the relatives of the war dead, the British legion members and offence to most local residents and despite numerous complaints to local police and council, the police choose to overlook It for it was deemed too trivial for police to Intervene.... funny old world eh?
Where do you draw the line then ?
Burn a Koran and see what happens.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Poppy descration ?
oscar;1410289 wrote:
Where do you draw the line then ?
And THAT is the question.
Where do you draw the line then ?
And THAT is the question.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Poppy descration ?
Bruv;1410293 wrote: And THAT is the question. Offense should not be elitist. When It Is, resentment festers.
We can't burn a Koran because It would cause offence to one group of people thus what causes another group of people offence should be viewed just as seriously.
We can't burn a Koran because It would cause offence to one group of people thus what causes another group of people offence should be viewed just as seriously.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Poppy descration ?
oscar;1410289 wrote: Yet when my war memorial was vandalised for 8 years causing distress to the relatives of the war dead, the British legion members and offence to most local residents and despite numerous complaints to local police and council, the police choose to overlook It for it was deemed too trivial for police to Intervene.... funny old world eh?
Where do you draw the line then ?
Burn a Koran and see what happens.
To the best of my knowledge Pastor Jones is still free to spread his hatred around but is the comparison really valid? Is the action of some arse who's girlfriend dumped him for a squaddie in burning a poppy of the same order as burning a sacred text?
Define to me "grossly offensive" - how many people need to be offended and how badly offended do they need to be in order for it to be criminal? The rate the definition has changed over the past six months it will soon be one and not very.
Where do you draw the line then ?
Burn a Koran and see what happens.
To the best of my knowledge Pastor Jones is still free to spread his hatred around but is the comparison really valid? Is the action of some arse who's girlfriend dumped him for a squaddie in burning a poppy of the same order as burning a sacred text?
Define to me "grossly offensive" - how many people need to be offended and how badly offended do they need to be in order for it to be criminal? The rate the definition has changed over the past six months it will soon be one and not very.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Poppy descration ?
Bryn Mawr;1410297 wrote: To the best of my knowledge Pastor Jones is still free to spread his hatred around but is the comparison really valid? Is the action of some arse who's girlfriend dumped him for a squaddie in burning a poppy of the same order as burning a sacred text?
Define to me "grossly offensive" - how many people need to be offended and how badly offended do they need to be in order for it to be criminal? The rate the definition has changed over the past six months it will soon be one and not very.
I can only go by the law:
3.1 The offence of outraging public decency appears to consist of performing any
indecent activity in such a place or way that more than one member of the public
may witness and be disgusted by it. As it was put in Hamilton, the leading
modern case on the offence:
1
These cases established that, if the offence of outraging public
decency were to be proved, it was necessary to prove two elements.
(i) The act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public
decency; this element constituted the nature of the act which had to
be proved before the offence could be established; (ii) it took place in
a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or
more persons who were actually present, even if they had not actually
seen it.
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/doc ... tation.pdf
Define to me "grossly offensive" - how many people need to be offended and how badly offended do they need to be in order for it to be criminal? The rate the definition has changed over the past six months it will soon be one and not very.
I can only go by the law:
3.1 The offence of outraging public decency appears to consist of performing any
indecent activity in such a place or way that more than one member of the public
may witness and be disgusted by it. As it was put in Hamilton, the leading
modern case on the offence:
1
These cases established that, if the offence of outraging public
decency were to be proved, it was necessary to prove two elements.
(i) The act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public
decency; this element constituted the nature of the act which had to
be proved before the offence could be established; (ii) it took place in
a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or
more persons who were actually present, even if they had not actually
seen it.
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/doc ... tation.pdf
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Poppy descration ?
oscar;1410302 wrote: I can only go by the law:
3.1 The offence of outraging public decency appears to consist of performing any
indecent activity in such a place or way that more than one member of the public
may witness and be disgusted by it. As it was put in Hamilton, the leading
modern case on the offence:
1
These cases established that, if the offence of outraging public
decency were to be proved, it was necessary to prove two elements.
(i) The act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public
decency; this element constituted the nature of the act which had to
be proved before the offence could be established; (ii) it took place in
a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or
more persons who were actually present, even if they had not actually
seen it.
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/doc ... tation.pdf
I believe you are talking of a public display of a sexual nature...................bugger all to do with free speech.
3.1 The offence of outraging public decency appears to consist of performing any
indecent activity in such a place or way that more than one member of the public
may witness and be disgusted by it. As it was put in Hamilton, the leading
modern case on the offence:
1
These cases established that, if the offence of outraging public
decency were to be proved, it was necessary to prove two elements.
(i) The act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public
decency; this element constituted the nature of the act which had to
be proved before the offence could be established; (ii) it took place in
a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or
more persons who were actually present, even if they had not actually
seen it.
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/doc ... tation.pdf
I believe you are talking of a public display of a sexual nature...................bugger all to do with free speech.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Poppy descration ?
Bruv;1410304 wrote: I believe you are talking of a public display of a sexual nature...................bugger all to do with free speech.
My mistake.... speed reading again... I'll look for something else.
My mistake.... speed reading again... I'll look for something else.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Poppy descration ?
Offensive Messaging...
Yardstick
Lord Bingham said: “Usages and sensitivities may change over time ... there can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context.
“The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to whom it relates.
The Collins case is interesting because it reveals how the courts will work out whether a message is offensive enough to amount to a crime under the Communications Act. Although they have left themselves with enough flexibility to be able to reflect changing morality and standards of society, they have helpfully provided some guidance on what approach they will take.
It remains to be seen where future courts draw the line. Although judges will have to follow the Lords' approach, this ruling gives them enough discretion to make their own decision about whether the line is crossed in a particular case.
Yardstick
Lord Bingham said: “Usages and sensitivities may change over time ... there can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context.
“The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to whom it relates.
The Collins case is interesting because it reveals how the courts will work out whether a message is offensive enough to amount to a crime under the Communications Act. Although they have left themselves with enough flexibility to be able to reflect changing morality and standards of society, they have helpfully provided some guidance on what approach they will take.
It remains to be seen where future courts draw the line. Although judges will have to follow the Lords' approach, this ruling gives them enough discretion to make their own decision about whether the line is crossed in a particular case.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Poppy descration ?
Is this linked to the right to 'think' and say out loud what you think, just like the poppy man ?
A Christian who was demoted in his job for a comment he wrote on Facebook about gay marriages has won a breach of contract action against his employers
A Christian who was demoted in his job for a comment he wrote on Facebook about gay marriages has won a breach of contract action against his employers
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Poppy descration ?
The problem seems to be no clear definitions within the law.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Poppy descration ?
I think the problem is that you seem to have no clear definition of the right to Freedom of Speech.
You cannot legislate taste, class, or reason.
You cannot legislate taste, class, or reason.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Poppy descration ?
oscar;1410594 wrote: The problem seems to be no clear definitions within the law.
Why does Law have to become involved ?
Is this 'The Thought Police' ?
Didn't they once used to punish people who thought differently?
Why does Law have to become involved ?
Is this 'The Thought Police' ?
Didn't they once used to punish people who thought differently?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
Poppy descration ?
I think in the name of political correctness this country has become far too sensitive. The malicious communications act is there to protect targets when the police can see something more sinister and disturbing in the communication but this law is now being used to cover hurt feelings. It's an unfortunate downside of advancements in technology that people now feel able to write their every waking thought on twitter or other social sites. Legally, anyone is entitled to an opinion but it's when that opinion has an under-lying threatening air to it, i feel the law has to be used.