Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,348 comments
- 613,060 views
Sphinx
Staff Emeritus
- 6,724
- England
- GTP_Sphinx
""use of language knowing it could cause offence"...
..."whilst using a form of communication that has laws against such things"...
...Just like it was back in the day for radio. Ham, CB, for example.
It's nothing new.
Edit:
If he shouted out his tripe in the local pub no arrest would be made, other than those who punched his lights out for saying it.
Last edited:
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Freedom of speech still exists, pro-active censorship is not all that common.Encyclopedia
There was the rather large issue of judges silencing the press in certain personal cases, and the same of images of certain members of the royal family. This has even included politicians to some extent.
By and large you can say what you like and it'll reach a considerable audience if done right, but you are open to criminal or civil prosecution for those actions. Often this is knee jerk, encouraged by a minority and executed by politicians thinking they act on behalf of society.
These actions are rapidly eroding civil liberties, but I wouldn't personally call it censorship, certainly not pro-actively.
- 1,049
- England
By "displays any writing" does that mean you could be arrested for wearing a t-shirt that has a rude word on it? Or a tattoo? Someone could find that insulting, so could they be arrested for it? I know i'm over exaggerating but just seems the way its worded you could get away with arresting people for stuff like that if they wanted too.
This part I bolded confuses me lol. It says those offences may be comited in a public or private place, then right after it says except no offence is commited if you are both in the same dwelling (which is another word for house right?) or if the person offended is in another house?? Doesn't that contradict the part about you could be arrested for comiting these offences in a private place?
- 87,322
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
"Private place" includes any private premises - shops, pubs, private land - but "dwelling" is added because it's not a publicly-accessible private place. You can't breach the Public Order Act in a place the public can't legally go - so you can kick the crap out of the burglar and call him a :censored:bird inside your house, but if you swear at him in your front garden...
And yes, you could breach section 5 with a rude T-shirt. The question of whether you would do or not is a little different.
And yes, you could breach section 5 with a rude T-shirt. The question of whether you would do or not is a little different.
But I guess it is not allowed to threaten to kill some-one (person that doesn't live there) inside your house. If this person has proof that he has been threatened and goes to the police, will the police arrest the person that made the treath?
- 4,081
- Somerset
- Pagey279
From my experience you most likely won't get arrested for having a swear word on your t-shirt. Even if the police see someone wearing it I doubt they will stop and have words.
They should under section 5 but in reality the police won't waste their time with it.
That's what my Dad says anyway.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Am I right in thinking that a member of the public would have to complain before the police would act?
Much like the "public decency" laws, where I believe a Police officer is not regarded as a member as a public and should only act on receiving a complaint from the public.
Much like the "public decency" laws, where I believe a Police officer is not regarded as a member as a public and should only act on receiving a complaint from the public.
Sphinx
Staff Emeritus
- 6,724
- England
- GTP_Sphinx
I knew that would come back and bite me as soon as I edited my post.
The precedent has already been set years ago, it's nothing new:
Colm Cross
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/09/25/mum-of-four-is-a-night-time-online-troll-hunter-91466-29482487/2/
Sean Duffy
http://www.charlesrussell.co.uk/UserFiles/file/pdf/Media%20&%20Entertainment/Troll.pdf
http://www.charlesrussell.co.uk/UserFiles/file/pdf/Media%20&%20Entertainment/Troll.pdf
I don't have a problem with him going down for the maximum. It's about time some people understood that abusive and highly offensive comments directed at individuals just isn't acceptable. It's a shame there's only enough resourses to deal with the high profile cases.
- 87,322
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I knew that would come back and bite me as soon as I edited my post.
The precedent has already been set years ago, it's nothing new:
Colm Cross
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/09/25/mum-of-four-is-a-night-time-online-troll-hunter-91466-29482487/2/
Sean Duffy
http://www.charlesrussell.co.uk/UserFiles/file/pdf/Media%20&%20Entertainment/Troll.pdf
I don't have a problem with him going down for the maximum. It's about time some people understood that abusive and highly offensive comments directed at individuals just isn't acceptable. It's a shame there's only enough resourses to deal with the high profile cases.
The question is... why? Why is something you think is not acceptable should be criminal? Why do we need laws that say if you cause offence with anything you say/write/type you go to gaol?
The nob who retold a joke he read on Sickipedia didn't aim abuse at anyone. He told a joke. It wasn't a very good one and it upset some people. Why is it a criminal offence? It's a dumb guy being dumb - and he realised the dumb two days before he was arrested and charged, without any need for him to be arrested, charged and sent to gaol. Society had already succeeded in correcting the error!
Incidentally I'm sure you're aware that, as someone who values public freedom of speech and expression, I find the concept of criminalising and imprisoning individuals for saying/writing/typing certain things to be grossly offensive. If you are aware of that, saying you support it is committing the same crime Matthew Wood committed, according to legislation...
Sphinx
Staff Emeritus
- 6,724
- England
- GTP_Sphinx
Why? Because it's wrong. Why is it wrong? In the cases I highlighted the intention of their postings was to cause distress, harm, offend their pre-targeted victims by posting malicious content in order to get off on self gratification at the expense of their victims. Nothing else, there's no opinion, no political statement, no point of view. What they post towards their intended target is just random words which they know will cause maximum distress for their own enjoyment. Why is racial abuse a criminal offence?
The "nob" was, I admit, unlucky in terms of his sentence. He decided to post offensive material right at the time society was in shock with the news of a missing child, a child that had been taken. now presumed dead.
To understand why he was sent down, you also need to understand why a young woman of previous good character was sent down for 6 months for the theft of chewing gum during the London riots.
My support is offensive to you and I'm commiting the same crime? Answer: Intention.
- 87,322
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Even if that were valid - it's food for a much larger "freedom of expression" debate - none of this applies to Matthew Wood.
He told a joke. It was a crap joke and it wasn't very funny. He didn't direct it at anyone, he just posted it on his Facebook page. He had no intent to cause distress, harm or offence. He's now in prison for 12 weeks because he told a crap joke to no-one.
Good question. I have no idea.
Why is "racist abuse" different from "abuse"? Surely the concept of having a different crime applied to a different group of people discriminates against them? Why don't we have "shoplifting" and "homosexual shoplifting" as separate crimes?
Visiting racism itself, why should a footballer be tried, twice, just for saying the word "black" (in this instance, "I didn't call you a black 🤬, you 🤬 knob") out loud when Chris Rock can stand up on stage and literally abuse a group of people with the n-word with impugnity*? The former wasn't abuse, the latter absolutely is.
It again merits pointing out that Matthew Wood had no intention to cause distress, harm or offence. He simply posted a joke from Sickipedia he thought was funny.
You can argue that he knew that it might cause offence because it was a sick joke. That's an interesting sidebar, but then very few jokes of any kind don't cause specific offence. The mere act of telling a joke causes offence to the object of the joke - take this completely innocent example which could easily cause offence to many English people (who aren't anti-Irish racists), Irish people (who don't have substandard children) and Pakistani people (who are along for the ride as a token different-coloured-skin group) - and knowing this, anyone who tells a joke does so knowing they could cause offence.
We're now down to typing words that unintentionally cause offence. Wood got 12 weeks for it. That's not "unlucky" - it's obscene.
Intentionally depriving someone of property is in no way comparable with making a joke on the internet.
Rare though it is for me to cite a Gradiuna article, this is pretty close to the mark.
*There are territorial differences in law at play that require ignoring at this point - the question is which, if either, is right?
Last edited:
- 29,880
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
The Grauniad can be alright on occasions.
As it happens, I read Private Eye and in the latest issue there are jokes that explicitly name that French teacher who abducted his pupil and took her to France. Why is that allowed/permitted? In fact, how has a publication like Private Eye lasted so long given that we now have precedents of people going to jail for telling jokes? Ian Hislop is reputedly the most sued man in Britain but he has so far escaped a prison sentence.
---
Well then. Sir James Savile. Who'd have thought it?
As it happens, I read Private Eye and in the latest issue there are jokes that explicitly name that French teacher who abducted his pupil and took her to France. Why is that allowed/permitted? In fact, how has a publication like Private Eye lasted so long given that we now have precedents of people going to jail for telling jokes? Ian Hislop is reputedly the most sued man in Britain but he has so far escaped a prison sentence.
---
Well then. Sir James Savile. Who'd have thought it?
Last edited:
- 687
Sphinx
My (solicitor) brother explained this one to me. They way I understand it is that she got 6 months because the theft was part of the riots. She didn't get the sentence for stealing the fun, she got it for being involved in a riot.
As for the freedom of speech / likely to cause offence thing - does anyone remember those Cradle Of Filth "Jesus Is A ****" t-shirts? I wonder if they are still got sale?
- 23,987
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 687
TheCrackerEveryone who's ever seen him?
I've met him before, when i was at school. He never fondled me inappropriately
Do you feel a bit left out? Worried that you're too ugly for a paedo? Like there's something hideously wrong with you?
- 23,987
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I think it was because i wasn't a mentally disabled, barely pubescent girl.
- 23,987
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
It's been rumored for as long as i can remember, just nobody's really come forward to accuse him legally.
- 87,322
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Given that Wood's "joke" is essentially the same (think of a Santa joke about the frequency of his visits, but with the play on the name of the girl and the month) in naming Bridger, it does make you wonder what the difference is.
It can't be because one girl's young and might be dead but the other was only abducted and is still alive - we'd trivialise the crime of stealing children (and probably having sex with them) if they turn up alive. Can it?
I'm amazed the Savile story's taken this long. It's been a not particularly secret secret since paedophilia became the crime du jour.
Last edited:
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
^Exactly. When I first heard these allegations I was like 'Yep, there you go'. He kept his dead mother's bedroom like a shrine with all her clothes wrapped in plastic, spent a career surrounding himself with kids, locked trainees in pitch black BBC basements as 'punishment', talked about himself continually in the third person and, for a pensioner, wore the most inapproriate jogging shorts - continuously!
If there was anyone you could single out of a line up as being a mental, it was Jimmy 'mr savile's fallen off mr savile's mountain' Savile!
If there was anyone you could single out of a line up as being a mental, it was Jimmy 'mr savile's fallen off mr savile's mountain' Savile!
- 687
Liquid
There have been rumours and allegations about it for years. Louis Theroux asked him about it in "When Louis Met..." twelve years ago.
With all these cases, what tends to happen is that a lot of people are living with the secret because they think no one will believe them. Once someone says "this happened" then others realize they can speak up as well
- 29,880
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I had my own suspicions, as we all did, but it's just the fact that people wait until he's dead before making claims.
His legacy will be tarnished, but he will remain unpunished. You can't prosecute the dead; we don't live in the Cromwellian Commonwealth anymore.
His legacy will be tarnished, but he will remain unpunished. You can't prosecute the dead; we don't live in the Cromwellian Commonwealth anymore.
