It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

“Terrifying”: Scottish Police to Investigate “Offensive Comments”

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 02:21 PM
a reply to: Flavian

First clearly you don't understand as I never said anybody should be arrested. I said that whatever happens to one should happen to the other. As it happens I don't either should be arrested .... so you got that wrong.

Did I make comments about Camemoron ... who knows .... the guy is a moron as is virtually all of Westmonster and the British establishment who make up rules to suit themselves as they go along.

Show me the link where I said hateful things about English people. I doubt I did. For a start my wife is English if that counts for anything as was my grandfather. I have always said that parts of England are actually worse off than Scotland, but I still think that an independent Scotland would help the poor parts of England because it would lead to the breakup of the ruling establishment and a fairer system for all. I don't know why English Britnats keep going on about Scots like we hate English. We do not. Its a falacy put out by desperate royalists and extreme unionists who think they still control the empire but the only bit left they have control over is Scotland.

Sad really .... its like an inferiority complex. Grow up

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 02:30 PM
a reply to: Telos

Let's make this clear. I'm all for freedom of speech.

But I find her comments about Scottish people very offensive and synonymous with racism. I'm Scottish and I'm offended. So the rest of you can argue it out but really from my perspective she is trouble.

If this was a juvenile joke down an English pub then yeah whatever. But she is inciting hatred and division by publicly posting these on her twitter.

After the referendum we don't need this sh*t in the UK especially from someone who is an apparent 'tv personality' which means her tweets reach the masses.

If she was a nobody her tweet would be shared among friends and then lost in the Sea of Past Tweets. But she knows this will be read by millions and she doesn't care. That's different IMO.

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 02:34 PM

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
She is partly the issue here, to be fair.

And as a ScotsIrish I can promise you that "jocksville" is definitely xenophobic.

Ah, but all the names the English get called by some from Northern Britain (otherwise known as Scotland) is ok, yes?

Bastard English? Not Xenophobic?

Sassanack? Not Xenophobic?

C'mon... Grow a pair. Jocksville is clearly a light hearted jibe - I could understand if she used the term porridgew*g or something.

It's not just the term 'jocksville' i found offensive. Have you read the full two tweets she posted? Cos it doesn't sound like it.

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:04 PM
a reply to: daftpink

Yep I did read them and I am still failing to see what is so "grossly offensive" as to warrant prosecution.

As I have (repeatedly) stated, the CPS guidelines are quite clear. While the comments may be offensive to some, they are certainly not "grossly" offensive in the slightest and no worse than than much of the crap you saw pointed our way before the referendum on places such as Facebook and Twitter.

It matters not if she is a "TV Celebrity" reaching "millions" - she doesn't, her Twitter account only has 300k followers - or Joe Bloggs down the Dog and Duck, the law is equally applied no matter what.

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:21 PM
a reply to: stumason

I'm not talking about the law I'm talking about whether they were offensive or not and to me they were and are designed to cause trouble. She may only have 300k followers but millions have now seen the tweets and she knows that would have happened. Like I say different to jokes among friends which I don't have a problem with. The insinuations she made about independence are stirring up resentment. We don't need that.

Not to mention the fact she made jokes about a woman who is seriously ill. Her position as a figure in the public eye is what is different to you making the joke down the local pub.

I appreciate you're not offended but a lot of people are. I don't think she should be jailed however and I won't be signing the petition apparently campaigning for that. Overreaction much! I hope her twitter account is suspended and she has no platform to stir up hatred and bad feeling among scots and english (and overweight people for that matter!).

The reason they're being investigated is because people have complained. These don't have to be 'bitter' jocks as you put it. What of the friends and family of the woman ill with ebola? Would you feel the same if it was your wife/sister/daughter she was talking about? I don't feel the need to make a complaint about her. But if god forbid it was my child or sister she was making her vile insensitive comments about..? F*CKIN RIGHT I'd go to town on her. Hehe.

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:39 PM
a reply to: daftpink

I completely agree with you about the nature of the comments, I'm not defending what she said as clearly some people are offended (exactly how "offended" they are or whether they are just complaining for complaining's sake is up for debate), but it's nor enough to charge/convict her as she hasn't done anything more than "offended" some people.

And again, I care not if she is some halfwit on TV or someone down the pub, the Law applies equally. She shouldn't be made an example of simply because she has a wider reach.

In order for the CPS to even consider charges, they must look as to whether the comments fit these guidelines:

Communications sent via social media are capable of amounting to criminal offences and prosecutors should make an initial assessment of the content of the communication and the conduct in question so as to distinguish between:

Communications which may constitute credible threats of violence to the person or damage to property.

Communications which specifically target an individual or individuals and which may constitute harassment or stalking within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Communications which may amount to a breach of a court order. This can include offences under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, breaches of a restraining order or breaches of bail. Cases where there has been an offence alleged to have been committed under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 or section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 should be referred to the Attorney General and via the Principal Legal Advisor's team where necessary.

Communications which do not fall into any of the categories above and fall to be considered separately (see below): i.e. those which may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false.

As a general approach, cases falling within paragraphs 12 (1), (2) or (3) should be prosecuted robustly where they satisfy the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. On the other hand, cases which fall within paragraph 12(4) will be subject to a high threshold and in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest.

I don't think her comments, no matter how idiotic, fit any of those descriptions.

EDIT: The point I am making is that merely "being offended" gives you no right to shut down the voice of others. Only if they say something that actually incites violence, harasses a particular person or violates a court order can people be "punished" for their opinions.

I'm not really sure what it is you're after, to be honest.
edit on 4/1/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:49 PM
a reply to: stumason

Maybe not grossly offensive to English people.

Pretty certain its grossly offensive to the Scottish family of the victim she is laughing about.

In any case twitter should take action and just wipe her account. I'm using my mobile to post this comment so can't copy and paste twitters T&Cs but I'm certain she qualifies for account suspension.

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 04:08 PM
a reply to: daftpink

I doubt it would even qualify as "grossly offensive" even then, at last according to CPS guidelines:

The CPS defines “grossly” offensive as cases which are more than:

Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.

As for Twitter, their rules are here and as far as I can see, she isn't in breach of those either.

They go on to say:

Offensive content

Users are allowed to post content, including potentially inflammatory content, provided they do not violate the Twitter Rules and Terms of Service. Twitter does not screen content and does not remove potentially offensive content unless such content is in violation of the Twitter Rules and Terms of Service.
Link to Twitter Guidelines

edit on 4/1/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:44 PM
To say she reaches only 300k is stupid. I dont follow her but I still know what she tweeted.

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 06:47 PM
a reply to: daftpink
Aw man you are so right .... this sort of thing just makes me hope something really bad happens to the likes of hopkins and we can all pile in with repugnant tweets about the vile bitch with impunity.

edit on b48615481 by bigyin because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:13 PM
a reply to: bigyin


At the end of the day, she said some stupid stuff. Just ignore her. Unless you're advocating the prosecution of people for saying stupid crap, in which case, we'd all be up in front of a Judge.

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:15 PM
a reply to: bigyin

Ironic - you're getting your sporran in a twist over her saying "Jocksville" and making a quip about independence and sweaty glaswegians, but then you go and say you want something bad to happen to her and call her a "vile bitch"...

Not hypocritical at all, is it?

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:02 AM
a reply to: stumason

You really ought to read peoples posts and understand what was said before shooting your big mouth off.

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:44 AM
a reply to: bigyin

Then do us all a favour and say, exactly, what it is you want to happen? It certainly seems that you want her punished simply because she is "famous", but surely people are equal before the law? And it also seems you want people punished simply for being "offensive" - a bit totalitarian, isn't it?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in