Grenfell Tower fire: Man jailed for posting pictures of dead body to Facebook

Why would he be jailed for posting pictures of this on FB?

Is this what we want to see happen? 3 months in jail for posting newstories on facebook? Where does it end?

A man has been jailed after he admitted to posting pictures of a Grenfell Tower victim on social media.

Omega Mwaikambo plead guilty to two offences contrary to section 127 of the Communications Act, Scotland Yard said.

The 43-year-old was sentenced to three months at Westminster Magistrates' Court, the force added.
L ink

edit on 17-6-2017 by justb0b because: try to fix link

Rape someone, murder someone or rob a bank!

These trials take months and sometimes years.

But post a picture and it seems like Justice is nearly instant.

Where was due process?

When did the two sides swap information.

This could well be one of the fastest trials in modern England.

All for posting a picture.

The Brits have gone flaming mad.

P

ETA: Here is a working link. L INKY

a reply to: pheonix358

Good point, that is some kinda record for sentencing. What a joke this is.

Will the ones responsible for putting the flammable claddin on be put in jail even for a day? Doubt it.

a reply to: pheonix358

pleading guilty [ as he did ] speeds up the process

a reply to: ignorant_ape

In the US, don't they call that wham, bam, thank you mam!

Come on mate, they barely had time to put the whole fire out!

Wish they could do this sort of speed policing and sentencing when dealing with the pedophiles in Westminster.

What law did he actually break?

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Could lock a lot of people up under this legislation, so much for freedom of speech in the UK.

127Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

Is it wrong that I clicked on this thread in the hopes of seeing the picture?

originally posted by: SBMcG
Is it wrong that I clicked on this thread in the hopes of seeing the picture?

Ha, I been looking for it as well. Yet to find it. Can it be any worse than anything else that is on the internet? I don't get it how they decided to put this guy in jail and not half the whole internet.

a reply to: justb0b

Radical muslims are allowed to spread jihadi indoctrination content all over FB and twitter with no repercussions, not even a warning.

Then this guy posts a picture of a corpse (I'll admit it was in very poor taste) and gets hauled off to jail for 3 months.

So yea, as it has been pointed out already, where is the due process?

He should have posted it on liveleak. Nobody would have cared then.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

No kidding eh? I've not ever used facebook and never will.

So if a family member sees the body of a loved one plastered all over social media that's ok?

Yeah, open and shut case, the evidence would have been irrefutable.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

If you link extremism with your social media then you'll be watched, no doubt about it. Report features exist for a reason. If you see terrorist related material on say Facebook then report it, heck contact the police yourself.

Ehh... LiveLeak, the clue is in the name really isn't it?

a reply to: RAY1990

grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character

Why is a dead body 'grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character'

There are dead bodies shown all the time.

I agree it may be in bad taste but then, why did he post it. That legislation is so airy fairy you could claim any photo came under the legislation.

Three months?

It is all about controlling the narrative on any story.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Controlling a narrative?

As I said, a family member finds pictures of a deceased loved on, posted by an individual. That individual has caused undue stress and anxiety.

Heck, the undertaker working on a family members body likes to take pictures of the dead and eventually they get leaked onto the Internet. It's linkable, open and shut case. In that situation it doesn't matter if the undertaker leaked them, he took the photos.

In this situation you've got someone that isn't that bright uploading things to his own social media, do it anonymously.

Just because your used to or insensitive to seeing dead bodies on the Internet doesn't mean it's ok or even legal. You'd probably quickly change your choon if it was your family being photographed.

Actions have consequences, it's as simple as that. He did wrong and was stupid enough to link it to him personally, hope he enjoys his three months.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: justb0b

Radical muslims are allowed to spread jihadi indoctrination content all over FB and twitter with no repercussions, not even a warning.

Then this guy posts a picture of a corpse (I'll admit it was in very poor taste) and gets hauled off to jail for 3 months.

So yea, as it has been pointed out already, where is the due process?

He should have posted it on liveleak. Nobody would have cared then.

It comes down to public outrage, when people hear of mothers throwing their babies from windows to the street below to try and save them having some jackass snap pics of corpses and the narrative in which it was portrayed in the media means "there needs to be swift justice"..

Regarding the Jihadist, well since a large majority of the UK seems to be brainwashed into accepting their islamic future, that along with the constant racist and bigot labels put onto anyone that points out that the religion that is based on war mongering and who's leader was a raging child rapist has some major issues with compatibility with western life what do you expect...

The fact is the momentum and rhetoric from the liberals has come to a point where even judges are sh1t scared to hand out proper sentences and the Police have a very much stand off approach..

The UK people fell for it hook line and sinker..


RA

a reply to: slider1982

Nobody is passing light sentences in the UK due to liberals.

It's a bit like the Mandela effect, people are never wrong ya know? Like the drunk who got a night in the cell and a fine, he was locked up for nowt lol.

Nah, sentencing needs to be swift if the nature of the crime isn't complex, repeat offenders deserve harsher punishments but ask anybody in the incarceration business and they'll tell you many of these repeat offenders need rehabilitation and counselling. One-off offenders might get off lightly... These things are weighed on a case by case basis.

Sometimes they get it wrong.

Sometimes clients are told to take a light guilty plea even if innocent.

Evidence is the key, conviction has little to nothing to do with liberals. Honesty in the eyes of the law counts for something too.

To add, I won't be accepting any new overlords soon Islamic or otherwise. Judges are still judges, police still police, I still vote in democratic elections and MPs are still liars... But they are elected liars and from what I gather Islam has little representation in Westminster.

Oh yeah... We've got a military too. Not sure how a bunch of Muslims are going to get the keys to power.

Let em try I say, we've always got jail cells for organised crime... Batons for protesters...

The guy broke the law. He deserves what he got.
Hopefully he will learn his lesson.

Don't necessarily agree with the law, but that is not relevant.

By the way the same type of laws are coming to the US. Just a matter of time.

originally posted by: pheonix358
Rape someone, murder someone or rob a bank!

These trials take months and sometimes years.

But post a picture and it seems like Justice is nearly instant.

Where was due process?

When did the two sides swap information.

This could well be one of the fastest trials in modern England.

All for posting a picture.

The Brits have gone flaming mad.

P

ETA: Here is a working link. L INKY

No they haven't gone mad, they are serving justice as due. You can not post a picture of a dead soul , period. Even JFL there was no dead pics of him, so get with it, he should be banned from society and sent to America, land of "who gives a fk these days ".

The law is the law. I am sure everyone who thinks this is unfair would not mind the body of their mum, or child being touted around Facebook. Noting that he actually opened a body bag to take the photos. Pleased he's been locked up.

Omega Mwaikambo

Edit to add... This is what he was in breach of - Section 127 of the Communications Act.

... 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.
... 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.
... 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.

Source - CPS

a reply to: justb0b

Although I think it is inappropriate to post pictures of dead people on Facebook what is the difderence when for instance the Government uses the same tactics such as the poor 3 year old boy that drowned and washed up on a beach in Turkey to further their open door policies to mass immigration?

They obviously know that the public is rife for revolt and pictures like these of dead people will be the match that ignites the fire so they are stopping people uncovering their deadly incompetence.

originally posted by: southbeach
...what is the difderence ...

It's all in the context. The outcome of this suggests he (Omega Mwaikambo) was offensive etc...