It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

UK Authorities Crack Down On Nazi Dogs And Angry Drivers While Forcing Parents To Watch Baby Die

page: 29
37
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.


Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough


Wrong on every single level.


You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?



Yes I do dispute that. Thanks for asking.



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.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


www.legislation.gov.uk...



Yes grossly offensive not just offensive.



Hahahahahaha!!!!!

This takes the case.

Ok so define for me the differnce between grossly offensive and just offensive.

Who gets to make this judgement?




posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yup just look at Frankie Boyle If it was illegal to be offensive he would be doing hard labor by now.



Some of his material would earn the death penalty.
edit on 26-4-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Perhaps you are right on leaving him die be the most humane thing to do. I would argue that possibly a humane euthanization may be even more preferable.

but the issue is that state should not be allowed to tell the family they can not get competent treatment elsewhere at no expense to the NHS.



How are the family going to get their child to Italy safely, who pays for it, what happens if he dies on the plane.


The Italians have offered to cover all the costs BBC

The court has decided to remove life care from Alfie why does it matter if he dies in the UK, Italy or the plane, why not respect the parents whishes.


Interesting but again thats not really the point the point is that its is the view of the medical professionals and the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child.

I don't even think cost is a problem, I recall reading about a toddler who has cost the NHS over £1 million

Now sure you can argue the rights and wrongs of their view but unless you are a critical care consultant paediatrician with years of experience or are in a similar position then I don't really think what you think matters to anyone.
edit on 26-4-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


No, it is not a "death panel". This is total arse gravy, give it up, man.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.


Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough


Wrong on every single level.


You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?



Yes I do dispute that. Thanks for asking.



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.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


www.legislation.gov.uk...



Yes grossly offensive not just offensive.



Hahahahahaha!!!!!

This takes the case.

Ok so define for me the differnce between grossly offensive and just offensive.

Who gets to make this judgement?


Judges and juries following the legal guideline. The exact same as all laws work.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If not doctors then who should decide when it is time for a person to die, who else has the knowledge and expertise to make those calls?


Judging by some of the comments in the press and online, the people who should make these complex ethical decisions would be American "pro life" campaigners and / or the Pope. What do doctors know?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I have already done that for you. Do try to keep up.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Grambler

Again after sitting through a few Frankie Boyle shows I can tell you that its utter crap to say that being offensive is a crime.

I don't care what you want to quote, I live in sunny Scotland and I can tell you, I have caused offence and been offered quite a bit but I have never seen it lead to a crime being prosecuted.


Again you are ignoring the lae.

First the law says that if the offense is part of a programme of service.


(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).


And again you are further making my point.

Your anecdotal evidence that you have seen offensive stuff, therefore there can not be a law against it does not disprove the law does not exist, which not only have I posted the law, but the OP posts recent cases where it was applied.

Instead, you anecdotal evidence proves the law will be applied arbitrarily to go after people those that enforce the law feel like.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes in the UK people have been arrested and jailed for being offensive online have a read of this Guardian Article


under the 2003 Communications Act with having sent "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing nature". Last week Newsome was jailed for six weeks, after pleading guilty, with the judge quoting his post back to him and saying: "I can think of little that could be more upsetting or offensive."


Basicaly if its online you can be prosecuted under the law.


Grossly offensive. There is quite a bit of legal history and judgment on that simply being offensive is not illegal.


What is the difference between grossly offensive and just offensive, it is subjective is it not.

Which then relies of the discernment of the judge, there is going to societal disagreement. Telling someone off and banning them from the platform where they made the grossly offensive comment, is fine with me, sending them to jail and giving them a crimnal record is way to far.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

yeah dude again, not interested in entertaining your silly fantasy that its a crime to cause offence in the UK.

Your talking to a Glaswegian, offence is basically my first language.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Grambler

yeah dude again, not interested in entertaining your silly fantasy that its a crime to cause offence in the UK.

Your talking to a Glaswegian, offence is basically my first language.


well...you have a young man who was fined for making a comedy video.

the law is a fact. whether you acknowledge it or not.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


I have already done that for you. Do try to keep up.


No you have not.
What you posted was from 2006.

A 19 year old girl was convicted last week for just posting rap lyrics online.


Chelsea Russell, 19, posted lyrics to a song by the Detroit rapper Snap Dogg (no, not Snoop Dogg) on the bio of her Instagram account to pay tribute to Murphy. The song, "I'm Trippin'," released in 2016, is heavy on killing snitches and waving guns around and it has lots of use of the n-word. It's the type of song that people point to when they say they don't like rap music because it's too violent.

According to the Liverpool Echo, Russell's Instagram account was reported to a constable in a "hate crime unit" who found the lyrics "offensive and upsetting." Russell was charged with sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network.

At Russell's trial, her defense pointed out that Jay-Z had used these similarly offensive words at a music festival in Glastonbury. She had copied the lyrics off a friend's Instagram account—apparently thousands of others were using the lyrics to remember Murphy. Clearly it must have been a favorite song of his.

But the court and the magistrates didn't care. District Judge Jack McGarva said: "There is no place in civil society for language like that. Everyone with an Instagram account could view this content. The lyrics also encourage killing and robbing, so are grossly offensive."

Russell now has to submit to ankle monitoring for eight weeks and pay the equivalent of about $800 in fines.

This is what the enforcement of "hate speech" laws looks like. This woman was prosecuted entirely because a person in a position of power found her repetition of somebody else's song lyrics offensive. She does not stand accused even of using hate speech to actually encourage racial violence against others. People with the power to fine or lock up Russell merely found what she posted too offensive for their ears, and now she's going to pay for it.


reason.com...

Now wehere in your source does it define this would be enough to charge her?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Perhaps you are right on leaving him die be the most humane thing to do. I would argue that possibly a humane euthanization may be even more preferable.

but the issue is that state should not be allowed to tell the family they can not get competent treatment elsewhere at no expense to the NHS.



How are the family going to get their child to Italy safely, who pays for it, what happens if he dies on the plane.


The Italians have offered to cover all the costs BBC

The court has decided to remove life care from Alfie why does it matter if he dies in the UK, Italy or the plane, why not respect the parents whishes.



Now sure you can argue the rights and wrongs of their view but unless you are a critical care consultant paediatrician with years of experience or are in a similar position then I don't really think what you think matters to anyone.





Have you read the judgement (oldcarpy linked it)? One of the key reasons travel to Rome was not allowed is because the medical experts said to the court that Alfie would die shortly after being removed from source of air. However he started breathing on his own, they happened to be wrong in their assessment to the court (it happens to the best of us
)

However the court upheld their original ruling despite this and still will not allow travel to Rome.

Also it always nice to meet an individual online who speaks for everyone.
edit on 26-4-2018 by CatandtheHatchet because: emote



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: CatandtheHatchet


Here you go, the difference between offensive and grossly offensive explained:

Definition of "Grossly Offensive"

It is up to a Judge to decide (not unusual in legal cases!) but the Judge has to follow guidelines - he can't just arbitrarily decide although some will no doubt claim that that will be the case.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.


Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough


Wrong on every single level.


You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?



Yes I do dispute that. Thanks for asking.



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.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


www.legislation.gov.uk...



Yes grossly offensive not just offensive.



Hahahahahaha!!!!!

This takes the case.

Ok so define for me the differnce between grossly offensive and just offensive.

Who gets to make this judgement?


Judges and juries following the legal guideline. The exact same as all laws work.


its like talking to a brick wall of statism....



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Just for the record, offensive words or behaviour was only removed from the public order act last year.
Up until then "you fat bastard" was illegal if the person you said it to was offended.
Hope that clears the confusion up?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If not doctors then who should decide when it is time for a person to die, who else has the knowledge and expertise to make those calls?


Judging by some of the comments in the press and online, the people who should make these complex ethical decisions would be American "pro life" campaigners and / or the Pope. What do doctors know?


Would save the UK a fortune in court costs.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Grambler

yeah dude again, not interested in entertaining your silly fantasy that its a crime to cause offence in the UK.

Your talking to a Glaswegian, offence is basically my first language.


I have provided the law.

I have shown examples of people in just the past couple months that have been charged.

yet still you say I am the one engaging in a fantasy?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Grambler

yeah dude again, not interested in entertaining your silly fantasy that its a crime to cause offence in the UK.

Your talking to a Glaswegian, offence is basically my first language.


well...you have a young man who was fined for making a comedy video.

the law is a fact. whether you acknowledge it or not.


True but I think this is where living in the UK under our laws and just looking on as a outsider is important.

You might be able to find a few cases where the laws have not worked perfectly, where there has been some stupid ruling thats been made but I can tell you that yesterday I was listing to a old guy saying he "didn't want that darky doctor again" and I can tell you right now he is not going to be in court on Monday morning over it.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.


Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough


Wrong on every single level.


You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?



Yes I do dispute that. Thanks for asking.



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.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


www.legislation.gov.uk...



Yes grossly offensive not just offensive.



Hahahahahaha!!!!!

This takes the case.

Ok so define for me the differnce between grossly offensive and just offensive.

Who gets to make this judgement?


Judges and juries following the legal guideline. The exact same as all laws work.


its like talking to a brick wall of statism....


The belief that courts a the best way of making legal jugements is statism. Maybe you prefer a mad max style thunderdome to resolve issues?




top topics



 
37
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join