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.

 

More people arrested in the UK over......a Joke.

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: gort51
Is this something to do with "Guy Fawkes Night"?

The Americans wouldn't understand, but we use to have "Cracker Night" in the old days, as a Guy Fawkes celebration.

Was banned here in the late 70s unfortunately, people use to buy fireworks and blow shi* up, have bonfires etc.....was great fun as a kid.

Do they still do it in England?



It is exactly that but the truth may be far more Machiavellian than anyone think's today, in fact the whole thing could have been an anti catholic stunt created by non other than the king of England's spy master.



Here is a more traditional account now you have seen some holes put into it.


It is however not a religious tradition today just a seasonal event which is becoming more and more regulated thanfully because each year we still have lot's of serious accident's involving fire work's.

In the past before the local authority's started to clean up the impromptu bonfire's (piles of wood, furniture and debris - anything that would burn gathered by the local youths) which would pop up in almost any open space every November we had plenty of far more gruesome event's such as kid's making den's in those piles of debris only for other kid's to then set fire to them while they were asleep or playing inside them and also there was a tradition of kid's walking around with stuffed effigy's of guy Fawkes and collecting sweets and horror tales real or not of lunatic's thinking it was just a dummy stabbing it only to find it was a kid dressed up as a dummy - so also the root of many urban legend's.

I can understand our American cousin's feeling's about freedom of speech it is after all a tenet of the american constitution but in our defense these people full well know right from wrong and they knew this was wrong, an analogy has been drawn with the children's nursery rhyme London bridge (or indeed ring a ring of poses which is about a plague) but that originated hundreds of years ago and there is no similarity between the two, the morality and way news spread then and now as well as the culture of the people and there level of education are on completely different level's so I feel we can reasonably and fairly discount that analogy.




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I remember 11/09/91, a local computer shop owner decided to put two identical computer towers on display in the main window, he superglued toy planes to them and put toy fire engines, people and police cars etc round the base.

Complaints came a plenty, and the police even advised him to remove them (to which he refused). He wasn't arrested.

Sure it was in bad taste, insensitive, and probably shouldn't have done it.

It's the same with this video, they are muppets, and I hope they get a kicking off someone who was affected by Grenfell, but they should not be charged with a criminal offense.

Comedians say and do worse on the TV.

The previously mentioned shop owner by the way, a few years earlier, he put a Rambo style rabbit with Jesus on the cross over its shoulder during Easter....got a few complaints about that one too.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

That would have been before the Communications Act 2003 which would not have applied to the shop owner as he didn't put it on social media.. Whether these people should be charged is a real issue, but at the moment as far as I know they have been arrested but not yet charged.


edit on 7-11-2018 by oldcarpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

Didn't a female relative post it, rather than the 5 that actually burned the effigy? As our resident legal eagle, surely that changes who is actually responsible? If not, it opens up a whole can of worms - you could be charged for something that others post. That would be a dangerous precedent to set.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

Hey, I am happy to advise. But I will require a substantial payment up front on account of my fees.



As I understand it, they were arrested under s4(a) of the Public Order Act 1986, here:

Public Order Act 1986

So not the Communications Act, apparently. Not yet been charged. Under that Act the person who sends the message is the one who commits the crime, so, your worries are unfounded.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Unruhestifter
If they hadn't uploaded the film it would not have been a crime. It is not a crime to offend someone in real life but it is a crime under the digital communications act to post something 'grossly offensive' online.
I would call that grossly offensive and don't care in the slightest that they are being investigated.
I don't want the right to post # online which will obviously upset fellow humans, maybe you do, and if so I'd say you need to look in a mirror and ask yourself some questions.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy
Insulting was removed from the act a couple of years ago. I can't see how the public order act applies in this case, the digital communications act is what I'd chase if I was a cop.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

Cheers my old mucker, the Bollinger is in the post.


To CCG:

As OldCarpy pointed out, they can't be prosecuted under the Digital Communications Act because they didn't post the footage. And, frankly, i would be suprised if they were prosecuted under the Public Order Act as that would be extremely hard to enforce in these circumstances.

It's simply more media witch hunting, however distateful they may have been.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Unruhestifter
If they hadn't uploaded the film it would not have been a crime. It is not a crime to offend someone in real life but it is a crime under the digital communications act to post something 'grossly offensive' online.
I would call that grossly offensive and don't care in the slightest that they are being investigated.
I don't want the right to post # online which will obviously upset fellow humans, maybe you do, and if so I'd say you need to look in a mirror and ask yourself some questions.



You have a strange thought process, you have no problem with people selling and using drugs in the open but have a problem with people posting videos that won't harm anyone???




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Its bad taste and offenisve. But being a twat should not be a crime.

The oinks have better and more important things to investigate...... Like the cheapskate slum lords that caused this disaster!



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Unruhestifter

Actually it does not amount to a joke it is a hate crime, the people in that tower block were predominantly poor and predominantly ethnic minority's.

Children died in that fire screaming as they were burned alive, innocent small kid's.

So it's a joke is it when someone burn's an effigy complete with a silhouette of a person with there arm's up in a window I for one do not consider this kind of sick minded stunt a joke.

It is a hate crime plain and simple and one that has sickened the majority of the country, a Minor one but still a hate crime and in all likelihood the culprits will be let off with a caution assuming there are no prior's but to my mind this is very little different to some twat pissing on a war memorial dedicated to our grandfathers and great grandfathers.

If I had my way these idiot's would be put in a village stock's for a week and rotten vegetables provided for passers by to throw at them, that or a good old fashioned birching would cure there sick mind's, while the Isle of man still had that they had very little re-offending - except the street of shark's of course since it's a tax haven and a money laundering hub just like Jersey is.



Who gets to decide the difference between a hate crime and a joke?

Who made you the humor police?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Unruhestifter
If they hadn't uploaded the film it would not have been a crime. It is not a crime to offend someone in real life but it is a crime under the digital communications act to post something 'grossly offensive' online.
I would call that grossly offensive and don't care in the slightest that they are being investigated.
I don't want the right to post # online which will obviously upset fellow humans, maybe you do, and if so I'd say you need to look in a mirror and ask yourself some questions.



You have a strange thought process, you have no problem with people selling and using drugs in the open but have a problem with people posting videos that won't harm anyone???




Eh?!
I have a problem with people doing drugs in my street or near play parks, I don't care about back alleys and shady streets, that is to be expected.
I have no problem with the digital communications act either, I've never fallen foul of it because I'm not a wanker with stuff I post online.
My thought process is sound, I only treat laws as guidance, I break whatever laws I feel are stupid all the time, and you won't hear me weeping if I get caught by the hardest gang in town, government obviously.
The people in the video are pondlife who deserve a beating in my opinion, never mind some lame fine of £100 and £200 court costs paid in installments.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Unruhestifter
Campaign to change the law then. I don't give a # if they get prosecuted, it's always been this way in the UK, there is no freedom of speech like in the US, and I don't care because I'm not a nasty bastard to people in my communication so I'll never fall foul of the law.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Have to say i disagree with you here mate. For me, nothing should be taboo for humour (not that these numpties were actually humorous). I don't agree with censorship at all.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Plus it telling when the PM makes a huge public statement and tantrum over the people who made the joke......

But is quiet and wont speak out on the people who actually caused the disaster....... hmmmmm



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian
I get what you and the OP are saying but I don't mind the law as it stands because I'm not horrible to people online.
I don't care about any laws to be honest, I break the law often if I think it is a stupid law...I happen to agree with the law regarding being grossly offensive online though, just happens to tally with my ethical and moral code.
I've never ever followed a law because 'it's the law', just if it happens to follow what I think is right or wrong.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Unruhestifter

You don't like tough they have committed a breach of the law under section five of the public order act.
There action's were not a joke.
Language or action's intended to cause offense or affray.
What these scum bag's did was not an act to offend but one of mockery and hatred of people whom the majority of us Brit's actually feel genuine compassion about, WE do not see it as a joke, only the sickest and most illiterate mentality would regard that as a joke.
This amendment was merely to the wording and the full transcript of the law remain's in force so they are not getting out of this one though they will likely be let go with a slap on the wrist or a court date and a fine ASSUMING that is that they have no prior's.
researchbriefings.parliament.uk...
Here is the original transcript with the amendment in place.
www.legislation.gov.uk...
www.legislation.gov.uk...

Now would you not agree that the actions of these prick's has caused distress particularly to those personally affected by the tragedy and also offence to most of the rest of us if not you in particular.

edit on 7-11-2018 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Think on this one. People get arrested for burning an effigy of Grenfell Towers, yet the people who made the actual Grenfell Towers the death trap it was go scot free.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Unruhestifter
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Its bad taste and offenisve. But being a twat should not be a crime.

The oinks have better and more important things to investigate...... Like the cheapskate slum lords that caused this disaster!


As the OP you seem to keep missing that the "oinks" as you so eloquently did not put it, have not actually sought out the offenders, the offenders did the decent thing they could do and handed themselves in, no charges have been filed, and unless it can be proven that there was intent to harm/distress they should not recieve any time on behalf of her Maj.

The "oinks" as you so eloquently did not put it were risking their own lives on the night of the actual tragedy in Grenfell to save peoples lives along with other emergency services, maybe one day you will require their service and 99% of them will come to your aid without question risking themselves if required.

There are times in my life when I felt the police were overbearing, maybe if I was not doing stupid things to begin with I would not have had to deal with them.

Dont just hate the police because of there badge, anyone who would risk their own life to save someone else cant be that bad.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Unruhestifter
Who gets to decide the difference between a hate crime and a joke?

One thing I don't understand, why do people call this "a joke"? Where's the joke in burning a paper replica of a building that burned down killing several people?




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join