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

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

not so much grumpy as tired of this assumption in the UK we have some laws preventing free speech

Tell me what i can not say right now in the privacy of my own home, i can call the queen any name i want, i can deride Theresa May, i could even be racist or sexist or even gingerist (would be odd as i am ginger), what people then assume is when i say these things in public and get either charged or condemned the UK is against free speech

Prosecutions in construction do happen but it is a long process to ultimately identify who is soley responsible, I wish whoever was responsible had the decency to hand themselves in also

Grenfell Tower fire: Inspection of site concludes as police commander says, 'We have everything we need'

The police investigation into the Grenfell Tower fire is taking place at the same time as a public inquiry into the disaster, with each probe informing the other.

Hopefully this will find out who is responsible

I was aiming "they handed themselves in" to Unruhestifter as i stated in my post and also on my original post way back on page 3, I have no issue with what you have stated

a reply to: UpIsNowDown
Cool
...I agree, whichever public body agreed that combustable cladding on a high rise building was a good idea needs jailing.
The public order/digital communications acts I'm not fussed about, £100 fine and £200 court costs paid in installments meh.
Even the Hitler dog guy was a twat, he should have known 'shall we gas the jews' wasn't gonna fly online, tough # to him although that was Scottish law and I don't know much about their jurisdiction, don't want to either.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: doobydoll

Ahem. They handed themselves in to a Police station but don't let facts like that get in your way.

They didn't have much of a choice after their mugs were plastered all over msm and social media hunted them down.

Do you think police wouldn't have gone out and put them in handcuffs if thay hadn't given themselves up?

People need to get a grip on themselves. It was a box. They burned a cardboard box.

And yes the contractors know which materials are up to the job at hand, they would know the cladding was inferior and unsuitable. It's their job to know, and they get paid handsomely for their knowledge and expertise. The authority in charge also would know these things. Again, it's their job to know. So, could it be that these two bodies may have conspired to overlook the inferior materials for some reason, but pass it off as on spec? It's possible. But why? They wouldn't gain anything by killing people negligently. Money could be a motive. Pay off the corrupt authority rep/s from the extra profits made from cutting costs = two winners.

If there hadn't been a fire no-one would know to this day about that unsafe cladding.

Could it be that dodgy dealings and corruption led to the tortuous deaths of scores of trapped people? I think it's highly likely.

But let's all blow a fuse over a box being burned and forget about how and why all those people burned to death in that building.

originally posted by: doobydoll
But let's all blow a fuse over a box being burned and forget about how and why all those people burned to death in that building.

Can you not have an opinion on both separate issues?
I agree with everything you said except for stifling conversation about the OP.

originally posted by: Unruhestifter
Why get so caught up about the definition.

Because that's how things work. If someone defends this because it was a joke then the definition of "joke" is important. If I put a bomb under your car and call it a joke does it make it OK?

Humor is subjective?

Yes, humour is subjective, but when we talk about an event that wasn't funny in itself then a humorous version should have some kind of change to present that event as humour. In this case I see only a re-enactment of a tragic event, the only thing that can be seen as humour are some of the comments made.

If this video is so offensive, why is it still up?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: doobydoll
But let's all blow a fuse over a box being burned and forget about how and why all those people burned to death in that building.

Can you not have an opinion on both separate issues?
I agree with everything you said except for stifling conversation about the OP.

Yes of course.

I'm not intending to stifle anything. I just don't understand why there's such a massive hoo-har and arrests for burning a box but no huge outrage and no arrests for the actual real life thing.

originally posted by: doobydoll
I'm not intending to stifle anything. I just don't understand why there's such a massive hoo-har and arrests for burning a box but no huge outrage and no arrests for the actual real life thing.

The topic is not the original fire, it's the burning of the paper model. In my case I'm not outraged because the idiots burned the paper building, I just think they (whoever "they" are, as if this was done privately and published by someone else then it's that person that should be held responsible) should pay for their actions, like everyone else.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: doobydoll
I'm not intending to stifle anything. I just don't understand why there's such a massive hoo-har and arrests for burning a box but no huge outrage and no arrests for the actual real life thing.

The topic is not the original fire, it's the burning of the paper model. In my case I'm not outraged because the idiots burned the paper building, I just think they (whoever "they" are, as if this was done privately and published by someone else then it's that person that should be held responsible) should pay for their actions, like everyone else.

Pay for what, having a bad sense of humour? Good grief.

originally posted by: doobydoll
Pay for what, having a bad sense of humour? Good grief.

I should have said "pay for the consequences of their actions".

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

The true test of free speech, is can you deride the queen as she goes by in a silly hat? It's only free speech if you can say what you want about the queen in public. Anywhere on earth, even in NK, you can say what you want hidden away.

If you can't heckle the queen, you don't have free speech do you? You have a privileged class that's a holdover from the Middle Ages.

No offense intended to royal groupies. Just using that as an example.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

The true test of free speech, is can you deride the queen as she goes by in a silly hat? It's only free speech if you can say what you want about the queen in public. Anywhere on earth, even in NK, you can say what you want hidden away.

If you can't heckle the queen, you don't have free speech do you? You have a privileged class that's a holdover from the Middle Ages.

No offense intended to royal groupies. Just using that as an example.

That's a good but outdated way of looking at it.
No one, even republicans like me would think the queen deserves heckling, well, David Icke maybe...I digress.
Free speech is dead, in the US as well, try going on youtube and saying something nasty about a non white person and, though it wont be the state coming after you, it will still happen, it will just be left leaning psychos.


That said, I am still appalled by this case, for many reasons.
YouTube or whatever social media platform could have pulled the video...end of problem.
The police could have told the people who called them that no law was broken, end of problem.
These fools could have not posted their stupid video, no problem.

If making fun of Grenfell where 70 odd people died, then the cops ought to arrest the entire home end at old Trafford when Liverpool play man u for all the sick Hillsborough songs (where 96 people died) Or the away end where numerous idiots make fun of the Munich air disaster when 23 people died or pretty much anyone playing at Bradford making fun of the 56 who died.


I would prefer though that we don't involve the law in any of those situations, they have much better things to be doing with their time.

a reply to: Blaine91555

David Icke claims in public, on the BBC, on his website and generally everywhere that the Queen and the Royal Family are evil blood guzzling alien shape shifting lizards. He has yet to be prosecuted or otherwise silenced so there goes your example, I'm afraid.

Ever heard of the Sex Pistols?

"I would prefer though that we don't involve the law in any of those situations, they have much better things to be doing with their time."

You would think so, wouldn't you?

Man Arrested for Charging Iphone on Tube

Hate Crime Officer Called an "Embarrassment to the Serice After Telling Shops to Use Gender Neutral Signs To Advertise Tampons

originally posted by: ArMaP

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?

At least three of that group were card carrying Conservative member parties. That's one part of the problem for this government. Then the second one is that Grenfell tower happened due to various changes in safety legislation (privatized fire safety standards, reducing safety for building materials).

The exploding refrigerator has never been fully explained - was it simply the cooling system, or something inside the fridge/freezer?

a reply to: stormcell

"At least three of that group were card carrying Conservative member parties. That's one part of the problem for this government.""

Where did you get that from?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

The true test of free speech, is can you deride the queen as she goes by in a silly hat? It's only free speech if you can say what you want about the queen in public. Anywhere on earth, even in NK, you can say what you want hidden away.

If you can't heckle the queen, you don't have free speech do you? You have a privileged class that's a holdover from the Middle Ages.

No offense intended to royal groupies. Just using that as an example.

By heckle, do you mean like Trump was recently, seems freedom of speech is somewhat selective...

a reply to: doobydoll

Aye there will be a list somewhere of all the people who knew it was shady from the jump
but there will be the construction contracters who installed the cladding, the regular joe guy who gets paid living wage to install the cladding, did they know it was faulty and shady ?

How many are complicit in this crime ?

and none of them have faced trial , yet a couple guys making a very distasteful joke are banged up!

mental , just goes to show , there are laws for the citizens but not the politicians
SCUMBAGS another indication that the government is not fit for purpose is not lawfully democratic in their actions and should be abolished

a reply to: stormcell

You quoted my post but I don't see how that can be an answer to what I wrote.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

The true test of free speech, is can you deride the queen as she goes by in a silly hat? It's only free speech if you can say what you want about the queen in public. Anywhere on earth, even in NK, you can say what you want hidden away.

If you can't heckle the queen, you don't have free speech do you? You have a privileged class that's a holdover from the Middle Ages.

No offense intended to royal groupies. Just using that as an example.

Yeah you can.

No one been arrested in the UK for insulting the Queen.

If you did one of our famous comedians Frankie Boyal would be jailed for life