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.

 

NEWS: Man With Beheading Video On Phone Jailed

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Subhann Younis, a 23 year old working in Glasgow has been jailed for 60 days for playing images to a co-worker from his mobile phone of a beheading in Iraq. Charlotte McClay who was shown the images last September was said to be shocked, upset and distressed by the images. The magistrate told Younis: "I struggle to understand why you had images on your phone entailing the death and degradation of another human being, regardless of their religion or race." Younis claimed he had warned Miss McClay he was going to show her the images and believed she was interested in seeing them.

 



news.bbc.co.uk
The part-time shop worker said he had downloaded the images onto his mobile phone from the internet.
Defence lawyer Dominic Sillar said: "This was a colossal mistake on Mr Younis's part.

"The incident arose out of a series of misunderstandings. Both had been engaged in a conversation about the Iraq War and he said he would show her something which would cause her sleepless nights and her reply was 'Aye right'.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Although these images and videos should not be in circulation, I believe a jail sentence is over to top. We are not told Miss McClay was forced to watch the videos and could have looked away at any time. What good will it do sending this man to jail to live on our taxes for two months?

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
www.textually.org
www.law.ed.ac.uk




posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
What the hell? Why has he been jailed? I can understand people's distaste for anyone watching that but is it actually a crime?? I didn't/dont think so.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I don't understand why he could not have it on his phone.

I missed why its illegal.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
From news.bbc.co.uk... :

"Euan Edment said jail was a fitting penalty for the breach of the peace."

From en.wikipedia.org...

"In modern times, the expression "breach of the peace" is usually limited to offences involving actual tumult, disturbances or disorder. This is by far the most familiar usage of the term among non-lawyers in England. As regards such offences, although they do not fall into the class of grave crimes described as felonies, officers of police and even private persons have larger powers and duties, as to immediate arrest without waiting for judicial warrant, than they possess as to other minor offences. Justices of the peace have under early statutes and the commission of the peace power to take sureties of the peace from persons who are threatening to commit a breach of the peace, and it is within the power of any court on conviction of any misdemeanour and of many felonies to require the offender to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace."

A very harsh outcome I believe.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Oh, So he was jailed in the UK.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The phone doesn't have an off button and glued to the ladies eyes?

I fail to understand the reasoning for jail time here.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I totally understand why he was jailed. Contrary to what the title of this thread implies, it wasn't because he had the images on his phone, but that he showed them to a person without telling her exactly what was on there. It's kind of the equivilent of 'flashing'. It is an assault, in a way.

I have never watched the beheadings available on the internet, first because I have no interst, but I have also heard from some who did, that they had nightmares and cried and all kinds of regrets about doing so. They'll never be able to forget the image.



...he said he would show her something which would cause her sleepless nights and her reply was 'Aye right'.


Yeah, she may have been able to turn away, but likely she looked at the image and by the time she figured out what she was watching on a phone picture, she was riveted in shock and then it was over.

I'm with the judge on this one. Whoever carries this around on their phone, while maybe not breaking the law, has some serious issues in my opinion. I think the guy meant to shock her. To assault her sensitivities.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
It is illegal because they are showing his death I do believe it falls under the same laws as snuff movies, etc, do.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
So when we were all looking at the Nick Berg tape to see if it was a fake or not we were breaking the law, well those of us in the uk anyway?



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I agree that the idea he was jailed for this is astonishing.

Comparing this to flashing is not appropriate: a flasher can flash a complete stranger walking by on the street, this guy had to convince his 'victim' to stop, stand still and look at his phone...without fair warning it might have been shocking and disturbing, but to the best of my knowledge that would not violate a law (of course, I'm no expert).

With that said, I remember when a video like this was making the rounds via e-mail and I had to tell everyone I knew that I did not want to see it. I still ended up receiving links and even a copy of the video which were promptly deleted.

To have had someone shove that in my face would have been annoying/disturbing to say the least, but I would not expect them to be jailed for it.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
It is illegal because they are showing his death I do believe it falls under the same laws as snuff movies, etc, do.


I don't know about the UK, but as far as I know in the US showing the death of someone is only illegal if the person was killed for the sake of the film, in which case it becomes a murder charge. I think that if showing someone's death were illegal, there wouldn't have been 24 hour replays of the WTC footage, and that JetBlue landing last week probably wouldn't have been shown live in case the plane did crash.

The Faces of Death series was in virtually every video store I'd been in for quite a while; I haven't seen them lately, but I haven't looked either. Rented one of those a long time ago out of curiousity, the first 5 minutes just about made me sick to my stomach.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
You also can't show images of death or dead people if the relatives of the victim complain against it.

Imho this should've been a civil case between the woman and the guy instead of a criminal one.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
Imho this should've been a civil case between the woman and the guy instead of a criminal one.



Agreed.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   


The phone doesn't have an off button and glued to the ladies eyes?

I fail to understand the reasoning for jail time here.


Bingo.

He said it would be disturbing, she ignored the disclaimer and then asked to be showed....too bad, so sad. Does the woman not have functioning eyelids? Should the news channels then also be brought up on charges? After all, many showed this as well...



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Solution to the problem...Don't show people beheadings if they did not agree to see it. If they want to see it, get it in writing.

Or the very easy solution...Don't carry around a clip of a beheading



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Scots law has always deviated from the norm. So it would be prudent to remind you that this is Scots Law and NOT English law. The two are wildly different. Scots is based on the Roman system.

It IS a bit excessive but the tempers of the stipendary magistrates at the Sheriff court are famous. The sheer number of cases to be heard almost guarantee's swift and heavy sentencing.

The judgement was strong because the justice believed that he held malicious intent.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
White it was distasteful, his jailing seems very over the top.
The material is freely available and is not illegal, nor is showing it to anyone in my opinon, hardly worth 2 months in jail.

Here in England a pensioner was jailed a couple of days ago (for a week), because she refused to the £53 increase (she did the pay rest though). They said they had to do it to stop anarchy I think, along the lines of anyway.

It's starting to show a trend towards cracking down on people in an OTT way and warping laws to meet their own ends, not good news I think.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
This story is really about workplace relationships. The cases abound where men, thinking that they are having a conversation with a normal, mature, friendly adult, say something or do something that is questionable in judgement, only to find that the other person decides to make a federal case of the matter. In America, the man's career would be ruined and he might have to pay punitive damages, to boot. Jail time pales in comparison to that.


[edit on 2005/9/28 by GradyPhilpott]




top topics



 
7

log in

join