Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Man arrested after online rant against Liverpool and Hillsborough disaster victims

page: 21
23
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
What was his crime exactly?

Was he a criminal, or did he just have unpopular views? How much resources have been wasted arresting this man, over an internet diatribe. LOL Are we gonna start policing opinions and comments online.

Kanye just got Kim Kardashian pregnant, but I better not SAY anything lest someone arrest me for being offensive.

This is a slippery slope.

This isn't really about hate speech at all. How long before it is against any views that do not fall in line with a particular administration or policy.

We are then no different from the Arab nations we condemn. When they do it its not right, but when we do it its okay.

Your society in Britain is becoming more closed and controlled. You now have a democratic dictatorship, but at least you are happy about it.


edit on 12/31/2012 by INDOMITABLE because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
Was he a criminal, or did he just have unpopular views?

Brits seem to think that's the same thing, for some reason.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
As a quick follow up from the Liverpool Echo

Link



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by SpaceMonkeys
 



You just don't get it, you fully accept that there should be restrictions on what you can say on a forum, but don't think that should apply in real life? Because it's not about what Govt says we can and can't say, it's about what society decides is acceptable and what is not. The hypothetical example given a few posts above ours about someone taking their disabled son out and having all sorts of abuse shouted at them, is unacceptable, and sadly whilst that was a hypothetical example sadly it happens all too often in real life.

So what do you suggest is a reasonable way to deal with people who verbally abuse people for no reason?


A private business has the right to make its own rules. ATS has the right to say what behavior they find acceptable. If the people do not like the rules, they are not required to patronize that business. Freedom. No one is forcing you to abide by those rules. You are free to accept them or not and you will not be arrested for violations.

The government on the other hand, should not be in the business of policing opinions, dangerous or not dangerous. A crime hasn't been committed, no ones rights have been abused. No one has a right against criticism.

I understand where you are coming from, you seek a world in which everyone is perfect and everyone behaves according to WASP values and you believe that the government should create this world.

The problem with this is that this has already happened to you guys, under the Catholic Church. This created a situation throughout Europe where everything was a crime, and the church went through great efforts to rid the world of heretics (so much good its brought).

It hasn't worked. Freedom works. As long as he did not infringe on anyone else's rights he is entitled to his opinion. He didn't call the homes of the families. He didn't harass them. So what was his crime? Moreover, what is a fitting punishment for an offensive opinion, death?

Is this making sense to anyone across the pond.

You cannot instill in everyone Judeo-Christian values or any other values YOU think are right or you will spend all of your time policing wayward people, who have not really committed any crimes.
edit on 12/31/2012 by INDOMITABLE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BMorris
I've said it before, many times on these forums.

The UK does not have a right of free speech.

What we have is called the negative right to the freedom of creation and expression.

Basically this means we can say and do whatever we want, providing it does not contravene any laws, local or national.

Hate speech, in the UK is ILLEGAL under the Public Order Act of 1986.The guy broke this law, and in doing so, lost his rights under the Negative Right to the Freedom of Creation and Expression. While you may not agree with it, and I personally don't agree with it, his arrest IS justifiable under established UK legislation. Quite old legislation at that, too.

You can't ignore a law just because you don't agree with it, neither is ignorance of said law, an excuse.

If you don't like a law, run for Parliament, and change it.
edit on 31/12/2012 by BMorris because: Additional


What is that??? Man you guys are so deprived. Negative right to the freedom of create... I can't even finish it.

Read me my rights sir, nevermind.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
What was his crime exactly?

Was he a criminal, or did he just have unpopular views? How much resources have been wasted arresting this man, over an internet diatribe. LOL Are we gonna start policing opinions and comments online.


His Crime - and I think section 1 (a) applies here (menacing character).

I think it's pretty naive to assume that laws that apply to one country immediately apply to another - intimated by the use of your word 'we' (though I say that under assumption and nothing more). Though, I am in agreement that a possible misappropriation of resources have been applied to this one case - more so when I read of gangland style executions less than two miles away from where this guy lives. However, if there are laws in place then they must be upheld...surely?
edit on 31-12-2012 by DoomDoomDoomy because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-12-2012 by DoomDoomDoomy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomDoomDoomy

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
What was his crime exactly?

Was he a criminal, or did he just have unpopular views? How much resources have been wasted arresting this man, over an internet diatribe. LOL Are we gonna start policing opinions and comments online.


His Crime - and I think section 1 (a) applies here (menacing character).

I think it's pretty naive to assume that laws that apply to one country immediately apply to another - intimated by the use of your word 'we' (though I say that under assumption and nothing more). Though, I am in agreement that a possible misuse of resources have been applied to this one case - more so when I read of gangland style executions less than two miles away from where this guy lives. However, if there are laws in place then they must be upheld...surely?
edit on 31-12-2012 by DoomDoomDoomy because: (no reason given)


Wow.

Then people are everywhere(in Britain) breaking the law.

Round them up.

If I come to England to visit family do you think they will arrest me when I come off the plane?

Seriously, could Mark Zuckerberg be arrested because he caused such a transmission to be sent? Where does it stop.

Do you guys censor your internet like China? Maybe that will start next year.

The only think I can think of is Tiananmen Square coming to a place near you. Except, I think most people there are too washed to protest, though those who do definitely have a brave heart considering the chilling situation.


edit on 12/31/2012 by INDOMITABLE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
The thing that worries me is that law is so loose it could genuinely be applied to anything.

I honestly don't have a clue what is deemed as offensive, vulger, obscene, aggressive, annoying, etc etc these days.

If I draw a big giant penis in paint and post it on twitter could I be done for posting something obscene or indecent?

If I post a ten minute video of myself doing nothing but a beeping noise could someone complain and say i've only done it to cause annoyance?

That's the sort of thing a child does when they're bored but you could end up doing 6 months in prison if enough people complain about it.

It also seems to me that if you get arrested for one of the 'crimes' you have no choice but to immediately plead guilty. We get a lot of these cases now but when was the last time you heard of someone fighting to clear their name?

No one ever does because they're too scared of the consequences. Everyone knows you get offered the chance to take the slap on the wrist by the police and if you take it to court and are found guilty they'll hit you with the maximum sentence.

I'm terrified of ever being accused of one of these section 127 crimes; I honestly don't know if I'd have the bottle to fight for what I believe is right or if i'd just cave in at the first opportunity like everyone else does.

I honestly don't believe the chap doing the rant thought he was breaking any laws, and I know people say ignorance is no defence but come on.

This is getting past a joke and becoming really scary now.

I think my twitter and facebook accounts are going to get binned for good, this is the final nail in the coffin for my social networking career.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


I think judgement & common sense is the key here. If you feel that you should say something (whether you feel it may cause offense or not) then you should do so. If you are then accused of causing offense due to certain laws....then you are well within your right to defend yourself. Yet if your comments or content is cause for concern (i.e. what is defined as menacing character?) then what should one expect?

And yes, there are many people who have posted things far far worse on the internet than what this guy has done and gone unpunished. Whether it by via twitter, blogs, videos etc.etc. - the point is, this was brought to the attention of Merseyside Police. Now, I hope this guy defends himself with absolute decorum and dignity because of what he said - how he feels regarding it is obviously very strong - the case in point is how he carried his words, which was just poor poor judgement on his part.

I have personal sympathy for this guy because I understand where he's coming from. I hate this city as much as I am forced to love it. Yet I can't currently do anything about it....so I just get on with it....it's a part of living.
edit on 31-12-2012 by DoomDoomDoomy because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-12-2012 by DoomDoomDoomy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomDoomDoomy
I think it's pretty naive to assume that laws that apply to one country immediately apply to another

Laws no, but rights yes. Rights are not given by people or governments, rights are inherent and universal. Some governments have laws that protect human rights, others have laws that deny them, but the rights still exist either way.

The writers of the US Declaration of Independence recognized this and cited it as one of the reasons for overthrowing the British regime in the first place, writing "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

"Unalienable" meaning these rights exist permanently and are inherent in all individuals, even if a regime is currently denying them at the time.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
wow, just wow..notably even the mods closed the thread for a while...I'm not surprised and I didn't even get to see most of the posts that were removed

my friends have gone home now and I thought I'd take a look before going to bed, and now I truly cannot sleep.

Truebrit wrote an excellent post on why we fought a war from 1939 to 1945 and he/she was totally correct.

You know I had typed out a whole lot of thoughts about TrueBrits posts and some of the replies to him/her and my incredulity at the irony of the replies and was gojng to make my own response but I just moderated myself and I thinkI m going to go back to my hogmany celebrations and say nothing else at this time



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

What was his crime exactly?


Seems like a reasonable question.

Can someone *clearly* lay it out?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   
A man makes an obviously unbalanced comment in a video.

In that video he addresses "Liverpool", and suggests that if he had a gun, he would most likely vent his frustrations on the city.

His emotional state in the video is plain to see. He's lost it completely.

So why did the police investigate? Well, maybe its because over here we don't want to a load of randomly targetted people killed by some lunatic with a grudge and weapons.

And lets get this straight, if a complaint is made to the Police in the UK they are bound to investigate it. They can't just dismiss it.

The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether formal charges are bought or not after a Police investigation, which may or may not include arrest under formal caution so that evidence is gathered that may be used in a prosecution.

You can, however, be arrested and not prosecuted.

So whats his crime here?

Malicious communication including threats of physical violence and force.

I would venture that - in western culture - anyone making such threats in a public arena is liable to some form of investigation and/or prosecution, even in the USA

In fact, in the USA its called Verbal Assault



At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.


I'm amazed that so many people from the USA, talking about free speech and police states etc are unaware/ignorant of their own laws ~ it took a simple Google search to find that

And why was he charged? Well I'm guessing here but I would imagine its because he made those threats in a public arena, in a manner that suggested to the CPS that he may, if given access to weaponry, cause actual physical harm, and as such they wanted the matter put through a court so that either a judge or jury could decide on the best course of action going forward.

That's what the justice system is about. If you choose to do something stupid in life, there are usually consequences.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Well I watched the video and I will have to disagree as that being a threat. That is the point many of us have made here in the US. There isn’t a court in the US or prosecutor that would take the case based on it being a threat.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomDoomDoomy
As a quick follow up from the Liverpool Echo

Link


THIS IS WHY HE WAS CHARGED


Lawrence, of Toxteth, appeared at Liverpool magistrates court on Saturday after being charged with sending, by means of public electronic communication, a message which is deemed grossly offensive.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


But that's the USA.

The USA is not the UK, is it?

In the USA, I can be arrested for jaywalking and crossing a road at the wrong point. Doesn't happen over here.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Well you seemed to try to make it a point that he was charged for making threats which is not the case. See post above yours.

What he said is not a direct threat. At no point did I say he wouldn’t be charged in the UK. I guess we in the US enjoy more freedom than those in the UK.

You get a ticket jaywalking. Don’t be absurd.


No one I the US is going to prison or jail for 6 months for jaywalking and especially not for speaking.

The UK gave up its gun rights and free speech rights in that order I wonde what will be next.
edit on 1-1-2013 by Grimpachi because: spelling



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
You get a ticket jaywalking. Don’t be absurd.


Second image on google for "jaywalking ticket"



Also, we don't get arrested for farting.




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 



I did say you get a ticket but you do not go to jail. You can go to jail for failure to pay the ticket.

I should have said don’t be absurd. You get a ticket.

The fart is funny as h#ll
I remember that. They wound up dropping the charges of asault but he still was arrested for drunk driving.
edit on 1-1-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Sorry about that, I think I'm still drunk. (On a side note, I wonder if society would be okay with me finishing off my alcohol at 9am, or would that be considered alcoholism... I might do a survey...)





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution