Man arrested after online rant against Liverpool and Hillsborough disaster victims

page: 22
23
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


I think the world will keep turning if you keep drinking so have at it and Happy New Year.




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Did you not bother to read the follow up link?



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.

He pleaded guilty to a single charge under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and was released on bail. He was due to appear in court again today.


Link

He was charged with, and has subsequently pleaded guilty to, sending a message by means of public electronic communication which is deemed to be grossly offensive.

His crime is being offensive on the internet.
edit on 1-1-2013 by bates because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-1-2013 by bates because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


No his crime was being grossly offensive to people, using the internet as a communication tool. Had he been in the street shouting that he would have been arrested for breach of the peace or similar



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManjushriPrajna
Many people here posting about how he should have been arrested need to remember a couple things: First, he was arrested for simply speaking. Secondly, what's next? Will we see people arrested for talking about a touchy subject i.e. 9/11, or writing a detective story about solving a murder?

You may scoff at that suggestion now, but it doesn't take too much walking to get from "arrested for hateful speech" to "arrested for calling a person a name." And that's not the only place it can go.

First Brits want us Americans to give up our guns, and then they cheer and laugh at a story like this? And you wonder why we won't give up our guns?

Had that young Mr Lanza posted on FB, with his rant against society/his town and threatened to do another Columbine, do you think that he would have been arrested?
If he would have been arrested, do you think all of those deaths would still have happened?
Just wondering, like.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
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.


Umm.... thats what "malicious communication" is. He made threats via an online medium.



And... honestly, this gun crap is getting old. Lets put this myth to bed shall we? I can own a gun if I want to.

www.marplerifleandpistolclub.org.uk...

The UK never "gave up its rights" to anything - most people in the UK simply don't want to own a weapon.

The laws that were passed were intended to make it difficult to own a weapon and to make sure those weapons were registered, but its not impossible.

edit on 1/1/13 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 



Originally posted by Dispo

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.


It looks like he was actually arrested and charged for being mean online. Being grossly offensive is not a threat.

I think the USA wins this round. Maybe next time eh?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by destination now
 


you're being very pedantic. i say he was arrested for being offensive on the internet, you say no he wasn't he was arrested for being offensive and using the internet to communicate this. any need for that in this thread?

if he'd done that in the street the chances of him being arrested would be low.

first off, he'd need to have done it in front of a police officer.

secondly, he'd have had to ignore at least a warning because there is no way a policeman would arrest someone for having a rant without first warning them to calm down.

if you've ever been in any major british train station you'll hear people go on wild rants like that all the time and there is no way the police arrest anyone for them unless they refuse to calm down when asked. they'll usually calm them down, take them somewhere to have a sit down and think about what they're doing.

i've seen this first hand many times in new street station, people ranting and raving about how horrible the city of birmingham is and how stupid all the people are. the police do not arrest people for it without fair warning before hand.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


Yes, I am very pedantic..and proud of it. And if he did this in the street or at a station or anywhere else and someone complained, yes, he would have been arrested as the police are duty bound to investigate complaints made by the public.

Bottom line, he was aggressive and threatening and he was arrested...maybe he'll think twice before venting his spleen publicly again, whether it be on the internet or in person.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by destination now
 


He wasn't arrested for being threatening or aggressive so there is no need to mention that again in this thread. If you think he was being threatening or aggressive it makes no difference to anything.

He was arrested for being offensive.

If you think being offensive is enough to warrant arrest and possible incarceration that's fair enough, but please stop saying his being threatening and aggressive is enough to have him arrested.

This is now about being arrested for being offensive and nothing else.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by destination now
 


They wouldn't have the evidence to charge based on a complaint. The evidence in this case is the video. In person, every "scouser" would be an inadmissible witness as they would be prejudiced by the very nature of his rant.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


Unless it was on CCTV or for that matter a number of witnesses. I was a witness recently in a domestic abuse case that happened in the flat above me. The police took mine and my daughter's statements about what we heard...yes heard, not saw and combined with the victim's statement the guy was charged with placing the victim in a state of fear and alarm, he plead guilty so we didn't have to go to court



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


Okay he was arrested for being offensive..and yes, he most certainly was being offensive.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by destination now
 


Different thing.

If this guy ranted in public, it would not be recorded by CCTV - no sound. If it was on camera then he could be charged.

In this case, as the people he offended were also the witnesses, the CPS wouldn't take it to trial as there would be a large chance of him being dismissed.

In your case, you were an independent witness, you had no connection to either party and no stake in the outcome of the case.

E.g. a while ago my girlfriend ran someone over. I was in the car. My witness statement was not admissible as I had personal affinity with a participant of the case, and I had a personal stake in the outcome. Two other people in a car behind us gave statements, and those were admissible as they were not involved in the accident.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


No, not really different, we could have been best friends for all the police and CPS knew...And a witness in the street would carry the same weight in that case..just a random person who saw the rant. Your case in the car is the one that is different because you obviously knew the witness by being in her car.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by destination now
 


He went on and on about scousers being all sorts. Any witnesses to that in Liverpool would likely be scousers. Any witnesses therefore would likely be personally involved in the case.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


Good try but it doesn't work like that and you know it...



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by destination now
 


I don't "know it."

Anyway, we're obviously going round in circles, let's get back to the real issue. Since the Echo states that he was arrested specifically for being offensive: is it morally acceptable in civilised society to arrest someone for hurting someone else's feelings?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


There's a difference between hurting someone's feelings and being offensive. If I say to someone I think you're ugly, that will probably hurt their feelings, I shouldn't be arrested for it though. If on the other hand I say your face looks like someone who has Down's syndrome, that's offensive, not only to the person in question but also to people with Downs and yes, I would expect to be arrested...or at least to get a good kicking, I'd deserve it.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by destination now
 


I disagree, and there lies the crux of most of the arguments in this thread.

I wouldn't separate hurting someone's feelings and being offensive, nor would I separate the two statements you made. That's just my opinion, and there's no logical way to say "that's wrong."

As I said earlier, I just stick to the government approved -isms, no homophobia, sexism or racism. Other people take a broader stance on offence and argue that fat people and ginger people should be protected by discrimination laws, some people like to say nobody should be protected by discrimination laws, but it's a pointless argument either way because it's an opinion based on past experiences, it can't be swayed by logical argument or evidence.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by Dispo
 


There's a difference between hurting someone's feelings and being offensive. If I say to someone I think you're ugly, that will probably hurt their feelings, I shouldn't be arrested for it though. If on the other hand I say your face looks like someone who has Down's syndrome, that's offensive, not only to the person in question but also to people with Downs and yes, I would expect to be arrested...or at least to get a good kicking, I'd deserve it.


Hang on a second.

Are you saying you think telling someone they look they have down syndrome is worse than telling someone they are ugly.

Does that mean you think people with down syndrome are beyond ugly?

What do you find so offensive about people with down syndrome that you would expect to be arrested for telling someone they look like they have it?

That's actually very offensive to people with down syndrome that you think their look is so bad it is an arrest-able offence to tell someone they look like they have it.

It's very sad that you find a disability to be so offensive.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join