Locked Up for Speaking His Mind

[Phil D. Rolls]

First of all, I want to make it clear I have no sympathy for the killer of the two police women. I also have no time for illeterate slime balls that set up Facebok pages calling bad people "legends".

That said, can anyone tell me why a wee scrote from Merseyside is in custody for printing an opinion which is no different from people revelling in the death of Bin Laden, Hussein, or Gadaffi IMO.

Yet Kelvin MacKenzie is still at large for printing lies about the death of 96 people at Hillsborough.

Opinion vs. lies - which is worse in our society?

[Hibs Class]

Slightly misleading thread title?

[VickMackie]

The nature of which these people are pursued is a joke. Some daft laddie was giving Tom daly tasteless abuse during the Olympics and suddenly he's pulled in by the cops with pcs etc taken as evidence.

They're just trolls and best ignored.

Whilst I don't know the comments made by the person jailed I'm guessing it was along the lines of them being glad the pigs are dead. Whilst horrible abs tasteless no one should be jailed for it.

[wpj]

The nature of which these people are pursued is a joke. Some daft laddie was giving Tom daly tasteless abuse during the Olympics and suddenly he's pulled in by the cops with pcs etc taken as evidence.

They're just trolls and best ignored.

Whilst I don't know the comments made by the person jailed I'm guessing it was along the lines of them being glad the pigs are dead. Whilst horrible abs tasteless no one should be jailed for it.

Being discussed now on Jeremy Vine show radio two, "crossing the line" and "what is offensive" interesting debate

[VickMackie]

Being discussed now on Jeremy Vine show radio two, "crossing the line" and "what is offensive" interesting debate

I have a guy on Facebook who comes out with all sort of sick crap, some of it hilarious and others completely needless/horrible. The majority are funny but some are below my moral line. I keep him on for the funny ones.

However, on the subject of the dead PCs there was a page saying how the death penalty should be brought back for the killer and he wrote that the killer should be released. Obviously to provoke a reaction, and it did.

Should he be sent to jail? Should the people who created the page wishing death on the killer be sent to jail?

I think we just need to accept that some people are ********s and/or will say things on social media rooms that they do not believe in just to provoke reactions.

We'll see much more of this as things go more digital in years to come.

It irks me that the police spent all that time going after the Tom Daly troll when thousands of other people suffer the same sort of insults each day.

It irks me that the troll who targetted Ian Murray and called him a Fenian wasn't arrested but others who have sent abuse to Neil Lennon or posted stuff on FB that they'd like to bomb him are. The reason given for the IM one was that the police didn't receive a complaint so they couldn't act, which is BS because we don't need to 'press charges' in Scotland because it based on evidence provided to the PF.

There needs to be consistency IMO.

Sorry, went on a bit of a rant!

[Scouse Hibee]

If the law gave the cops an oportunity to lock him up after mocking the death of "two of their own" then it's fine with me. The Communications Act 2003 was quoted, I wonder how widely you can interpret the act to affect the arrest of liars?

[Beefster]

can anyone tell me why a wee scrote from Merseyside is in custody for printing an opinion which is no different from people revelling in the death of Bin Laden, Hussein, or Gadaffi IMO.

There's no difference between being happy at the deaths of mass murderers and dictators and being happy at the death of policewomen?

[easty]

There's no difference between being happy at the deaths of mass murderers and dictators and being happy at the death of policewomen?

Morally, yeah. Legally, no.

[yeezus.]

I don't think he was giving his opinion - he was trying to get a reaction and he got one. No time for people that setup groups like this on Facebook or anywhere else. It's right that he was locked up.

[--------]

First of all, I want to make it clear I have no sympathy for the killer of the two police women. I also have no time for illeterate slime balls that set up Facebok pages calling bad people "legends".

That said, can anyone tell me why a wee scrote from Merseyside is in custody for printing an opinion which is no different from people revelling in the death of Bin Laden, Hussein, or Gadaffi IMO.

Yet Kelvin MacKenzie is still at large for printing lies about the death of 96 people at Hillsborough.

Opinion vs. lies - which is worse in our society?


If the law gave the cops an oportunity to lock him up after mocking the death of "two of their own" then it's fine with me. The Communications Act 2003 was quoted, I wonder how widely you can interpret the act to affect the arrest of liars?


Section 127 - Improper use of public electronic communications network?


Subsection 1 seems to fit the situation:

"A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent."

The way the law stands, I'd assume that the reports in The Sun re Hillsborough wouldn't be a criminal matter, but would need to be dealt with as a civil matter under the laws of libel and defamation?

Not saying that that's right (it's not) but that would probably be how the law would see it?

The publication in Facebook (the tweet?) could be seen as inciting further attacks on police officers and members of the public - encouraging adulation for a mass-murderer? Cregan has after all been charged with all four murders - the two WPCs and Mark and David Short.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Its a tough one this, because the last thing you want to be doing is to stifle free speech.

But like every human right it should also carry with it responsibility. In some cases to think of the consequences of what you say and in other cases your reasons for saying what you did.

The film about the Prophet Mohammed causing all the bother just now is a case in point: Was the film maker making a serious film criticising Islam ... If so from our ( the wests ) point of view he has a right to do so. If it was just a banal attempt to provoke a reaction and gain fame and money, then was that worth the deaths which have resulted? Not to mention an actress who ( according to her ) was duped into appearing in the film and now lives in fear of her life.

As for the facebook guy ...... was he just another brain dead ned who thought he was being funny ( if so hell mend him ) or did he have a point to make?

That I suppose is the trouble with free speech. There are countries in the world where the concept of what is allowable is hugely different from what is acceptable, or tolerated, in Europe or North America. Now that ordinary people can make their thoughts known worldwide on the internet people in those countries get to see stuff they find abhorrent and react to it, often violently.

From my pint of view it is scary to think that it is so easy to provoke ( lets face it ) people in Muslim countries around the world to riots and violence with fatal consequences to the point where these countries are disrupted to a national degree. Pakistan declared a National holiday today to try and damp down the violence.

The racists must be loving it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

There's no difference between being happy at the deaths of mass murderers and dictators and being happy at the death of policewomen?

It's all about opinions. What I'm getting at is that expressing an opinion - no matter how vile it is to the majority of people, is not the same thing as printing vile lies as fact.

Personally, I hope I made it clear on where I stand regarding the scrote mocking the policewomen and praising their killer. At the same time, I think people should be allowed to say what they believe.

On the other hand, in MacKenzie's case, I think that someone who publishes lies like he did, should be brought to book. The scrote only let us into the workings of his undeveloped mind. MacKenzie led many people to think bad of people who had done no wrong, by distorting the facts.

I would argue that his actions caused much more harm than the Facebook page. They contributed to a cover up that allowed the wrong doers to escape the pressure of public opinion.

My opinion is that Tony Blair is also a mass murderer, as is Bush. That maybe goes against the grain for a lot of people. I see no difference between me saying that, and an ignorant fool seeing the police murderer as a hero.

[Scouse Hibee]

Section 127 - Improper use of public electronic communications network?


Subsection 1 seems to fit the situation:

"A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent."

The way the law stands, I'd assume that the reports in The Sun re Hillsborough wouldn't be a criminal matter, but would need to be dealt with as a civil matter under the laws of libel and defamation?

Not saying that that's right (it's not) but that would probably be how the law would see it?

The publication in Facebook (the tweet?) could be seen as inciting further attacks on police officers and members of the public - encouraging adulation for a mass-murderer? Cregan has after all been charged with all four murders - the two WPCs and Mark and David Short.

:aok: Cheers Doddie.

[--------]

:aok: Cheers Doddie.


You're welcome.

Though I have to say that Section 127, subsections 1 (a) and (b) seem to me to be worded in such a way as to catch almost anyone, not just low-lives with a crush on killers. That said, IMO this particular tweeter seems to have been done bang to rights.

However - in the light of Sec 127, subsections 1 (a) and (b), I think even I may have to moderate MY tone on this website in the future or Strathclyde's finest may well be thinking of paying me a visit.

:devil:

[Hibs Class]

It's all about opinions. What I'm getting at is that expressing an opinion - no matter how vile it is to the majority of people, is not the same thing as printing vile lies as fact.

Personally, I hope I made it clear on where I stand regarding the scrote mocking the policewomen and praising their killer. At the same time, I think people should be allowed to say what they believe.

On the other hand, in MacKenzie's case, I think that someone who publishes lies like he did, should be brought to book. The scrote only let us into the workings of his undeveloped mind. MacKenzie led many people to think bad of people who had done no wrong, by distorting the facts.

I would argue that his actions caused much more harm than the Facebook page. They contributed to a cover up that allowed the wrong doers to escape the pressure of public opinion.

My opinion is that Tony Blair is also a mass murderer, as is Bush. That maybe goes against the grain for a lot of people. I see no difference between me saying that, and an ignorant fool seeing the police murderer as a hero.


Should people be allowed to make racist, homophobic or sectarian statements if they believe what they are saying? Most folk would, I think, agree that outlawing that type of abuse is a step forward by society and it would seem odd to treat the type of statement in this case as different.

[Betty Boop]

Excellent article from Deborah Orr.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/21/west-islamic-world-let-live

[Phil D. Rolls]

Should people be allowed to make racist, homophobic or sectarian statements if they believe what they are saying? Most folk would, I think, agree that outlawing that type of abuse is a step forward by society and it would seem odd to treat the type of statement in this case as different.

I'd argue that there has to be room for dissent, expressed in the appropriate manner. We could easily reach the situation, whereby - say - those disagreeing with the proposals for same sex marriages are locked up under the same legislation that is designed to prevent people being picked on for being gay.

There's an unwritten law of the internet that every discussion will ultimately lead to Hitler and the Nazis being mentioned. I won't do that (oops I already have). I'll use the example of the Sex Pistols in 1977, releasing a record called "God Save the Queen". They were allowed to do that because of a fundamental principle of freedom of thought and speech - even though it was offensive to many people (not I).

I think we should guard against criminalising poor taste or judgement. On the other hand, we live in a society where lying - something I think the British people hate - is something that is rewarded.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Excellent article from Deborah Orr.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/21/west-islamic-world-let-live

I've always liked the Dutch principle of "do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others". Sticks and stones, etc. On the other hand, if you print lies that throw the public off the scent of the truth when a great wrong has occurred, you are actually causing harm. Who is to say what other cock ups the halfwits in charge of South Yorkshire Police got away with because they were unchallenged?