User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:11:34 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does our Constitution have to do with a completely different country? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Right after they finish their work on the Second the First is next. What does our Constitution have to do with a completely different country? The Bill of Rights simply enumerates rights that all men have. Attacks on individual rights tend to take the same form, all over the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:13:19 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't that a first amendment violation? Nvm. Magna Charta then? Their elite are not British. Just as our elite are not American. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:14:13 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Their elite are not British. Just as our elite are not American. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Isn't that a first amendment violation? Nvm. Magna Charta then? Their elite are not British. Just as our elite are not American. Go on....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:16:53 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go on....... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't that a first amendment violation? Nvm. Magna Charta then? Their elite are not British. Just as our elite are not American. Go on....... Does the U.S. House and Senate represent the producers of the United States or Chrony Corporatists and Banks? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:18:01 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does our Constitution have to do with a completely different country? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Right after they finish their work on the Second the First is next. What does our Constitution have to do with a completely different country? Our left is doing the same thing here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:32:26 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:...
Depends on the context. 6 people were killed in a horrific accident witnessed by many people. All very tragic and deeply upsetting for a lot of people. Within a matter of hours this guy allegedly started referring to the victims as trash in a thread/tweet string or whatever one of these Twitter things is called where people were leaving messages of condolence when emotions were understandably running high. If the message was posted with the intent of malice and in an effort to cause distress, especially to the loved ones of those who had lost their lives, then it could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 2003. If it was an ill-advised attempt at poorly timed humour then the whole thing may amount to nothing more than understandable anger at comments made in poor judgement. The legislation is not without controversy. It's intent was originally to provide a legal framework to deal with stalkers for example, and those who were targeting people with threatening or abusive communtications that were causing people genuine distress, including threats to kill, threats of violence and content of an explicit nature that might be uninvited. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, but it has also been applied quite fairly in others, The practicality is that you are free to exercise your freedom of speech, but if you abuse that right to the significant detriment of others then you may face consequences for your actions. Whether this example meets that criteria remains to be seen. Don't read too much into the arrest. If an offence has been reported and a suspect identified then it is not uncommon for arrest to take place because arrest sets a whole documented process underway that provides protection for the rights of the suspect, alleged victims and the investigating officers through the Codes of Practice set out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Prosecution and Investigation Act 1996. So, he's getting a warning, time-out, or is his account getting locked? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:36:03 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You contribute a lot of interesting stuff to this forum, but I have to say I find your calm acceptance of the guy's arrest completely creepy. That sentence is positively Orwellian in its illustration of egregious governmental overreach, yet you seem fine with it. ETA I am shocked that such a comment could be considered a possible criminal offense at all, never mind whether an "arrest" is not a confirmation of guilt or not and that's all to be determined... Maybe he's afraid of being arrested. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:37:02 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It Nope. Being arrested does not mean you are a criminal. An offence was reported. Police investigate that offence. Arrest triggers a formal process and the rights of the suspect are protected because he/she may be innocent or may be wrongly accused etc. The findings will be reported to the Crown Proaecution Service who will decide what action to take after weighing up a range of factors. if his comments were deliberately malicious then he may face court. If he just made a poor taste comment by error of judgement then the may be no further action. Arrest is the start of a formal process which follows strict guidelines. This ensures due process is observed. Where somone is accused of an offence it means the evidence must meet a minimum standard of admissiability. Where a decision is taken to drop the case it provides a justification and assurance to the alleged victims that the decision has been given appropriate consideration. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It Quoted:
Quoted:
Depends on the context. 6 people were killed in a horrific accident witnessed by many people. All very tragic and deeply upsetting for a lot of people. Within a matter of hours this guy allegedly started referring to the victims as trash in a thread/tweet string or whatever one of these Twitter things is called where people were leaving messages of condolence when emotions were understandably running high. If the message was posted with the intent of malice and in an effort to cause distress, especially to the loved ones of those who had lost their lives, then it could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 2003. If it was an ill-advised attempt at poorly timed humour then the whole thing may amount to nothing more than understandable anger at comments made in poor judgement. The legislation is not without controversy. It's intent was originally to provide a legal framework to deal with stalkers for example, and those who were targeting people with threatening or abusive communtications that were causing people genuine distress, including threats to kill, threats of violence and content of an explicit nature that might be uninvited. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, but it has also been applied quite fairly in others, The practicality is that you are free to exercise your freedom of speech, but if you abuse that right to the significant detriment of others then you may face consequences for your actions. Whether this example meets that criteria remains to be seen. Don't read too much into the arrest. If an offence has been reported and a suspect identified then it is not uncommon for arrest to take place because arrest sets a whole documented process underway that provides protection for the rights of the suspect, alleged victims and the investigating officers through the Codes of Practice set out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Prosecution and Investigation Act 1996. So your government decides what is in bad taste and arrests being accordingly? What could possibly go wrong with that. Nope. Being arrested does not mean you are a criminal. An offence was reported. Police investigate that offence. Arrest triggers a formal process and the rights of the suspect are protected because he/she may be innocent or may be wrongly accused etc. The findings will be reported to the Crown Proaecution Service who will decide what action to take after weighing up a range of factors. if his comments were deliberately malicious then he may face court. If he just made a poor taste comment by error of judgement then the may be no further action. Arrest is the start of a formal process which follows strict guidelines. This ensures due process is observed. Where somone is accused of an offence it means the evidence must meet a minimum standard of admissiability. Where a decision is taken to drop the case it provides a justification and assurance to the alleged victims that the decision has been given appropriate consideration. So what if it was malicious? The only thing he maligned were people's feelings. Good grief. Don't tell me you're a fan of this bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:44:58 AM EDT
[#9]
Their country their rules.
But that shit will be coming here soon enough As that one post shows the Muslims can say all kinds of shit and the police, prosecutors do nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 3:41:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carta. Magna Carta. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Isn't that a first amendment violation? Nvm. Magna Charta then?
Carta. Magna Carta. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 3:59:17 AM EDT
[#11]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 4:06:36 AM EDT
[#12]
The UK we knew is gone now, replaced with a caliphate that has eliminated free speech and expression for all but those who would seek to further destroy what remains of its once vaunted western values. I'm so sad for the British people, who willingly surrendered all their freedoms and welcomed in a fifth column. They committed cultural suicide.
The same game plan is afoot in this country, we are just 10 years behind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 4:37:54 AM EDT
[#13]
@ Funky and other Brit brothers here. The part of this we have a hard time with is that here, you can say anything you want up to the point of actually causing a crime. Something merely tasteless and insulting even to the point of causing some grief and anger is handled by the persons it was directed at, not by the government.
We may hate the speech, but we value the freedom of being able to say it over a nanny state protecting our feelings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 4:45:53 AM EDT
[#14]
I laughed at his joke.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 4:49:54 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You contribute a lot of interesting stuff to this forum, but I have to say I find your calm acceptance of the guy's arrest completely creepy. That sentence is positively Orwellian in its illustration of egregious governmental overreach, yet you seem fine with it. ETA I am shocked that such a comment could be considered a possible criminal offense at all, never mind whether an "arrest" is not a confirmation of guilt or not and that's all to be determined... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Depends on the context. 6 people were killed in a horrific accident witnessed by many people. All very tragic and deeply upsetting for a lot of people. Within a matter of hours this guy allegedly started referring to the victims as trash in a thread/tweet string or whatever one of these Twitter things is called where people were leaving messages of condolence when emotions were understandably running high. If the message was posted with the intent of malice and in an effort to cause distress, especially to the loved ones of those who had lost their lives, then it could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 2003. If it was an ill-advised attempt at poorly timed humour then the whole thing may amount to nothing more than understandable anger at comments made in poor judgement. The legislation is not without controversy. It's intent was originally to provide a legal framework to deal with stalkers for example, and those who were targeting people with threatening or abusive communtications that were causing people genuine distress, including threats to kill, threats of violence and content of an explicit nature that might be uninvited. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, but it has also been applied quite fairly in others, The practicality is that you are free to exercise your freedom of speech, but if you abuse that right to the significant detriment of others then you may face consequences for your actions. Whether this example meets that criteria remains to be seen. Don't read too much into the arrest. If an offence has been reported and a suspect identified then it is not uncommon for arrest to take place because arrest sets a whole documented process underway that provides protection for the rights of the suspect, alleged victims and the investigating officers through the Codes of Practice set out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Prosecution and Investigation Act 1996. You contribute a lot of interesting stuff to this forum, but I have to say I find your calm acceptance of the guy's arrest completely creepy. That sentence is positively Orwellian in its illustration of egregious governmental overreach, yet you seem fine with it. ETA I am shocked that such a comment could be considered a possible criminal offense at all, never mind whether an "arrest" is not a confirmation of guilt or not and that's all to be determined... Absolutely this. Even the possibility of a joke being a crime has to have an incredible chilling effect on the exercise of free speech. Reflecting on this, I believe there is no way you can claim the UK has free speech. Free speech is all about protecting offensive speech - nobody ever tried to outlaw mundane speech anyway. I found this at Wikipedia: The MCA has been criticized for its misuse as a means to censor free speech. In 2012 an individual was arrested under the Act for saying that Olympic diver Tom Daley let his late father down by not winning a medal at the London Olympics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 5:33:01 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty much, and what bothers me more is that everyone over there is cool that the guy was arrested. Why would anyone care about such an asshole? In older news.....http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3135327/Obama-rant-Brit-banned-from-US-for-life.html......
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 5:50:17 AM EDT
[#17]
Threatening letters or other articles - Section 1 Malicious Communications Act, 1988
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8.20830, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered. Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill. The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient. The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 All ER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2). A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both. Looks like it was Thatcher's Govt that introduced this. Unlike others here, I make no effort or attempt to explain or justify it. This place is lost and given my time over, I would've gotten out of here for the US a long long time ago |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 6:08:50 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what if it was malicious? The only thing he maligned were people's feelings. Good grief. Don't tell me you're a fan of this bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It Quoted:
Quoted:
Depends on the context. 6 people were killed in a horrific accident witnessed by many people. All very tragic and deeply upsetting for a lot of people. Within a matter of hours this guy allegedly started referring to the victims as trash in a thread/tweet string or whatever one of these Twitter things is called where people were leaving messages of condolence when emotions were understandably running high. If the message was posted with the intent of malice and in an effort to cause distress, especially to the loved ones of those who had lost their lives, then it could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 2003. If it was an ill-advised attempt at poorly timed humour then the whole thing may amount to nothing more than understandable anger at comments made in poor judgement. The legislation is not without controversy. It's intent was originally to provide a legal framework to deal with stalkers for example, and those who were targeting people with threatening or abusive communtications that were causing people genuine distress, including threats to kill, threats of violence and content of an explicit nature that might be uninvited. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, but it has also been applied quite fairly in others, The practicality is that you are free to exercise your freedom of speech, but if you abuse that right to the significant detriment of others then you may face consequences for your actions. Whether this example meets that criteria remains to be seen. Don't read too much into the arrest. If an offence has been reported and a suspect identified then it is not uncommon for arrest to take place because arrest sets a whole documented process underway that provides protection for the rights of the suspect, alleged victims and the investigating officers through the Codes of Practice set out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Prosecution and Investigation Act 1996. So your government decides what is in bad taste and arrests being accordingly? What could possibly go wrong with that. Nope. Being arrested does not mean you are a criminal. An offence was reported. Police investigate that offence. Arrest triggers a formal process and the rights of the suspect are protected because he/she may be innocent or may be wrongly accused etc. The findings will be reported to the Crown Proaecution Service who will decide what action to take after weighing up a range of factors. if his comments were deliberately malicious then he may face court. If he just made a poor taste comment by error of judgement then the may be no further action. Arrest is the start of a formal process which follows strict guidelines. This ensures due process is observed. Where somone is accused of an offence it means the evidence must meet a minimum standard of admissiability. Where a decision is taken to drop the case it provides a justification and assurance to the alleged victims that the decision has been given appropriate consideration. So what if it was malicious? The only thing he maligned were people's feelings. Good grief. Don't tell me you're a fan of this bullshit. No need to get angry with me over it. I didn't invet this law.
I was trying to explaini what the law was intended for and how the the process of justice works because most people probably don't have any experience or understanding of the systems at play and what they do. I have my own misgivings about the use of this law in these circumstances, and it is not the first time. By the same token, with freedom comes responsibility and if you abuse freedom then you can be held accountable for your actions. The question comes in whether this person's actions represent a sufficient abuse of freedom of speech to warrant prosecution. Currently the bloke in question is not in custody and has yet to be charged with anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 6:20:20 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even the British don't understand British humor |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 6:21:41 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You contribute a lot of interesting stuff to this forum, but I have to say I find your calm acceptance of the guy's arrest completely creepy. That sentence is positively Orwellian in its illustration of egregious governmental overreach, yet you seem fine with it. ETA I am shocked that such a comment could be considered a possible criminal offense at all, never mind whether an "arrest" is not a confirmation of guilt or not and that's all to be determined... All of what he said. I was expecting the brits to come in and tell us how the media all hyped it up but sure as shit the story sounds like its spot on. The arrest in it self is going to deprive someone of their liberty not only the involuntary detainment but also the monetary cost of legal representation incurred for a "cautioned interview". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 6:26:35 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... I was trying to explaini what the law was intended for and how the the process of justice works because most people probably don't have any experience or understanding of the systems at play and what they do. I have my own misgivings about the use of this law in these circumstances, and it is not the first time. By the same token, with freedom comes responsibility and if you abuse freedom then you can be held accountable for your actions. The question comes in whether this person's actions represent a sufficient abuse of freedom of speech to warrant prosecution. Currently the bloke in question is not in custody and has yet to be charged with anything. No one has a responsibility to not hurt other people's feelings. Protecting people's feelings with the law is how you wind up with teeming masses of gigantic thin-skinned pussies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 6:54:57 AM EDT
[#22]
What always get me in these threads is the butt hurt for something that happens in another country.
Then, citing the demise of amendments and the AMERICAN constitution. Our constitution doesn't work in other lands. That's not how this work. That's not how any of this works... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 6:55:51 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one has a responsibility to not hurt other people's feelings. Protecting people's feelings with the law is how you wind up with teeming masses of gigantic thin-skinned pussies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... I was trying to explaini what the law was intended for and how the the process of justice works because most people probably don't have any experience or understanding of the systems at play and what they do. I have my own misgivings about the use of this law in these circumstances, and it is not the first time. By the same token, with freedom comes responsibility and if you abuse freedom then you can be held accountable for your actions. The question comes in whether this person's actions represent a sufficient abuse of freedom of speech to warrant prosecution. Currently the bloke in question is not in custody and has yet to be charged with anything. No one has a responsibility to not hurt other people's feelings. Protecting people's feelings with the law is how you wind up with teeming masses of gigantic thin-skinned pussies. Only if you pander to them.
Most people will simply ignore his comments and move on. There will of course be those who are offended and "demand that something be done" as there always is. Like I said, the guy hasn't been charged (yet). An offence was reported, it is being investigated under due process and a decision will be made in place once the facts are established. However, the point where I will become more concerned is if he is actually charged. The decision to prosecute (or not) is the important bit. If it does go to a court hearing then the verdict is where the precedent will be set. Essentially it will amount to someone being prosecuted for making an inappropriate attempt at black humour. There is no doubt that it was a comment made in bad taste, but does it really warrant prosecution as a malicious communication? This is how laws are tested and their reach is determined. Hopefully common sense will prevail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 7:06:31 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What always get me in these threads is the butt hurt for something that happens in another country. Then, citing the demise of amendments and the AMERICAN constitution. Our constitution doesn't work in other lands. That's not how this work. That's not how any of this works...
All men have inalienable rights. Some of those rights are enumerated in our Bill of Rights. But all men have the same inalienable rights. American, Britain, Swede and Israelite alike. Any government which violates them commits a grave abuse. You need to take a Civics class. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 7:06:42 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All of what he said. I was expecting the brits to come in and tell us how the media all hyped it up but sure as shit the story sounds like its spot on. The arrest in it self is going to deprive someone of their liberty not only the involuntary detainment but also the monetary cost of legal representation incurred for a "cautioned interview". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You contribute a lot of interesting stuff to this forum, but I have to say I find your calm acceptance of the guy's arrest completely creepy. That sentence is positively Orwellian in its illustration of egregious governmental overreach, yet you seem fine with it. ETA I am shocked that such a comment could be considered a possible criminal offense at all, never mind whether an "arrest" is not a confirmation of guilt or not and that's all to be determined... All of what he said. I was expecting the brits to come in and tell us how the media all hyped it up but sure as shit the story sounds like its spot on. The arrest in it self is going to deprive someone of their liberty not only the involuntary detainment but also the monetary cost of legal representation incurred for a "cautioned interview". Had the police not responded they would no doubt have faced overwhelming criticism for failing to act and there would probably have been a brouhaha in the press over it, forcing a response and justification for doing nothing about an alleged offence. The allegation is that a law has been broken and the offender was identified. The police acted, investigated and the guy was released on bail pending conclusion of the enquiries. If due process is adhered to and the decision to not take the case any further is forthcoming then there can be no repercussions and allegations of failing to act. The guy was released within hours not detained that which was necessary to get his version of events under due process. A duty solicitor would have been provided FOC if the man chose to have representation during his interview. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 7:14:46 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All men have inalienable rights. Some are enumerated in our Bill of Rights. But all men have those rights. American, Britain, Swede and Israelite alike. You need to take a Civics class. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What always get me in these threads is the butt hurt for something that happens in another country. Then, citing the demise of amendments and the AMERICAN constitution. Our constitution doesn't work in other lands. That's not how this work. That's not how any of this works...
All men have inalienable rights. Some are enumerated in our Bill of Rights. But all men have those rights. American, Britain, Swede and Israelite alike. You need to take a Civics class. No such thing as inalienable rights. The definition of inalienable is "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor". You have those rights because you have so far chosen to maintain and protect them. The second there is an overwhelming will to change those rights they become threatened and can be removed even if you oppose it.
By their very nature, and by virtue of the fact that you have to defend and maintain those rights from those who would take them away, they are not inalienable. To suggest they are inalienable rights, in my view, breeds complacency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 7:16:43 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty much, and what bothers me more is that everyone over there is cool that the guy was arrested. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It Quoted:
Quoted:
Depends on the context. 6 people were killed in a horrific accident witnessed by many people. All very tragic and deeply upsetting for a lot of people. Within a matter of hours this guy allegedly started referring to the victims as trash in a thread/tweet string or whatever one of these Twitter things is called where people were leaving messages of condolence when emotions were understandably running high. If the message was posted with the intent of malice and in an effort to cause distress, especially to the loved ones of those who had lost their lives, then it could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 2003. If it was an ill-advised attempt at poorly timed humour then the whole thing may amount to nothing more than understandable anger at comments made in poor judgement. The legislation is not without controversy. It's intent was originally to provide a legal framework to deal with stalkers for example, and those who were targeting people with threatening or abusive communtications that were causing people genuine distress, including threats to kill, threats of violence and content of an explicit nature that might be uninvited. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, but it has also been applied quite fairly in others, The practicality is that you are free to exercise your freedom of speech, but if you abuse that right to the significant detriment of others then you may face consequences for your actions. Whether this example meets that criteria remains to be seen. Don't read too much into the arrest. If an offence has been reported and a suspect identified then it is not uncommon for arrest to take place because arrest sets a whole documented process underway that provides protection for the rights of the suspect, alleged victims and the investigating officers through the Codes of Practice set out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Prosecution and Investigation Act 1996. So your government decides what is in bad taste and arrests being accordingly? What could possibly go wrong with that. Nope. Being arrested does not mean you are a criminal. An offence was reported. Police investigate that offence. Arrest triggers a formal process and the rights of the suspect are protected because he/she may be innocent or may be wrongly accused etc. The findings will be reported to the Crown Proaecution Service who will decide what action to take after weighing up a range of factors. if his comments were deliberately malicious then he may face court. If he just made a poor taste comment by error of judgement then the may be no further action. Arrest is the start of a formal process which follows strict guidelines. This ensures due process is observed. Where somone is accused of an offence it means the evidence must meet a minimum standard of admissiability. Where a decision is taken to drop the case it provides a justification and assurance to the alleged victims that the decision has been given appropriate consideration. Sooo he could face a court for basically being an asshole. Sorry man, but that is seriously fucked up and shouldn't even be allowed. Pretty much, and what bothers me more is that everyone over there is cool that the guy was arrested. I'm not cool about. It's a shocking abuse of power. This accident is horrible. If you read the details of the victims. One family in particular its absolutely heart breaking. But it's a sick joke, it's our tradition. Yes I'm sure it may offend people but that shouldn't be illegal. Just because you make a joke doesn't mean you don't empathise. It's just a standard thing. The accident involved a garbage truck ..... It's hardly original and would be the same if happened in London. A guy local to me was prosecuted weeks after his flight when delayed he joked on Twitter that if they don't get his plane moving he would blow up the airport. I think he got time. Was crushed at the third appeal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 7:20:22 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No such thing as inalienable rights. The definition of inalienable is "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor". You have those rights because you have so far chosen to maintain and protect them. The second there is an overwhelming will to change those rights they become threatened and can be removed even if you oppose it.
By their very nature, and by virtue of the fact that you have to defend and maintain those rights from those who would take them away, they are not inalienable. To suggest they are inalienable rights, in my view, breeds complacency. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What always get me in these threads is the butt hurt for something that happens in another country. Then, citing the demise of amendments and the AMERICAN constitution. Our constitution doesn't work in other lands. That's not how this work. That's not how any of this works...
All men have inalienable rights. Some are enumerated in our Bill of Rights. But all men have those rights. American, Britain, Swede and Israelite alike. You need to take a Civics class. No such thing as inalienable rights. The definition of inalienable is "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor". You have those rights because you have so far chosen to maintain and protect them. The second there is an overwhelming will to change those rights they become threatened and can be removed even if you oppose it.
By their very nature, and by virtue of the fact that you have to defend and maintain those rights from those who would take them away, they are not inalienable. To suggest they are inalienable rights, in my view, breeds complacency. Says the guy in a country that that is completely adrift on this subject. Forgive us if we all just completely ignore that opinion.
Those rights cannot be taken away, period. All infringements of them are illegitimate. The rights exist, even when infringed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 7:22:24 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Satanic nativity thread has assured me that bodily assault is an acceptable solution for "being an asshole", so an arrest is getting off lightly. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 7:47:27 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Says the guy in a country that that is completely adrift on this subject. Forgive us if we all just completely ignore that opinion.
Those rights cannot be taken away, period. All infringements of them are illegitimate. The rights exist, even when infringed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What always get me in these threads is the butt hurt for something that happens in another country. Then, citing the demise of amendments and the AMERICAN constitution. Our constitution doesn't work in other lands. That's not how this work. That's not how any of this works...
All men have inalienable rights. Some are enumerated in our Bill of Rights. But all men have those rights. American, Britain, Swede and Israelite alike. You need to take a Civics class. No such thing as inalienable rights. The definition of inalienable is "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor". You have those rights because you have so far chosen to maintain and protect them. The second there is an overwhelming will to change those rights they become threatened and can be removed even if you oppose it.
By their very nature, and by virtue of the fact that you have to defend and maintain those rights from those who would take them away, they are not inalienable. To suggest they are inalienable rights, in my view, breeds complacency. Says the guy in a country that that is completely adrift on this subject. Forgive us if we all just completely ignore that opinion.
Those rights cannot be taken away, period. All infringements of them are illegitimate. The rights exist, even when infringed. Tell that the victims of ISIS, The Nazis, The Communists, The Socialists and a multitude of other people who have been enslaved, dominated and murdered. Let them all know how inalienable their right are. I'm sure they will take great solace from your words as they lie in their mass graves with no rights whatsoever. You really need to look outside your own sheltered little box and see what reality looks like, mate.
Your rights are not inalienable. Your own country is in the midst of an ongoing disagreement over what rights you should have. If those rights were inalienable you wouldn't have to go out of your way to defend them. There will always be those who will demand that your rights be curbed because they are afraid of the responsibility that comes with them. These people empower those who would take your rights form you in a heartbeat. They use a range of strategies such as political correctness, media outrage and unrepresentative information to give far more credibility to a particular agenda than it should ever deserve. This creeping death is called cultural marxism. This is the case in every country in the world and the USA is no different. You do not have the monopoly on rights, your rights are no safer than anyone else's and any belief that your rights are somehow inalienable will lead to complacency that will see someone come in and steal your rights from right under your nose. That should be the bit that worries you. Not to worry though eh? Your rights are 'inalienable' aren't they.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 7:53:08 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's the same amount of seriousness. They don't arrest someone without evidence of a crime (as a general rule). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm getting the impression that being "arrested" in the UK isn't quite as serious as being arrested in the US. They don't arrest someone without evidence of a crime (as a general rule). Arrest powers are used for investigative purposes here. Actually they are widely used incorrectly, but the rules are not as clearly explained as they could be. Probably the most common reason is to allow for a prompt and effective investigation. The principle that should be applied is that an arrest would only occur when there is no way of gaining voluntary compliance with the investigation. Another (slightly contradictory to the above, in ways, which is part of the problem) principle is that, once an officer has formed the opinion that they need to place someone under arrest, they should be placed under arrest immediately to engage their rights under PACE. This is to (among other things) prevent unlawful quasi-detention scenarios - ie, "You're not under arrest but if you try to leave, we'll arrest you". In that scenario, the person is not actually free to go so they are in effect arrested, but the PACE safeguards do not kick in because they are not officially arrested. On a side note, a local psychiatric unit is a swine for using a similar technique to deny patients access to legal representation or court. The upshot of this is that an officer will often say "Well, they might be volunteering now but if they try to leave before the interview is finished, we will arrest them to complete the interview. As we have already formed the opinion that might be a necessary step, we need to arrest them now to remain in compliance with PACE". The big problem now is that we have a collection of contradictory judgments on the matter from various courts, so it is possible for a situation to arise where a constable will be in breach of PACE and existing case law whatever option they choose. If memory serves, there was a recent case (Richardson?) where this happened. Basically there are parts of PACE that need serious reform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 8:00:01 AM EDT
[#32]
Inalienable rights can't be granted by government or taken away; they are inherent to every human and present at birth.
Oppressive governments do, however, prevent the individuals living under their boots from enjoying and/ or expressing their inalienable, human, rights. People may need to fight for their rights in order to continue their ability to enjoy them freely, or even to exercise them for the first time,, but their existence itself, is never in question since inalienable rights are above politics and governments. Living under the heel of a "gentle" police state for too long, blurs the important distinction between possessing inalienable human rights and the ability to exercise them. Oppressive governments try to instill the incorrect belief that all "rights" come from them rather than their being "natural" rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 8:04:52 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No such thing as inalienable rights. The definition of inalienable is "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor". You have those rights because you have so far chosen to maintain and protect them. The second there is an overwhelming will to change those rights they become threatened and can be removed even if you oppose it.By their very nature, and by virtue of the fact that you have to defend and maintain those rights from those who would take them away, they are not inalienable. To suggest they are inalienable rights, in my view, breeds complacency. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What always get me in these threads is the butt hurt for something that happens in another country. Then, citing the demise of amendments and the AMERICAN constitution. Our constitution doesn't work in other lands. That's not how this work. That's not how any of this works... All men have inalienable rights. Some are enumerated in our Bill of Rights. But all men have those rights. American, Britain, Swede and Israelite alike. You need to take a Civics class. No such thing as inalienable rights. The definition of inalienable is "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor". You have those rights because you have so far chosen to maintain and protect them. The second there is an overwhelming will to change those rights they become threatened and can be removed even if you oppose it.By their very nature, and by virtue of the fact that you have to defend and maintain those rights from those who would take them away, they are not inalienable. To suggest they are inalienable rights, in my view, breeds complacency. The RIGHT is inalienable it cannot be taken away. A government or entity may ignore it, but the "right" remains, even if un-recognized. And those who try to subjugate and ignore the expression of those rights must be reminded that they are inalienable. Just because they ignore the right, does not remove it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 8:13:59 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You contribute a lot of interesting stuff to this forum, but I have to say I find your calm acceptance of the guy's arrest completely creepy. That sentence is positively Orwellian in its illustration of egregious governmental overreach, yet you seem fine with it. If the police want to interview you about anything, you want it to be under arrest. The detention clock starts ticking and you are guaranteed access to legal representation at the interview. "Arrest" in the UK isn't about being led away in handcuffs. Think of it as a status rather than an act - the Police are officially saying that they are interested in you as a suspect, which means they are now bound to certain rules while you are now given access to specialist support and protection under the regulations. Just to be clear, I think it is absolutely ludicrous that the police were involved over this tweet or that anyone should think there is a realistic prospect of conviction in this case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 8:24:06 AM EDT
[#35]
What will it take to rename the "Malicious Communications Act 2003" to the "Sandy Vagina Act 2xxx"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 8:30:13 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe he's afraid of being arrested. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You contribute a lot of interesting stuff to this forum, but I have to say I find your calm acceptance of the guy's arrest completely creepy. That sentence is positively Orwellian in its illustration of egregious governmental overreach, yet you seem fine with it. ETA I am shocked that such a comment could be considered a possible criminal offense at all, never mind whether an "arrest" is not a confirmation of guilt or not and that's all to be determined... Maybe he's afraid of being arrested. Hmmmmmmmmmmm......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 8:33:22 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The UK we knew is gone now, replaced with a caliphate that has eliminated free speech and expression for all but those who would seek to further destroy what remains of its once vaunted western values. I'm so sad for the British people, who willingly surrendered all their freedoms and welcomed in a fifth column. They committed cultural suicide. The same game plan is afoot in this country, we are just 10 years behind. Yep. You just got a glimpse of the future in the US. In fact, we are about half way there now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 8:35:10 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the police want to interview you about anything, you want it to be under arrest. The detention clock starts ticking and you are guaranteed access to legal representation at the interview. "Arrest" in the UK isn't about being led away in handcuffs. Think of it as a status rather than an act - the Police are officially saying that they are interested in you as a suspect, which means they are now bound to certain rules while you are now given access to specialist support and protection under the regulations. Just to be clear, I think it is absolutely ludicrous that the police were involved over this tweet or that anyone should think there is a realistic prospect of conviction in this case. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You contribute a lot of interesting stuff to this forum, but I have to say I find your calm acceptance of the guy's arrest completely creepy. That sentence is positively Orwellian in its illustration of egregious governmental overreach, yet you seem fine with it. If the police want to interview you about anything, you want it to be under arrest. The detention clock starts ticking and you are guaranteed access to legal representation at the interview. "Arrest" in the UK isn't about being led away in handcuffs. Think of it as a status rather than an act - the Police are officially saying that they are interested in you as a suspect, which means they are now bound to certain rules while you are now given access to specialist support and protection under the regulations. Just to be clear, I think it is absolutely ludicrous that the police were involved over this tweet or that anyone should think there is a realistic prospect of conviction in this case. This was going to be my question: What constitutes an "arrest" in Britain? It appears to be something different than arrest in the US. This thread is unfortunately using the word "arrest" interchangeably. What was it Churchill said about two countries joined by a common history, separated by a common language? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 8:35:26 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arrest powers are used for investigative purposes here. Actually they are widely used incorrectly, but the rules are not as clearly explained as they could be. Probably the most common reason is to allow for a prompt and effective investigation. The principle that should be applied is that an arrest would only occur when there is no way of gaining voluntary compliance with the investigation. Another (slightly contradictory to the above, in ways, which is part of the problem) principle is that, once an officer has formed the opinion that they need to place someone under arrest, they should be placed under arrest immediately to engage their rights under PACE. This is to (among other things) prevent unlawful quasi-detention scenarios - ie, "You're not under arrest but if you try to leave, we'll arrest you". In that scenario, the person is not actually free to go so they are in effect arrested, but the PACE safeguards do not kick in because they are not officially arrested. On a side note, a local psychiatric unit is a swine for using a similar technique to deny patients access to legal representation or court. The upshot of this is that an officer will often say "Well, they might be volunteering now but if they try to leave before the interview is finished, we will arrest them to complete the interview. As we have already formed the opinion that might be a necessary step, we need to arrest them now to remain in compliance with PACE". The big problem now is that we have a collection of contradictory judgments on the matter from various courts, so it is possible for a situation to arise where a constable will be in breach of PACE and existing case law whatever option they choose. If memory serves, there was a recent case (Richardson?) where this happened. Basically there are parts of PACE that need serious reform. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm getting the impression that being "arrested" in the UK isn't quite as serious as being arrested in the US. They don't arrest someone without evidence of a crime (as a general rule). Arrest powers are used for investigative purposes here. Actually they are widely used incorrectly, but the rules are not as clearly explained as they could be. Probably the most common reason is to allow for a prompt and effective investigation. The principle that should be applied is that an arrest would only occur when there is no way of gaining voluntary compliance with the investigation. Another (slightly contradictory to the above, in ways, which is part of the problem) principle is that, once an officer has formed the opinion that they need to place someone under arrest, they should be placed under arrest immediately to engage their rights under PACE. This is to (among other things) prevent unlawful quasi-detention scenarios - ie, "You're not under arrest but if you try to leave, we'll arrest you". In that scenario, the person is not actually free to go so they are in effect arrested, but the PACE safeguards do not kick in because they are not officially arrested. On a side note, a local psychiatric unit is a swine for using a similar technique to deny patients access to legal representation or court. The upshot of this is that an officer will often say "Well, they might be volunteering now but if they try to leave before the interview is finished, we will arrest them to complete the interview. As we have already formed the opinion that might be a necessary step, we need to arrest them now to remain in compliance with PACE". The big problem now is that we have a collection of contradictory judgments on the matter from various courts, so it is possible for a situation to arise where a constable will be in breach of PACE and existing case law whatever option they choose. If memory serves, there was a recent case (Richardson?) where this happened. Basically there are parts of PACE that need serious reform. Was it Richardson v Chief Constable of West Midlands? Civil action where the CC was successfully sued for unlawful arrest? IIRC he was a teacher arrested under 24(5)(e) after voluntarily attending a police station over allegations that he assaulted a pupil. (Discussed this in refresher training a couple of weeks ago) I seem to remember that the Hayes Necessity Test was implemented in response to another case around the same time (2010 -2011?) involving Merseyside Police but I'm not sure it has had the desired effect. I do agree with you in that PACE does need to be reviewed and reformed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 8:36:33 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the police want to interview you about anything, you want it to be under arrest. The detention clock starts ticking and you are guaranteed access to legal representation at the interview. "Arrest" in the UK isn't about being led away in handcuffs. Think of it as a status rather than an act - the Police are officially saying that they are interested in you as a suspect, which means they are now bound to certain rules while you are now given access to specialist support and protection under the regulations. Just to be clear, I think it is absolutely ludicrous that the police were involved over this tweet or that anyone should think there is a realistic prospect of conviction in this case. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You contribute a lot of interesting stuff to this forum, but I have to say I find your calm acceptance of the guy's arrest completely creepy. That sentence is positively Orwellian in its illustration of egregious governmental overreach, yet you seem fine with it. If the police want to interview you about anything, you want it to be under arrest. The detention clock starts ticking and you are guaranteed access to legal representation at the interview. "Arrest" in the UK isn't about being led away in handcuffs. Think of it as a status rather than an act - the Police are officially saying that they are interested in you as a suspect, which means they are now bound to certain rules while you are now given access to specialist support and protection under the regulations. Just to be clear, I think it is absolutely ludicrous that the police were involved over this tweet or that anyone should think there is a realistic prospect of conviction in this case. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 9:48:31 AM EDT
[#41]
The UK is a prime example of selective PC laws meant not to protect, but control.
So they are actually willing to commit police resources to a "thought crime" in order to silence someone that makes a comment deemed insensitive, which of course all hinges on who said what about whom. In other words the right group can say as they please but the wrong group which I'm guessing in this case is a white English male will be selectively prosecuted or at the very least harassed as and example to others who speak out. It may be a tasteless joke today, but it may be a critical post of a protected group next time so it must be silenced. But lets look in contrast to a relatively recent horrific series of real crimes in the UK that were brushed under the table for decades due to fears of being labeled as "racist". The systematic rape and forced prostitution of thousands of underage white girls went on while parents begged police and government authorities for help. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/uk-it-was-racist-to-prosecute-muslim-rape-gangs/ The PC response there was to silence and destroy evidence of these crimes of child rape in the name of political correctness. Meanwhile "thought crimes", even a joke like the one in question get the full force of the law. Selective law enforcement is not a protection but an abuse of power from the PC cultural terrorists. Appeasement for one group committing real crime and persecution for another who dare speak out even as a joke. That is the PC message to its host nation. Selective race based law is something we now see being pushed in this country as we speak. This is their goal. Which is why we need to push back. Hard. This is yet another prime example of why a free nation must fight political correctness and "anti-racism" (anti-white) laws. This is why I slap down "anti-racists" every chance I get as these self-righteous PC fools will lead to us down this path of cultural suicide. This ideology was never nor will ever be about protecting rights, but rather abusing rights with the force of the government behind it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 10:18:28 AM EDT
[#42]
Britain has come a long way in 73 years. I am glad to be able to place before you, members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, at this moment when you are entering the war, proof that with proper weapons and proper organization we are able to beat the life out of the savage Nazi. W. Churchill to US Congress 1941 Oh to hear ANY politician ANYWHERE say "we are going to beat the life out of the savage islamic terrorists".... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 10:29:38 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The UK is a prime example of selective PC laws meant not to protect, but control. Almost. Many of our laws come to life using the following process:
There is an increasing amount of "hurty-feelings" laws in place these days, but they tend to come about through ignorance and lack of foresight rather than any actual malice or intent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 10:31:32 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Had the police not responded they would no doubt have faced overwhelming criticism for failing to act and there would probably have been a brouhaha in the press over it, forcing a response and justification for doing nothing about an alleged offence. The allegation is that a law has been broken and the offender was identified. The police acted, investigated and the guy was released on bail pending conclusion of the enquiries. If due process is adhered to and the decision to not take the case any further is forthcoming then there can be no repercussions and allegations of failing to act. The guy was released within hours not detained that which was necessary to get his version of events under due process. A duty solicitor would have been provided FOC if the man chose to have representation during his interview. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You contribute a lot of interesting stuff to this forum, but I have to say I find your calm acceptance of the guy's arrest completely creepy. That sentence is positively Orwellian in its illustration of egregious governmental overreach, yet you seem fine with it. ETA I am shocked that such a comment could be considered a possible criminal offense at all, never mind whether an "arrest" is not a confirmation of guilt or not and that's all to be determined... All of what he said. I was expecting the brits to come in and tell us how the media all hyped it up but sure as shit the story sounds like its spot on. The arrest in it self is going to deprive someone of their liberty not only the involuntary detainment but also the monetary cost of legal representation incurred for a "cautioned interview". Had the police not responded they would no doubt have faced overwhelming criticism for failing to act and there would probably have been a brouhaha in the press over it, forcing a response and justification for doing nothing about an alleged offence. The allegation is that a law has been broken and the offender was identified. The police acted, investigated and the guy was released on bail pending conclusion of the enquiries. If due process is adhered to and the decision to not take the case any further is forthcoming then there can be no repercussions and allegations of failing to act. The guy was released within hours not detained that which was necessary to get his version of events under due process. A duty solicitor would have been provided FOC if the man chose to have representation during his interview. What a complete and total disgrace. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 10:31:36 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
British humor is horrendous, but they make up for it tenfold with their Rock n Roll. The Holy Grail is still one of the top movies evah! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 10:34:04 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends on the context. 6 people were killed in a horrific accident witnessed by many people. All very tragic and deeply upsetting for a lot of people. Within a matter of hours this guy allegedly started referring to the victims as trash in a thread/tweet string or whatever one of these Twitter things is called where people were leaving messages of condolence when emotions were understandably running high. If the message was posted with the intent of malice and in an effort to cause distress, especially to the loved ones of those who had lost their lives, then it could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 2003. If it was an ill-advised attempt at poorly timed humour then the whole thing may amount to nothing more than understandable anger at comments made in poor judgement. The legislation is not without controversy. It's intent was originally to provide a legal framework to deal with stalkers for example, and those who were targeting people with threatening or abusive communtications that were causing people genuine distress, including threats to kill, threats of violence and content of an explicit nature that might be uninvited. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, but it has also been applied quite fairly in others, The practicality is that you are free to exercise your freedom of speech, but if you abuse that right to the significant detriment of others then you may face consequences for your actions. Whether this example meets that criteria remains to be seen. Don't read too much into the arrest. If an offence has been reported and a suspect identified then it is not uncommon for arrest to take place because arrest sets a whole documented process underway that provides protection for the rights of the suspect, alleged victims and the investigating officers through the Codes of Practice set out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Prosecution and Investigation Act 1996. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/23/glasgow-crash-tweet_n_6371428.html Police have arrested a 19-year-old man over an "offensive" tweet about the Glasgow bin lorry crash that has killed six people.
The tweet, which has since been deleted along with the account that posted it, joked about the tragedy, in which the driver lost control of the vehicle and drove on the pavement, hitting Christmas shoppers "like pinballs". The tweet said: "So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day". The force said he was arrested on suspicion of making a malicious communication and had been bailed while they investigated.
That's an arrest able offense? Depends on the context. 6 people were killed in a horrific accident witnessed by many people. All very tragic and deeply upsetting for a lot of people. Within a matter of hours this guy allegedly started referring to the victims as trash in a thread/tweet string or whatever one of these Twitter things is called where people were leaving messages of condolence when emotions were understandably running high. If the message was posted with the intent of malice and in an effort to cause distress, especially to the loved ones of those who had lost their lives, then it could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 2003. If it was an ill-advised attempt at poorly timed humour then the whole thing may amount to nothing more than understandable anger at comments made in poor judgement. The legislation is not without controversy. It's intent was originally to provide a legal framework to deal with stalkers for example, and those who were targeting people with threatening or abusive communtications that were causing people genuine distress, including threats to kill, threats of violence and content of an explicit nature that might be uninvited. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, but it has also been applied quite fairly in others, The practicality is that you are free to exercise your freedom of speech, but if you abuse that right to the significant detriment of others then you may face consequences for your actions. Whether this example meets that criteria remains to be seen. Don't read too much into the arrest. If an offence has been reported and a suspect identified then it is not uncommon for arrest to take place because arrest sets a whole documented process underway that provides protection for the rights of the suspect, alleged victims and the investigating officers through the Codes of Practice set out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Prosecution and Investigation Act 1996. Actually, it's just bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 10:34:36 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What a complete and total disgrace. http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/70/7003/PA4W100Z/posters/big-brother-is-watching-you-1984-poster.jpg The process isn't a disgrace. The fact that it was possible to start this process on the basis of an off-the-cuff joke on twitter is a disgrace, but not the process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 10:40:55 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The process isn't a disgrace. The fact that it was possible to start this process on the basis of an off-the-cuff joke on twitter is a disgrace, but not the process. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What a complete and total disgrace.
http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/70/7003/PA4W100Z/posters/big-brother-is-watching-you-1984-poster.jpg The process isn't a disgrace. The fact that it was possible to start this process on the basis of an off-the-cuff joke on twitter is a disgrace, but not the process. That was the point of my post; that someone had to go through the "process" at all for posting something that may have been in poor taste online. Big Brother is indeed watching......as evidenced by that individual being "processed" by The State for a thought crime. That's the disgrace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 10:46:57 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The UK is a prime example of selective PC laws meant not to protect, but control. So they are actually willing to commit police resources to a "thought crime" in order to silence someone that makes a comment deemed insensitive, which of course all hinges on who said what about whom. In other words the right group can say as they please but the wrong group which I'm guessing in this case is a white English male will be selectively prosecuted or at the very least harassed as and example to others who speak out. It may be a tasteless joke today, but it may be a critical post of a protected group next time so it must be silenced. But lets look in contrast to a relatively recent horrific series of real crimes in the UK that were brushed under the table for decades due to fears of being labeled as "racist". The systematic rape and forced prostitution of thousands of underage white girls went on while parents begged police and government authorities for help. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/uk-it-was-racist-to-prosecute-muslim-rape-gangs/ The PC response there was to silence and destroy evidence of these crimes of child rape in the name of political correctness. Meanwhile "thought crimes", even a joke like the one in question get the full force of the law. Selective law enforcement is not a protection but an abuse of power from the PC cultural terrorists. Appeasement for one group committing real crime and persecution for another who dare speak out even as a joke. That is the PC message to its host nation. Selective race based law is something we now see being pushed in this country as we speak. This is their goal. Which is why we need to push back. Hard. This is yet another prime example of why a free nation must fight political correctness and "anti-racism" (anti-white) laws. This is why I slap down "anti-racists" every chance I get as these self-righteous PC fools will lead to us down this path of cultural suicide. This ideology was never nor will ever be about protecting rights, but rather abusing rights with the force of the government behind it. I nominate this for post of the month. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 11:02:53 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Big Brother is indeed watching......as evidenced by that individual being "processed" by The State for a thought crime. That's the disgrace. Well in that case, I withdraw all the rude words I was shouting while furiously banging away on the keyboard |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
