User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:24:22 PM EDT
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:26:12 PM EDT
[#1]
He'a right, though. It was just Glaswegians. It's not like it was actual people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:27:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Isn't that a first amendment violation? Nvm.
Magna Charta then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:28:24 PM EDT
[#3]
Even the British don't understand British humor
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:33:37 PM EDT
[#4]
"So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow
eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day". 
Hey, that's pretty funny |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:37:40 PM EDT
[#5]
LOL, A country that never had the sun set on it's empire is now arresting people for bad manners. What a joke.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:42:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Yet this is allowed and protected.
   |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:44:17 PM EDT
[#7]
A Glaswegian lad takes his girlfriend home for the first time.
He says, "This is Amanda." His dad jumps up. "It's a fucking what?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:45:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A Glaswegian lad takes his girlfriend home for the first time. He says, "This is Amanda." His dad jumps up. "It's a fucking what?" 
After announcing he's getting married, a boy tells his pal he'll be wearing the kilt. "And what's the tartan?" asks his mate. "Oh, she'll be wearing a white dress," he replies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:49:42 PM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 9:19:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryI do see why Europe is so afraid of the Extremist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 9:32:09 PM EDT
[#11]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 9:34:49 PM EDT
[#12]
American white trash can't hold a candle to some of the shit I saw in Glasgow. That's a pretty funny joke.
Shit. Am I now on the "do not admit" list at UK passport control for laughing at the joke? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 9:43:25 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A Glaswegian lad takes his girlfriend home for the first time. He says, "This is Amanda." His dad jumps up. "It's a fucking what?" Snicker 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 9:50:59 PM EDT
[#14]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 9:55:03 PM EDT
[#15]
So far, we see what the difference is between a Citizen and a Subject, but that gap is narrowing daily.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 9:55:24 PM EDT
[#16]
And the toilet bowl continues to swirl.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:10:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Why does the river Clyde run through Glasgow?
Because, if it walked it would get stabbed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:15:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Completely absurd. Arrest the bad man for saying a meanie.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:16:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's an arrest able offense? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:23:28 PM EDT
[#20]
So if I retweet it will I be banned from the UK? I've already got one strike against me for being Irish.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:26:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even the British don't understand British humor British liberal elite, pc mandarins and common purpose fools want to stamp it out. Rest of us are good. Black humour is a long held british tradition. That joke for me was not to my taste ( I must be getting old) but zero fucks given. It's just a joke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:33:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So far, we see what the difference is between a Citizen and a Subject, but that gap is narrowing daily. Not been legally considered 'subjects' since 1948. Not been 'subjects' in practice since 1689. This is has nothing to do with the Monarchy. It is about the application of criminal law where it is believed to be justified, and the challenges to that application where the law is believed to be excessive in its application when weighing up the rights of the alleged offender and the alleged victims. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:35:42 PM EDT
[#23]
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 your government decides what is in bad taste and arrests people accordingly? What could possibly go wrong with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:36:38 PM EDT
[#24]
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. Ummm.. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:39:36 PM EDT
[#25]
Why is that news. Its a bin lorry, Its supposed to take out the trash
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:40:25 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why does the river Clyde run through Glasgow? Because, if it walked it would get stabbed. Heh
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:51:06 PM EDT
[#27]
It
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your government decides what is in bad taste and arrests being accordingly? What could possibly go wrong with that. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:52:40 PM EDT
[#28]
British humor is horrendous, but they make up for it tenfold with their Rock n Roll.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:56:04 PM EDT
[#29]
I am thankful for the circumstances of my birth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:58:38 PM EDT
[#30]
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. I think the shocking part is that the "offence" that was reported constitutes a potential criminal act. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 10:59:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey, that's pretty funny Quote HistoryQuoted:
"So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow
eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day".
Hey, that's pretty funny Indeed....and I've been to Glasgow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:12:26 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the shocking part is that the "offence" that was reported constitutes a potential criminal act.
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. I think the shocking part is that the "offence" that was reported constitutes a potential criminal act.
It's still under investigation. People are arrested under suspicion of committing an offence, at which point they get the opportunity to give their version of events in a cautioned interview. Until the offence is established and the suspect is formally charged it can only really be a 'potential' offence. Right now the guy concerned was probably arrested, interviewed and released on bail within hours pending the outcome of the investigation into allegations made against him, and to see if an offence has actually been committed. Only then will a decision be made on whether he should be charged or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:42:25 PM EDT
[#33]
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. 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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:49:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't that a first amendment violation? Nvm. Magna Charta then? 
Carta. Magna Carta. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:52:17 PM EDT
[#35]
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:54:22 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. quote tree trimmed If you don't mind, how is that intent determined? Are there specific criteria? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:58:55 PM EDT
[#37]
Sorry; but "Depends on the context" just doesn't cut it as cover for that abomination.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 12:06:52 AM EDT
[#38]
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. Ah, I see. They have an official Department of Butt-hurt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 12:40:57 AM EDT
[#39]
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. Wow, so you really can get arrested for hurting someones feelings in the UK. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 12:43:38 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 12:44:53 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, so you really can get arrested for hurting someones feelings in the UK. I'm getting the impression that being "arrested" in the UK isn't quite as serious as being arrested in the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 12:56:40 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not been legally considered 'subjects' since 1948. Not been 'subjects' in practice since 1689. Nope. Citizen AND subject until 1982. My blue passport issued before 1982 clearly states subject. You musn't be old enough to have one (a blue one) I guess. Wiki says: From 1 January 1949, when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her Crown colonies (i.e. not the Dominions) became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). However, CUKCs, in common with citizens of other Commonwealth countries[citation needed], also retained the status of British subject. From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was one of the following:
In the third category were mainly people born before 1949 in the Republic of Ireland, India and Pakistan who did not acquire citizenship of their country or any other Dominion (in the case of those born in India and Pakistan), or who applied after 1949 for restoration of their British subject status (for those connected with Ireland). Hence, from 1949 to 1982, a person born in England would have been a British subject and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, while someone born in Australia, would have been a British subject and a citizen of Australia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 12:59:28 AM EDT
[#43]
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. I could understand if the "Malicious Communication" was actually damaging in some way - direct cause of physical harm to persons or property - but the notion that one could be arrested for what amounts to basically hurt feelings is complete and utter bullshit. Yelling "Gun!" in a crowded place, causing a mass panic in which people are trampled ot worse - sure. Making a joke in poor taste about a tragic event? No way.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 1:00:10 AM EDT
[#44]
England is lost.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 1:01:36 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm getting the impression that being "arrested" in the UK isn't quite as serious as being arrested in the US. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wow, so you really can get arrested for hurting someones feelings in the UK. I'm getting the impression that being "arrested" in the UK isn't quite as serious as being arrested in the US. yeah I am getting that vibe now too. It's just odd. Like, hey I got my eye on you and it's in your permanent record and I am going to feel out the public to see if I throw the book at you or not, signed the UK's version of a district attorney. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 1:07:49 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm getting the impression that being "arrested" in the UK isn't quite as serious as being arrested in the US. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wow, so you really can get arrested for hurting someones feelings in the UK. 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). I'm somewhat shocked by it all, the comment was in terrible bad taste, and the guy is clearly an asshole. Should someone be arrested for that and potentially have a criminal record? I don't believe so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 1:21:11 AM EDT
[#47]
We should have let the Nazis take them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:03:43 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty much, and what bothers me more is that everyone over there is cool that the guy was arrested. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Me too. This incident shows how the concept of Freedom of Speech is viewed very narrowly over there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:05:00 AM EDT
[#49]
Right after they finish their work on the Second the First is next.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 2:06:29 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
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.
