oscarsdad Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 'K whatever, he didn't get locked up, he got arrested for a public order offence and most likely let out after a cup of tea for his own safety...puts it in perspective doesn't it...now go out and shoot some rabbits. In all seriousness I am indeed planning some pigeon drives, where are you? Solihull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katzenjammer Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Some good points on here on all sides. Are we all agreed though that the man was a Kent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) One question... Does anyone have a right not to be offended? > I'd suggest that millions of people would be outraged by something like this, > therefore an arrest would be proportionate, lawful, appropriate and necessary. This immediately diminishes the sacrifices of those we're remembering. They gave their lives so we maintain free speech and can say and do things others find offensive. You're reducing the freedom they fought for by locking people up for doing things you don't like. No? I can't see this here (client site) but it is hopefully a link to Australian comedian Steve Hughes with some thoughts on our right to be offended.... Edit - Original link was blocked, this works.... http://www.snotr.com/video/8285/Steve_Hughes_-_Offended Nial. Edited November 13, 2012 by Nial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted November 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) Tyranny of the majority Edited November 13, 2012 by gazzthompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobbyathome Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 my own personal opinion is that the guy is a **** but if he has paid for a poppy and it is now his property he can do what he likes with it proberbly done it just to get attention anyway why give it to him ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 my own personal opinion is that the guy is a **** but if he has paid for a poppy and it is now his property he can do what he likes with it proberbly done it just to get attention anyway why give it to him ? Exactly. He wants attention and a scene, so don't give him what he wants. He wants people talking about him in the press, twitter, facebook and obviously internet shooting forums Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratus Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Hang on.... I'm ex-military and whilst I find this slightly distasteful and if I'm honest, more than a little stupid, there are those out there that find the whole idea of war abhorrent, they feel that honouring the dead glorifies war (which it does) and they feel the need to show thier feelings... if burning a poppy is how said plonker want's to get his point accross then let him do it... but it is his point, he is entitled to it and is perfectly within his rights to have that point and share it.. Those of us who feel otherwise should be big enough and grown up enough to just say... 'ok.. we feel differently but point taken!' This is not in the same league as burning a Quaran.... and even then, should our justice system really be moved to act when someone wants to (peacefully) air thier views absolutely not! as someone said earlier, the thought police will be along soon! this is one step too close to being told how to feel and how to act...... worthy of a slap, not worthy of the police.... Was talking to a copper the other day and he was telling me that he has to attend at least 2 calls a day where someone has called them because someone has called them names on facebook or other social media sites! what an absolute waste of police time and a complete overreaction from all quarters..... Social media could well be the thing to bring our society to its knees... truly the work of the devil! So Vipa whats your back ground ie Ex Military, and how can it not be in the same league as burning the Koran? Because we are now a soft nation who let foreigners onto our soil and build them mosques because they have a right to one?? Try building a C of E Church in say Afghanistan and use the Koran to keep out the evening chill? you wouldnt last a day!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Hang on.... I'm ex-military and whilst I find this slightly distasteful and if I'm honest, more than a little stupid, there are those out there that find the whole idea of war abhorrent, they feel that honouring the dead glorifies war (which it does) and they feel the need to show thier feelings... if burning a poppy is how said plonker want's to get his point accross then let him do it... but it is his point, he is entitled to it and is perfectly within his rights to have that point and share it.. Those of us who feel otherwise should be big enough and grown up enough to just say... 'ok.. we feel differently but point taken!' This is not in the same league as burning a Quaran.... and even then, should our justice system really be moved to act when someone wants to (peacefully) air thier views absolutely not! as someone said earlier, the thought police will be along soon! this is one step too close to being told how to feel and how to act...... worthy of a slap, not worthy of the police.... Was talking to a copper the other day and he was telling me that he has to attend at least 2 calls a day where someone has called them because someone has called them names on facebook or other social media sites! what an absolute waste of police time and a complete overreaction from all quarters..... Social media could well be the thing to bring our society to its knees... truly the work of the devil! So Vipa whats your back ground ie Ex Military, and how can it not be in the same league as burning the Koran? Because we are now a soft nation who let foreigners onto our soil and build them mosques because they have a right to one?? Try building a C of E Church in say Afghanistan and use the Koran to keep out the evening chill? you wouldnt last a day!! I'm ex army but that's not important... the point I was making is that I'm on the 'lest we not forget' side of things on all sorts of levels but I have enough cheeks to be able to turn another one when someone calls me or my beliefs a name! With regards to the Quran it is a holy book, the written penalties for desecration are severe and to those who follow the book closely (most Muslims!) such desecration is way beyond an insult to a memory, it would also be a criminal offence as it would be incitement to racial violence or hatred. Liken it to the other facebook page someone put on here with some knob destroying / desecrating a war grave... that IS a criminal offence... and is beyond offensive... The poppy, on the other hand, was a symbol chosen by the Royal British Legion (of which I am also a member) as a fund raiser for rememberance day... bit like the badges one gets for children in need when one drops some coin in a collection tin... it IS NOT a holy book, it IS NOT desecration of anything, it IS NOT a criminal offence... stupid and without feeling or empathy, nothing more...... It shows the same disregard for society as the yobs who hurl abuse at the PCSOs trying to go about thier jobs knowing there's not much they can do about it... after all... it ain't a crime to call someone a name (unless they are ain a racial minority... but that's a whole other story!) There's a point... if I torch a Pudsey and air it on youtube on children in need day... do you think plod will be knocking my door down!? What the guy did was wrong, stupid, callous, thoughtless, hurtful and, yes offensive but as for it being worthy of valuable police time and an arrest... come on.... the world has gone mad.... (well.... the UK has anyway!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 I would have loved to see this persons actions kick off another riot or large scale public order situation. I'm fairly certain people would then be wailing "why didn't the police arrest him!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 I'm ex army but that's not important... the point I was making is that I'm on the 'lest we not forget' side of things on all sorts of levels but I have enough cheeks to be able to turn another one when someone calls me or my beliefs a name! With regards to the Quran it is a holy book, the written penalties for desecration are severe and to those who follow the book closely (most Muslims!) such desecration is way beyond an insult to a memory, it would also be a criminal offence as it would be incitement to racial violence or hatred. Liken it to the other facebook page someone put on here with some knob destroying / desecrating a war grave... that IS a criminal offence... and is beyond offensive... The poppy, on the other hand, was a symbol chosen by the Royal British Legion (of which I am also a member) as a fund raiser for rememberance day... bit like the badges one gets for children in need when one drops some coin in a collection tin... it IS NOT a holy book, it IS NOT desecration of anything, it IS NOT a criminal offence... stupid and without feeling or empathy, nothing more...... It shows the same disregard for society as the yobs who hurl abuse at the PCSOs trying to go about thier jobs knowing there's not much they can do about it... after all... it ain't a crime to call someone a name (unless they are ain a racial minority... but that's a whole other story!) There's a point... if I torch a Pudsey and air it on youtube on children in need day... do you think plod will be knocking my door down!? What the guy did was wrong, stupid, callous, thoughtless, hurtful and, yes offensive but as for it being worthy of valuable police time and an arrest... come on.... the world has gone mad.... (well.... the UK has anyway!) GOOOD post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 I would have loved to see this persons actions kick off another riot or large scale public order situation. I'm fairly certain people would then be wailing "why didn't the police arrest him!" Really you would WANT large scale destruction of property costing millions, violence and injury just because some idiot set fire to a marketing symbol for a charity! I think you need to take a step back and think about what you posted.... Unbelievable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) Don't you just think that by arresting him they gave him about a million times more publicity for his silly protest than he would have got had everyone just ignored him? or even better, ridiculed him? Edited November 14, 2012 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Really you would WANT large scale destruction of property costing millions, violence and injury just because some idiot set fire to a marketing symbol for a charity! I think you need to take a step back and think about what you posted.... Unbelievable! The bottom line is the police can't do right according to many people at this site. I'm surprised most even bother and I sometimes wonder if they didn't bother what that would cause? So yes maybe "want" was a little strong, wonder what would happen would be more appropriate. Judging by the rest of the worlds police I think don't think it's that bad here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Perhaps it didn't happen because most of the population were big enough to just roll their eyes and get on with what they were doing which is exactly what Kent Police should have also done... That is why there have been no riots... because most of us can see it for the childish act of stupitity it was! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 At the risk of causing offence... let's all be friends and take our thoughts to happier places! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0 Psy is a genius! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) this incident is local to me somebody told me on fb the guy was drunk when he did it judging by the naked pic of him in the sun i can believe it Edited November 15, 2012 by overandunder2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 http://www.guardian....d-burning-poppy I am far more offended by his arrest than i am of his original stupid actions. Pathetic. I found his actions highly offensive. He broke the law and got arrested for it. That doesn't offend me one little bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parapilot Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I can't believe people are defending his actions. I'm also ex service, and have held a queens commission, so maybe I'm biased but we should take offense to people burning items of our history, or nation. Same as burning a flag. Any other country you would get lynched in the uk it's ok, we are to soft. Maybe not illegal, but I feel we should as British citizens stand up for our war dead, national symbols etc. I think the copper did right, if not only for his own safety. It would almost certainly lead to a public disorder so his arrest prevented it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Maybe not illegal, What he did WAS illegal, and quite rightly he was arrested. I totally agree with you that the copper did the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) What he did WAS illegal, and quite rightly he was arrested. I totally agree with you that the copper did the right thing. But was it? Seriously, both the public order act and the malicious communications act are pieces of law frequently used outside of their original remit. I'm curious as to how you know what he did 'WAS' illegal, given that it hasn't even come close to trial. People need to stop involving the police over matters of poor taste. Edited November 15, 2012 by guest1957 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 But was it? Yes it was Seriously, both the public order act and the malicious communications act are pieces of law frequently used outside of their original remit. That's as maybe, but it's fairly straightforward in its wording. I'm curious as to how you know what he did 'WAS' illegal, given that it hasn't even come close to trial. I didn't realise a trial was necessary to show an illegal act had taken place? People need to stop involving the police over matters of poor taste. It's not just a matter of 'poor taste'. It's highly offensive to a lot of people, but just as importantly it's illegal...and that's exactly why the police should be involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I'm sorry but because an arrest has been made it is not necessarily illegal, nor could the Choudhury case be used a precedent, the circumstances are entirely different. Saying something is illegal multiple times does not make it so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) 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. 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. Seems fairly straightforward to me. He was arrested under the above act. If it's proved that he posted the photo, and it's accepted that it would have caused gross offence, and its intent was to cause that offence then I reckon they've got him bang to rights! I don't know what your last comment means. Edited November 15, 2012 by poontang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 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. 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. Seems fairly straightforward to me. He was arrested under the above act. If it's proved that he posted the photo, and it's accepted that it would have caused gross offence then I reckon they've got him bang to rights! I don't know what your last comment means. The crux is 'grossly offensive'. The terminology was designed to address deeply personal, individual attacks e.g. relating to family members. The original law being designed to deal with an upsurge in 'poison pen letters'. In this context I don't see that his distasteful actions fulfil the 'grossly offensive' test. People need to re-read books like 'Law, Liberty and Morality' and start to realise that the criminal law isn't there to address what upsets them, but only that which harms them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 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. 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. Seems fairly straightforward to me. He was arrested under the above act. If it's proved that he posted the photo, and it's accepted that it would have caused gross offence, and its intent was to cause that offence then I reckon they've got him bang to rights! I don't know what your last comment means. That is exactly what i have asked the police officers that sent the email to my force accusing me of being violent and aggressive to be charged with,will be interesting to compare with this case what happens.Strange how they were not arrested and put in the cells though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.