Can't believe we haven't covered the Grenfell effigy furore.

[Burney]

I find it a little hard to believe that you truly think someone walking alongside a black person incessantly bellowing at that them that they're a "****ing nigger" shouldn't be a police matter.

Well such a person would be guilty of harassing the individual personally - which is an arrestable offence. But should someone be allowed to appear in public and call black people that? Yes. Because the alternative is a world of double standards. After all, there seems to be no restriction on the number of people who are allowed to go on TV and in the media and talk about how white males/white people are the root cause of all problems and to demonise them endlessly.

[Monty92]

Well such a person would be guilty of harassing the individual personally - which is an arrestable offence. But should someone be allowed to appear in public and call black people that? Yes. Because the alternative is a world of double standards. After all, there seems to be no restriction on the number of people who are allowed to go on TV and in the media and talk about how white males/white people are the root cause of all problems and to demonise them endlessly.

But this is where the Pandora's Box of subjectivity opens. Presumably you also think, for example, that you should be allowed to walk up to a Grenfell survivor laughing and calmly say "your probably didn't pay your rent and deserved to die".

So at what point should such behaviour be considered harassment? If you follow them down the street repeating it? Or say it in an aggressive manner?

It *has* to be arbitrary and, therefore, subjective. And what we can and can't post on social media has to be too.

[IUFG]

People make the assumption that their 'friends' on Facebook are actual friends and don't think about how quickly something can disseminate outside that group.

Also, saying 'they should have kept it to themselves' doesn't really take into account how these things work. Maybe they wanted to? We don't know if the person who filmed and uploaded it was one of the people behind it or just a spectator who disseminated it without their knowledge.

What you are positing is a world in which nobody dares to make an off-colour remark for fear that some cùnt is filming it and will upload it to Facebook. That sounds pretty bleak to me.

Facebook? Well, exactly. Does anyone invite their 2,000+ close friends to weddings, parties and other social events?

You can't post something to the internet and not expect to be judged (take this thread for example).

Whilst this world is already pretty bleak, if you present a certain type of behaviour or opinion in a public arena, someone will judge you.

[Monty92]

Facebook? Well, exactly. Does anyone invite their 2,000+ close friends to weddings, parties and other social events?

You can't post something to the internet and not expect to be judged (take this thread for example).

Whilst this world is already pretty bleak, if you present a certain type of behaviour or opinion in a public arena, someone will judge you.

There's a hell of a big difference between social punishment (being "unfriended", etc) guided by social norms about what is and isn't appropriate behaviour and legislative diktat.

[Burney]

But this is where the Pandora's Box of subjectivity opens. Presumably you also think, for example, that you should be allowed to walk up to a Grenfell survivor laughing and calmly say "your probably didn't pay your rent and deserved to die".

So at what point should such behaviour be considered harassment? If you follow them down the street repeating it? Or say it in an aggressive manner?

It *has* to be arbitrary and, therefore, subjective. And what we can and can't post on social media has to be too.

Harassment is defined as behaviour targeting an individual without any just cause and/or with a credible threat of violence. Of course there is a subjective judgement to be made (as with breach of the peace, etc), but the point is that those judgements should be kept to a minimum and as far as possible be constrained by legal precedent. At the moment what we have is a police force increasingly empowered by bad legislation to act on their own recognisance in areas that should be no concern of theirs.

In the case of your example, I absolutely believe it should be legal for someone to go up to a Grenfell survivor and say that. However, that behaviour should be taken as mitigation in any response the Grenfell survivor makes.

[Burney]

Facebook? Well, exactly. Does anyone invite their 2,000+ close friends to weddings, parties and other social events?

You can't post something to the internet and not expect to be judged (take this thread for example).

Whilst this world is already pretty bleak, if you present a certain type of behaviour or opinion in a public arena, someone will judge you.

But we don't know that it was their choice to upload it.

Have you never said or done something that you're deeply glad wasn't filmed and uploaded to social media? I know I have. The problem is that your attitude of 'they've only themselves to blame' is a tacit acceptance of this appalling culture in which you'd better make damn sure you never say anything contentious for fear social media might get hold of it. That's an awful way to live.

[Sir C]

It isn't funny, really, is it?

Who goes to all that trouble of making the thing for 'a joke'? Then records it and posts it on social media?

Pondlife imo

Hundreds of people work for months on the various effigies burnt at Lewes every year. They can't all be pondlife.*

* Maybe they are, how would I know?

[Burney]

There's a hell of a big difference between social punishment (being "unfriended", etc) guided by social norms about what is and isn't appropriate behaviour and legislative diktat.

I read plenty of comments saying that these people's lives should be ruined for doing this. Nobody seemed to consider that there would be innocent victims of such ruination - not least their kids. But there's nothing as ruthless and repulsive as the self-righteous mob.

[Burney]

Hundreds of people work for months on the various effigies burnt at Lewes every year. They can't all be pondlife.*

* Maybe they are, how would I know?

Yes, but those people are middle-class and their targets are usually those it would be considered acceptable to lampoon on a Radio 4 panel show. This makes them exempt from such criticism.

These perpetrators were working class, white, had estuary accents, probably left school at 16 and - worst of all - were mocking brown people whom the media has effectively canonised.

[Sir C]

Yes, but those people are middle-class and their targets are usually those it would be considered acceptable to lampoon on a Radio 4 panel show. This makes them exempt from such criticism.

These perpetrators were working class, white, had estuary accents, probably left school at 16 and - worst of all - were mocking brown people whom the media has effectively canonised.

I confess I find it all rather troubling and not a little frightening.