Printable View
A 17 year old has been arrested for abusing Tom Daley this morning
All the celeb has to do is retweet it, then the police come knocking at the perpetrator's door.
When the messages are racist, that's even more idiotic
You might think they don't care about getting caught, but this kid was begging for forgiveness last night
and are only allowed out once a week for a hosing down.
he'll have Stephen Fry standing at side side arguing for freedom of speech
Freedom is speech is all very well but the really clever part is knowing when to use it.
****ter is just a vehicle for thick cünts to open mouth before engaging brain imo. Or to play the cyber 'big man' when they wouldn't dream of saying it to the person's face.
Or to waste a few ecnods of our lives telling us they've had a touching cloth moment or had toast for breakfast. All rivietting stuff
You've never been able to go up to a copper and repeatedly tell him to f**k off, or to tell someone you're going to kill them
This is all just speech
so much silly nonsense though.
But having now done so I have concluded that it isn't http://www.awimb.com/images/smiley_icons/smile.gif
Good man.without being taken to court.
The Police & CPS wildly over-reacted to a clear joke.
As I said, the clever part is knowing how, when and where to be flippant. On a public platform like Twitter I think, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he was naive at best. Not giving him any benefit of the doubt I think he was an idiot.
I think I am free to voice that opinion publicly
I think they are silly cünts too fwiw
for merely using common or garden figures of speech, nobody is clever enough to avoid it.
The whole point of this, in my opinion, was about the police/CPS being taken to task for prosecuting a person for making what was clearly a joke.
â(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he â
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)
causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he -
(a)
sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false.
Et cetera.
Regardless of that or any other case that's actually happened I can happily opine on whether the police CPS should get involved in this sort of incident and whether it would be a stupid thing to say via social media. Context determines whether the police should have intervened and I personlly don't think it is very clever to come out with stuff like that on FB or Twitter. Naive? Stupid? Poor judgement? Fückwittery? http://www.awimb.com/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif The main point for me is that the bloke shouldn't hind behind the CJS over-reacting
No 'was' in there so hindsight doesn't come in to it http://www.awimb.com/images/smiley_icons/smile.gif
I don't do this, and of course racism and threatening behaviour should be subject to redress. However, much of this section could apply to any form of criticism. It is getting to the point where you cannot say anything which someone says could be interpreted as offensive, especially with regard to religion.
...the problem of course is interpretation. Is it justifiable for something to be considered offensive just because someone says it is so?
One cannot just ignore the politics of the day.
through your posting history on here and find something that could be construed as a criminal act if I chose to take a jokey post seriously.
I've called some people cünts but I doubt you'll get many defamation lawyers taking up the case