Bad taste = criminal offence?

Author
Discussion

TTwiggy

11,500 posts

203 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
Thought crime is the worst offence you can do these days.
Its bloody pathetic.
It's not actually thought crime though is it? Once you write something, say something or type something on the net, it's no longer a 'thought'.

dudleybloke

19,718 posts

185 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
TTwiggy said:
dudleybloke said:
Thought crime is the worst offence you can do these days.
Its bloody pathetic.
It's not actually thought crime though is it? Once you write something, say something or type something on the net, it's no longer a 'thought'.
OK you got me there.
smile

I still don't think things like this warrant police intervention unless its prolonged harassment directed towards someone specifically.

TTwiggy

11,500 posts

203 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
TTwiggy said:
dudleybloke said:
Thought crime is the worst offence you can do these days.
Its bloody pathetic.
It's not actually thought crime though is it? Once you write something, say something or type something on the net, it's no longer a 'thought'.
OK you got me there.
smile

I still don't think things like this warrant police intervention unless its prolonged harassment directed towards someone specifically.
And there I agree with you. I guess though that the police often find themselves in a difficult position. A threat to kill someone on Facebook or Twitter is almost certainly nothing more than bravado. But if just one of those people actually follows through on a threat, there would be howls of derision aimed at the police who 'did nothing despite the clear threat.'

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
Eclassy said:
vescaegg said:
What options would he have had? Geniune question.
Let it go through the system (courts). Accepting a caution will leave the same mark on his 'file' as an unlikely conviction would.
It doesn't as a caution is immediately spent, unlike a conviction (except an absolute discharge IIRC).

From the information in the brief article, it doesn't sound like it should be a crime to me. That is a separate issue from whether or not there would be a realistic prospect of a conviction, though. It reminds me a little bit of the Tweet to blow the airport up in Yorkshire. That went through the courts and the accused eventually found not guilty.

We should intrude on free speech as little as possible.


allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
It'd be interesting to know which offence he admitted to, as s1 Malicious Communications Act 1988 requires intent to grossly offend, whereas s127 Communications Act only that you knew it could be grossly offensive.

Eclassy

1,201 posts

121 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
hairyben said:
There's a difference between forwarding/telling a joke amongst people you know and publishing it for all to see though
Have you ever visited Sickopedia?

He published it for his followers to see. For anyone to see his sick joke, they would have had to actively search twitter for a keyword, possibly Glasgow.

It gets trickier if maybe there was a trending hashtag say #Glasgowtragedy and this chap added this hashtag to his sick joke. This could be viewed as him delibrately targetting people who maybe searching for updates on the story.

But even at that, a terrible joke should never be a reason to give someone a criminal record.

Bill

52,479 posts

254 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
Presumably he accepted the caution for failing to use an apostrophe.

Jezzerh

816 posts

121 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
I liked how the paper printed the offending tweet in full.

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
Jezzerh said:
I liked how the paper printed the offending tweet in full.
Yeah, I lolled at that. So offensive that it could be reprinted without fear of repercussion.

Eclassy

1,201 posts

121 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
La Liga said:
t doesn't as a caution is immediately spent, unlike a conviction (except an absolute discharge IIRC).
It sure is but it will always be on your disclosure file.

A former colleague found out the hard way. He had accepted a caution about 10 years earlier (19 years old) one night when he got into an argument with his girlfriend and punched in his own door.

Our team was reorganised and most of us got made redundant. He was lucky to find another position in a team which worked on the same floor/office as (believe it or not) the police.

The fact that the police worked in tbe same office space as his team meant he required a disclosure. He had been in the role about 3 months by the time his check came back. He was called and told not to turn up.

I think the issue was that he did not declare the caution his application. The cynic in me believes if he had declared it, he wouldnt never have got the job.

That for me is the problem with (young) people accepting cautions without a proper understanding of its implications.

DeanR32

1,840 posts

182 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
I have no sympathy for the mug. Although I think it's a waste of police time, I do love it when crappy people like this get nabbed. I'd prefer them to be named and shamed in their local papers or something along them lines. Something to let his hometown know what a he really can be

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
DeanR32 said:
I have no sympathy for the mug. Although I think it's a waste of police time, I do love it when crappy people like this get nabbed. I'd prefer them to be named and shamed in their local papers or something along them lines. Something to let his hometown know what a he really can be
Erm, did you look at the link in the OP, and where it is from?

DeanR32

1,840 posts

182 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
DeanR32 said:
I have no sympathy for the mug. Although I think it's a waste of police time, I do love it when crappy people like this get nabbed. I'd prefer them to be named and shamed in their local papers or something along them lines. Something to let his hometown know what a he really can be
Erm, did you look at the link in the OP, and where it is from?
Yeah I caught that bit. I'd go with some of that, but not no silly story. I want to see a some serious naming and shaming. The police should be left out of it.

It just upsets me that my family and I have to share the same air as people like this

JensenA

5,671 posts

229 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
DeanR32 said:
I have no sympathy for the mug. Although I think it's a waste of police time, I do love it when crappy people like this get nabbed. I'd prefer them to be named and shamed in their local papers or something along them lines. Something to let his hometown know what a he really can be
The way things are going though, the time will come you might be the one getting a caution soon for saying you have no sympathy for him, and for calling him a mug. Big Brother and the thought police are with us everyone.!

DeanR32

1,840 posts

182 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
JensenA said:
The way things are going though, the time will come you might be the one getting a caution soon for saying you have no sympathy for him, and for calling him a mug. Big Brother and the thought police are with us everyone.!
Quite possibly. Bit of a pessimistic thought though.

I'll take my chances though. Bottom line is I'm just not that offensive to need to worry about getting cautioned by the police. Not do I worry about my freedom of speech being "eroded" and such. I don't tend to abuse that right.


anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
Eclassy said:
It sure is but it will always be on your disclosure file.
I didn't think the lowest level DBS (formerly CRB) check disclosed cautions, but the Government website covering the matter suggests all levels do (except a 'basic' check available in Scotland).

Eclassy said:
That for me is the problem with (young) people accepting cautions without a proper understanding of its implications.
I think young people should learn to always take legal advice if being investigated and interviewed by the police.



rover 623gsi

5,230 posts

160 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
The entire purpose of 'freedom of speech' is to protect unpopular speech, whether that be obscenity, contrary political views, or other speech similarly seen as 'against the views and/or values of the public', because popular speech doesn't need protecting.

Those that claim that 'freedom of speech' should only be used to protect speech that they agree with are showing either a stunning lack of historical knowledge, or incredible arrogance, in assuming that their views and values could never be seen as 'offensive', and in need of protection.

jeff m2

2,060 posts

150 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
Freedom of speech in the past was self governing.
In a Pub..a few beers and you start being abusive you will be ejected and lose your audience and possibly a few teeth.
If a stand up comic becomes to abusive or crosses a certain line, he will lose his bookings.

Social media has become a place where people can, or could, mouth off without the fear of a bloody nose.

I doubt there has ever been or ever will be absolute freedom of speech.

Those who think there is I suggest you get up from your computer and tell your wife or girlfriend she has a fat arse.

oakdale

1,786 posts

201 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
jeff m2 said:
Freedom of speech in the past was self governing.
In a Pub..a few beers and you start being abusive you will be ejected and lose your audience and possibly a few teeth.
If a stand up comic becomes to abusive or crosses a certain line, he will lose his bookings.

Social media has become a place where people can, or could, mouth off without the fear of a bloody nose.

I doubt there has ever been or ever will be absolute freedom of speech.

Those who think there is I suggest you get up from your computer and tell your wife or girlfriend she has a fat arse.
rofl

DeanR32

1,840 posts

182 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
jeff m2 said:
Freedom of speech in the past was self governing.
In a Pub..a few beers and you start being abusive you will be ejected and lose your audience and possibly a few teeth.
If a stand up comic becomes to abusive or crosses a certain line, he will lose his bookings.

Social media has become a place where people can, or could, mouth off without the fear of a bloody nose.

I doubt there has ever been or ever will be absolute freedom of speech.

Those who think there is I suggest you get up from your computer and tell your wife or girlfriend she has a fat arse.
I'd go with this.

If someone is blatantly offensive to me (going by the tone of my make up), how am I allowed to react? I don't think I'd be unreasonable when I aim to put said offenders teeth to the back of his throat.

Give me the freedom to do that and I'll be fine with total freedom of speech!

Bottom line is, it's pretty deep when the police get involved in things like this, and probably a bit far. But total freedom of speech allows some pretty st people get away with some pretty stty things. Things I'd rather not see/hear/experience again.

I'm very unlikely to get any sort of police interest in things I say to intentionally offend others, because I'm not a . So I'll very much doubt I'll feel the effects of limited freedom of speech.