Jailed for posting on Facebook?!
Discussion
Repost?
He posted some pics of a Grenfell towers victim, went to jail for three months for for it.
"Mwaikambo, a 43-year-old chef born in London to Tanzanian parents, returned from work to his home next door to Grenfell Tower at about 00:15 BST on 14 June.
About 01:00 - just as he drifted off to sleep - he started to hear strange noises.
"I heard a faint sound of 'help, help'", Mwaikambo said.
"At first I dismissed it. Then it happened again. And again. So I got out of bed to investigate."
Mwaikambo's first instinct, he said, on seeing the fire, was to run to warn his neighbours.
He then joined the throng of locals gathered beneath the tower.
He saw trapped residents screaming and waving for help. Others he saw jumping to their deaths.
"It was sort of like watching the 11 September World Trade Center", he told BBC Newsnight."It was about 05:00, as he returned home to his flat, that Mwaikambo spotted the body.
A corpse, wrapped in plastic, apparently dumped in the enclosed courtyard area outside his flat's front door.
"God knows what I was thinking in my head," he explained.
"But I was holding my iPad. The body was not wrapped tightly; it was loosely wrapped.
"Inside I was just saying to myself 'does anybody know this person?' I just took the picture."
Mwaikambo started off by taking photos of the body bag from a distance. Then he went further. He lifted the plastic sheeting around the corpse's face, and took more.
"[I was] not even knowing what I was doing." he said.
"It just happened. No explanation. But with anger. [I was] traumatised. Mesmerised as well.
"Morally I know it was wrong. But it was not morally right for a body - for its respect - to be left unattended out there."Then came the move that pushed Mwaikambo's actions into the criminal. He uploaded seven of the pictures, plus one short video, to his Facebook page.
Mwaikambo did so, he now claims, in anger and confusion.
But also, he says, out of habit. Posting regular status updates to his Facebook page is, for him, just "something he does".
His Facebook account was set to "open", meaning anyone with an internet connection could see his pictures if they looked.
But even then the pictures didn't go viral. It took the involvement of someone else - professional photographer Jason Kay - for the police to get involved.
Around 08:00 that morning, Mwaikambo met Mr Kay, who had just arrived on the scene. He offered him use of all his photographs from the previous night.
Mr Kay thanked him - then informed the police."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41314418
He posted some pics of a Grenfell towers victim, went to jail for three months for for it.
"Mwaikambo, a 43-year-old chef born in London to Tanzanian parents, returned from work to his home next door to Grenfell Tower at about 00:15 BST on 14 June.
About 01:00 - just as he drifted off to sleep - he started to hear strange noises.
"I heard a faint sound of 'help, help'", Mwaikambo said.
"At first I dismissed it. Then it happened again. And again. So I got out of bed to investigate."
Mwaikambo's first instinct, he said, on seeing the fire, was to run to warn his neighbours.
He then joined the throng of locals gathered beneath the tower.
He saw trapped residents screaming and waving for help. Others he saw jumping to their deaths.
"It was sort of like watching the 11 September World Trade Center", he told BBC Newsnight."It was about 05:00, as he returned home to his flat, that Mwaikambo spotted the body.
A corpse, wrapped in plastic, apparently dumped in the enclosed courtyard area outside his flat's front door.
"God knows what I was thinking in my head," he explained.
"But I was holding my iPad. The body was not wrapped tightly; it was loosely wrapped.
"Inside I was just saying to myself 'does anybody know this person?' I just took the picture."
Mwaikambo started off by taking photos of the body bag from a distance. Then he went further. He lifted the plastic sheeting around the corpse's face, and took more.
"[I was] not even knowing what I was doing." he said.
"It just happened. No explanation. But with anger. [I was] traumatised. Mesmerised as well.
"Morally I know it was wrong. But it was not morally right for a body - for its respect - to be left unattended out there."Then came the move that pushed Mwaikambo's actions into the criminal. He uploaded seven of the pictures, plus one short video, to his Facebook page.
Mwaikambo did so, he now claims, in anger and confusion.
But also, he says, out of habit. Posting regular status updates to his Facebook page is, for him, just "something he does".
His Facebook account was set to "open", meaning anyone with an internet connection could see his pictures if they looked.
But even then the pictures didn't go viral. It took the involvement of someone else - professional photographer Jason Kay - for the police to get involved.
Around 08:00 that morning, Mwaikambo met Mr Kay, who had just arrived on the scene. He offered him use of all his photographs from the previous night.
Mr Kay thanked him - then informed the police."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41314418
People get suspended sentences for crimes which directly effect people.
Eg Assaults.
While distasteful I can't really see sending someone to jail for "being disrespectful" (ultimately what it is) is a good use of police time or state resources.
From the link provided the guy seems very sorry and knows what he did was wrong. I don't get why he was jailed.
Eg Assaults.
While distasteful I can't really see sending someone to jail for "being disrespectful" (ultimately what it is) is a good use of police time or state resources.
From the link provided the guy seems very sorry and knows what he did was wrong. I don't get why he was jailed.
xjay1337 said:
People get suspended sentences for crimes which directly effect people.
Eg Assaults.
While distasteful I can't really see sending someone to jail for "being disrespectful" (ultimately what it is) is a good use of police time or state resources.
From the link provided the guy seems very sorry and knows what he did was wrong. I don't get why he was jailed.
You forget the deterrent element. Eg Assaults.
While distasteful I can't really see sending someone to jail for "being disrespectful" (ultimately what it is) is a good use of police time or state resources.
From the link provided the guy seems very sorry and knows what he did was wrong. I don't get why he was jailed.
I also think it is a bit more than "being disrespectful" How would you have felt if you were waiting on news of loved one and you saw a photo like that? If it was your loved one or not it wouldn't help your state of mind.
Drumroll said:
xjay1337 said:
People get suspended sentences for crimes which directly effect people.
Eg Assaults.
While distasteful I can't really see sending someone to jail for "being disrespectful" (ultimately what it is) is a good use of police time or state resources.
From the link provided the guy seems very sorry and knows what he did was wrong. I don't get why he was jailed.
You forget the deterrent element. Eg Assaults.
While distasteful I can't really see sending someone to jail for "being disrespectful" (ultimately what it is) is a good use of police time or state resources.
From the link provided the guy seems very sorry and knows what he did was wrong. I don't get why he was jailed.
I also think it is a bit more than "being disrespectful" How would you have felt if you were waiting on news of loved one and you saw a photo like that? If it was your loved one or not it wouldn't help your state of mind.
To some.
I certainly wouldn't want someone going to jail for it!!!
coyft said:
I'm quite surprised this is a criminal offence with a possible jail term. I'm not sure the state should get to decide what's offensive, I think that should be left up to the publisher, in this case Facebook.
One of the offences was posting a picture of a body inside the bag, not the actual body. Whilst most might find it offensive, it seems a bit overkill to criminalise it.
I believe the face was recognisable on the photos. And he admits to tampering with it, which if any evidence were needed would not be good.One of the offences was posting a picture of a body inside the bag, not the actual body. Whilst most might find it offensive, it seems a bit overkill to criminalise it.
The culture we have developed where the first thing people think of when coming across a dead body is to photograph it (presumably to post online or sell) is not healthy. Surely the first thing you'd do is call the police?
(Prison may be OTT though. Community service maybe).
Drumroll said:
xjay1337 said:
People get suspended sentences for crimes which directly effect people.
Eg Assaults.
While distasteful I can't really see sending someone to jail for "being disrespectful" (ultimately what it is) is a good use of police time or state resources.
From the link provided the guy seems very sorry and knows what he did was wrong. I don't get why he was jailed.
You forget the deterrent element. Eg Assaults.
While distasteful I can't really see sending someone to jail for "being disrespectful" (ultimately what it is) is a good use of police time or state resources.
From the link provided the guy seems very sorry and knows what he did was wrong. I don't get why he was jailed.
I also think it is a bit more than "being disrespectful" How would you have felt if you were waiting on news of loved one and you saw a photo like that? If it was your loved one or not it wouldn't help your state of mind.
Murph7355 said:
coyft said:
I'm quite surprised this is a criminal offence with a possible jail term. I'm not sure the state should get to decide what's offensive, I think that should be left up to the publisher, in this case Facebook.
One of the offences was posting a picture of a body inside the bag, not the actual body. Whilst most might find it offensive, it seems a bit overkill to criminalise it.
I believe the face was recognisable on the photos. And he admits to tampering with it, which if any evidence were needed would not be good.One of the offences was posting a picture of a body inside the bag, not the actual body. Whilst most might find it offensive, it seems a bit overkill to criminalise it.
The culture we have developed where the first thing people think of when coming across a dead body is to photograph it (presumably to post online or sell) is not healthy. Surely the first thing you'd do is call the police?
(Prison may be OTT though. Community service maybe).
xjay1337 said:
People get suspended sentences for crimes which directly effect people.
Eg Assaults.
While distasteful I can't really see sending someone to jail for "being disrespectful" (ultimately what it is) is a good use of police time or state resources.
From the link provided the guy seems very sorry and knows what he did was wrong. I don't get why he was jailed.
I agreee with you but you know riots would have occurred in this case if he got a slap on the wrist.Eg Assaults.
While distasteful I can't really see sending someone to jail for "being disrespectful" (ultimately what it is) is a good use of police time or state resources.
From the link provided the guy seems very sorry and knows what he did was wrong. I don't get why he was jailed.
Pesty said:
I agreee with you but you know riots would have occurred in this case if he got a slap on the wrist.
Er, why?We seem to be in an era where the first reaction to disaster or suffering is to whip out a camera. I've seen video of people videoing the aftermath of horrendous car and bike crashes. Rather than offer help to the suffering victims, dozens of people stand and watch/record every miserable moment.
King Herald said:
Er, why?
We seem to be in an era where the first reaction to disaster or suffering is to whip out a camera. I've seen video of people videoing the aftermath of horrendous car and bike crashes. Rather than offer help to the suffering victims, dozens of people stand and watch/record every miserable moment.
It always was - just not so many people carried cameras until fairly recently.We seem to be in an era where the first reaction to disaster or suffering is to whip out a camera. I've seen video of people videoing the aftermath of horrendous car and bike crashes. Rather than offer help to the suffering victims, dozens of people stand and watch/record every miserable moment.
That's a 41 year old photograph. How immediately helpful was the photographer? Claiming that there is some substantial problem with an era or the people of that era is just odd.
A photograph is merely a record, I can't see the problem with that. He could have taken the photographs just in case of being able to keep them to aid police or medical help later. Adding them to Facebook just perplexes me though - why and how did he think that would benefit him?
coyft said:
If you read the article it states that one of the offences was taking a picture of a dead body inside the body bag and publishing to Facebook.
This was before he interfered with the body.
Yes, the offence was "two counts of sending by a public communications network an offending, indecent or obscene matter", presumably section 127 of the Communications Act, the exact wording being "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"This was before he interfered with the body.
What's interesting is that a press photographer reported him. The charitable view is that the photographer saw them touching the plastic and body and wanted to ensure that it was all left alone. However two newspapers have published photos of the arrest, including images of the body, both pixellated in different ways (ie. the picture was sent "to the wire" unpixelated) which I'd say is a little hypocritical:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grenfell-towe...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4605072/Ma...
The photo agency credit above seems to be run by the same person who is quoted as reporting Mr Mwaikambo, and the chap doesn't seem a wholesome sort:
http://www.epuk.org/news/paparazzi-kaycappa-found-...
http://spottedportsmouth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/po...
Edited to add: I'm not condoning Mwaikambo's actions, it was poor judgement, however prison seems a little harsh given what others "get away with", but I'll put it down to wanting to send a harsh message.
Gareth79 said:
Yes, the offence was "two counts of sending by a public communications network an offending, indecent or obscene matter", presumably section 127 of the Communications Act, the exact wording being "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"
People post pics of dead babies and suchforth to Facebook all the time with 'say amen if you care' and 'share if you want god to help' and other tedious drivel. I have complained to Facebook a couple of times at some of the horrendous pictures, but been told it is okay.I guess their censorship bot photo scanner could find no nipples of muff so rejected my objection.
A photograph of me topless on the beach was removed, because someone objected to nudity though.
Edited by King Herald on Thursday 21st September 13:10
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff