Jailed for posting on Facebook?!

[xjay1337]

King Herald said:

A photograph of me topless on the beach was removed, because someone objected to nudity though.

Depends if you are actually Queen Herald I guess.

[King Herald]

xjay1337 said:

King Herald said:

A photograph of me topless on the beach was removed, because someone objected to nudity though.

Depends if you are actually Queen Herald I guess.

Damn. Busted........

[WCZ]

just a thought, if the same gorilla who peta claimed was responsible for the photo he actually took, by some concidence took this photo then would they be campaigning on him being jailed?

[Derek Smith]

It is the judge who decides how seriously to take the matter and the most appropriate sentence. It is the CPS which decides whether to prosecute.

The judge, and the CPS, will have a great degree of information available to them which is often not in the public domain so, to an extent, we have to trust their judgement.

However, in this case I would agree that in a non-violent, non-invasive offence such as this, imprisonment should be seen at the last resort. It seems particularly harsh in this case on the published information.

Not only that, it is news and the public should be encouraged to publish things they have seen, especially given the partiality of the commercial news agencies. It it was a misjudgement on behalf of the poster then imprisonment is not appropriate. There are many other ways to deter and punish. I have assumed there is more to this that we know, but I get the feeling there's not.

[AJL308]

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"

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.

If that is the definition then he was rightly convicted. All four could apply but "grossly offensive" seems the most appropriate.

[AJL308]

King Herald said:

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

Facebook are muppets though and simply don't give a fk about 99% of what is on their site. They don't care because they didn't "send" it over a public communications network so can't be held legally liable.

[Gareth79]

AJL308 said:

If that is the definition then he was rightly convicted. All four could apply but "grossly offensive" seems the most appropriate.

I don't think the others could apply - I'm not an expert in the field but I reckon the rough meanings are:

Grossly offensive: dead bodies, bodily functions, comments about what the nazis did, extreme fictional stories about real people (or indeed fictional people), blasphemy.
Obscene: sexually related photos, artwork, stories, of a type which is outrageous/offensive.
Indecent: I think this is obscene content which is not outrageous/offensive but depicts activies which are not "allowed" (eg. activities which wouldn't get an R18 certificate)
Menacing: Threatening, presumably to another person or group of people

[eldar]

WCZ said:

if the photo was in black and white and had some artistic mertic would he be jailed?
I think jail is completely over the top especially considering what other people avoid being locked up for these days.

The picture was removed from facebook on the grounds of nudity. It was later permitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37318031

[del mar]

Surely he was sent to jail because he was black and the system is inherently racist ?

Perhaps lammy would care to comment ?

[stitched]

I had a conversation in the pub a while back with a serving police officer who was describing the lawless chaos which the current cuts would cause.
I pointed out that police numbers were almost identical to 1986 when they were faced with an active IRA, football hooligans, a miners strike turned violent and normal duties.
Seemed to cope OK then.
He responded that their duties now involved poring over facebook posts and so on.
My suggestion was.
Stop prosecuting people for what they say, or post and you will be be able to put the resources into prosecuting people for their actions, burglary, assault etc.
I don't think he's my friend anymore.