Six months for nicking a bottle water

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Yes, Daily Mail is used as shorthand, as is muesli-eating sandal-wearing Guardian reader. It's lazy stereotyping, but then people of all political persuasions are lazy.

I agree, but don't you think its a false comparison? The DM is a tabloid, The Guardian is a respected broadsheet. Equating the two in an argument (which is done when the comparison is made) is like equating creationism with the theory of evolution for the purposes of debate. It just drags the debate down and avoids discussing the relevant points.

A DM reader (I’m not one btw) would argue that the DM is straight talking paper that represent the majority of middle England and the Guardian is left of centre paper with political agenda whose readers are a bunch of smug liberals. They think this because their paper's agenda (sell papers) plays to their demographic and reinforces this.

A Guardian reader opinion of the Guardian as a respected broadsheet is born out of the fact they read it and fit its demographic. They are likely to argue against this as it is part of the demographic of the Guardian reader that they see the paper as respected, well balanced etc. It is therefore important to the agenda of the Guardian (sell papers) that they continue to ensure readers feel this way hence articles appear on the face of things to be exactly that, at least to that demographic.

In other words you would think the Guardian is a respected broadsheet and the DM a rag and a DM reader would think the opposite both opinions being reinforced by the paper of choice to the point of it being a belief. So argument cannot be won.

I make a point of never knowingly having an argument with a Daily Mail reader.

The Rookie

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Immigration officer comes home to find family of Romanian gypsies squatting in her house, wearing her clothes and drinking her wine (after telling neighbours she'd died)

This is one of today's DM headlines. It says a lot about the Daily Mail.

As it's a factually accurate statement it doesn't seem to say anything bad about the DM does it?
The subject was interviewed live on Radio5 just before midday and from her own mouth confirmed every word of theat headline.

Simon

rick_chasey

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk

notsoblue

A US perspective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/opini ... .html?_r=2

rick_chasey

Apparently:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -29288008/

Sent to prison for 4 months for saying.

"Let’s start Bangor riots"

and "I don’t see why everyone’s complaining about the rioters. Given the chance I’d love to smash up a police car, wouldn’t you?"

on facebook.

Frightening.

Be careful what you say on here folks.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Apparently:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -29288008/

Sent to prison for 4 months for saying.

"Let’s start Bangor riots"

and "I don’t see why everyone’s complaining about the rioters. Given the chance I’d love to smash up a police car, wouldn’t you?"

on facebook.

Frightening.

Be careful what you say on here folks.

Well you can get fours years for it. http://www.silversurfertoday.co.uk/News ... s_features

He got off lightly in my opinion. As the judge said

"You sent a large number of people an invitation to start a riot. While you may not have thought people would take it seriously, your actions could have encouraged others to do so."

rick_chasey

It was only up for 20 mins.

C'mon. The law needs to understand how social networking works.

This isn't Syria.

Anyone should be allowed to make a joke, inciteful or otherwise.

There was no riot there so no harm done.

I mean prison, for something on facebook. Prison?! I can't get my head around being incarcerated with other criminals for a post on facebook.



The law must protect our liberties. One of those liberties is freedom of speech.

It's crazy. Absolutely crazy. And given the amount of drivel I write on here, a little frightening.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

It was only up for 20 mins.

C'mon. The law needs to understand how social networking works.

This isn't Syria.

Anyone should be allowed to make a joke, inciteful or otherwise.

There was no riot there so no harm done.

I mean prison, for something on facebook. Prison?! I can't get my head around being incarcerated with other criminals for a post on facebook.



The law must protect our liberties. One of those liberties is freedom of speech.

It's crazy. Absolutely crazy. And given the amount of drivel I write on here, a little frightening.

The point has been made a few times in the past few weeks that the law is, unsurprisingly, playing catch-up on this.

bails87

The scary thing is that I, along with plenty of others, was making (in my mind, obvious) jokes about looting stuff.

It was a joke, anyone who knows me would know that it was a joke, but I still wrote it, someone could easily say "While you may not have thought people would take it seriously, your actions could have encouraged others to do so" about it. That is pretty scary.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

It was only up for 20 mins.

C'mon. The law needs to understand how social networking works.

This isn't Syria.

Anyone should be allowed to make a joke, inciteful or otherwise.

There was no riot there so no harm done.

I mean prison, for something on facebook. Prison?! I can't get my head around being incarcerated with other criminals for a post on facebook.



The law must protect our liberties. One of those liberties is freedom of speech.

It's crazy. Absolutely crazy. And given the amount of drivel I write on here, a little frightening.

I do agree with anyone should be able to make a joke, and the fact no harm was done. I also agree with your comments on freedom of speech and In most circumstance I would agree with you about this being a harsh sentence. However, in the context of what was happening elsewhere in the country at the time it was extremely poor judgement to make this post even as joke, it's a bit like telling the security guard at an airport that you have bomb in your luggage just as a joke we all know who stupid that is and we are likely to get banged up for it.

The two guys in Warrington admitted actually attempting to start a riot, not just posting a joke, they pleaded guilty to attempting to start a riot and they got 4 years. This guy admitted sending a post but intended it as a joke and got 4 months. Had he done this when no rioting was going on it would be different but in the context it was done in it was very stupid and 4 months, out in 2, seems about right. He won't do it again, and with the media coverage it will act as deterrent to others.

As for law understanding how social media work the same could be said for the people in these cases, you should be aware that what you post can be viewed by others, including law enforcement and have consequences. I think in the last few weeks a few more people realise that than before.

rick_chasey

No, what this past week has made me realise, is that I need to be careful about what I say, for fear of imprisonment.

Which is totally ridiculous. Totally.

As for people could have taken this guys joke the wrong way - I'm pretty sure there were no riots in Bangor.

bails87

Really, two months in jail and a criminal conviction seems right, for a joke that led to no disorder/damage/harm?

Imagine if every "D lock" comment on here was suddenly taken seriously and half the posters on here were rounded up and jailed. That doesn't seem right to me, not by a hell of a long way.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, what this past week has made me realise, is that I need to be careful about what I say, for fear of imprisonment.

Which is totally ridiculous. Totally.

As for people could have taken this guys joke the wrong way - I'm pretty sure there were no riots in Bangor.

No, it really isn't. Rights have responsibilities. It's something that is repeatedly forgotten.

With freedom of speech comes the responsibility to ensure that what you're saying doesn't harm others. That's why we have libel laws. That's why we have incitement laws.

You do realise that incitement doesn't require any action to have occurred? Or would you only prosecute people if they are successful in actually causing harm or damage? I suppose you'd get rid of "attempted" offences or conspiracy too?

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Really, two months in jail and a criminal conviction seems right, for a joke that led to no disorder/damage/harm?

Imagine if every "D lock" comment on here was suddenly taken seriously and half the posters on here were rounded up and jailed. That doesn't seem right to me, not by a hell of a long way.

Quite.

I can think of many instances on the TV where people make jokes that could be taken seriously. - where people suggest joke about opening doors on cyclists for example.

Prison for Clarkson? Err, no. That would also be ridiculous.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

It was only up for 20 mins.

C'mon. The law needs to understand how social networking works.

This isn't Syria.

Anyone should be allowed to make a joke, inciteful or otherwise.

There was no riot there so no harm done.

I mean prison, for something on facebook. Prison?! I can't get my head around being incarcerated with other criminals for a post on facebook.



The law must protect our liberties. One of those liberties is freedom of speech.

It's crazy. Absolutely crazy. And given the amount of drivel I write on here, a little frightening.

Who said he was joking? Would anyone reading it realise it was a joke? Of course you can't say that.

Encouraging or organising people to undertake acts that have the potential to kill or seriously injure someone are NOT jokes. They are serious offences particularly in this context and taken as such.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, what this past week has made me realise, is that I need to be careful about what I say, for fear of imprisonment.

Which is totally ridiculous. Totally.

As for people could have taken this guys joke the wrong way - I'm pretty sure there were no riots in Bangor.

No, it really isn't. Rights have responsibilities. It's something that is repeatedly forgotten.

With freedom of speech comes the responsibility to ensure that what you're saying doesn't harm others. That's why we have libel laws. That's why we have incitement laws.

You do realise that incitement doesn't require any action to have occurred? Or would you only prosecute people if they are successful in actually causing harm or damage? I suppose you'd get rid of "attempted" offences or conspiracy too?

It's not freedom of speech if I can't say what I want to say.

It's nothing to do with responsibilities.

The law (should be) there to protect my rights - including that of free speech - not to infringe upon them.

In this instance people can't seriously think that it was genuine incitement?

C'mon.

This isn't some guy plotting to blow stuff up. It's a bloody facebook invite group that disappeared after 20 minutes.

Greg T

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not freedom of speech if I can't say what I want to say.

It's nothing to do with responsibilities.

Really?

Do you have the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded Theatre?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, what this past week has made me realise, is that I need to be careful about what I say, for fear of imprisonment.

Which is totally ridiculous. Totally.

As for people could have taken this guys joke the wrong way - I'm pretty sure there were no riots in Bangor.

No, it really isn't. Rights have responsibilities. It's something that is repeatedly forgotten.

With freedom of speech comes the responsibility to ensure that what you're saying doesn't harm others. That's why we have libel laws. That's why we have incitement laws.

You do realise that incitement doesn't require any action to have occurred? Or would you only prosecute people if they are successful in actually causing harm or damage? I suppose you'd get rid of "attempted" offences or conspiracy too?

It's not freedom of speech if I can't say what I want to say.

It's nothing to do with responsibilities.

The law (should be) there to protect my rights - including that of free speech - not to infringe upon them.

In this instance people can't seriously think that it was genuine incitement?

C'mon.

This isn't some guy plotting to blow stuff up. It's a bloody facebook invite group that disappeared after 20 minutes.

Who are you to say it wasn't serious?

If you'd rather think that you don't have freedom of speech because you aren't allowed to incite a riot or encourage hate crimes then so be it. But then try living in a country where you can be executed for criticising the government and think again.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not freedom of speech if I can't say what I want to say.

It's nothing to do with responsibilities.

The law (should be) there to protect my rights - including that of free speech - not to infringe upon them.

This is such a ridiculous "I know my rights" attitude that is so prevalent. The sense of entitlement - with no regard to the responsibilities - is why "freedoms" need to be limited. Because otherwise they can be abused to the detriment of others. There would be no need for limits on freedom of speech if there was an understanding that the freedom was only allowed because it was responsibly used.

sketchley

bails87 wrote:

Really, two months in jail and a criminal conviction seems right, for a joke that led to no disorder/damage/harm?

No harm apart from the cost of the policing that turned up, which the tax payers of bangor most of who had the sense not to post anything up have to pay for. And it was 4 months for for breaking the law, the communications act I in this case, I suspect he didn't know what he was doing was illegal but ignorance of the law is no excuse. All of us should be aware that what we post on an open forum, or say in the pub can and does have consequences from breach of copyright through to libel and slander.

bails87 wrote:

Imagine if every "D lock" comment on here was suddenly taken seriously and half the posters on here were rounded up and jailed. That doesn't seem right to me, not by a hell of a long way.

Yes but imagine if there was d-lock fiend on the run being reported in all the media, smashing young ladies round the head as they walk down the street near where you worked. In that context would it be sensible to post about d-locking someone, when this might lead to police investigation that wasted their time and preventing the real fiend from being caught.

The guy in this case should of realised that while he was only making a joke other people who saw it (including the lady that reported it) may well of thought it was serious and in the context of what was happening elsewhere in the country was also likely. His actions led to one member of public at least to believe it and for the police to respond. He should have thought about this before he did it.

rick_chasey

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not freedom of speech if I can't say what I want to say.

It's nothing to do with responsibilities.

Really?

Do you have the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded Theatre?

Pffft.

I regularly was house and fire officer for a cinema and people did this all the time.

People thought it was funny.

This reminds me of that Eminem record.

How many retards'll listen to me
and run up in the school shootin when they're pissed at a
teach-er, her, him, is it you is it them?
"Wasn't me, Slim Shady said to do it again!"
Damn! How much damage can you do with a pen?
Man I'm just as f*cked up as you woulda been
if you woulda been, in my shoes, who woulda thought
Slim Shady would be somethin that you woulda bought
that woulda made you get a gun and shoot at a cop
I just said it - I ain't know if you'd do it or not

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, what this past week has made me realise, is that I need to be careful about what I say, for fear of imprisonment.

Which is totally ridiculous. Totally.

As for people could have taken this guys joke the wrong way - I'm pretty sure there were no riots in Bangor.

No, it really isn't. Rights have responsibilities. It's something that is repeatedly forgotten.

With freedom of speech comes the responsibility to ensure that what you're saying doesn't harm others. That's why we have libel laws. That's why we have incitement laws.

You do realise that incitement doesn't require any action to have occurred? Or would you only prosecute people if they are successful in actually causing harm or damage? I suppose you'd get rid of "attempted" offences or conspiracy too?

It's not freedom of speech if I can't say what I want to say.

It's nothing to do with responsibilities.

The law (should be) there to protect my rights - including that of free speech - not to infringe upon them.

In this instance people can't seriously think that it was genuine incitement?

C'mon.

This isn't some guy plotting to blow stuff up. It's a bloody facebook invite group that disappeared after 20 minutes.

But what if protecting your rights requires the law to the breach the rights of another?

For example (and I'm not saying you would) but if you are allowed to say what you want you could say racial abuse to a third party which would be your right, however the third party has the right to go about their business without getting such abuse. So the law must decide who's right is more important, which is why we have libel laws etc.....

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

But what if protecting your rights requires the law the breach the rights of another?

For example (and I'm not saying you would) but if you are allowed to say what you want you could say racial abuse to a third party which would be your right, however the third party has the right to go about their business without getting such abuse. So the law must decide who's right is more important, which is why we have libel laws etc.....

So in this instance, who's rights were infringed?

I can't think of any, since it never happened.

He even shut it down after 20 mins!

Fine, what he did, could, if it was a bit more serious, be a matter that could cause damage. Tell him off, tell him not to do it again. I'm assuming (with some back up - "this is totally out of character") that he's not got a background in inciting all this stuff.

I doubt he's looked up books on how to arrange riots and hooliganism.

He's made a few clicks and created a facebook group.

Prison? What does that achieve? Totally nothing.

No-harm was done, other than to him.

This could have, and should have, just been left alone, perhaps with a warning.

bails87

Sketchley wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Really, two months in jail and a criminal conviction seems right, for a joke that led to no disorder/damage/harm?

No harm apart from the cost of the policing that turned up

Turned up where? To arrest him? Or did Bangor police have a full scale 'public order' response to his post? I genuinely don't know, it's not mentioned in the article.

If you ever go into the CrudCatcher, you'll see many posters have a habit of threatening to leave people in ditches with their heads pointing backwards. That happens to real people from time to time, but I don't think any of those posters should be going to jail for saying stuff like that. It's clearly a joke.

There are some groups who I think should be clamped down on more forcefully, whereas posters in the CC are clearly joking there are plenty of groups, the EDL being one good example, who have a history of causing trouble wherever they go. When their members are posting on their walls that they're going to, or that they or others should, burn down mosques, or "smash up p*kis", or as they said during the riots "go n***er bashing" I think those statements carry a lot more weight, and are much more of a genuine threat, given their members have been convicted for doing those very things. And yet they seem to be mostly ignored, probably because it's a slow burning issue rather than the 'exciting' riots.

sketchley

A few points

1. An ex colleague who clearly new the man though it serious enough (i.e. not a joke) to call the police.

2. Had the same lady not done this it may well of been there for more than 20 mins and actually caused a riot. Did he remove it himself realising his mistake or did facebook take it down following the complaint?

3. There was harm done, if only that harm was wasting police time and causing one lady to fear it was going to happen. But what if there were riots down the road and the police could not respond as they were at this "event". Again I must stress this has to be viewed in the context of the nights events?

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

A few points

1. An ex colleague who clearly new the man though it serious enough (i.e. not a joke) to call the police.

2. Had the same lady not done this it may well of been there for more than 20 mins and actually caused a riot. Did he remove it himself realising his mistake or did facebook take it down following the complaint?

3. There was harm done, if only that harm was wasting police time and causing one lady to fear it was going to happen. But what if there were riots down the road and the police could not respond as they were at this "event". Again I must stress this has to be viewed in the context of the nights events?

I saw HUNDREDS of jokes about "I'm going to go nick a *insert popular looting item*" on my facebook homepage from friends on that night. Many of them lived in Clapham. Should I have reported them? Or would that have been a waste of police's time? I even had a candidate joke that he couldn't go for drinks to celebrate the completion of the move because he had some looting to do that evening. Again, he's obviously joking. (he really was police - in case you're reading...)

That's clearly boll*ocks. The waste of time here is the women calling the police about a facebook group, and this guy being imprisoned for it.

rick_chasey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/2 ... nces-riots

A breakdown of the public's response to the sentences.

tailwindhome

I'm starting to regret spreading the 'send in the Polar Bears' joke.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

A few points

1. An ex colleague who clearly new the man though it serious enough (i.e. not a joke) to call the police.

2. Had the same lady not done this it may well of been there for more than 20 mins and actually caused a riot. Did he remove it himself realising his mistake or did facebook take it down following the complaint?

3. There was harm done, if only that harm was wasting police time and causing one lady to fear it was going to happen. But what if there were riots down the road and the police could not respond as they were at this "event". Again I must stress this has to be viewed in the context of the nights events?

I saw HUNDREDS of jokes about "I'm going to go nick a *insert popular looting item*" on my facebook homepage from friends on that night. Many of them lived in Clapham. Should I have reported them? Or would that have been a waste of police's time? I even had a candidate joke that he couldn't go for drinks to celebrate the completion of the move because he had some looting to do that evening. Again, he's obviously joking. (he really was police - in case you're reading...)

That's clearly boll*ocks. The waste of time here is the women calling the police about a facebook group, and this guy being imprisoned for it.

An indvidual posting a message that they are going out looting (as joke) is very different from creating an event that encouraged other to do the same. Also you know your friends and knew them to be joking, the women in this case knew the person involved and clearly thought he wasn't there a big difference right there.

If you had thought one of friends was not joking would you have reported them? What id they were inciting others to riot would you have reported them, would you expect the police to do nothing if you did?

joelsim

The fact is they got punished, rightly, for inciting a riot. End of. Not big and not clever.

I just wish that they could identify and bang up every other person who was involved. It's just not acceptable.