Police state? Arrested for this:...
neilo23
Posts: 783
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olym ... 93820.html
In no way am I condoning what this lad did and his tweet was obviously insensitive and unkind but to be arrested for this seems ridiculous, especially after the tweeter posted an apology. It's a 17 year old kid! Most 17 year olds can be a bit daft sometimes. What happened to free speech? Are we getting to the point where we have to worry about being arrested for offending ANYONE? Why aren't half of the comedians on tv being arrested?
As I said, it was an unpleasant thing to tweet, but to be arrested for it?
In no way am I condoning what this lad did and his tweet was obviously insensitive and unkind but to be arrested for this seems ridiculous, especially after the tweeter posted an apology. It's a 17 year old kid! Most 17 year olds can be a bit daft sometimes. What happened to free speech? Are we getting to the point where we have to worry about being arrested for offending ANYONE? Why aren't half of the comedians on tv being arrested?
As I said, it was an unpleasant thing to tweet, but to be arrested for it?
0
Posts
ABCC Cycling Coach
On this occassion it seems the Independent has under-reported some facts. The Plymouth Herald however, has reported further abuse and a "threat" to kill Tom Daley:
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/17-year-old-arrested-hate-tweet-targeting-Tom/story-16617666-detail/story.html
"Rileyy_69 originally tried to back down after Tom Daley's tweet back.
Rileyy replied: "I'm sorry mate i just wanted you to win cause its the olympics I'm just annoyed we didn't win I'm sorry tom accept my apology."
He added: "please i don't want to be hated I'm just sorry you didn't win i was rooting for you pal to do britain all proud just so upset"
Then said: "to be really honest tommy i wish i had a talent like you and that's the reason why I'm jealous just sorry again #TeamDaley"
He later claimed not to have known that Tom's dad had died, then locked his account - meaning the tweets were no longer public.
Later still he reopened the account and began tweeting more attacks at Tom, using vulgar language, threatening to kill the Plymouth teen and saying he hoped Tom would fail in the individual dive."
Whilst the 17 year old may well be a complete dickhead Tom Daley has had to endure a lot of cyber bullying over the last few years as well as the premature death of his father. So, in this case I suspect Rilley-69 does not understand the concept of free speech and probably deserves to be made to dive of a 10m diving board.
Cove Hustler
Planet X Pro-Carbon
Arresting someone who makes death threats against another seems an appropriate response.
Even ignoring the reported death threats I would suggest making those comments about a young man's recently deceased father falls under the category of the bit in bold surely? I wish people would address their own ignorance of the law before they make posts about "police state" (or on another thread "Gulag London"). The sooner people learn that they cannot use social media in this way the better as far as I am concerned. Hopefully the police will respond as quickly if Joe Bloggs gets abuse through Facebook as well.
The police and my lawyer said they were unable to do anything for me when untrue, personally and professionally damaging comments were posted about me on the internet.....
How does the law stand on verbal comments? Could thousands of schoolkids, nurses, bouncers, bus drivers etc theoretically get anyone who makes unpleasant comments to them arrested?
So you're bearing a grudge then. If you weren't do you think you'd have the same opinion?
Joseph Gallivan
Do we act upon them?
Yes, often this is dealt with by 'advice'. If its more sinister then it is dealt with accordingly.
It's not 'police state'. It's responding when people are genuinely upset, threatened or abused.
ABCC Cycling Coach
Hmm, if BB was really equivalent to CC, I'd make a joke here...
- @ddraver
Don't or I'll sue you!
After only having read the one article on this topic, it does seem a bit over the top arresting the boy. However, now I have been educated regarding the laws of the land, it appears that a law was being broken and I'm not afraid of being corrected. Having said that, we'd need a jail half the size of the country to cope with all of the trolls on the internet and twitter if they were all arrested.
If I say that I'm going to kill Napoleon C**, does anybody actually believe that I will and does Nap C actually feel threatened? I'd suggest that if anybody was actually going to kill somebody, advertising it on twitter before the event would be a pretty stupid thing to do, thereby negating the threat.
*obviously I haven't read what he wrote and I only have 3rd hand reports from the lying, cheating sleazebag journalists who would generally do anything to create a story
But theres the law and the common sense application of the law. Not every 'offence' is deserving of arrest.
By the way what does teh bold bit i've highlighted mean? People can use any media howsoever they choose.
You can take away my Twitter, but you'll never take my freedo....oh and you've taken my letter 'M' too.
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
The Mal Comm act ensured that keyboard warriors, that would never say these things to these people face to face, now have no where to hide. If it was face to face, it would likely fall under the public order act so there had to be legislation to ensure you couldnt circumvent the law.
Whether he's being an idiot or not he has a brain and he needs to use it before engaging his digits.
The bit in bold means that as far as I am concerned the sooner people realise that using Twitter, Facebook etc. etc. to post threatening / hurtful / damaging comments about another person isn't a bit of 'harmless fun' and that they could end up with a criminal record for it the better. Social media can be beneficial in all sorts of ways but people using it in negative ways detracts from that.
Not sure why that would be the case. I'm not a lawyer or a copper but providing they could find who had done it and you could prove they were untrue I'd have thought they should have acted. I don't doubt more resources would have been made available in tracking down the culprit in this case due to the high profile nature but I would say the mistake is in the police not pursuing your case rather than them being too heavy handed in this case.
As for verbal comments, again I'm not involved in the law in anyway but from a bit of research I believe this would be covered by the Public Order Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Had Tom Daley not been the target but me,or someone else on here would the fool have been arrested for what afterall was a idiotic rant?
If so we'd all better start looking over our keyboards/shoulders.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
not true - any action that may potentially lead to someone being charged with an offense means the police have to arrest them.
Being arrested and being charged with an offense are totally different things.
Wrong. Just because the police have a power of arrest doesn't mean they have to use it.
Winter: GT Series3
The tweeter is obviously a censored , but I'm sure there would have been no arrest if he had, in the pre-internet days, had spoken the same words to Daley. I assume (judging from the police's response) that a tweet is treated as a written statement, but I personally wouldn't rate a comment on a public forum, probably sent by some loser with his mobile in his bedroom, as seriously as, say, a letter in the post. Unpleasant, yes, but worthy of arrest? I'm sure the comments said in schoolyards every day around the world are a lot more hurtful (ask anyone who has experienced bullying), but you can't go around arresting everyone. What next? Frankie Boyle for making offensive jokes about the Queen? Richard Dawkins for offending Christians?
As someone posted, there's a difference between being arrested and being formerly charged. I suppose the arrest could be viewed, in this case, as being the modern version of the copper ringing on the door and giving the lad a clip around the ear. Anyway, I hope he's learned his lesson.
This is no way near a police state, and if you don't like it here then move to somewhere where the police would laugh at such complaints.
Haha! That's exactly what I was thinking: it sounds like the Mail. I don't live "here" (ie in GB) and get fed up when the police do nothing with the "real" crooks and crack down on those who very little wrong. Where I live has (officially) much more of a police state, but also a lot more freedom due to its history. My bouncers get threats every night and would be laughed at if they called the police for every offensive remark they hear. However, if they reacted to these remarks in an appropriate way..... Sticks and stones
If this is true it puts the runt in a different light, he obviously has issues. Sounds like he needs psychotherapy rather than pumishment.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
libel isn't a criminal offence, police will do nothing
you'd need to take civil action, but unless you can prove the identity of whoever did it and prove what they said was both defamatory and libel, you're on a hiding to nothing
you'd also need deep pockets, even if you won, the damages might not be much, and unless you were also awarded costs you might end up worse off than the person who 'lost' the case, especially if they had few/no assets, if you had the misfortune to lose it'd be even worse
imho the lawyer should at least have fired a letter at wherever the comments were published to get them taken down, then if they refused at least there'd be a cash-rich target to sue