Police state? Arrested for this:...

neilo23

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?

GiantMike

I agree. Seems like a massive over-reaction to the stupid ramblings of an simple idiot. Oh dear, I may have offended him now, better keep a look out for the Thought Police.

napoleond

If the police did nothing then people would complain that the police do nothing.

Ginjafro

neilo23 wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/teenager-held-by-police-after-malicious-tweets-sent-to-tom-daley-7993820.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?

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.

natrix

If he's made a public threat to kill somebody, then that would appear to be quite different to what was originally reported...........

BillyMansell

The report doesn't mention where he threatened to kill Tom.

Arresting someone who makes death threats against another seems an appropriate response.

Pross

Police state for enforcing the law?

Threatening letters or other articles
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8 - 20830 [and Blackstones 19-41] deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.

Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill. The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 AER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.

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.

neilo23

Pross wrote:

Police state for enforcing the law?

Threatening letters or other articles
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8 - 20830 [and Blackstones 19-41] deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.

Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill. The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 AER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.

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?

iainment

neilo23 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Police state for enforcing the law?

Threatening letters or other articles
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8 - 20830 [and Blackstones 19-41] deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.

Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill. The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 AER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.

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?

napoleond

We get reports all the time about abuse via social media.
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.

neilo23

I'm not bearing any grudges. I was only asking a question.

ddraver

neilo23 wrote:

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.....

Hmm, if BB was really equivalent to CC, I'd make a joke here...

neilo23

ddraver wrote:

neilo23 wrote:

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.....

Hmm, if BB was really equivalent to CC, I'd make a joke here...

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.

GiantMike

But surely there's a difference between the idiotic ramblings of an idiot (obvious from what he wrote) and the calculating threat/abuse detailed in bold above. While I think that the idiot has been an actual idiot, did his threat* actually amount to anything other than mere words. i.e. was there actually anything malicious in what he typed?

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

neilo23

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/ ... -abuse-law

Cleat Eastwood

Pross wrote:

Police state for enforcing the law?

Threatening letters or other articles
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8 - 20830 [and Blackstones 19-41] deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.

Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill. The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 AER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.

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.

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.

Welsh_Wizard

Completely justified arrest and glad its been done.

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.

peat

In light of this, how long is it before members of the BR forum get formally interviewed by Police in the hunt for Maddie?

Pross

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Pross wrote:

Police state for enforcing the law?

Threatening letters or other articles
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8 - 20830 [and Blackstones 19-41] deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.

Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill. The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 AER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.

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.

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.

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.

Pross

neilo23 wrote:

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?

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

rc856

Whatever happened to 'sticks and stones' etc :roll:

Frank the tank

From what I've read the youth made a stupid, insesitive and offensive tweet. Not big not clever, also hardly a hate campaign.

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.

TheEnglishman

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Not every 'offence' is deserving of arrest.

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.

lucan

TheEnglishman wrote:

not true - any action that may potentially lead to someone being charged with an offense means the police have to arrest them.
...

Wrong. Just because the police have a power of arrest doesn't mean they have to use it.

robklancs

I had a look through timeline of the kid who abused Tom Daley, he is a nasty un, Tom Daley is not the only one he has threatened to kill, some of the stuff he says is vile and is racist towards others on twitter, maybe the police are using this too? It's there for everyone to see

neilo23

Over the years I've read a bit about Daley and he seems like a great lad who has had to put up with a lot of abuse from his peers because of his choice of sport. (Didn't he change schools because of bullying?). I'm sure if he had been a talented athlete in a more "macho" sport, such as football, he would have endured no bullying but adulation. His own tweet in response to this idiot seemed to be "FFS, what a dick" and obvious frustration and anger that he should have to hear this crap.

The tweeter is obviously a dick, 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.

Flexisurfer

Christ when did this forum turn into an arm of The Daily Mail? People moan when the police do nothing and moan when they do! Positive action was taken and that's what counts, imagine if some stranger started abusing you to the same level, I know most of you would want the police to sort because they have the power to do it.

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.

neilo23

Flexisurfer wrote:

Christ when did this forum turn into an arm of The Daily Mail? People moan when the police do nothing and moan when they do! Positive action was taken and that's what counts, imagine if some stranger started abusing you to the same level, I know most of you would want the police to sort because they have the power to do it.

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

Frank the tank

robklancs wrote:

I had a look through timeline of the kid who abused Tom Daley, he is a nasty un, Tom Daley is not the only one he has threatened to kill, some of the stuff he says is vile and is racist towards others on twitter, maybe the police are using this too? It's there for everyone to see

If this is true it puts the runt in a different light, he obviously has issues. Sounds like he needs psychotherapy rather than pumishment.

dylanfernley

Is that not the problem here-- pre twatter - he would maybe rant at his mates, possible make the effort to get to a keyboard, but now with twatter its instant-- you can let the whole world know your puerile thoughts-- and it then becomes more worthy of 'news' than people being killed

sungod

neilo23 wrote:

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.....

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