Tower Block Fire

Pross

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Pross wrote:

It seems that time can be found when there's enough media pressure.

the men handed themselves in ...

Pross wrote:

That said, I'd be quite happy to see them jailed if they have broken a law as anyone who thinks that behaviour is funny should be taken off the streets.

we need bigger/more jails ...

I dislike emojis as much as the next grown-up but as this subject is so polarising can we make an exception as I have no idea if the people above really think these (and others) should be jailed.

Really? OK for the avoidance of doubt I don't think they should be jailed but bringing back the stocks would be perfect for these situations.



Sorry

slowbike

Pross wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Pross wrote:

It seems that time can be found when there's enough media pressure.

the men handed themselves in ...

Pross wrote:

That said, I'd be quite happy to see them jailed if they have broken a law as anyone who thinks that behaviour is funny should be taken off the streets.

we need bigger/more jails ...

I dislike emojis as much as the next grown-up but as this subject is so polarising can we make an exception as I have no idea if the people above really think these (and others) should be jailed.

Really? OK for the avoidance of doubt I don't think they should be jailed but bringing back the stocks would be perfect for these situations.



Sorry

that'll do ...

slowbike

Surrey Commuter wrote:

why not watch the video?

Not worth wasting my time (he says - having responded yet again to something that really has no bearing on anything at all...

SJH76

thegreatdivide wrote:

@ SJH76 - You might watch Family Guy but you’re clearly not getting Seth McFarlane’s humour.

I get it very much. I'm not the one being offended. I'm pointing out the fact they are joking about a very similar set of circumstances and in the name of entertainment. Besides that, many people use humour as a coping mechanism. Doctors and paramedics were said to be particularly dark humoured and much of it revolving around casualties in their care. That's just human nature. If it's between friends - which this case is also then what is there to answer?

If you told a friend a sexist joke how would you feel is a passing woman called you out as a misogynist and then had you charged with a hate crime? It's borderline lunacy

thegreatdivide

SJH76 wrote:

I get it very much. I'm not the one being offended. I'm pointing out the fact they are joking about a very similar set of circumstances and in the name of entertainment.

As I said, you're clearly not getting it.

SJH76

thegreatdivide wrote:

SJH76 wrote:

I get it very much. I'm not the one being offended. I'm pointing out the fact they are joking about a very similar set of circumstances and in the name of entertainment.

As I said, you're clearly not getting it.

Enlighten me then to what I'm not getting. Not that it makes much difference. If I find it funny does it matter if I find it funny for the same reason? Some will find it funny, some will be offended. Others indifferent. Point is. The joke was made and at the expense of people who perished in an act of Terrorism. Grenfell was a tragic accident. Some might say that is less offensive then again humour is very subjective.

surrey_commuter

Slowbike wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

why not watch the video?

Not worth wasting my time (he says - having responded yet again to something that really has no bearing on anything at all...

how can you say not watching the video has no bearing? for the sake of 3 minutes you are leaving yourself dependent upon other people's interpretation

pblakeney

SJH76 wrote:

If you told a friend a sexist joke how would you feel is a passing woman called you out as a misogynist and then had you charged with a hate crime? It's borderline lunacy

You missed the memo. You can no longer tell sexist jokes. Or any -ist jokes.
Jokes are effectively banned.

haydenm

Being as we have successfully identified that there are differing opinions on this, I think it is only sensible that we refer it to legal experts to judge, otherwise known 'judges'. Of course it won't get that far if they don't think there was a crime committed so we could weed it out first via the police and CPS

SJH76 wrote:

If you told a friend a sexist joke how would you feel is a passing woman called you out as a misogynist and then had you charged with a hate crime? It's borderline lunacy

Good on her for calling him out as a misogynist*, maybe he shouldn't be loudly telling sexist jokes in public. It is slightly ridiculous that it would take up any police time however given their limited resources, but if a complaint is made and a crime is found by legal experts to have been committed then fair enough.

*Not everyone who tells a sexist joke is a misogynist

kingrollo

Jesus there are some sick people about. I love a laugh more than most - but not at the expense of people being alive.

Don't know if there is a law that covers this sort of thing. Even if there isn't these people must have such a miserable existence anyway - they aren't worthy of punishment.

bompington

Put as simply as Brendan O'Neill can manage, for the benefit of the hard of thinking:

"Is it now a crime to be a twªt?"

SJH76

HaydenM wrote:

Being as we have successfully identified that there are differing opinions on this, I think it is only sensible that we refer it to legal experts to judge, otherwise known 'judges'. Of course it won't get that far if they don't think there was a crime committed so we could weed it out first via the police and CPS

SJH76 wrote:

If you told a friend a sexist joke how would you feel is a passing woman called you out as a misogynist and then had you charged with a hate crime? It's borderline lunacy

Good on her for calling him out as a misogynist*, maybe he shouldn't be loudly telling sexist jokes in public. It is slightly ridiculous that it would take up any police time however given their limited resources, but if a complaint is made and a crime is found by legal experts to have been committed then fair enough.

*Not everyone who tells a sexist joke is a misogynist

Well done you earn a shiny penny. Probably the one that should have dropped when you wrote this. No not everyone who tells sexist jokes is a misogynist probably hardly any actually are. Neither are most who tell jokes based on race or colour are racist or those who tell jokes about gays homophobic etc etc ad nausium. That is the point. The effigy burners probably weren't doing doing it out of a hatred towards minorities etc but just that's their sense of humour. Heard plenty of jokes most would consider racist, sexist, homophobic etc. I laughed and found it funny. Am I therefore a racist homophobic misogynist ? You can say what you like I know I am not. But I can still hopefully find something funny without the police coming a knockin'

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Put as simply as Brendan O'Neill can manage, for the benefit of the hard of thinking:

"Is it now a crime to be a twªt?"

Plainly not as he was able to write that from the comfort of not prison.

haydenm

SJH76 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Being as we have successfully identified that there are differing opinions on this, I think it is only sensible that we refer it to legal experts to judge, otherwise known 'judges'. Of course it won't get that far if they don't think there was a crime committed so we could weed it out first via the police and CPS

SJH76 wrote:

If you told a friend a sexist joke how would you feel is a passing woman called you out as a misogynist and then had you charged with a hate crime? It's borderline lunacy

Good on her for calling him out as a misogynist*, maybe he shouldn't be loudly telling sexist jokes in public. It is slightly ridiculous that it would take up any police time however given their limited resources, but if a complaint is made and a crime is found by legal experts to have been committed then fair enough.

*Not everyone who tells a sexist joke is a misogynist

Well done you earn a shiny penny. Probably the one that should have dropped when you wrote this. No not everyone who tells sexist jokes is a misogynist probably hardly any actually are. Neither are most who tell jokes based on race or colour are racist or those who tell jokes about gays homophobic etc etc ad nausium. That is the point. The effigy burners probably weren't doing doing it out of a hatred towards minorities etc but just that's their sense of humour. Heard plenty of jokes most would consider racist, sexist, homophobic etc. I laughed and found it funny. Am I therefore a racist homophobic misogynist ? You can say what you like I know I am not. But I can still hopefully find something funny without the police coming a knockin'

Chill out.

Well no, not necessarily. You read my caveat clearly as you highlighted it for some reason. The penny dropped long before I wrote it hence I wrote it.

My point is that when being caught telling sexist jokes it doesn't actually matter whether you are a misogynist or not, if it's a crime then you should face the consequences. It's a bit like Jeremy Clarkson advocating hatred of cyclists, it makes the more extreme cyclist haters feel more mainstream. You clearly don't think it should be a crime but others do, and you are one person in a much bigger society. I'm not sure that telling sexist jokes is a crime but sexism certainly is, and punching a woman in the face just for being a woman is or should be a hate crime. Not really sure what your point is in that response

tangled_metal

How would you know the punch was because she was a woman? Beside the point, a punch is a crime. AFAIK hatred isn't a crime but actions made because of your hatred might be a crime. I'm not sure if hating any group should be a crime but acting on hate should probably be a crime if it affects others. By this I mean violence or encouragement of violence or other criminal act.

Now I guess I mean hate I think should only be used in sentencing not in charging if that makes sense. Whether it makes sense to you or not it does to me.

SJH76

HaydenM wrote:

SJH76 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Being as we have successfully identified that there are differing opinions on this, I think it is only sensible that we refer it to legal experts to judge, otherwise known 'judges'. Of course it won't get that far if they don't think there was a crime committed so we could weed it out first via the police and CPS

SJH76 wrote:

If you told a friend a sexist joke how would you feel is a passing woman called you out as a misogynist and then had you charged with a hate crime? It's borderline lunacy

Good on her for calling him out as a misogynist*, maybe he shouldn't be loudly telling sexist jokes in public. It is slightly ridiculous that it would take up any police time however given their limited resources, but if a complaint is made and a crime is found by legal experts to have been committed then fair enough.

*Not everyone who tells a sexist joke is a misogynist

Well done you earn a shiny penny. Probably the one that should have dropped when you wrote this. No not everyone who tells sexist jokes is a misogynist probably hardly any actually are. Neither are most who tell jokes based on race or colour are racist or those who tell jokes about gays homophobic etc etc ad nausium. That is the point. The effigy burners probably weren't doing doing it out of a hatred towards minorities etc but just that's their sense of humour. Heard plenty of jokes most would consider racist, sexist, homophobic etc. I laughed and found it funny. Am I therefore a racist homophobic misogynist ? You can say what you like I know I am not. But I can still hopefully find something funny without the police coming a knockin'

Chill out.

Well no, not necessarily. You read my caveat clearly as you highlighted it for some reason. The penny dropped long before I wrote it hence I wrote it.

My point is that when being caught telling sexist jokes it doesn't actually matter whether you are a misogynist or not, if it's a crime then you should face the consequences. It's a bit like Jeremy Clarkson advocating hatred of cyclists, it makes the more extreme cyclist haters feel more mainstream. You clearly don't think it should be a crime but others do, and you are one person in a much bigger society. I'm not sure that telling sexist jokes is a crime but sexism certainly is, and punching a woman in the face just for being a woman is or should be a hate crime. Not really sure what your point is in that response

Do you honestly believe telling a joke should be a crime regardless of the subject?

Pross

HaydenM wrote:

Being as we have successfully identified that there are differing opinions on this....

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case. There seems to be almost unanimous agreement here that, whilst reprehensible to most people, they should be free to make sick videos and that treating it as a crime is an over-reaction. Even the normally most liberal contributors that have commented don't seem to think that it is worth treating as a crime at that limited resources are best used elsewhere. It's actually quite a relief as when I first posted about it I wasn't sure if my opinion marked me as some kind of apologist!

drlodge

Pross wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Being as we have successfully identified that there are differing opinions on this....

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case. There seems to be almost unanimous agreement here that, whilst reprehensible to most people, they should be free to make sick videos and that treating it as a crime is over-rated. Even the normally most liberal contributors that have commented don't seem to think that it is worth treating as a crime at that limited resources are best used elsewhere. It's actually quite a relief as when I first posted about it I wasn't sure if my opinion mark me as some kind of apologist!

Exactly. Offending people should not be a crime.

Jez mon

It's interesting that this has generated quite a bit of traction on this forum. But the Count Dankula, Nazi Pug video seemed to go by unnoticed.?

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

Put as simply as Brendan O'Neill can manage, for the benefit of the hard of thinking:

"Is it now a crime to be a twªt?"

This place would be pretty quiet if that was the case.

DeVlaeminck

Jez mon wrote:

It's interesting that this has generated quite a bit of traction on this forum. But the Count Dankula, Nazi Pug video seemed to go by unnoticed.?

First thoughts are there was more of a case to prosecute there. His video was intended for public viewing and he openly named a religious minority whereas in the tower video the racial element has largely been inferred by others. It was hate crime he got done for rather than a public order offence wasn't it?

On the other hand there has been a tradition of comedy hitlers - Freddie Starr for example - though whether any of them would have been allowed to shout "kill the Jews" as a major part of their act I doubt.

imposter2.0

drlodge wrote:

Exactly. Offending people should not be a crime.

Offending people is obviously not a crime. Public order offences, on the other hand, are. It's the difference between 'free speech' and 'free speech within the rule of law'..

imposter2.0

Pross wrote:

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case. There seems to be almost unanimous agreement here that, whilst reprehensible to most people, they should be free to make sick videos and that treating it as a crime is an over-reaction. Even the normally most liberal contributors that have commented don't seem to think that it is worth treating as a crime at that limited resources are best used elsewhere. It's actually quite a relief as when I first posted about it I wasn't sure if my opinion marked me as some kind of apologist!

Was listening to some analysis from Clive Coleman (BBC) earlier - if they had done this indoors, amongst themselves, there would have been no issue. It became a crime because a) they did it outdoors (ie in a publicly-visible area) and b) then filmed it and put it on the internet. Which effectively brings it under public order legislation - which I believe is the basis for their arrests.

It's the same set of laws that enable you to walk around your house stark naked, but will get you arrested as soon as you go out your front door...

ballysmate

Imposter wrote:

Pross wrote:

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case. There seems to be almost unanimous agreement here that, whilst reprehensible to most people, they should be free to make sick videos and that treating it as a crime is an over-reaction. Even the normally most liberal contributors that have commented don't seem to think that it is worth treating as a crime at that limited resources are best used elsewhere. It's actually quite a relief as when I first posted about it I wasn't sure if my opinion marked me as some kind of apologist!

Was listening to some analysis from Clive Coleman (BBC) earlier - if they had done this indoors, amongst themselves, there would have been no issue. It became a crime because a) they did it outdoors (ie in a publicly-visible area) and b) then filmed it and put it on the internet. Which effectively brings it under public order legislation - which I believe is the basis for their arrests.

It's the same set of laws that enable you to walk around your house stark naked, but will get you arrested as soon as you go out your front door...

If you walk around your garden naked you commit no offence if there is nobody there to be offended. Someone has to be caused fear,alarm or distress for it to be a public order offence. AFAIK, nobody at the bonfire was so affected. As I said earlier, any offence that the CPS could scratch around to find, would be when the video was published and therefore any offender would be the publisher and not the stars of the vid.

I suppose an analogy would be like years ago when people were prosecuted under the Obscene Publications legislation. It was the publisher that committed the offence.

imposter2.0

Ballysmate wrote:

If you walk around your garden naked you commit no offence if there is nobody there to be offended.

Being naked in your garden - or anywhere else - is an offence if it can be proved that you intended to cause 'distress, alarm or outrage' to others. You may be arrested (which is where this current issue is), but whether you end up being charged by the CPS and subsequently tried/convicted is another matter.

Ballysmate wrote:

As I said earlier, any offence that the CPS could scratch around to find, would be when the video was published and therefore any offender would be the publisher and not the stars of the vid.

I suppose an analogy would be like years ago when people were prosecuted under the Obscene Publications legislation. It was the publisher that committed the offence.

The offenders were the people in the video comitting the alleged offences. Not whoever filmed it, unless he was also an active part of the commentary in the vid, I don't know. I guess whether there is scope for the cameraman/uploader to be charged as an 'accessory' is a possibility - especially if the charge is incitement/hate crime related and he is charged with dissemination...

The bit in bold - assuming you are talking about either DH Lawrence or Oz magazine - it was the publisher who committed the offence - of making it public. The content related to fictional characters, so it's difficult to charge someone who doesn't exist...

ballysmate

For those on here who still think the Bonfire 5 committed a public order offence in their back garden, do you think that if the video had not been uploaded, any offence would have been committed? Their behaviour would have been the same but no-one outside their gathering would have seen it. As it appears that nobody there was unduly offended, no offence would have taken place.
As I said, any offence(s) disclosed must have been subsequent.

I would also suggest that if the CPS dig up some sort of charge and get a conviction, it would set an awful precedent.

imposter2.0

Ballysmate wrote:

For those on here who still think the Bonfire 5 committed a public order offence in their back garden, do you think that if the video had not been uploaded, any offence would have been committed?

As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.

ballysmate

Being naked in your garden - or anywhere else - is an offence if it can be proved that you intended to cause 'distress, alarm or outrage' to others.

How do you prove that if there is no one there to be offended? You have to show Mens Rea. which is made impossible if nobody witnessing your behaviour was distressed.

ballysmate

Imposter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

For those on here who still think the Bonfire 5 committed a public order offence in their back garden, do you think that if the video had not been uploaded, any offence would have been committed?

As I said earlier - it's only an offence if it gets reported. I thought that was already widely understood. When it gets reported, the police have to follow due process. Which is what they are doing, I believe.

So if someone steals your bike, it is only a crime if you report it?
Seriously?

imposter2.0

Ballysmate wrote:

So if someone steals your bike, it is only a crime if you report it?
Seriously?

Not sure what you're getting at. It's a crime regardless (because there are laws against it), but unless you plan on taking matters into your own hands, then reporting it to the police is the usual - and most obvious - response...