Tower Block Fire

11213141618

Comments

  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    HaydenM wrote:
    SJH76 wrote:
    Do you honestly believe telling a joke should be a crime regardless of the subject?

    I didn't say telling jokes should be a crime, I was just pointing out that if it's deemed to be a public order offence then it's a crime whether we like it or not. I think in some circumstances telling a joke could be a crime, not in the context that you gave though really. As there is a huge grey area between making a joke or just saying something unsavoury masked as a joke it's not unreasonable to take into account the impact on the people who it was aimed at, along with the intent behind it.

    Donkeys years ago - went to a comedy store - the "warm up" was a bloke who came on and said fvck loads of times - he got booed off the stage (fortunately!) - if you tried that same act in Victoria Station, you'd get arrested ...

    So telling jokes CAN be a crime ...
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Imposter wrote:

    To me, it just sounds like the police following up on a complaint and following SOPs...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section ... r_Act_1986

    Unless the information in that link is wrong it seems fairly nailed on that a public order offence isn't going to stick so arresting them and carrying out a search of the premises surely can't be justified as standard operating procedure.

    Beyond that how does what they've done differ from someone making sick jokes about any tragedy ?

    But the inconvenience to the arrested and the fact that they now have a flag for "having been arrested" can be a deterrent to others in itself - suggesting that perhaps it's not such fun to make very poor taste "jokes"
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Imposter wrote:

    To me, it just sounds like the police following up on a complaint and following SOPs...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section ... r_Act_1986

    Unless the information in that link is wrong it seems fairly nailed on that a public order offence isn't going to stick so arresting them and carrying out a search of the premises surely can't be justified as standard operating procedure.

    Beyond that how does what they've done differ from someone making sick jokes about any tragedy ?

    Yeah, perhaps the police should have checked wikipedia before arresting them, eh? If it is being investigated as a 'hate crime', then a warrant would enable the police to seize computers, etc, in order to establish whether any of those being investigated had form for that sort of thing. If there are records of them online spouting hate speech or whatever, then it might help in building a case against them.

    In terms of how it differs from any other 'sick jokes' - then I guess the issue is being able to prove 'intent' - as already mentioned many times. If it turns out there is none, then I guess they'll be released without charge.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,916
    Imposter wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Imposter wrote
    I haven't said anyone was 'guilty' of anything. I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

    Really?

    Imposter wrote
    The offenders were the people in the video comitting the alleged offences.

    Yes, really. You know what ‘alleged’ means, right? Pretty sure I didn’t say anyone was ‘guilty’ :lol:

    All offences are 'alleged' up until they are proved in court. Any person charged with an alleged offence is a suspect. Once a suspect has been found guilty of the offence, they are then an offender.
    You branded them offenders, thereby stating they were guilty.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 8,707
    Imposter wrote:
    Imposter wrote:

    To me, it just sounds like the police following up on a complaint and following SOPs...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section ... r_Act_1986

    Unless the information in that link is wrong it seems fairly nailed on that a public order offence isn't going to stick so arresting them and carrying out a search of the premises surely can't be justified as standard operating procedure.

    Beyond that how does what they've done differ from someone making sick jokes about any tragedy ?

    Yeah, perhaps the police should have checked wikipedia before arresting them, eh? If it is being investigated as a 'hate crime', then a warrant would enable the police to seize computers, etc, in order to establish whether any of those being investigated had form for that sort of thing. If there are records of them online spouting hate speech or whatever, then it might help in building a case against them.

    In terms of how it differs from any other 'sick jokes' - then I guess the issue is being able to prove 'intent'. If it turns out there is none, then I guess they'll be released without charge.

    Are you claiming the information on wikipedia is wrong? If not I don't see what your point is, you don't seem to have one. You've already contradicted yourself several times on this thread, made statements and then claimed you said no such thing but others have pointed that out already.

    If they are released without charge then the question will be why were they arrested in the first place. My point is carrying out a search because of a sick joke is an abuse of police power. We know people make sick jokes after tragedies - since when did it justify this kind of reaction from the police?
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • Forum legal experts aside I guess only time will tell if the police and CPS take this all the way to court. They'll only do that if there is a reasonable belief in gaining a conviction I reckon. So here's a thought, let's get off this merry-go-round of quoting each other and watch the news for an update of how the investigation is going. I reckon it'll become old news and forgotten quicker on news sites than this thread starts to slow down. :D
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Are you claiming the information on wikipedia is wrong? If not I don't see what your point is, you don't seem to have one.

    Not claiming it's wrong - I'm just saying that the police probably have already taken pretty good legal advice in relation to this case, given how sensitive it is. I doubt if they rely on wikipedia..
    You've already contradicted yourself several times on this thread, made statements and then claimed you said no such thing but others have pointed that out already.

    I haven't contradicted myself at all. Although I did clarify one of my comments, which was certainly ambiguous. Please point out to me where these contradictions are - I look forward to being able to address them.
    If they are released without charge then the question will be why were they arrested in the first place.

    Because someone made a complaint, the police saw fit to investigate it and suspected them of committing an offence for which an arrest was appropriate. This is hardly unusual.
    My point is carrying out a search because of a sick joke is an abuse of police power. We know people make sick jokes after tragedies - since when did it justify this kind of reaction from the police?

    When it was reported, obviously. The police clearly felt it was serious enough and worthy of a follow-up. The magistrate who granted the search warrant presumably felt that it wasn't an 'abuse of police power' to carry out a search...
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 8,707
    Forum legal experts aside I guess only time will tell if the police and CPS take this all the way to court. They'll only do that if there is a reasonable belief in gaining a conviction I reckon. So here's a thought, let's get off this merry-go-round of quoting each other and watch the news for an update of how the investigation is going. I reckon it'll become old news and forgotten quicker on news sites than this thread starts to slow down. :D


    No claim to be a legal expert here but it seems relevant to post a precis of what the law they are supposed to have broken says given we've had a long discussion on this.

    The fact is the police do occasionally abuse their power and it's legitimate to discuss that rather than just sitting back and saying well if they are it wont get through court. Someone who is a legal expert - the former Chief Prosecutor who was in the news a lot because he was involved in a lot of the grooming gang cases in the North is quoted in The Times as saying “As abhorrent and disgusting as it is, it is probably not criminal,” he said. “I can’t for the life of me see how [a crime] is made out on what I’ve seen so far.”

    If someone for the life of them can't see that a crime is being committed why are scarce police resources being spent on it? It doesn't matter that complaints have been made - the police don't have to arrest people on the basis of every complaint.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    If someone for the life of them can't see that a crime is being committed why are scarce police resources being spent on it?

    Just guessing here, but perhaps he wasn't the one giving them the advice?
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    Welcome to Britain. How many years on and no penalties applied to those individuals that specified and installed flammable cladding on a high rise building completely defeating the long held practice of isolating fires to a single flat above a certain height as firemen funnily enough cannot deal with a towering inferno. 1 in 6 people jailed for traffic collisions involving the death of cyclists and 2/3rd retaining their licenses. Daily stabbings in the street and the odd acid attack in London.

    We should totally be spending police time on this rubbish. A simple picture of all the cockney geezers involved in a national paper would have been more effective and maybe the police could have solved an actual crime. Oh sorry I forgot our desire to see people who offend us trumps actual victims of crime. Maybe we should remember that to be offended or not is a choice and we can choose what we wish to see or associate with to minimise our chances of being offended.
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    Not sure why it's such a surprise that the police are investigating something which might be a crime. If it's not they will be released.

    I agree that police resources are stretched but I'd much rather they were sufficiently funded to investigate all allegations properly, it's a slightly different subject
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    HaydenM wrote:
    Not sure why it's such a surprise that the police are investigating something which might be a crime. If it's not they will be released.

    I agree that police resources are stretched but I'd much rather they were sufficiently funded to investigate all allegations properly, it's a slightly different subject

    Completely agree - although I also agree with the point made above (and elsewhere) that people are being investigated for burning an effigy of Grenfell, while the people responsible for the burning of the 'real' Grenfell are still walking around un-prosecuted...
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Imposter wrote:
    Completely agree - although I also agree with the point made above (and elsewhere) that people are being investigated for burning an effigy of Grenfell, while the people responsible for the burning of the 'real' Grenfell are still walking around un-prosecuted...
    There is an active inquiry into the Grenfell Tower - www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk

    there is also an active Police investigation running ...

    I'm sure that there will be prosecutions once these are complete.

    Or - they could just skip the investigation part and prosecute anyone who has denied responsibility - that'll sort it.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 8,707
    HaydenM wrote:
    Not sure why it's such a surprise that the police are investigating something which might be a crime. If it's not they will be released.

    I agree that police resources are stretched but I'd much rather they were sufficiently funded to investigate all allegations properly, it's a slightly different subject

    It's not a case of being surprised more of disagreeing that people should be arrested for an act - making a sick joke in your own home about a tragedy - which appears not to be an offence in the first place.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    HaydenM wrote:
    Not sure why it's such a surprise that the police are investigating something which might be a crime. If it's not they will be released.

    I agree that police resources are stretched but I'd much rather they were sufficiently funded to investigate all allegations properly, it's a slightly different subject

    It's not a case of being surprised more of disagreeing that people should be arrested for an act - making a sick joke in your own home about a tragedy - which appears not to be an offence in the first place.

    People have said this several times on this thread already, but I'm happy to say it again. It only became subject to investigation when it was reported - and because the event took place in what could be interpreted as a 'public' space, it was deemed worthy of further investigation. Either you want the police to investigate 'reported incidents' (in order to establish whether a crime has been committed) or you don't.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    The point really is that whilst it is fine to want everything that offends someone investigated by the police a basic internet search would have revealed that this is unlikely to result in prosecution. Meanwhile and actual complaint that could have had resources put on it and actually stood a realistic chance of a prosecution should an offender been found cannot be done. Unless your are some sort of womble who believes that the police don't have a budget and an associated staff head count then the approach to reporting everything is just plain dumb and a waste of police resources.

    I am off to report 25 cars that did not maintain correct road position or indication in accordance with the highway code on my way to work this morning as to be honest this is about as relevant as this complaint to the police as this personally offends me more than a bunch of geezers having their own personal laugh where I can avoid this video if it so greatly offends me.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,165
    Mob rule seems to be the problem. Not a mob carrying out lynchings but rather the self appointed moral guardian of the nation and it's readers dictating what needs to be done. Woman gets run over and killed by a tool on an illegal bike and lots of government time has to be wasted on new laws to protect the innocent. Government and the police have to be seen to be doing the right thing by the more hysterical elements in the press. It's bloody ridiculous.
    How refreshing would it be if when this sort of mass hysteria kicks off someone in power were to actually point out why there are sufficient laws already in place and why resources are better spent elsewhere rather than in a kneejerk reaction to a few headlines.
  • Imposter wrote:
    HaydenM wrote:
    Not sure why it's such a surprise that the police are investigating something which might be a crime. If it's not they will be released.

    I agree that police resources are stretched but I'd much rather they were sufficiently funded to investigate all allegations properly, it's a slightly different subject

    It's not a case of being surprised more of disagreeing that people should be arrested for an act - making a sick joke in your own home about a tragedy - which appears not to be an offence in the first place.

    People have said this several times on this thread already, but I'm happy to say it again. It only became subject to investigation when it was reported - and because the event took place in what could be interpreted as a 'public' space, it was deemed worthy of further investigation. Either you want the police to investigate 'reported incidents' (in order to establish whether a crime has been committed) or you don't.


    Perhaps they turned themselves in to the police but forgot they had a bag of coke in thier back pocket. They look stupid enough...
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Meanwhile the police don’t think arresting drug dealers at the local school is priority.
  • Meanwhile the police don’t think arresting drug dealers at the local school is priority.
    I you told them they were selling donuts you might have more luck.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 39,813
    john80 wrote:
    . I am off to report 25 cars that did not maintain correct road position or indication in accordance with the highway code on my way to work this morning

    That would be a waste of your time. No-one can be arrested for failing to follow the Highway Code as it isn't legislation (something far too many road users seem oblivious to when quoting it). I suggest you dig out the relevant section of suitable legislation such as the Road Traffic Act instead.
  • And doing that will have the same result as reporting then for HC beaches, nothing!
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Pross wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    . I am off to report 25 cars that did not maintain correct road position or indication in accordance with the highway code on my way to work this morning

    That would be a waste of your time. No-one can be arrested for failing to follow the Highway Code as it isn't legislation (something far too many road users seem oblivious to when quoting it). I suggest you dig out the relevant section of suitable legislation such as the Road Traffic Act instead.

    Some of the Highway Code is enshrined in legislation. How the code is used is explained here:

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... troduction
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,916
    The Highway Code refers to legislation, the legislation that creates the offence. From the link:-

    In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

    If you are charged with any motoring offence, you are charged under the relevant section of Road Traffic Acts. You do not get charged contrary to any rule in the Highway Code.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Meanwhile the police don’t think arresting drug dealers at the local school is priority.
    I you told them they were selling donuts you might have more luck.

    Tell them you suspect i have a bag of peanuts.
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The Highway Code refers to legislation, the legislation that creates the offence. From the link:-

    In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

    If you are charged with any motoring offence, you are charged under the relevant section of Road Traffic Acts. You do not get charged contrary to any rule in the Highway Code.

    Your read it but you decided not to understand the import of what you read. For the benefit of those who might be taken in by your sophistry:
    Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 39,813
    Robert88 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The Highway Code refers to legislation, the legislation that creates the offence. From the link:-

    In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

    If you are charged with any motoring offence, you are charged under the relevant section of Road Traffic Acts. You do not get charged contrary to any rule in the Highway Code.

    Your read it but you decided not to understand the import of what you read. For the benefit of those who might be taken in by your sophistry:
    Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

    No, you are the one not understanding I'm afraid. The bits where there are must / must not are sections taken from legislation and copied into the Code. So as Ballsy said you would be prosecuted for contravening the appropriate legislation such as the RTA and RTRA. The Highway Code is just a Code of Practice, the should / should nots can be used to demonstrate how someone has fallen well short of the expected behaviour etc. that the actual legislation refers to but you can't be prosecuted for breaching a rule in the Code.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    Pross wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    . I am off to report 25 cars that did not maintain correct road position or indication in accordance with the highway code on my way to work this morning

    That would be a waste of your time. No-one can be arrested for failing to follow the Highway Code as it isn't legislation (something far too many road users seem oblivious to when quoting it). I suggest you dig out the relevant section of suitable legislation such as the Road Traffic Act instead.

    That was really the point of the argument but thanks for pointing out the obvious.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 39,813
    Really? You didn't make it obvious. It seemed more the point that you were trying to make was you'd have no luck getting close passes investigated but that the police were prepared to investigate this despite it having less potential to do physical harm (which I actually think is a reasonable point).
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Pross wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The Highway Code refers to legislation, the legislation that creates the offence. From the link:-

    In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

    If you are charged with any motoring offence, you are charged under the relevant section of Road Traffic Acts. You do not get charged contrary to any rule in the Highway Code.

    Your read it but you decided not to understand the import of what you read. For the benefit of those who might be taken in by your sophistry:
    Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

    No, you are the one not understanding I'm afraid. The bits where there are must / must not are sections taken from legislation and copied into the Code. So as Ballsy said you would be prosecuted for contravening the appropriate legislation such as the RTA and RTRA. The Highway Code is just a Code of Practice, the should / should nots can be used to demonstrate how someone has fallen well short of the expected behaviour etc. that the actual legislation refers to but you can't be prosecuted for breaching a rule in the Code.

    Of course you can be prosecuted for breaching the Highway Code if you break the law underpinning it. I very kindly posted a link to the explanation. I suggest you read it what is on it and try to understand it.