Mocking Gary Barlow..

[Danthus]

So saying bad things on Twitter is bad, but physical violence to the offender is acceptable?

 

[PiKe]

So saying bad things on Twitter is bad, but physical violence to the offender is acceptable?

Of course.

 

[Cleeecooo]

If you say poppadum to an Indian everyone is up in arms about it.. So something should be done about this.

That completely depends on the reason you say it.

I don't think he will get a police visit, but he will certainly get a lot of rebuke from other tweeters.

Making an offensive joke about something touchy (death of someone/terrorist attacks etc) isnt necessarily that bad, but to say them directly to the people who are suffering is just wrong.

 

[4T5]

So saying bad things on Twitter is bad, but physical violence to the offender is acceptable?

I think in this case the answer to your question is Yes.

 

[Danthus]

That completely depends on the reason you say it.

I don't think he will get a police visit, but he will certainly get a lot of rebuke from other tweeters.

Making an offensive joke about something touchy (death of someone/terrorist attacks etc) isnt necessarily that bad, but to say them directly to the people who are suffering is just wrong.

How is what he has done different from the Tom Daley incident?

 

[UncleRuckus]

So saying bad things on Twitter is bad, but physical violence to the offender is acceptable?

No, I think he should be free to say what he likes but he shouldn't be surprised if he gets a broken nose, from the father in this example.

 

[Cleeecooo]

How is what he has done different from the Tom Daley incident?

Not sure on the specifics, but I believe Tom Daley got death threats?

 

[Danthus]

Not sure on the specifics, but I believe Tom Daley got death threats?

But the offender was not arrested for threats to kill.

 

[Morgoth]

The jokes aren't even good!

 

[Glaucus]

But the offender was not arrested for threats to kill.

Do we know what he was arrested for?
Malicious communication includes threats.

Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

(1)Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a [F1letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any [F2article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.


(2)A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows—
(a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand [F3made by him on reasonable grounds]; and
(b)that he believed [F4, and had reasonable grounds for believing,] that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

[F5(2A)In this section “electronic communication” includes—
(a)any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)); and
(b)any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.]
(3)In this section references to sending include references to delivering [F6or transmitting] and to causing to be sent [F7, delivered or transmitted] and “sender” shall be construed accordingly.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to [F8imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both].

 

[ChroniC]

So saying bad things on Twitter is bad, but physical violence to the offender is acceptable?

If it happened to me and I saw him in the street I'd deck him, not entirely sure anyone but Gary should though.

 

[Danthus]

Do we know what he was arrested for?
Malicious communication includes threats.

As I said in another tread, there is a specific offence of making threats, the fact that he was not arrested for this suggests that the threat was not taken seriously.

 

[Theophany]

Twitter is for morons with 140 characters or less of drivel to announce to the world. This is mere proof of what we already knew.

/thread.

 

[ince]

Disgusting who is he

 

[UncleRuckus]

Twitter is for morons with 140 characters or less of drivel to announce to the world. This is mere proof of what we already knew.

/thread.

But, but the Dalai Lama is on Twitter.

 

[Cleeecooo]

But the offender was not arrested for threats to kill.

I'm afraid im not sure of the details so can't comment then

I don't think this is worthy of police time, but if this ***** can have the boom thrown at him (literally or figuratively) I won't complain.

 

[HAz]

What a compete nob, going by his pics hes well off and up himself too the ugly short has been ****.

 

[Glaucus]

As I said in another tread, there is a specific offence of making threats, the fact that he was not arrested for this suggests that the threat was not taken seriously.

And if not taken seriously then that threat wild then fall under the legislation he was caged with. We would need to know more before categorically rolling hwt he was actually charged for.

 

["andy"]

sticks and stones...

this guy is loving the attention , god knows why we are giving him it

 

[Chris [BEANS]]

This Hampton certainly can and probably will be lifted for this.

It's right and proper, that no matter how much of a sick **** you are, telling some unpleasant jokes isn't a crime.
However, this inadequate has specifically tweeted multiple sick jokes directly to GB.
This is a 'course of conduct' that can reasonably be expected to cause harassment.

Sadly, this inferior little **** will get a semi on from the publicity he gets, regardless of how negative it is.