Daley abused on Twitter after diving failure.

Danthus · 31 Jul 2012 at 23:50

norm said:
I think the Police were right to arrest him. Essentially all they are doing is causing him grief and inconvenience, which is rightly deserved. Plus now he is on the DNA database, and should he do anything similarly stupid in the future they will have him on record.

But I highly doubt they will charge him with anything, but it sends a stark warning to any other nut jobs out there considering doing the same.

You think it is acceptable to take a persons DNA for saying something nasty?

What a slippery slope we face.

Vonhelmet · 31 Jul 2012 at 23:52

OldCoals said:
You think it is acceptable to take a persons DNA for saying something nasty?

What a slippery slope we face.

I must confess that I wondered whether things had taken a turn for the satirical at that point.

Guile · 1 Aug 2012 at 01:26

The guy is a moron for saying what he did but he should not be arrested for it. This is just another jackboot against free speech in this country. Soon we won't be able to criticise those puppets who run our countries.

Van Hellseek · 1 Aug 2012 at 01:53

Pigeon_Killer said:
Ah, the ***** have arrived

I'm dialling 999 as I type this... :mad:

Skeeter · 1 Aug 2012 at 02:03

Guile said:
This is just another jackboot against free speech in this country.

I think your issue is a misunderstanding of what constitutes free speech.

Van Hellseek · 1 Aug 2012 at 02:15

Skeeter said:
I think your issue is a misunderstanding of what constitutes free speech.

No, he's really not. Do some reading...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

deusexlumina · 1 Aug 2012 at 08:47

Domo said:
How the hell is it a win for society??

Yes. It was a dreadful thing to say - I watched last week's documentary about Tom and his family, and it showed some harrowing scenes which included his father dying. It was very emotional and even difficult to watch at times.

But where do you draw the line? If I tweet someone who is not in the public eye or famous for any reason, would I be treated the same way? No and nor should I be. I didn't consider what the guy said to be as malicious as it's made out to be. It wasn't threatening in it's nature either. Just stupid and absent minded.

Governance over social media will tighten in the coming years. We can all see that. One day we we'll look back on the freedom we once had with the regret we chose not to protect it. Instead celebrating outcomes like this - entirely driven by the media and the public's insatiable blood thirst.

But dare to speak out, and you're a troll or you have a low IQ. Mr Orwell got it right.

oh please i think i can very safety say theres a distinction between some chav moron dishing out an unneeded insult against an (at the time) high profile celebrity and a few petty squabbles between people like you and me.

The fact is britain has so much hype over the olympics at the moment, and by saying what he said he was frankly asking for the attention he received. The arrest sends a message against people like him so that they may - heaven forbid - think before they speak on a social platform, it doesn't herald a new age of social media censorship.

RDM · 1 Aug 2012 at 08:49

You can get done for harassing and abusing someone in public so I see no reason that Twitter should have some special exemption.

Skeeter · 1 Aug 2012 at 09:05

Van Hellseek said:
No, he's really not. Do some reading...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

You mean like this bit?

Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2]

Or this bit?

Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, religious belief or hate speech

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything about anyone and not expect any repercussions.

Firestar_3x · 1 Aug 2012 at 10:20

Skeeter said:
Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything about anyone and not expect any repercussions.

Exactly, i'm confused why anyone would think otherwise.

fornowagain · 1 Aug 2012 at 11:15

Whilst I don't think arresting someone for expressing such a comment is right, account ban is about it in my opinion. But after watching his youtube rant, I think he should be arrested for murdering the English language, bruv.

norm · 1 Aug 2012 at 17:48

OldCoals said:
You think it is acceptable to take a persons DNA for saying something nasty?

What a slippery slope we face.

He made threats, and if you'd seen his youtube video he's quite clearly a nut job, who's liable to do far stupider things in the future. So on that basis I think it's quite prudent to have him on police record.

Danthus · 2 Aug 2012 at 09:32

norm said:
He made threats, and if you'd seen his youtube video he's quite clearly a nut job, who's liable to do far stupider things in the future. So on that basis I think it's quite prudent to have him on police record.

So place people on record because of what they might do?

This isn't a Tom Cruise film.

MooMoo444 · 2 Aug 2012 at 09:56

OldCoals said:
You think it is acceptable to take a persons DNA for saying something nasty?

What a slippery slope we face.

Them having your DNA is a non issue unless you break the law in the future, though? Too much psychological value is placed on DNA records.

simpletom · 2 Aug 2012 at 10:42

-Ad- said:
Can Cheets be arrested then?

Is being a mouthbreather a crime?

Vonhelmet · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:27

MooMoo444 said:
Them having your DNA is a non issue unless you break the law in the future, though? Too much psychological value is placed on DNA records.

And if they change the law around you? In 1928 the German government passed a law requiring mandatory gun registration. In 1938 the Nazi party passed a further law making it illegal for Jews to own guns. Since they already had full registration details for everyone with a weapon, it was then trivial to disarm the Jews ahead of the well known events of WWII.

There should always be limits to what information the government holds on you, and the question to ask should be why they need it, rather than why they don't.

Skeeter · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:28

Godwin's law. Threads over.

Vonhelmet · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:46

Skeeter said:
Godwin's law. Threads over.

Your invocation of Godwin's law does not render my argument invalid. Perhaps you can counter it?

Look, here's a Wikipedia link about the fallacy you're committing by claiming my argument to be invalid on the grounds that it includes a comparison to the Nazi's, regardless of the veracity of that claim.

MooMoo444 · 2 Aug 2012 at 12:56

Vonhelmet said:
And if they change the law around you? In 1928 the German government passed a law requiring mandatory gun registration. In 1938 the Nazi party passed a further law making it illegal for Jews to own guns. Since they already had full registration details for everyone with a weapon, it was then trivial to disarm the Jews ahead of the well known events of WWII.

There should always be limits to what information the government holds on you, and the question to ask should be why they need it, rather than why they don't.

It kind of hard to counter an argument that's using 'things may change in the future' as a baseline. For all I know, they'll pass a law in 10 years that denotes anyone who is not on the DNA register, is no longer entitled to use the NHS.

Vonhelmet · 2 Aug 2012 at 13:18

MooMoo444 said:
It kind of hard to counter an argument that's using 'things may change in the future' as a baseline. For all I know, they'll pass a law in 10 years that denotes anyone who is not on the DNA register, is no longer entitled to use the NHS.

It's not at all hard to counter. All you have to do is show that the benefits of them retaining the DNA of someone who hasn't even been convicted of a crime is greater than the risk of maintaining such a large database.