Tower block fire - london

[Energize]

Only If by "Police out in full force" you mean "People handed themselves in at a police station"

No "arrested" as in police were spending public money on detaining them.

 

[VincentHanna]

What should they have done, turned them away?

 

[Energize]

What should they have done, turned them away?

Yes. This is not a matter for the legal system to be troubling itself with.

 

[antijoke]

Yes. This is not a matter for the legal system to be troubling itself with.

Except it is because of the laws that have been put in place.

 

[Orionaut]

They've been arrested under section 4a of the Public Order Act.

....which covers intentional "harassment, alarm or distress" caused via the use of "threatening, abusive or insulting" words or signs.

.

What, You mean like this...

Couple of them have been named and shamed now, i hope they get the absolute ******* beating they deserve, the absolute sick *****.

This particular rabbit hole seems to have no bottom. I would rather we had never entererd it in the first place!

 

[Roar87]

Except it is because of the laws that have been put in place.

Well they committed the offence inside a private dwelling, they could reasonably say they "had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling".

 

[VincentHanna]

Putting it on the internet, or even sharing it with somebody else that puts it on the internet kinda ruins that argument.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Putting it on the internet, or even sharing it with somebody else that puts it on the internet kinda ruins that argument.

So who put it on the Internet? And who has been re-tweeting it to millions?

 

[Orionaut]

Putting it on the internet, or even sharing it with somebody else that puts it on the internet kinda ruins that argument.

The thing is, Who committed the offense?

The people who carried out the Burning, Or the person that published the video clip?

So who put it on the Internet? And who has been re-tweeting it to millions?

Or indeed, every single person who has re-tweeted it?

 

[Roar87]

Putting it on the internet, or even sharing it with somebody else that puts it on the internet kinda ruins that argument.

All they have to say is that they did not know they were being filmed, and reasonably expected it wouldn't get into the public domain. It's not as if they were live streaming it to Facebook with full awareness.

 

[antijoke]

Well they committed the offence inside a private dwelling, they could reasonably say they "had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling".

Lol, this is immediately waived the moment you put it on social media

 

[VincentHanna]

All they have to say is that they did not know they were being filmed, and reasonably expected it wouldn't get into the public domain. It's not as if they were live streaming it to Facebook with full awareness.

You haven't watched it with sound have you?

In the video they explicitly acknowledge that it's being recorded.

 

[Roar87]

You haven't watched it with sound have you?

In the video they explicitly acknowledge that it's being recorded.

Something being recorded doesn't mean it's in the public domain. Otherwise you wouldn't have laws against releasing private video between consenting adults after a relationship had ended for example.

 

[Deluxe1]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/...e-to-be-a-****/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Pretty much sums up my views on the matter.

 

[jpaul]

....which covers intentional "harassment, alarm or distress" caused via the use of "threatening, abusive or insulting" words or signs.

The still the BBC published on their web-site https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46106224 (and will show on the news ?)
seem to satsify the intentional "harassment, alarm or distress" clause, to a greater degree than the original protagonists, who probably did not intend it to be published;
what does the law say about journalistic license ?

 

[Minusorange]

Putting it on the internet, or even sharing it with somebody else that puts it on the internet kinda ruins that argument.

Twitter is not a public space though as we're reminded when they censor people like Alex Jones and plenty of right leaning folk

Also I do not see any intent to cause alarm, distress or harassment in the video, only people sharing their poor sense of humour which is not (yet) a crime

Just for historical precision, Fawkes wasn't trying to blow up Parliament per se. He targeted specifically the House of Lords in an attempt on the life of King James I who was due to visit that day. He also wasn't the leader of the plot, so much as the poor schmuck who was left sitting underneath the House of Lords, guarding the barrels.

Cheers I genuinely didn't know it was a plot to kill the King

 

[VincentHanna]

Something being recorded doesn't mean it's in the public domain. Otherwise you wouldn't have laws against releasing private video between consenting adults after a relationship had ended for example.

Yes, but they can't claim "they did not know they were being filmed"

 

[Nasher]

Twitter is not a public space though as we're reminded when they censor people like Alex Jones and plenty of right leaning folk

Also I do not see any intent to cause alarm, distress or harassment in the video, only people sharing their poor sense of humour which is not (yet) a crime

Yea that seems to be what people are missing about the internet, it isn't a "public space" and you have to looking for offensive things. It's not like some nutter shouting though a megaphone in a town square.

 

[Spook187]

Thick southern idiots.

 

[VincentHanna]

Yea that seems to be what people are missing about the internet, it isn't a "public space" and you have to looking for offensive things.

I don't have to be looking, someone posted it here! This is literally the first place I saw it.