Tower block fire - london

Malevolence said:
No it doesn't. Offences committed on a private residence where a person "had no reason to believe" it would be "heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling" are protected from prosecution under the act.
Click to expand...
'Dwelling' in the POA means a structure (or part of a structure) occupied as living accommodation and doesn't include a typical back garden, but there are other problems with a prosecution under section 4A or 5 (like proving the intention required for the s4A offence).

h4rm0ny said:
Indeed. I also wouldn't class someone's WhatsApp group as public communication. However, this has hit the public eye and the media have whipped people up into a mob. So I could well see pressure on to convict them of something.
Click to expand...
Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 covers anything grossly offensive, etc., that is sent over the internet. This would catch the person who uploaded the video to WhatsApp and those who shared it more widely, although those people may not have been at the bonfire and their conviction would satisfy no-one.
 
VincentHanna said:
I'm not saying they should be arrested and charged, but it's pretty vile what they've done and the social outrage should probably be enough.

But in the thread about a Muslim burning poppies, people literally wanted to kill that person.
Click to expand...
This probably needs quoting on each page just to remind the OcUK bigot usual suspects of the double standards and hypocrisy they need to justify their worldview.
Draeger said:
I'm a fire service Watch Commander with 29 years service and whilst myself and my colleagues are utterly disgusted at this, the tragic irony here is that the individuals responsible for this video may well be subject to more punishment (time will tell) than the individuals who's actions or in some cases in-actions directly/indirectly contributed to the actual tower block fire spread.

Think about that just for a minute.
Click to expand...
Emotive stuff, but utterly illogical.

You could pick all sorts of large scale terrible events with complex causes and say, "Nobody went to prison for that."

Let's just hope the ignorant scumbags get enough punishment to stop other ignorant scumbags, and leave it at that.
 
There is certainly an unnecessary overemphasis on this video for the purposes of politicians showing themselves to be ‘good persons / beacons if justice’ but, on the other hand, where people are abusing their freedom of speech to do pretty much objectively abhorrent things, things which are materially offensive to just about everyone, due to the anonymous nature of the web, I’m actually a little relaxed on waving the ‘freedom of speech flag’.

‘Hate crime’ is indeed rather strong but perhaps making an example of these idiots has the silver lining of getting society back in check and will make people think twice about doing something so utterly daft and unwelcome.
 
TJM said:
Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 covers anything grossly offensive, etc., that is sent over the internet. This would catch the person who uploaded the video to WhatsApp and those who shared it more widely, although those people may not have been at the bonfire and their conviction would satisfy no-one.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that to be the case. The act specifies the "Public" Electronic Communications Network. You would not be prosecuted under this if it had been a Skype call, an Email or anything else that wasn't public. A WhatsApp group (which I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) is invitation only, should not be classed as a Public Electronic Communications Network. That's why I emphasised this was a WhatsApp group. Now whoever uploaded it to the wider Internet is unknown but is unlikely to have been all the people now arrested and may not even have been anyone present.

Legality, of course, is also a separate argument to whether or not something is right or wrong. I do not want a society where the State is punishing people for showing poor taste in their back gardens, legal or otherwise.

Nitefly said:
‘Hate crime’ is indeed rather strong but perhaps making an example of these idiots has the silver lining of getting society back in check and will make people think twice about doing something so utterly daft and unwelcome.
Click to expand...

All well and good until the same precedents and powers are used against people you agree with. I think what it would actually do is set an example that you get arrested if people are offended by what you say. Which is much more important to me than any other example that might get bundled with it. Let society judge them, not the courts.
 
@h4rm0ny I think there has to be due and sensible discretion in enforcing any such ‘offence laws’. To my mind, the video (which I am not forcing myself to endure) appears to horrendously insensitive and cruel, and certainly spiteful without any wider merit.

I think it’s easier to distinguish that from ‘upsetting political observations’ which should be protected. There is a degree of spite here and a lack of observational merit for me to conclude that it has a much stunted ‘freedom of speech’ defence.

I don’t think the makers of the video should have be arrested, I’m just not particularly bothered that they have been.
 
Nitefly said:
@h4rm0ny I think there has to be due and sensible discretion in enforcing any such ‘offence laws’. To my mind, the video (which I am not forcing myself to endure) appears to horrendously insensitive and cruel, and certainly spiteful without any wider merit.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any such discretion in this instance. They're under arrest because of public outrage whipped up by the media. Without that outrage they would be ignored. I find it unlikely they've even breached any laws. You say to your mind the video is insensitive, well yes. I think it is to everybody's mind. That's not the point we're making. It's that you shouldn't be arrested for that and a climate where you can be is terrible.

Nitefly said:
I think it’s easier to distinguish that from ‘upsetting political observations’ which should be protected. There is a degree of spite here and a lack of observational merit for me to conclude that it has a much stunted ‘freedom of speech’ defence.
Click to expand...

Freedom of Speech is vital, whether or not one thinks something has merit. Without Freedom of Speech, those in power will always use that power to silence those not in power. Every time. There is no point defending Free Speech only for those society approves of because that makes the concept meaningless.

Nitefly said:
I don’t think the makers of the video should have be arrested, I’m just not particularly bothered that they have been.
Click to expand...

But one day someone will be arrested for saying something and you will be bothered by it. And this will have been a step towards that.
 
What a total farce, the fact anyone has been arrested over this let alone charged is ridiculous. People can moan all they like about the numbers of police officers being reduced, but the numbers mean nothing when the police are being forced to waste their time dealing with people who have a bad sense of humour instead of tackling real crime.


VincentHanna said:
The council spent a load of money on cosmetic improvements, so it didn't look quite such an eyesore to the rich residents. They could have spent that money on actual safety systems or listened to the concerns of residents who were warning of safety issues, but someone decided some nice looking cladding was more important.
Click to expand...
1: They are different budgets.
2: The safety systems in place were fine, just not fine for a building wrapped in napalm.
3: Please explain to us how the fire magically targeted the poor minority residents then stopped and went around the expensive flats leaving the rich white residents unharmed :P
 
h4rm0ny said:
I don't think there's any such discretion in this instance. They're under arrest because of public outrage whipped up by the media. Without that outrage they would be ignored. I find it unlikely they've even breached any laws. You say to your mind the video is insensitive, well yes. I think it is to everybody's mind. That's not the point we're making. It's that you shouldn't be arrested for that and a climate where you can be is terrible.

Freedom of Speech is vital, whether or not one thinks something has merit. Without Freedom of Speech, those in power will always use that power to silence those not in power. Every time. There is no point defending Free Speech only for those society approves of because that makes the concept meaningless.

But one day someone will be arrested for saying something and you will be bothered by it. And this will have been a step towards that.
Click to expand...
@h4rm0ny all interesting and valid points. I suppose I’ll conclude my thoughts by saying that over reliance of free speech via the internet has led to general slipping towards depraved behaviour. Sure, morality is a liquid concept, but I do think people should be accountable for their actions (judged by society or otherwise). To my mind, the hoohah and arrest has made the accountable for their actions where otherwise nothing will have made them accountable at all, as if nothing ever happened. A reminder that people can be made accountable is good I think. However, I agree, facing legal consequences for expressing a point of view is, in principle, bad.
 
Does anyone know how the video made it into the public domain?

If someone had just innocently put a cardboard box on the fire and someone had made a passing comment about it being like Grenfell tower I would have no issue with it. We have all had dark thoughts and compared things to tragedies in the name of dark humor, it is a very British thing to do. But going to the time and effort of making a premeditated model and depicting the people killed is a different matter entirely. This shows a hatred and that a sick pleasure was to be derived from reenacting the event.

I have no problem in saying that I think our immigration policy has been too lax and that parts of London / UK have been negatively impacted by it. However I wish no harm or hatred to anyone who legitimately moved to the UK under this policy. My opinions would probably be seen as very right wing in the current climate but I have zero sympathy for the lowlifes in this video. Hearing the snide remarks and gloating over the mock human suffering is infuriating.

Should these people be prosecuted, I don't know really. Free speech means you will be offended at some point it is the price we pay.

However they need and hopefully now know this was unacceptable. The punishment of public opinion can sometimes have consequences worse than a fine or slap on the wrist that the courts could hand out. I'm sure these people will be punished in one way or another but what everyone wants is for them to repent and reform. Knowing people are walking around with this kind of hatred inside them is what is most upsetting and we can do little about.
 
Last edited:
MookJong said:
If someone had just innocently put a cardboard box on the fire and someone had made a passing comment about it being like Grenfell tower I would have no issue with it. We have all had dark thoughts and compared things to tragedies in the name of dark humor, it is a very British thing to do. But going to the time and effort of making a premeditated model and depicting the people killed is a different matter entirely. This shows a hatred and that a sick pleasure was to be derived from reenacting the event.
Click to expand...

I'm going to offer an alternative interpretation which equally could be true: These people are idiots. They're just insensitive and unaware and have a retarded sense of humour. It's of a kind with 9/11 and Princess Diana and Lockerbie jokes. When I was at school, I remember a lot of sick and tasteless jokes - jokes about "What do you say to a woman with two black eyes", dead baby jokes, racist jokes, "What's the difference between a Mercades and a Ford Escort" and so on. All mixed in with jokes about Skodas, sheepshaggers and Essex girls. I think and am confident that in the vast majority of cases those children grew up to stop making those jokes and would now find them tasteless because they were never actually that racist or sexist. They were just doing the dumb, blind, boundary-teasing and thoughtless behaviour that children do. Just the same as I think there's a high chance one of these muppets, after a year of continual Grenfell coverage thought it would be a laugh to turn the bonfire into Grenfell tower. Not because of a sick pleasure derived from re-enactment. But because they, quite literally, have a retarded sense of humour like a kid of 15.

Which ain't great. But is different to getting off to people's deaths.
 
VincentHanna said:
I'm not saying they should be arrested and charged, but it's pretty vile what they've done and the social outrage should probably be enough.

But in the thread about a Muslim burning poppies, people literally wanted to kill that person.
Click to expand...

Both are bad. But the intent was different, one was just having a naughty laugh in private (until they stupidly put it online) and the other was intended as a public political statement against the UK, which makes it much worse in my opinion. One should be no more than a caution at best and the other should be prosecuted as a hate crime.
 
VincentHanna said:
The rich residents of the borough, obviously...not the flats (if there were any rich people living there?)
Click to expand...
Seriously?

Dude some of the flats in Grenfell were worth half a million+. Don't fall for the tabloids "rich vs poor" narrative, people of all colours, religions and economic standing died in the accident.
 
h4rm0ny said:
I'm going to offer an alternative interpretation which equally could be true: These people are idiots. They're just insensitive and unaware and have a retarded sense of humour. It's of a kind with 9/11 and Princess Diana and Lockerbie jokes. When I was at school, I remember a lot of sick and tasteless jokes - jokes about "What do you say to a woman with two black eyes", dead baby jokes, racist jokes, "What's the difference between a Mercades and a Ford Escort" and so on. All mixed in with jokes about Skodas, sheepshaggers and Essex girls. I think and am confident that in the vast majority of cases those children grew up to stop making those jokes and would now find them tasteless because they were never actually that racist or sexist. They were just doing the dumb, blind, boundary-teasing and thoughtless behaviour that children do. Just the same as I think there's a high chance one of these muppets, after a year of continual Grenfell coverage thought it would be a laugh to turn the bonfire into Grenfell tower. Not because of a sick pleasure derived from re-enactment. But because they, quite literally, have a retarded sense of humour like a kid of 15.

Which ain't great. But is different to getting off to people's deaths.
Click to expand...

Have you taken into account the comments being made while their mock Grenfell burned? Most of the "sick jokes" that I am more than familiar with are based on the shock and taboo factor.

They are quick blunt quips and as I clearly stated a quick verbal quip about Grenfell is not what is happening here. Model making, cutting out figures from brown paper and then making vindictive and culturally mocking comments as they burnt is very different from a play on words or swicharoo shock joke.

I know exactly what you are saying but weighing up the evidence I feel this was too premeditated to be directly comparable.
 
Last edited:
Not mine.

The people who burnt a model of the Grenfell tower on bonfire should face a much higher standard of justice than the people who made the flats into a tinderbox in the first place Government Ministers and public officials have announced.

Montague Bassington-Bassington MP told us, “It’s important with such a tragedy that we consider all the facts. Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence the fact is that a sizeable portion of my investment portfolio is in cladding companies. It would be quite terrible if this came out in open court so it’s probably best if the wheels of justice turn slowly on this one. Those people who performed that despicable act? Throw the book at them. I’m not invested in Elizabeth Duke and sovereign rings.”

A Spokesman for London Mayor Sadiq Khan said, “It definitely is in the public interest that these people are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Grenfell was a tragedy. But we don’t want too big a court case otherwise it Mr Khan’s role in the decision not to install sprinklers in high rise flats a few years ago may come to light. He’s going to be trying for re-election soon.”

One Grenfell survivor told us, “It was very upsetting seeing the model going up in flames online. But not as upsetting as it was on the night and definitely not as upsetting as it is that I’m still homeless almost 18 months later and the people who clad my flat are still living in their homes. That’s probably more upsetting.”

The 5 who burnt the model and handed themselves into police last night will be questioned today by police. They will then be publicly hanged, drawn and quartered live, on next Wednesday’s episode of Loose Women. The people who clad the Grenfell tower are rumoured to be planning on watching the event from the safety of a villa in the Caribbean.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Yes. I watched the entire thing. Including all the jokes about "ninjas" and "pay your rent!". All very juvenile and dumb humour. In fact, I remember calling women in burkas "ninja" myself when I was little. This was before letterboxes.
Click to expand...

They aren't kids... unless you want to equate intelligence of a kid to a grown middle-aged man/men.

Something Something Stereotypes Something Something trashy chavey folk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom