Do you realise the implications of punishing people for expressing themselves within a private place? We may as well just rename ourselves to the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of the United Kingdom
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Do you realise the implications of punishing people for expressing themselves within a private place? We may as well just rename ourselves to the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of the United Kingdom
Once that **** is on a video with questionable intelligence of their friends, it's not remotely private.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,595
Yep....
Oh no they burnt a cardboard tower..... they're idiots but arresting them for it lol?
They're still in their private domicile, everyone has camera phones these days, does that mean that we're no longer allowed freedom of speech and expression?
To express the desire to burn buildings full of people is violent to say the least.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,709
and yet they were burning a cardboard box, not a building.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,595
It's kind of scary tbh how people who claim to be left leaning are so quick to call for an authoritarian approach to things.
Soldato
And you have expressed a desire to see revolution on our streets.
The wording of the act...
[F34A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove:
(a) that he was inside a dwelling and 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, or
(b) that his conduct was reasonable.
So saying, because it was in a private residence they could do what they like is very far from the point.
People had camera phones and they were playing up to them. That's reason to believe that the **** they were getting up to would be seen or heard outside of their private residence.
It simply does not matter what opinion they express, I wish you had an ounce of critical thinking so you could fully understand the implications of how allowing a government to prosecute citizens for speech in their own home is dangerous beyond belief.
Left and right are economic standings M8. Oh and we're already incredibly authoritarian, simply by having a state in the first place, police - authoritarian, NHS - authoritarian, judiciary - authoritarian, taxes - authoritarian.
So should a girl who allows herself to be filmed intimately while with a partner expect that video to be seen or heard outside her private residence as well? Allowing yourself to be filmed clearly doesn't give consent to that being released into the public domain.
It's kinda scary how many people don't know the law and apparently can't read.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,595
No.
If you'd grown up with the internet, you'd quite rightly understand that you should never take a picture or recording of something unless you could be absolutely sure it was only you that had access to it, as soon as you add someone else, you've ****** it.
Even if the law is on their side, the public sure as **** aren't.
She would be able to argue that she was acting reasonably. See my post(s) above.
I've seen your post, they knew they were being filmed, as did the girl in my example, why does playing up to the camera mean that you expect that video to be released into the public domain? What if they were filmed in secret, do you think the treatment they'd be getting would be different or the same?
READ the law.
It's up the accused to prove that they had no reason to believe... not up to the prosecution to prove that they did. I would suggest that the presence of camera phones meant that they knew what they were filming would be seen outside of their dwelling. Otherwise, did they ask everyone to delete what they'd filmed on the way out?
They can't argue that they were being filmed in secret as the people filming were active participants.
And what has this girl in your example done? Whatever it is, how does it fall under the Public Order Act?
And my point about playing up the camera is that it shows they knew they were being filmed on a mobile phone. It's a mobile phone. Clue is the in the mobile bit.
Last edited:
It's not a ******* cardboard box though is it, it's an effigy to the death's of 70 odd people in an act of gross incompetence by a rich London Borough and gross negligence by the establishment at large. It's hardly upper class toffs burning it either, which makes it all the more sad and desperate from a woefully irrelevant social group.
Nobody ******* burned paper Lockerbies or Twin towers did they?
Private dark jokes among close friends is one thing, taking a video without making sure it wouldn't end up in public view is entirely another.