Tower block fire - london

[h4rm0ny]

They aren't kids...

Yes. Hence my saying they have a retarded sense of humour. I.e. it is at the stage of development of 13-15 year old kids. If you're unable to retain more than four posts history in your short-term memory and get the context for what I said, I'll explain it again. MookJong interpreted their actions as deep-seated hatred for the victims. I posit the equally if not more likely interpretation, that they're just idiots with juvenile humour.

 

[StriderX]

Yes. Hence my saying they have a retarded sense of humour. I.e. it is at the stage of development of 13-15 year old kids. If you're unable to retain more than four posts history in your short-term memory and get the context for what I said, I'll explain it again. MookJong interpreted their actions as deep-seated hatred for the victims. I posit the equally if not more likely interpretation, that they're just idiots with juvenile humour.

But but, i thought as you aged you're supposed to grow some of dat common sense bruv?

 

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Heh! To those of us on the Right, we've never see the contradiction. The Left has always been authoritarian. They want a large, powerful state. It's just that they want to be the ones in charge of it.

 

[StriderX]

Heh! To those of us on the Right, we've never see the contradiction. The Left has always been authoritarian. They want a large, powerful state. It's just that they want to be the ones in charge of it.

Yet we have a right wing government that's doing exactly this thing you hate, OMEGALUL.

 

[Roar87]

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?

Are the accused not innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution?

It's not in the Public Order Act, but if a girl allowed herself to be filmed then her partner released it without her consent, then this would fall under Revenge Porn. Did these people consent to it being released to the public domain? Did any of them share it publicly? Whatsapp isn't a public forum as far as I'm aware

 

[Roar87]

Yet we have a right wing government that's doing exactly this thing you hate, OMEGALUL.

No. The current government is leaving the EU (smaller government) and cutting spending (smaller government).

 

[StriderX]

No. The current government is leaving the EU (smaller government) and cutting spending (smaller government).

Leaving the EU means bigger government... as we'd need to you know still function in the realms we handed off. And lol at cut spending, dolph would have a word with you.

 

[inogen]

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?

Are the accused not innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution?

It's not in the Public Order Act, but if a girl allowed herself to be filmed then her partner released it without her consent, then this would fall under Revenge Porn. Did these people consent to it being released to the public domain? Did any of them share it publicly? Whatsapp isn't a public forum as far as I'm aware

No, the wording of the law in this particular instance is there for all to read. IF your defence is that what whatever you're doing is in the privacy of your own home, then the onus is on the defence to prove that the accused has no reason to believe that the offence wouldn't be seen outside of that dwelling. Filming what your doing with a mobile phone gives the accused no defence under that clause as it means the accused has reason to be believe their acts may be seen outside of their dwelling. Consent is irrelevant.

So innocence until proven guilty here is moot. If you're not guilty of an offence, then it matters not one jot if you are in private or not.

So WTF has your example got to do with this? If it's not the Public Order Act?

 

[MookJong]

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

I said above that I didn't think there was any crime to answer for and that public opinion would be their actual punishment. I also said being offended is the price we pay for free speech. This was not a private act as it is in the public domain and free speech means I'm able to question and condemn it.

It will be completely forgotten in a week but calling it "burning a cardboard box" is being purposely obtuse.

 

[TJM]

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.

It would have been helpful for me to link to the interpretation section: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/151

"“public electronic communications network” means an electronic communications network provided wholly or mainly for the purpose of making electronic communications services available to members of the public;"

The question isn't whether the communication is public but if the public has access to the network used to convey the communication. An abusive email or other 'private' form of communication sent over a public network is caught.

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.

I think it is more likely that someone will be punished for sharing the video than the actual act shown in the video. If you tell a heartless and malicious joke about a recent death to someone in your back garden, they might think you're a moron but that would be the end of it. If you text it to the deceased's mother as well, a prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act or the Communications Act awaits and would be well deserved.

No. The current government is leaving the EU (smaller government) and cutting spending (smaller government).

Do you have any idea how many civil servants are being recruited to deal with Brexit and permanently take over the policy functions previously dealt with in Brussels?

 

[Deluxe1]

It's not a ******* cardboard box though is it

What material is it made out of and in what shape?

 

[StriderX]

What material is it made out of and in what shape?

Stop being absolutist.

 

[Deluxe1]

Stop being absolutist.

Gotcha.

 

[Orionaut]

I wonder if anybody remembers this.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/29/sick...r-memorial-candle-shared-on-facebook-6744958/

When I first saw it I thought it was a VIZ thing, (It would, after all, be right up there with "Mummy this lemonade tastes funny", "Little Ted West" and "The full English breakfast plate of Hope" and so on) but it seems to have been an individual effort.

In many ways this is worse than the bonfire in that it was specifically created to be published on FB and passed on rather than just a home movie that got out.

I do not seem to recall any major long term fallout or Police investigations over it (Though I may be wrong)

 

[StriderX]

I wonder if anybody remembers this.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/29/sick...r-memorial-candle-shared-on-facebook-6744958/

When I first saw it I thought it was a VIZ thing, (It would, after all, be right up there with "Mummy this lemonade tastes funny", "Little Ted West" and "The full English breakfast plate of Hope" and so on) but it seems to have been an individual effort.

In many ways this is worse than the bonfire in that it was specifically created to be published on FB and passed on rather than just a home movie that got out.

I do not seem to recall any major long term fallout or Police investigations over it (Though I may be wrong)

"reported and removed"

 

[Orionaut]

"reported and removed"

Sure it was, But that is not the point I am making.

Also, By that time It had already become headline fodder all over the media. It just died out afterwards rather than being made a big thing.

Are we saying now that the main offender is actually the relevant social media outlet for NOT taking it down?

 

[h4rm0ny]

Leaving the EU means bigger government...

Genuine LOL at this. Would it be bad etiquette to cross-post this with the Hardest You've Ever Laughed, thread?

It would have been helpful for me to link to the interpretation section: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/151

Not really. I had already read it and my reply to you is based on that. A WhatsApp group is not a "public electronic communications network" because it's not for making your content available to the public. If it were, it would not involve inviting members to join the group. By your interpretation any private email or phone call or Skype conversation falls under the definition because it is a service that people who are members of the public can use. Plainly this isn't the case or we're all in even more trouble than we thought. Only if it's publicly accessible is it a public netowork. Their WhatsApp group was not publicly accessible. The video only became so when someone took it from their WhatsApp group and put it on an actually publicly accessible network.

I wonder if anybody remembers this.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/29/sick...r-memorial-candle-shared-on-facebook-6744958/

When I first saw it I thought it was a VIZ thing, (It would, after all, be right up there with "Mummy this lemonade tastes funny", "Little Ted West" and "The full English breakfast plate of Hope" and so on) but it seems to have been an individual effort.

In many ways this is worse than the bonfire in that it was specifically created to be published on FB and passed on rather than just a home movie that got out.

I do not seem to recall any major long term fallout or Police investigations over it (Though I may be wrong)

Holy ****! I had never seen that. Now that is actually funny. Dark as ****, but funny.

 

[StriderX]

Sure it was, But that is not the point I am making.

Also, By that time It had already become headline fodder all over the media. It just died out afterwards rather than being made a big thing.

Are we saying now that the main offender is actually the relevant social media outlet for NOT taking it down?

No the offender was the one who shared it with no one taking action to deal with it. If they're found not guilty, that's fine with me, but they really shouldn't be this dumb.

 

[Orionaut]

Holy ****! I had never seen that. Now that is actually funny. Dark as ****, but funny.

I thought so too.

The difference to me between this and the Bonfire is actually quite subtle.

The Candle is static. It is a statement.

Now, While I am not all outraged and/or offended over the bonfire. I am uncomfortable in a way that the candle meme does not make me uncomfortable.

The bonfire was more of a re-enactment than a simple statement and for me, that makes the difference.

 

[h4rm0ny]

No the offender was the one who shared it with no one taking action to deal with it. If they're found not guilty, that's fine with me, but they really shouldn't be this dumb.

What action should they have taken to deal with the person uploading it? Known that they were going to and gone round to sort them out? Why did the person upload it from the WhatsApp group to the public Internet? Was it because they hated those who died and wanted to mock them? Was it because they thought it was disgusting and wanted to show the world these people's reprehensible behaviour and get them punished? Was it because they found it a good laugh? Was it because they had a personal beef with one of the people involved and wished to get back at them? Because I'm certain you'd excuse at least one of those motives and probably approve of it. There's several people who've already voiced their desire to see these people punished, after all.

I thought so too.

The difference to me between this and the Bonfire is actually quite subtle.

The Candle is static. It is a statement.

Now, While I am not all outraged and/or offended over the bonfire. I am uncomfortable in a way that the candle meme does not make me uncomfortable.

The bonfire was more of a re-enactment than a simple statement and for me, that makes the difference.

If that's a statement of preference, you're of course entitled to it. And I understand it. You see one being representative of a group of bigots who revel in people's deaths, and the other a harmless meme by someone with a wry sense of humour. But if your comment is something you would base legal action on, then I disagree strongly. The law cannot rest on such preferences and social perspective.