It's that person that got them all in the toilet together. It was all of their responsibility to keep it among their little insular hate filled group, and they couldn't even achieve that. One can only hope we all descend into maddening threats of violence against these "juveniles".
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
It's that person that got them all in the toilet together. It was all of their responsibility to keep it among their little insular hate filled group, and they couldn't even achieve that. One can only hope we all descend into maddening threats of violence against these "juveniles".
Soldato
So the onus is on the person being filmed to make sure that the recording is never used or distributed without their approval. We'd better go an overturn any convictions for Revenge Porn. And voyeur laws will need some revision. It's a shame you weren't there to overturn the recent amendments to the harassment laws that added upskirting. I'd never realised someone should be prosecuted for failing to prevent other people from breaking the law. I'd better get some new locks fitted on my front door before someone breaks in and I get done for burglary.
** Comment removed - Personal attacks will not be tolerated.. ***
Last edited by a moderator:
No, that's the law. It's the Public Order Act. The onus is on people who want to do things that break the public order act but defend their right to do so in private, to prove that they do whatever it is in private. It's the law. There for all to read.
It's nothing to do with revenge porn or upskirting. Let alone burglary.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hardly, it's more like not having any locks at all and having an open door to the street and having a big ol' sign saying "steal from me" in this particular instance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
It was in private. It was on private property at a non-public event and shared only with a non-public group. Then one person appears to have taken the non-public video they had access to and shared it. You're wanting people punished for not being able to stop that person from doing so. This is an exact continuation of the principle I outlined for burglary victims, revenge porn victims and all the rest. They did not choose to expose their actions to the public.
Nor, though it's a different matter, should they be denied the right to make what jokes they like either way.
It doesn't matter how private they were during whatever they did. Their defence that they did it in private depends ENTIRELY on them having no reason to believe whatsoever that whatever they were doing would be seen outside of their dwelling. That's the law.
Now I am sorry, but filming it on a mobile phone blows that defence right out of the water.
So if something is filmed on a mobile phone should it immediately be assumed that's it in the public domain?
Clearly you are wrong, people film things all the time on their phones for private viewing only.. like sex.
Mobile phones serve multiple purposes. Much, most even, of what people do on them is not public domain at all
.
Lol ok. Tell that to Google.
Then stupidly forget about iCloud. The celebs do anyway. Remember the Fappening?
Well if it isn’t, it very likely soon will be, this “Grenfell” thing was WhatsApped to me from a British friend, on holiday in the U.S., who was shown it by an American, who forwarded it to the friend when asked.
The American said that he’d got it from a Brit back in U.K., who knew that the American was familiar with the original fire story.
I showed it to my wife, who wisely counselled me to delete it immediately, I wasn’t dumb enough to forward it to anyone.
It should be read alongside section 32:
This is very broad. It covers all of the networks that a person might use to share a video online - your connection to the ISP or mobile phone provider, the further connection to the WhatsApp server that holds the content pending delivery, the connections to the recipients via the various networks, etc.
And, as provided for by section 151, an electronic communications network is considered public if it is "provided wholly or mainly for the purpose of making electronic communications services available to members of the public". This catches every network that a member of the public is likely to use and what matters is whether the material - publicly posted or private - is sent over it.
I don't think a WhatsApp group is a communications network (public or not) under the Act but the only way to share material with that group is via public networks - your ISP, etc.
That is the case but we aren't in trouble because it isn't normally detected. If I send you a grossly offensive email and you forward it to the police, I could be in trouble. But, like the countless assaults that go unreported every day, it normally goes nowhere because no-one cares to complain.
Is it, tell that to the town of Lewis, who have on past occasions set fire to various effigy's of people and the poor catholic church when we burn a terrorist / freedom fighter depending on your point of view sure these have been on TV.....
The entire debacle may well be in bad taste and its just that, the irony is if they are prosecuted it will be more than the actual people who caused the deaths in the first place.
So its a omg you idiots, move on, nothing to see here after a hr or so.
social media justice system then, why bother having laws and courts now then
It has nothing to do with public domain. It's that the person(s) relying on saying what they were doing was private as a defence under the act, have to have no reason to believe that what they were doing may be seen outside of their dwelling. Otherwise, according to the Public Order Act, what they were doing is not private.
Filming it on a mobile phone, even for personal reasons means they would have reason to believe that what their doing might be seen outside of their dwelling. Surely everyone can see that. Ergo, according to the act, it's not private. It's public.
It's an open and shut case.
They may have committed other offenses under the communications act, but I think that might be a bit more complex.
Last edited:
Except it is illegal though. That's why they've been arrested.