Tower block fire - london

inogen said:
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.
Click to expand...
the corollary to this would be that any kind of film recording would be public ? is that what you, and what you believe the law, says ?
 
jpaul said:
the corollary to this would be that any kind of film recording would be public ? is that what you, and what you believe the law, says ?
Click to expand...

No. But it is what this specific law says in relation to private dwellings. It’s nothing to do with it being public. It’s to do with them having a belief that their actions would stay within their dwelling.
 
jpaul said:
the corollary to this would be that any kind of film recording would be public ? is that what you, and what you believe the law, says ?
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that the original intent for "Malicious Comunication" legislation has failed to catch up with current methods of socializing.

The original intent was to criminalize things like "Heavy Breathing" and "Poison Pen-letters"

Not to criminalize conversations in pubs.

The trouble is that Facepalm/etc now fulfills the same role as quiet chats in the snug did 25 years ago

And there lies the problem.

It should absolutely be an offense to make specific malicious communications against a specific individual.

(And I hope that the Police and CPS will vigorously pursue any threats made against the "Grenfell Six" as a result of their public exposure)

But it should absolutely not be criminal situation simply to essentially overhear somebody else's conversation and be offended by it. No matter how unpleasant that conversation might be.

Back to the Burning question (As it were)

It was essentially a private "conversation" that a friend told a friend about (And so on)

Before social media, this would have petered out within one or two degrees of separation with only a small number of people involved and no real harm done.

Nowadays, With the internet, you can easily get the whole Seven and everybody ends up knowing about it.

The correct response to this is not actually to criminalise private converstaions that "Escaped", it actually should be to restrict the "malicious Communication" definition to its original intent.

Create this sort of clip and send it to somebody directly affected by the Grenfell disaster with the specific intent to upset or distress them personally , then yes, bring on the prosecutions.

But being offended by somebody else's conversation that you happened to overhear (Especially if you actually had to go out of your way to do so. Remember, everybody here had to make the choice of clicking on the link in order to see what they were going to be offended about)

This should not be a criminal issue.

Absolutely not.
 
inogen said:
No. But it is what this specific law says in relation to private dwellings. It’s nothing to do with it being public. It’s to do with them having a belief that their actions would stay within their dwelling.
Click to expand...
that was not what you had said (which you now edited - without showing the errors in original statement - ), which was

inogen said:
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.
Click to expand...

you said it was automatically categorised as public, which was repeating what you said before, and was absurd, and which like others had done, I was highlighting.


Everyone else concurs, they believed their actions would remain private to themselves
 
Orionaut said:
Part of the problem is that the original intent for "Malicious Comunication" legislation has failed to catch up with current methods of socializing.

The original intent was to criminalize things like "Heavy Breathing" and "Poison Pen-letters"

Not to criminalize conversations in pubs.

The trouble is that Facepalm/etc now fulfills the same role as quiet chats in the snug did 25 years ago

And there lies the problem.

It should absolutely be an offense to make specific malicious communications against a specific individual.

(And I hope that the Police and CPS will vigorously pursue any threats made against the "Grenfell Six" as a result of their public exposure)

But it should absolutely not be criminal situation simply to essentially overhear somebody else's conversation and be offended by it. No matter how unpleasant that conversation might be.

Back to the Burning question (As it were)

It was essentially a private "conversation" that a friend told a friend about (And so on)

Before social media, this would have petered out within one or two degrees of separation with only a small number of people involved and no real harm done.

Nowadays, With the internet, you can easily get the whole Seven and everybody ends up knowing about it.

The correct response to this is not actually to criminalise private converstaions that "Escaped", it actually should be to restrict the "malicious Communication" definition to its original intent.

Create this sort of clip and send it to somebody directly affected by the Grenfell disaster with the specific intent to upset or distress them personally , then yes, bring on the prosecutions.

But being offended by somebody else's conversation that you happened to overhear (Especially if you actually had to go out of your way to do so. Remember, everybody here had to make the choice of clicking on the link in order to see what they were going to be offended about)

This should not be a criminal issue.

Absolutely not.
Click to expand...
This is the most sensible thing I've read about this whole issue. I completely agree with you sir
 
Non-rich people burn a box and get arrested.

Yet the people responsible for lining real towerblocks with flammable material still walk free after 70+ people get burned alive. Nice balanced laws...
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
that was not what you had said (which you now edited - without showing the errors in original statement - ), which was



you said it was automatically categorised as public, which was repeating what you said before, and was absurd, and which like others had done, I was highlighting.


Everyone else concurs, they believed their actions would remain private to themselves
Click to expand...

What a load of nonsense. You don’t film something on a mobile like that To only show it to people who were there.

I can’t be bothered anymore, it’s like taking to a brick wall.
 
inogen said:
What a load of nonsense. You don’t film something on a mobile like that To only show it to people who were there.

I can’t be bothered anymore, it’s like taking to a brick wall.
Click to expand...

Nor do you clad a high rise building(s) with material that is not fireproof on the basis of its cheaper not to and enjoy a really good holiday from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom