Tower block fire - london

ubersonic said:
Yes, you are right, it's everyone else that actually seem to understand the situation who are wrong, that is the most logical explanation :p
Click to expand...

As usual it only takes a handful of wilfully ignorant people for them to start thinking they're "everyone".

The law is perfectly clear. If you want to commit a public order offence in the privacy of your own home, the onus is on you to prove you have no reason to believe whatever you do whilst committing that offence will be seen outside of it. Or prove that you were acting reasonably. Otherwise as far as the Public Order Act goes, whatever do committing the act is not private, it's public.

Everything else on this matter, from an "is it a crime?" POV is irrelevant. According to the that particular law, yes it is.

You can argue that the law is wrong, outdated or whatever or even say it's not applicable (but considering that's what they were arrested for duh). But thinking what they did is not illegal is just plain incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
Maybe you could post something relevant or constructive instead of telling other people what to do
Click to expand...
What’s the point, I’d add nothing new, it’s already been done to death.

I’m with the general consensus that it’s just a bunch of racist idiots who did something morally reprehensible and have been publicly outed and rightly vilified for it. There’s a stigma attached to them that they’ll have to live with now. To get the police involved and prosecutions underway that would cost the taxpayer thousands, is a waste of money and police resources.
 
robfosters said:
Maybe we should just wait for the outcome. The police will eventually let us know if they have committed a crime or not.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works or what the Police are even for.

The CPS will let us know if they think the risk of spending money on trying to get a conviction is in the public interest. If they were released without charge, which someone said yesterday then it looks like this has already been decided.

Loads of people commit crimes that they're not arrested for, not charged with, not prosecuted for, or not convicted for. It doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed.
 
I think what needs to happen here, is that everyone who ever told a joke about Jimmy Savile needs to shut up and sit down, then everyone who ever told a joke about Michael Jackson needs to shut up and sit down, then everyone who ever told a joke about 9/11 needs to shut up and sit down, then everyone who ever told a joke about Princes Dianna needs to shut up and sit down, then everyone who ever told a joke about starving Ethiopians needs to shut up and sit down, and this needs to continue until everyone has shut up and sat down and accepted that it's super common for people to make politically incorrect/insensitive jokes in private.

Then we can put this big fuss over nothing behind us an move on.


inogen said:
thinking what they did is not illegal is just plain incorrect.
Click to expand...
No it is not, under the law they did nothing wrong. It is not a public order offense if it occurs on your own property and you have no reason to believe it will be seen/heard by others. This has been explained to you by multiple people multiple times now :rolleyes:
 
robfosters said:
What’s the point, I’d add nothing new, it’s already been done to death.

I’m with the general consensus that it’s just a bunch of racist idiots who did something morally reprehensible and have been publicly outed and rightly vilified for it. There’s a stigma attached to them that they’ll have to live with now. To get the police involved and prosecutions underway that would cost the taxpayer thousands, is a waste of money and police resources.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think the "black mark" on their names now will be with them forever. Thats punishment enough.
 
azazl187 said:
I agree. I think the "black mark" on their names now will be with them forever. Thats punishment enough.
Click to expand...


I actually wonder how much real outrage there actually was?

Was the internet really awash with people outraged by this.

Or was it just the usual couple of thousand professional complainers who spend their lives trawling social media in order to find things to get offended about?
 
ubersonic said:
No it is not, under the law they did nothing wrong. It is not a public order offense if it occurs on your own property and you have no reason to believe it will be seen/heard by others. This has been explained to you by multiple people multiple times now :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So it seems you can read, sort of. It's not seen or heard by others, it's seen or heard outside of the dwelling.

How on earth is filming and / or participating in filming of the offense with a mobile phone not a reason to believe it will be seen or heard outside of the dwelling?

It's a mobile phone. Yaknow. Mobile.
 
Last edited:
inogen said:
Plenty of people get released with no charge after being arrested for doing things that are illegal.
Click to expand...

Well it looks like what they did was not a crime, hence not charged, else they would have been charged it is pretty obvious who is involved and what went on.
 
Orionaut said:
I actually wonder how much real outrage there actually was?

Was the internet really awash with people outraged by this.

Or was it just the usual couple of thousand professional complainers who spend their lives trawling social media in order to find things to get offended about?
Click to expand...
This
 
LabR@t said:
Well it looks like what they did was not a crime, hence not charged, else they would have been charged it is pretty obvious who is involved and what went on.
Click to expand...

That's just not true. Just because they not charged doesn't mean anything other than they were not charged.
 
inogen said:
It's not seen or heard by others, it's seen or heard outside of the dwelling.
Click to expand...
The former implies the latter.

inogen said:
How on earth is filming and / or participating in filming of the offense with a mobile phone not a reason to believe it will be seen or heard outside of the dwelling?
Click to expand...
Because (ignoring the fact that there is no offense) almost all recording/photos taken inside the home/dwelling are never seen outside of it, this has been true since the invention of cameras/video cameras.

I think from your previous posts this is the part you're having difficulty understanding?

Just because something is recorded/photographed for prosperity doesn't mean it will ever be shown publicly, such occurrences are rare and by no means the norm. There is no reasonable expectation that a private video/photo would become public.
 
ubersonic said:
The former implies the latter.


Because (ignoring the fact that there is no offense) almost all recording/photos taken inside the home/dwelling are never seen outside of it, this has been true since the invention of cameras/video cameras.

I think from your previous posts this is the part you're having difficulty understanding?

Just because something is recorded/photographed for prosperity doesn't mean it will ever be shown publicly, such occurrences are rare and by no means the norm.
Click to expand...


This is all very interesting, but not the point. The video gives reason to believe that the offence may have been seen outside of the dwelling as opposed to no reason. That's pretty irrefutable. If you think that's not the case then perhaps you're as naive as they were when they took it.
 
Last edited:
inogen said:
This is all very interesting, but not the point.
Click to expand...
It's ENTIRELY the point.

Something is not a public order offense if it's done in your own home and there is no reason to believe it will be seen/heard by anyone not present. They had no reason to believe that it would be seen/heard by anyone not present hence not committing an offense hence being released without charge. Making a personal recording of the event, doesn't change anything nor does the fact that that personal recording "got out", there is no legal onus on a person creating personal photographs/videos to expect otherwise (see the Jennifer Lawrence nude selfies leak).

You may disagree with the facts, that's fine, but acting like everyone else in the thread who point out the facts to you are wrong is just silly.
 
Oh, I see, so you think taking a video on a phone of something not essentially private in nature, other than that legally you have to keep it private in order to not commit a Public Order offence, is no reason to believe that someone not present may watch it outside of the dwelling where the video was taken? Even though it's fair to assume that those who filmed and participated in the filming had no idea that they were committing an offence and therefore had to keep it private in the first place.

And you also think that someone having their personal media hacked would be dealt with under the Public Order Act.

And you want me to have discussion with you in good faith?
 
Last edited:
The prosecution over the tower effigy burning incident has failed.....

Man cleared over burning Grenfell effigy model film

Prosecutors claimed footage recorded by Paul Bussetti at a London party was racist but the 47-year-old said it was a "joke" only shared between friends.

He was found not guilty after it was revealed a second video from the party had also been shared on WhatsApp.

Magistrates said they could not be sure the film was that taken by Mr Bussetti.

The prosecution's handling of evidence in the case was described as "appalling" by Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot.

The clip of the cardboard building, which had "Grenfell Tower" written on it, was recorded at a party attended by about 30 people in south London on 3 November, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard.

It was later uploaded to YouTube and sparked outrage, with a relative of one of the 72 people who died in the blaze on 14 June 2017 calling it "revolting".
Click to expand...

Cant say I am disappointed.... The law should not be policing incidents such as this regardless of whether people think they are in extremely bad taste or not.
 
Whatever one's thoughts on bringing this case to court, once again a magistrate or judge is driven to make a comment such as this. No wonder so many cases founder or are such a costly disaster.

"The prosecution's handling of evidence in the case was described as "appalling" by Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom