Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,454
If neither you nor the tweets established that the killing had been tried and found to be unlawful, and thus actually classified as murder... then yeah - Objection, your honour!
Woke Judges?
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Soldato
Woke? Simple.
Awoken to every and all social injustices which manifests itself as trying to combat said injustices through a campaign of ill thought out injustices of equal magnitude..
As for this thread topic..
I think the 3 girls got more than a hard time, so probably justice served,
The 6 police officers?
- None were all non serving retired police officers when part of the group
- None accused or convicted of racist acts
- All convicted on what was said privately
Had they been sentenced of racist acts and the messages used as evidence of their intent.. absolutely fine..
But what happened seems the very definition of thought crime.. I whole heartedly find their messages exceedingly crass and wholly inappropriate in any public setting, but the rationale given by the judge for the sentence was worrying to say the least..
As for if this thread should exist? Yes..
There is more than enough evidence to show a spectacular lack of impartiality of the judge which ironically undermines confidence in the judicial system, by his own standards he really should sentence himself..
Awoken to every and all social injustices which manifests itself as trying to combat said injustices through a campaign of ill thought out injustices of equal magnitude..
As for this thread topic..
I think the 3 girls got more than a hard time, so probably justice served,
The 6 police officers?
- None were all non serving retired police officers when part of the group
- None accused or convicted of racist acts
- All convicted on what was said privately
Had they been sentenced of racist acts and the messages used as evidence of their intent.. absolutely fine..
But what happened seems the very definition of thought crime.. I whole heartedly find their messages exceedingly crass and wholly inappropriate in any public setting, but the rationale given by the judge for the sentence was worrying to say the least..
As for if this thread should exist? Yes..
There is more than enough evidence to show a spectacular lack of impartiality of the judge which ironically undermines confidence in the judicial system, by his own standards he really should sentence himself..
Soldato
Considering the police officers case, I do find Whatsapps latest campaign slogan rather amusing. Not even sure that Built Privately means, is that a dig at Chinese tech companies?
Last edited:
Soldato
Section 127 – Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
It's not really a thought crime if you are literally putting your thoughts into a message and sharing it with other people. I agree with the judge's reasoning that the fact these people were retired police officers is an aggravating factor as it further undermines serving police officers, and the fact that serving officers had left the group says it all.
Ultimately you should be mindful of the fact that any communications you make privately could become public knowledge (not that this is a requirement for s127 to apply), particularly when you serve/have served in a public role.
Last edited:
No. It means end-to-end encryption.
Not much use if you have some stasi wannabe sharing screenshots of the chat to the authorities that then use the above quoted legislation for prosecution. They likely were lulled into a false sense of security.
I don't think it's "thought crime". While some people believe the horrid things in private messages, it's also a case of taste (bad and good) when it enters the public sphere.
I personally have a high threshold for offence and do not seek to impose or restrict others on their capacity to offend - so in my (personal) judgement I do not believe a private (by definition, on an end to end encryption service?) conversation should be held to the same standard as someone doing/sharing these sorts of things publicly*. The law disagrees with that, and so does this judge.
Once the law enters our private spaces, then it can be used as an instrument of oppression.
Why do people always assume the law and lawmakers are working for the betterment of society?
I can see the argument of it being public interest, but then are we all really who we project publicly to the world? The definitions of acceptability are changing rapidly, who knows when a chat from here, or your Facebook, or SMS history could be used against you, are you all really that confident you'll hold up to future standards?
I'm not.
*those paraglider images were publicly intended to support the actions of terrorist actions or at least show no sympathy for the victims (bad taste). I'd say doing that privately is fine, as the reach is limited and you are free to have your own thoughts - problem then comes with any sort of planning, organising or "support" of organisations that carried out those acts or to show intent to carry out similar acts.
Man of Honour
I know someone called Ikram.
I will have words and get to the bottom of this.
I will have words and get to the bottom of this.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,547
?!
It blows my mind that people have these sorts of thoughts.
What do you even mean by "The paragliders"?
Last edited:
Indeed.
I struggle with the absence of logic. I get the sentiment, although I don't agree.
Then the whole thing just seems odd when people with pictures of paragliders are then conflated with actual paragliders.
Baffling.
Soldato
Soldato
S127 has only recently been interpreted to cover private messages, this was not what it was intended for, it was for people who posted things publicly (either directly or indirectly) to cause offence.. The contention is that 'public electronic communications' was not defined very well.. the public never had access to those messages directly, someone had to relay them publicly, that's very different.
I don't remotely see the legal relevance of the them being retired police officers either.. I don't doubt it is not a good look, and can agree it undermines things somewhat, however since they were retired when they joined that group, it's very troubling to be retrospectively punished like that. As I said, if they'd been found to have undertaken racist actions whilst serving officers and the messages used as evidence of intent/scale, then absolutely fine.. but that's a world apart.
It's not that I support what they did, I find their behaviour crass and very very inappropriate, but it's very worrying as a precedent and certainly has a lot of scope to be abused which in this case it seems to have been IMO.
Each to their own, I'm not going to defend their messages or group, it's insidious, but I also see the danger is going along with sudden (and obvious) reinterpretations of the law just because I think it teaches someone I don't like a lesson..
Soldato
Err, that's not true at all, see the decision in DPP v Collins (2006) which discusses s127 at length:
"The genealogy of this section may be traced back to section 10(2)(a) of the Post Office (Amendment) Act 1935, which made it an offence to send any message by telephone which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character."
And then goes on to say:
"The purpose of the legislation which culminates in section 127(1)(a) was to prohibit the use of a service provided and funded by the public for the benefit of the public for the transmission of communications which contravene the basic standards of our society."
As per the CPS guidance, this encompasses the internet and mobile phone networks widely available to the public, and social media platforms which operate via the internet, e.g. WhatsApp (DPP v Bussetti (2021)).
And crucially:
"Secondly, it is plain from the terms of section 127(1)(a), as of its predecessor sections, that the proscribed act, the actus reus of the offence, is the sending of a message of the proscribed character by the defined means. The offence is complete when the message is sent. Thus it can make no difference that the message is never received, for example because a recorded message is erased before anyone listens to it."
This principle was upheld in R (on the application of Alison Chabloz) v Crown Prosecution Service (2020).
Soldato
Maybe i've missed it but did @dowie answer this? Would be nice to known what they mean by woke, as like you say, why it's bad (if that's what they believe).
Soldato
OK, Whatsapp is not a publicly funded entity, so that context would not apply... and in that case, the guy was phoning MPs and spewing vile stuff at whomever answered (or he left messages).. a world apart from a private whatsapp group.
Err, 2021.. a recent interpretation... exactly my point.
I find that the second one was odd in that the youtube video was the thing that caused offence, and the person who uploaded that was not in the frame, but the source video posted to private whats app groups that seemingly no one took offence to was the one spawned the court case..
I just think that private groups on a private platform spewing vile things between them is not intended to cause offence and however vile and unsavoury I consider it private. if they spewed the same in a public post on facebook or X or youtube, then fair play..
My point isn't that I am some arbiter of the law, just that it's only recently been reinterpreted in a way that I don't think makes much sense, I would love anyone posting vile crap where the public may find it should be prosecuted.. it's perverse that so much vile hatred exists on facebook/X with people publicily posting those comments, yet it only seems illegal if you post it to a small private group of like minded crass imbeciles..
Last edited:
What One More Solo has posted is the backdrop for the age old question of, what is offense and who decides when something meets that threshold?
People that hold grievances, and then have inconsistencies in their judgement based on perceived (or otherwise) sympathies for one group over another, are not really best placed to be making those judgements. (especially when things like CRT are involved. Please, go read How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi and then say you are happy to be that person that judges people based on the colour of their skin?).
If offense was judged by whether someone 'felt' offended by it, then that will vary case by case, and if I use myself as an example, anything said to be by that definition would likely never be offensive enough for me to take it and therefore become and 'offence'. Whereas others, with a different threshold, may take the offense at the tiniest comment and in the eyes of certain judges, and the law, have a case to prosecute.
For the law to be fair, should the threshold of 'offensiveness' be defined more objectively? Otherwise, how do you REALLY know the boundaries of the law and how to operate within it without taking a vow of silence.
What is offense? And why is taking it a good thing?
People that hold grievances, and then have inconsistencies in their judgement based on perceived (or otherwise) sympathies for one group over another, are not really best placed to be making those judgements. (especially when things like CRT are involved. Please, go read How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi and then say you are happy to be that person that judges people based on the colour of their skin?).
If offense was judged by whether someone 'felt' offended by it, then that will vary case by case, and if I use myself as an example, anything said to be by that definition would likely never be offensive enough for me to take it and therefore become and 'offence'. Whereas others, with a different threshold, may take the offense at the tiniest comment and in the eyes of certain judges, and the law, have a case to prosecute.
For the law to be fair, should the threshold of 'offensiveness' be defined more objectively? Otherwise, how do you REALLY know the boundaries of the law and how to operate within it without taking a vow of silence.
What is offense? And why is taking it a good thing?
Soldato
@Demon
By definition any change to guidance to include WhatsApp is going to be recent because it’s not existed for very long. The question is why we should treat communication via WhatsApp any differently to phone communication which has been the basis of the law since 1935 (we shouldn’t).
Just to add the legislation refers to a “public electronic communications network” and this “means an electronic communications network provided wholly or mainly for the purpose of making electronic communications services available to members of the public”. There is no requirement for public funding.
The questions Fubsy raises are far more nuanced.
By definition any change to guidance to include WhatsApp is going to be recent because it’s not existed for very long. The question is why we should treat communication via WhatsApp any differently to phone communication which has been the basis of the law since 1935 (we shouldn’t).
Just to add the legislation refers to a “public electronic communications network” and this “means an electronic communications network provided wholly or mainly for the purpose of making electronic communications services available to members of the public”. There is no requirement for public funding.
The questions Fubsy raises are far more nuanced.
Last edited:
Would also like to know*. I dislike the word, and the fact people use it too often for things they don't like or attack someone for using it while completely missing the point. It's almost been been turned into a calling card for two tribes to identify which side they are on. It's getting silly.
*having given my understanding freely earlier in the thread.
Your understanding is correct, the reason for it is also mentioned in the OP too.
First line I take as your definition of woke?
I'm not quite there in terms of outright dismissing those things though. There's a lot of nuance, and improvements that can be made, it's the authoritarian aspect to the mindset I have concerns about.