UK gone mad?

[Squawk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/23/facebook_sentence/

What the hell is this shit? A guy posts a one line facebook comment as a bad joke, takes it down 20 mins later, and ends up in jail for 4 months?

Fuck me, if the police ever read my posts on this forum I'm sure they can find worse than that. A bad joke in bad taste, but jail?

Have you heard some of the shit that football supporters shout at players? The world has gone mad.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, if you want to give a government more and more power, don't be surprised when it starts using that power.

 

[impiku]

Well, if you want to give a government more and more power, don't be surprised when it starts using that power.

I second this.

 

[Welshidiot]

I agree that it's ridiculously heavy handed, and the charge of incitement makes no real sense in the context of a message that was only displayed for 20mins.

Well, if you want to give a government more and more power, don't be surprised when it starts using that power.

I second this.

Except that noone gave them more power. This is a case of a re-interpretation of the correct application of pre-existing law.

And I assume you both actually read the article? Specifically the part about various police authorities and courts implementing this particular law in different ways.

I really don't see how you can blame this on "big government", when regional police forces are plainly exercising their own discretion in regards to the application of this particular power.

 

[Andiferous]

It is emergency justice. It's along the lines of our War Measures Act or other such instances where emergency control is absolutely critical. Some indivifual situations look terrible from a media point of view, but when a country goes out of control, I wonder how possible it is to reign it in within the usual justice system. Jury is out on that...

 

[impiku]

Actually, not really. I was just endorsing ArthurWilborn's general principle. I didn't read the article, just Squwk's post. I don't feel like reading too much today.

 

[Andiferous]

Well, I hope you're not part of any jury, then.

 

[Squawk]

Someone is going to have to work very hard to convince me that a bad joke on facebook deserves anything other than a telling off. 4 months in jail, justice? This guys life has been fucked, for a 20 minute bad joke. Just no.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

yeah sometimes i wonder if we give the governments too much freedom, often i see really morbid things coming from law enforcers and law makers.. making me wonder how well they are "working for us"
so i can't make a stupid joke on some network which is violating my privacy, remove it after 20 minutes and forget about it, but i can teach my kids they and their children are to be killed if they reject their indoctrinated belief and that they should be intolerant of others or worse?? That scientists and teachers are fooling them and stuff like that..
They should rather work on such things and not make me get paranoid and watch out what i say to my friends and think they are working on ways to read my thoughts >_>
if he had said "at x pm all come to xxxx street and lets do this and that", i would maybe understand.. but this?

 

[Welshidiot]

I was just endorsing ArthurWilborn's general principle.

A principle that has absolutely nothing to do with the case we are discussing.


I'm not going to let the misapprehension prevalent in this thread slide, this isn't an abstract academic debate, we are discussing real world law, and it's real world application.

Allow me to reiterate:

This is a case of a re-interpretation of the correct application of pre-existing law.

And I assume you both actually read the article? Specifically the part about various police authorities and courts implementing this particular law in different ways.

I really don't see how you can blame this on "big government", when regional police forces are plainly exercising their own discretion in regards to the application of this particular power.

The law against incitement to riot has existed for many decades, if not centuries.
This instance shows that this particular law is open to interpretation, and IMHO it has been misapplied in this case.

HOWEVER, it has neither been interpreted nor applied by central government, but rather by a regional police force and a regional court. Other regional police forces and courts in the UK have interpreted this law differently.......IT SAYS SO IN THE ARTICLE SQUAWK LINKED TO!!!

So why are some people in this thread blah-blah-ing on about government control? Is it because they are the sort of people who take any opportunity to jump on a soapbox and declare their bias?

 

[Thomas Doubting]

yeah you got it, just like what you are doing
you take your opinion to jump in one's neck
this could provoke more violence in the streets, for instance
and this is just one example of "lawful stupidity"

there is too much more, like in bulgaria when people were demonstrating for cleaner cities and such things.. and the police came to chase them away with batons and water cannons.. because if they let them be, tomorrow they will start asking for other things.
you were not here when my government started sending military troops to my city and the local authorities denying us the weapons to protect ourselves, all based on some stupid laws... ended pretty bloody, lasted for a whole while and is recorded as the latest genocide in the world.
I say they are there to work for us and not mistreat us and ruin our lives due to moronic laws and "misinterpretations"

"You must wear a shirt while driving a car."
makes a lot of sense

>_<

 

[impiku]

A principle that has absolutely nothing to do with the case we are discussing.

I'm not going to let the misapprehension prevalent in this thread slide, this isn't an abstract academic debate, we are discussing real world law, and it's real world application.

The principle might have nothing to do with this particular context, so what? Do you think I'm always going to stick to the topic when there are irrelevant posts everywhere just because of your suggestion?

Isn't the discussion digressing because you are imposing your thoughts on me that have nothing to do with this context? Why don't you stick to the topic instead? It seems like this has absolutely nothing to do with the case we are discussing.

 

[Welshidiot]

yeah you got it, just like what you are doing
you take your opinion to jump in one's neck

1: I was directing my comments (to one extent or another) to everyone in this thread except Squawk. I'm not "jumping in your neck",....although the actual English phrase is "jumping down your throat".

2: No I am not just giving my opinion.
The law against incitement to riot has been on the UK statute book for decades if not centuries, it is not a new power, FACT.
The article that Squawk linked to explains that various regional police forces and courts have chosen to interpret and apply this law in different ways, FACT.
The defendant in this case is still protected by UK law, and has a full right of appeal, FACT.

this is just one example of "lawful stupidity"

I'm inclined to agree with you, but as I've said before this was not a central government decision, it was a decision implemented by a regional police force, and a regional court.

there is too much more, you were not here when my government started sending military troops to my city and the local authorities denying us the weapons to protect ourselves, all based on some stupid laws.

1: What has this got to do with the UK, or the case that this thread is about? Answer: nothing.
2: I'm going to accept that you know more about your own country than I do,......why won't you accept that I know more about my country than you?

I say they are there to work for us and not punish us and ruin our lives due to moronic laws and "misinterpretations"

I say UK law, and the law in your country are not the same.
I say the police in the UK, and the police in your country are not the same.
I say that in the UK the defendant has a right to appeal, I don't know if that's true in your country, so I'm not going to make assumptions based on nothing but my own ignorance.
I say that ALL police and courts everywhere in the world interpret the law, because interpreting the law is their function, (sometimes they get it wrong,.....this is a common human failing).

 

[Welshidiot]

The principle might have nothing to do with this particular context, so what? Do you think I'm always going to stick to the topic when there are irrelevant posts everywhere just because of your suggestion?

Yea, I really believe that you'll snap to attention and obey my every whim just because I say so.........

Btw, you do understand sarcasm don't you? Or is that something else that you choose to ignore?

So far in this thread, you have marked yourself out as someone who it is pointless to engage in debate or discussion with, because by your own admission you are quite happy to vent whatever irrelevant nonsense pleases you, without even bothering to read any source material provided.

You appear to have all the right attributes to be a creationist.

Isn't the discussion digressing because you are imposing your thoughts on me that have nothing to do with this context? Why don't you stick to the topic instead? It seems like this has absolutely nothing to do with the case we are discussing.

No. Check my posts, I responded directly to the OP.
If anything is making this thread digress then it's the irrelevant, uninformed, bias-fuelled contributions of people who want to complain about government intervention.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

well it has a lot to do with your country, maybe they could interpret the laws some more and start checking people's houses who were browsing shops for fuel or something like that (just a stupid example)
i tend to get skeptic when i read such things >_>
also i hope i am allowed an opinion even if its not about my country 0_o
and i like to show compassion and express my opinion about everything (if i am not too lazy or not forbidden to.. or if i think its appropriate, which it often isn't anyway because i am too stupid to realize mostly ) and about all countries, as a fellow human i am prone to relate to anybody else, damn you empathy!!
also thanks for correcting me, i'll probably stick to jumping on one's neck though.. i don't like to imagine people jumping down my throat 0_0

 

[Prolescum]

:lol:

The local police force and the local courts make unpopular decisions in UK, cat-lover in America dribbles on keyboard; chaos theory: reloaded.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Yeah, I was talking more about general principles then this specific case. Give a government a power and they will find a way to misuse it, even if it is a traditional and necessary power. This is also a reference to movement in recent history in the British legal system towards increased reliance on police intervention and away from self-defense.

 

[impiku]

So far in this thread, you have marked yourself out as someone who it is pointless to engage in debate or discussion with, because by your own admission you are quite happy to vent whatever irrelevant nonsense pleases you, without even bothering to read any source material provided.

You appear to have all the right attributes to be a creationist.

Like I said, not every post is strictly "to-the-topic", why are you complaining in this particular instance? Is your lib instinct manifesting because I dropped a little comment that doesn't sit well with liberals? I apologize If I hurt your feelings. Also, based on your standard, almost anyone on this forum would "have all the right attributes" to be a "creationist".

If anything is making this thread digress then it's the irrelevant, uninformed, bias-fuelled contributions of people who want to complain about government intervention.

Along with people like you that are so obsessed with whinning about a little off-topic comments.

 

[Arcus]

Yeah, I was talking more about general principles then this specific case. Give a government a power and they will find a way to misuse it, even if it is a traditional and necessary power. This is also a reference to movement in recent history in the British legal system towards increased reliance on police intervention and away from self-defense.

The government has a monopoly on violence, which also includes a monopoly on calling for violence. Not quite sure anyone has challenged Weber on that particular point, nor many other of the ones he made. As for the "historical context" you are referring to, I propose you read 'A Modern History of Britain' to gain some perspective as the British public have a higher degree of personal autonomy than ever before.

As for the OP: That a nitwit with either an underdeveloped sense of humor or frontal lobes - most likely both - has to endure the hardships of a restricted diet and not watching Geordi Shore a few months for promoting looting is nothing I will start crying crocodile tears over. You mileage may wary.

 

[Welshidiot]

@ArthurWilborn

Yeah, I was talking more about general principles then this specific case. Give a government a power and they will find a way to misuse it, even if it is a traditional and necessary power.

The thing is Arthur that the governement have not interfered in the due process of law in this case, so it makes no sense to make your point here, no matter how valid the general principle might be.

This is also a reference to movement in recent history in the British legal system towards increased reliance on police intervention and away from self-defense.

Again, this doesn't apply to the case in question.

I'm not arguing with your ideology Arthur, I have no interest in doing so, but I'm certain that you would be better served by making your points in threads that are actually relevant to the principles that you wish to give voice to.