Fined for writing an online rant

Former Member

.

Former Member

Goes to show if you are ranting at someone its best not to use their name. Still seems a little over the top.

Former Member

It's a plain violation of freedom of speech. Based on what's in the article, it's a fucking joke.

Former Member

Mmm. I was thinking of doing a rant about where I work but then realised what a bad bad idea that would be, and how easy it would be for them to work out who I am based on other info from the boards.

Former Member

girl with sharp teeth wrote: »

This story seems to be pretty relevent to the boards!

Has your husband seen this?


Me, I intend to continue to call the likes of Tony Blair or Dubya cunts, and if I get a knock on the door by Inspector Knacker I will happy to go to court and prove they are, in fact, cunts.

Teh_Gerbil

Oh hai guise.

I've been thinking latley, isn't our Government and system really wonderful? Don't you think that, after all thier wrong doings and mistakes, they really are doing a great job. It must be REALLY hard to do thier job and run the country, I don't think we give them enough credit.

We should be more grateful, I think we should give them a present for thier great job. Our thanks will surley be enough for such honourable men.

That and a fucking bullet in the head.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

Has your husband seen this?

It's a plain violation of freedom of speech. Based on what's in the article, it's a fucking joke.

Yes. And this is why if I rant, I don't mention peoples' names.

Former Member

.

Former Member

I don't think this guy was having a "rant" as posted on thesite but rather posting a message that could be perceived as threatening to the named Officer and his new baby. Maybe I'm being naive but I don't see it as impinging on his freedom of speech at all. His naming of the people involved obviously wasn't the most sensible idea either..

Former Member

P.S. - D.C. Lloyd, God help your new-born baby".

I can see how that would be seen as threatening, I'd take it as threat if someone had posted it when my wife had just given birth.

Former Member

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

P.S. - D.C. Lloyd, God help your new-born baby".

I can see how that would be seen as threatening, I'd take it as threat if someone had posted it when my wife had just given birth.

To be fair though, you can only usually get done for threatening language if the other person has genuine reason to believe you would actually act on it. If I said I was gonna bomb London, I wouldn't be prosecuted, whereas if someone with known links to terrorist groups did the same thing, then they would be.

Former Member

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

P.S. - D.C. Lloyd, God help your new-born baby".

I can see how that would be seen as threatening

I can't say I do. Clearly the comment means "you're a complete dickhead, and I feel sorry for your newborn child and the idiotic father he's going to have to live with for their entire life."

Maybe it's just me who thinks so, but frankly I'd be happy to bet my house that is the meaning intended, and indeed the only meaning such phrase could possibly have. If you're threatening someone you don't implore for God to protect them and thus wreck your plans to do them harm. What sense does that make???

The magistrates were talking bollocks, and I suspect not even them really believe the phrase was meant as a threat. But it became a useful tool to teach the man a lesson, obviously... :rolleyes:

Former Member

I think there is a reasonable argument that it could be interpreted in a much more threatening manner i.e. I intend to do you / your family / your baby harm. Whether that was the intended meaning or not... that's up for the magistrate.

And tbh, if you're going to be infront of a magistrate for something you may have / may not have done, you don't want the other guy to be a copper. You scratch my back, etc.

Former Member

If you can be fined for writing an online rant, Gordon Brown will certainly have much evidence against me!

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

If you can be fined for writing an online rant, Gordon Brown will certainly have much evidence against me!

SG even we dont take you seriously let alone Brown.

Former Member

budda wrote: »

SG even we dont take you seriously let alone Brown.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

I can't say I do. Clearly the comment means "you're a complete dickhead, and I feel sorry for your newborn child and the idiotic father he's going to have to live with for their entire life."

Maybe it's just me who thinks so, but frankly I'd be happy to bet my house that is the meaning intended, and indeed the only meaning such phrase could possibly have. If you're threatening someone you don't implore for God to protect them and thus wreck your plans to do them harm. What sense does that make???

The magistrates were talking bollocks, and I suspect not even them really believe the phrase was meant as a threat. But it became a useful tool to teach the man a lesson, obviously... :rolleyes:

I'm a Dad, I can see that as a threat to my child. i certainly wouldn't come near to betting either of my daughters life or wellbeing on any other meaning.

And people makes threats all the time - it may not make sense to warn your target (if that's what you think a threat is), but people do

Former Member

Not sure we know the full story here but at the moment i'm with Flash on this one.

Former Member

I initially interpreted the quote in the same sense that Aladdin did; but it's hard to say whether the fine was right or wrong without having read the entire rant.

Former Member

I honestly dont think anyone but parents are qualified to comment on this