Home Politics & Debate

Social Networking and incrimination: the case of the Southampton bouncer

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4500164.Bouncer_sentenced_to_four_years_for_paralysing_student/?ref=mr

Andrew Lee was a bouncer in Southampton who paralysed a student in a nightclub - he received four years for grievous bodily harm (which as a totally incidental point and not knowing the precedents surrounding sentencing for this offence, I think is waaaay too short).

It appears that he had previously posted CCTV footage of him assaulting other people, labelled various things including 'bitch slap'. This was used as evidence of his character as a person who relished using force against people, and in the second video outright assaulting them with no visible provocation.

The wider point in this is that it is another example of user created content and social networking being a public resource that prevents people who commit offences such as this, from 'closing ranks' among their colleagues with spurious character witness statements.

What do others think about this case?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am glad he got four years, but like you said, it's probably nowhere near enough, considering the fact that the student now has to live the rest of his life unable to function or succeed at anything.

    I personally am glad social networking sites have become so popular in this way, as it means people who offend have less places to hide, however people's activities online do not necessarily reflect their character. I remember reading about a girl who was depressed who "appeared happy" on facebook, obviously hiding how she really was.

    I was in trouble myself at work recently over facebook, as I was off ill for four weeks and in my review when I got back they stated "there were comments made on social networking sites, saying you were out late at night" to which I explained I went out the Friday before coming back to work, because getting out was important to me after spending four weeks in bed, unable to see any of my friends or socialise.

    It just goes to show how easy it can be to obtain information online now, as most people (myself included) are too open and honest on social neworking sites. I know of a couple of people who were fired for posting negative comments about work on facebook, and they also reminded me I could get sacked for doing so in my work review.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Four years for paralysing someone? That's disgraceful when the judge has the power to pass an indeterminate sentence against people who are serious danger to society. The cunt will be out in two and a half years, free to maim again.

    The more I think about things, the more I come to believe in 'eye for an eye'. Paralyse someone through GBH, you get paralysed. Murder someone, you get killed. Punishments are not severe enough against the worst offenders.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doubt I'd go quite that far but I agree 4 years isn't enough given the revolving door prison system we have, the guy's demonstrable penchant for violence, and the fact that remorse was only expressed in the last few days of the trial.

    That aside - one wonders if he hadn't posted those videos of him acting like Rambo, to give context to his behaviour, if he might have been treated even more sympathetically?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The more I think about things, the more I come to believe in 'eye for an eye'. Paralyse someone through GBH, you get paralysed. Murder someone, you get killed.

    Deal heroin, you get......given some heroin? :D

    Incidentally, I think the thing that Orwell didn't predict was a society where everyone has a camcorder with them at all times with absolutely no central control. And that's the most effective weapon against authorities closing ranks whenever one of their number is involved in abuse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And that's the most effective weapon against authorities closing ranks whenever one of their number is involved in abuse.

    The beauty is also that they record themselves - the problem is that they are not dealt with appropriately - this guy was a clear danger to the people of Southampton and the judiciary have failed us. Again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its only a useful tool in helping people avoid closing ranks if someone is stupid enough to post footage on a site.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't like it to be honest. Like the lawmakers say, good laws aren't made up on single cases - and that's because in this case, the guy is an absolute nutter and deserves some time to be rehabilitated / lobotomised. More likely is, in prison he will just make contacts in the criminal world but we'll see.

    The fact is though, there are many cases where people might post videos of themselves doing very minor crimes like speeding or what not, I would think they had a right to privacy. Nobody here is immune from the law, we have all broken it in one way or another. Drinking underage? Exceeding the speed limit? Drunk and disorderly? Drug abuse?

    What happens when the police start coming after teenagers for smoking cannabis and posting it on youtube? Yes sure plenty will say they were stupid to post it on a public forum - like that girl who got sacked from her job for updating her facebook status with "... is bored in work".

    Whether it is enshrined in law or not, as human beings we know and understand that there is a right to privacy? If someone is peeing in a bush in the middle of nowhere, you don't run up to them and take a photo do you? Because people understand that people deserve privacy and a right to have a private life.

    Social networking sites open up a massive can of worms, and I don't think most people realise that anything they post on there is accessible to the entire internet. Ever posted yourself drunk on there? Ever had a friend post a picture of you drunk?

    You would expect these to be private amongst friends even if they are own shown to others, but there is no law anywhere that prohibits a prospective employer finding these photos and denying you employment because of them.

    I said to an employee of a computer retailer company, I don't want them searching my alias over the internet to find that I have overclocked my CPU, and then turn round and say the warranty is void. Because *everyone* overclocks even though it's against the warranty, even the manufacturers show off the overclocking ability of their CPUs. It's slightly tangental, but it's the same principle - I have a right to talk about things and express things where I can be safe in the knowledge it won't be used against me.

    Who here has posted about some personal flaw? Whether it be MH issues or relationship issues or whatever. Imagine running for a position of MP, only to have your opponent in a debate say to you "do we want someone who has cheated on their partner in the past / been sectioned / taken cannabis running your constituency?". It doesn't matter about what is written down in the law books which are often out of touch with reality, we know, as human beings, that that is simply unfair.

    This case is only different, because the guy who was convicted seems to be from what I have read a wholly unpleasant person.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I don't like it to be honest. Like the lawmakers say, good laws aren't made up on single cases - and that's because in this case, the guy is an absolute nutter and deserves some time to be rehabilitated / lobotomised. More likely is, in prison he will just make contacts in the criminal world but we'll see.

    The fact is though, there are many cases where people might post videos of themselves doing very minor crimes like speeding or what not, I would think they had a right to privacy. Nobody here is immune from the law, we have all broken it in one way or another. Drinking underage? Exceeding the speed limit? Drunk and disorderly? Drug abuse?

    What happens when the police start coming after teenagers for smoking cannabis and posting it on youtube? Yes sure plenty will say they were stupid to post it on a public forum - like that girl who got sacked from her job for updating her facebook status with "... is bored in work".

    Whether it is enshrined in law or not, as human beings we know and understand that there is a right to privacy? If someone is peeing in a bush in the middle of nowhere, you don't run up to them and take a photo do you? Because people understand that people deserve privacy and a right to have a private life.

    Social networking sites open up a massive can of worms, and I don't think most people realise that anything they post on there is accessible to the entire internet. Ever posted yourself drunk on there? Ever had a friend post a picture of you drunk?

    You would expect these to be private amongst friends even if they are own shown to others, but there is no law anywhere that prohibits a prospective employer finding these photos and denying you employment because of them.

    I said to an employee of a computer retailer company, I don't want them searching my alias over the internet to find that I have overclocked my CPU, and then turn round and say the warranty is void. Because *everyone* overclocks even though it's against the warranty, even the manufacturers show off the overclocking ability of their CPUs. It's slightly tangental, but it's the same principle - I have a right to talk about things and express things where I can be safe in the knowledge it won't be used against me.

    Who here has posted about some personal flaw? Whether it be MH issues or relationship issues or whatever. Imagine running for a position of MP, only to have your opponent in a debate say to you "do we want someone who has cheated on their partner in the past / been sectioned / taken cannabis running your constituency?". It doesn't matter about what is written down in the law books which are often out of touch with reality, we know, as human beings, that that is simply unfair.

    This case is only different, because the guy who was convicted seems to be from what I have read a wholly unpleasant person.




    If people are stupid enough to post Evidence of them comitting crimes on the internet for all to see then tough shit.
    I've used facebook to help investigate an assault before. The victim wasn't sure of who the attacker was, but when I typed the area of the assault into youtube the first video I got back was of the assault along with clear views of all their faces, and the creator had helpfully left his name in a comment.

    There is a whole misconception that this stuff is private. it isn't. Posting a video of you having a piss on a gravestone is exactly the same as shouting to a member of public and inviting them to watch you as you piss on a gravestone, or asking the police to come and watch you smoke a spliff. Except this way your audience is thousands of people, not just one.
    If people don't want their dirty laundry aired for the world to see then they set their profile to private, and they untag any incriminating videos or pictures of themselves.

    If people are labouring under the illusion that their dirty deeds should be private then more fool them, i have no sympathy whatsoever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Deal heroin, you get......

    A sales bonus from Chiron, or perhaps CP-Wockhardt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    Its only a useful tool in helping people avoid closing ranks if someone is stupid enough to post footage on a site.

    No I meant people having cameras in general rather than having CCTV everywhere. Like the recent protests.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The more I think about things, the more I come to believe in 'eye for an eye'. Paralyse someone through GBH, you get paralysed. Murder someone, you get killed. Punishments are not severe enough against the worst offenders.

    The old legal system of an eye for eye was said to be based on justice for the victim.

    In this particular case that suggested punishment seems more retributive than restorative. (Lex talionis ?)

    Whilst somewhat difficult to make a paralysed victim whole, I suggest that the eye for an eye legal system would propose bond servitude for the offender until that person had produced whatever financial aid deemed necessary to the victim.

    (I understand Wilberforce did not care much for bond servitude, so do not go holding your breath for a return to that system of justice).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's different when it's actually the criminal case in question of course whowhere. But in this case these videos were simply used to demonstrate he was of bad character. I am sure that is the case, but where do you draw the line? When you come up for salary review how would you feel if your boss looked you up on youtube to find you were tagged in a video at a friend's wedding reception drunk doing who knows what?

    The problem with youtube is that it can catch us at our worst and be there forever for anyone to see and can seriously damage our lives when we have a right to privacy. Privacy is a truly truly underrated and I feel endangered right in this country and perhaps the rest of the western world, with shows like Big Brother and things like youtube making everything public so we don't even question what should and shouldn't be private these days.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Andrew Lee is a violent criminal, scumbag and total cunt to top it off. Never mind 4 years in prison, his punishment should be to be hung to a tree like a piñata before having the living shit beaten out of him until he dies. He deserves nothing less.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    It's different when it's actually the criminal case in question of course whowhere. But in this case these videos were simply used to demonstrate he was of bad character. I am sure that is the case, but where do you draw the line? When you come up for salary review how would you feel if your boss looked you up on youtube to find you were tagged in a video at a friend's wedding reception drunk doing who knows what?

    The problem with youtube is that it can catch us at our worst and be there forever for anyone to see and can seriously damage our lives when we have a right to privacy. Privacy is a truly truly underrated and I feel endangered right in this country and perhaps the rest of the western world, with shows like Big Brother and things like youtube making everything public so we don't even question what should and shouldn't be private these days.


    It's not different at all. If your boss sees you getting drunk and acting the fool at a works party he'll think less of you. Why should it be any different if he sees a video of you.
    Yes, this stuff should be private, but if people are going to insist on publishing photos and videos of themselves doing things they shouldn't then they'll simply learn the hard way.
    My facebook page is set to private. There isn't a single photo or video on it, or anyone else's that could get me into trouble. Because I'm careful.

    If other people don't give the same level of care towards how people percieve them, then that's their own fault.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    It's different when it's actually the criminal case in question of course whowhere. But in this case these videos were simply used to demonstrate he was of bad character. I am sure that is the case, but where do you draw the line? When you come up for salary review how would you feel if your boss looked you up on youtube to find you were tagged in a video at a friend's wedding reception drunk doing who knows what?

    The problem with youtube is that it can catch us at our worst and be there forever for anyone to see and can seriously damage our lives when we have a right to privacy. Privacy is a truly truly underrated and I feel endangered right in this country and perhaps the rest of the western world, with shows like Big Brother and things like youtube making everything public so we don't even question what should and shouldn't be private these days.

    How about making sure your fb or whatever is set to friends only and if there are incriminating pics of you then ask that your mates take them down.

    If you're only friends with people you actually know or actually sue the privacy settings properly then you won't have a problem.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you untag yourself from a photo on FB you can't be retagged unless the photo is taken down and re-uploaded. If you are on YouTube and you don't want to be, YouTube will take it down.

    People think that facebook and YouTube is private, and it isn't. Nothing is private on the internet. You post things knowing this, and if you don't know this, you're a bit silly. My posts here can be tracked to me IRL very easily, particularly as there aren't that many HE welfare advisers in the north east of England. I post on this basis.
Sign In or Register to comment.