Kent Police Arrest Man for Being Offensive..

Former Member

Link: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/aylesham-mans-arrest-for-posting-image-of-burning-poppy--sparks-fury-8305966.html

What are your thoughts?

Just a bit excessive. His actions are distasteful and offensive but being offensive isn't an arrestable offence surely?

And kind of ironic that we are supposed to be remembering the war veterans who lost their lives in order to protect our right to freedom and freedom of speech and this man is arrested for burning a poppy.

Former Member

Bit silly. What are they going to charge him with? Being an arsehole?

Unfortunately for the majority of us, I'm not sure we're quite at that stage yet.

Former Member

and 'posting obsceneties on a socail networking site'. So he's been aressted for making 'malicious telecommunication'.

Former Member

Obscenities are posted on facebook everyday. It isn't a crime to be an arsehole.

Former Member

It does appear that being a cunt is a criminal offence these days. Wasn't there some fella arrested for wearing a t-shirt celebrating dead cops when that psychopath was letting off grenades?

What frustrates me is having to saddle up and mount the Freedom of Speech horse for such bell-ends. I'll do it, with piss and vinegar if necessary, but I do rather wish there was something more righteous to get behind.

Former Member

No idea. i dont know what he posted, just pointing out he wasn't aresstedd for burning a poppy.

Former Member

No, he was arrested for being offensive, which is a description I'd apply to at least 15% of the population.

Former Member

This is the Force I have to put up with...

Former Member

The Police are doing their bit enforcing the telecommunications law. It's the politicians who wrote it, the CPS that decide whether to pursue it, and the courts that decide on it.

Former Member

CptCoatHanger wrote: »

What frustrates me is having to saddle up and mount the Freedom of Speech horse for such bell-ends. I'll do it, with piss and vinegar if necessary, but I do rather wish there was something more righteous to get behind.

:yes:

It's also inconsistently applied. Nick Griffin wasn't arrested for threatening a couple and posting their home address on a public medium...

Former Member

Its a good job it's not illegal to be an arsehole, or half this fucking country would be banged up. Me included. This is ridiculous. Not to say that if I had been there I wouldn't have punched him in the fucking face, he's got every right to be a disrespectful tosser, that's exactly what we are thankful for on Remembrance Sunday. Ironically enough.

Former Member

We only have half a story. From the looks of it that poppy being burnt and the comment was aimed at one person in particular. That person has made a complaint and the complaint has been upheld.

It's an be abusive to someone in public (sec 5.) and it's an offence to be abusive on the public communications network (sec 123.)

The only difference is, if you say something it's a lot harder to prove than if you write it down and send it to them in an email/IM. It takes a special kind of idiot to leave proof like that.

I deal with malicious comms offences on a regular basis unfortunately, a lot of the time it is just drivel and both parties are advised accordingly. A few times now the comments/messages have been particularly venemous/obscene so I've prosecuted those people.

Former Member

It was certainly offensive spelling - spelling squadey rather than squaddie. What's rather amusing is that the site where you can see the photo and judge for yourself has blurred out (what I assume) is the word cunts - presumably on the basis that someone could be offended

http://liberalconspiracy.org/author/admin/

Former Member

CptCoatHanger wrote: »

What frustrates me is having to saddle up and mount the Freedom of Speech horse for such bell-ends. I'll do it, with piss and vinegar if necessary, but I do rather wish there was something more righteous to get behind.

I know what you mean. There was a woman over here in the States the other day who got in trouble for some racist facebook posts about our president. But look at it this way; at least we're at the point where questions of free speech are being addressed at the fringes of exceptable behaviour rather than fighting for the ablitity to voice unpopular opinions. Lot of folks aren't so furtunate.

Former Member

John Cooper QC, who's offered to represent the bell-end free of charge should it come to court, has said the following, which I think sums it all up pretty well:

Freedom of speech is not just the freedom to say nice things, it is the freedom to say obnoxious and distasteful things as well. What we have here, is a stupid and foolish young man making an obnoxious gesture. But to potentially criminalise him and to arrest him is disproportionate and dangerous to the very fundamental freedom of speech

*Seany*

Interestingly (or scarily - depending on your preference), this guy wasn't actually arrested for burning a poppy wreath. That's not illegal (unless there are some obscure council bylaws on fires, but even then it'd be a civil offence). He was arrested for posting it online (constituting a 'malicious telecommunication' as Rubberskin pointed out above).

In the same vein, TheSite.org journalist, Holly, wrote a blog about how tweeting/facebooking certain things may well come back to bite you in the backside, which some of you might find interesting!

Former Member

I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with it being malicious communications - the guy is undoubtably an arse, but I'd be scared if being an arse (in whatever media you chose to do it) was criminal.