Be Excellent To Each Other

This got a little lost in the BnB rush

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/1 ... ning-poppy

So what do we think of poppygate? Dude got arrested for posting a picture of a burning poppy on facebook during the 2 minute silence.

Personally, I think it was a horrible thing to do, but he had every right to do it if he wanted to. Arresting him for that? I hope the irony isn't lost to the police over the principles people have died for in service...

Yeah, it's a joke. I very much think he's a prick, but he didn't break any laws.

I should have rung the police and reported everyone I saw not wearing a poppy on Sunday.

Yeah, same. He's a nobbish troll, but locking him up for that is a worse crime (in a moral, rather than legal, sense) than the act itself. Removing someone's freedom.

What law did they say he broke? One of the rubbish new anti-hate ones? Or is he a TRRIZT?

Or did they have him for some sort of fire in a public place offence? That would be ace

I got confused. Maybe I meant The Vision's banning.

Free the BEEX One!

He is free? Oh.

There's fucking hundreds in our "banned" list. I was most surprised.

Once I found it.

"Malicious telecommunications" whatever that is.
Someone should warn MaliA...

I'm all for locking him up, myself. About time these pricks who think they can use the War Dead as some football/idle plaything for their own pathetic ends and/or self-promotion on the internet, one way or another, with no consequences, get their due comeuppance.

Serves the twat right. Hope he gets bummed mercilessly; should gentle him down some.

s127 communications act.

Well said, Cavey!

People fought and died so we wouldn't have freedom of speech!

Wait, no, I mean the other thing.

Sorry, just how I feel about it. S'only my opinion.

As we've debated many, many times before, "freedom of speech" should not be (and is not in actuality) absolutely unlimited. That's why we have libel laws for one thing, but that isn't the only example of where the right of freedom of speech is subordinate to a greater right. This is de facto "libeling" of the War Dead in my view.

What about people that don't wear one?

Oh, I don't care about them.

Not to say I care about the Vision, either. He's okay.

How is burning a poppy libelling the war dead?

Even taken at its worst, it's saying, "Fuck you squaddies, I hope you all die!", which is unpleasant and disagreeable, but not something that should be a crime unless there is a genuine threat implied.

If we're arresting and jailing people for just being arsey and mean to people then we're all fucked on here!

Cripes. I'll just say to everything Curio said.

Cavey, whilst I understand and sympathise with the sentiment, it's a bloody good job you're not in charge of the country. It'd be like political correctness gone mad. MAD.

People like politicians you mean? Line. Wall. Bang!

OK guys, whatever, like I say it's my opinion.

Fuck me, nothing like a post like this to drag people out the woodwork eh. I think this guy is a twat and deserves all he gets, and that's the end of it. I've answered Trooper's question.

Edit: Curio, the poppy is specifically used, and is symbolic of, the War Dead (and wounded) - not simply "squaddies".

Surely there's a difference between disrespect and defamation?

I kinda agree with Cavey. there is a difference between not showing support and trying to cause offence.

If you don't want to show support don't wear one. To burn one is to cause a reaction, similar to burning a holey book or a countries flag etc etc

The best response to seeing things you don't like is to close the browser, not call the police. It's depressing that the complainant wasn't done for wasting police time, or had a constable laugh in their face.

hasn't there been more cases of poppy burning?

The entire 'case' (such that it is) is bullshit (this wasn't just a knuckle-rapping but a full arrest/kept in cells, etc., judging by reports), but then we have a government that seems desperate to fap itself into oblivion on an upcoming WW1 anniversary, rather than recognising it for one of the most hellish events in human history, where arseholes sent millions to their deaths. I respect the soldiers, but it'd be nice to have a bit more balance when remembering the war itself. As for this poppy incident, it makes me furious; it's pretty clear precisely nothing was learned from the Twitter Joke Trial, and we're a whisker away from some very nasty shit happening regarding freedom of speech. But under that wonderful catch-all of 'offence', people are getting arrested and too many people are saying "jolly good show!", not realising the wider picture. (Note, of course, that you don't get jailed for being, say, being a Chief Whip who actually causes offence to an individual, because it would be terrible to have any sort of equality with this kind of thing.)

To expand on my question... is it not more offensive to have a group of arsehole politicians standing at the Cenotaph looking all sombre hungover & pretending to give a fuck?

I mean this year we had Tony the fucking lying bastard war criminal cunt Blair standing alongside Hamface, Osborne & their coward pal who together are doing a better job of decimating the armed forces than the fucking Taliban could ever hope to.


But nah, some wee fud that none of us have ever even heard of posting a picture on facebook is obviously much more offensive

If you burn Poppy around Remembrance Day then you should expect a reprisal

You only have to Tweet something slight offensive these days to be locked up.

Bit of disrespectful prick to be honest, it reminds me of when my great aunt died she was buried next to 3 of her brothers who all died in WWII. It was a different time etc but a lot of people and their families were torn apart by the deaths of people fighting Nazi’s.

Personally, I refuse to wear the poppy because of its increasingly politicised nature. I do, however, make donations to at least three poppy sellers a year. Do I respect the war dead? Of course. How does wearing a piece of plastic and paper make a difference to that.

I think the police have a duty to act on reported crime, or at least fill out a form (truth is, generally they appear to be an incompetent shower of idiots) and take action. Not taking action would probably cause them bother.

The way to resolve this would be to redraft s127 Communications Act, but that'd probably only stop charges, not Plank abd Twathead buffing their detection statistics. Also do s5 Public Order Act as well, as that is misused, too.

As regards the free speech element, there's a time and a place. This probably wasn't it.

Falls under Wheaton's law.

Yes, there's a time and a place if one wants to be polite. But saying that if you exercise free speech at the wrong time you're fair game for going to jail?

Criminalising people being pricks is a self evidently stupid idea. "Offence" couldn't be more subjective, and more open to abuse. The current bits on the statute books covering offensive messages over a communications device are a travesty.

Cf Paul Chambers, that poor barrister who discussed his gay sex life on the internet and got prosecuted for it that (although certifiably not morally clean) april jones joker chap who got 6 weeks in jail for a Facebook joke. FFS.

I'm half-tempted to ask my PCC candidates what they think.

But then, I live in an area where discussing the sexuality of a police horse is an arrestable offence.

I just tweeted my MP asking about his thoughts on it. Will reply at greater length when I am not on my phone.

Heh. I've gone off him of late. Mainly due to banging on about rescue dogs.

Just tweeted the three main party candidates with:

"Hello. Do you think people who are idiots on Twitter etc ought to be arrested, either under s127 communications act or other law?"

(I know PCCs can't interfere with operations, but they'll be setting the budget and framework as well as wanting my vote on Thursday)

Well, I'm no lawyer obv., but it seems to me that burning the very symbol representative of the War Dead and also those still living people who were wounded in such wars, on the very hour of their commemoration and in such a manner as to maximise publicity of it, is both willfully and demonstrably disparaging and defamatory, as well as being disrespectful also?

"Freedom of speech" is not unlimited, as I say. I am not "free" to willfully and deliberately defame someone, a group of people, or company, without risking the full force of the law, in the form of defamation/libel prosecution. (Similarly, I am not "free" to divulge official secrets or even commercially sensitive information, or even mundane stuff covered by the likes of the Data Protection Act et al. The actual concept and significant limitation of "free speech" seems lost on some people?)

As for Grim...'s poppy field being bombed example, well, that's completely irrelevant IMO. Even taken at face value, two wrongs don't make a right. (Same goes for Wullie's "all politicians are twats and how dare they stand by the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day" example, obviously).

All that aside, 'disrespect' would hardly seem to be an adequate term in this instance? I'd love to see this guy have to face a bunch of squaddies over this, or better yet, be made to do a tour in Afghanistan. Now that would be most excellent IMO. He can burn whatever he likes after that, in the unlikely event of him still being so inclined, as at least he would have earned it.

You are quite free to day bad things about groups of people without fear of a defamation action. Eg "All shop security guards are involved in crimial activity" is fine, but specific individuals and companies should avoid being named.

As regards your final point, I think tjey want to do that sort of thing now. Excuse brevity, need beer before I reenter the house of the coven.

This seems to boil down to when and what it was, really.

If I burned a pink ribbon instead of a poppy? Or a rainbow flag? Or the Union Jack? Or a picture of Muhammed? Or. A Chelsea shirt? Or a book on evolution?

Should those all be criminal offences punishable by imprisonment (and sodomy, apparently )?

I don't see the difference, and defending something you believe in and not those you do not is bad. As is making it illegal to cause offence.

I think most people can see the specific, intended connection of burning a poppy, the very symbol of the War Dead and their still living wounded comrades (as opposed to some totally random, irrelevant object like a "rainbow flag" or whatever), on Armistice Day of all days - and then deliberately broadcasting that fact on public media, so as to try and maximise the distress caused.

It's not what you'd call particularly esoteric symbolism; subtle it ain't. One does not need to think too hard in order to join the dots here.

I think you've missed Curio's point, Cavey.

Yes, you're entirely correct about what and when he did. But what if he burnt a quran during Eid? Or a pink ribbon on breast cancer day? Should he go to prison for that too?

The natural extension is that if we offend anyone, even someone who's dead, it's reasonable we should go to prison. You can't outlaw one thing and not the rest, when its just "offence" we're slamming someone up for.

I can't even believe this conversation's being had, to be honest.

A rainbow flag on Gay Pride Day; a pink ribbon on breast cancer awareness day.

Yes, what this person did was offensive and a dick move, no doubt.

But it can't be a criminal act. Not without legislating for anything that causes offence. Just because you have an affinity for the military, it doesn't make it legally protected above anything else people love and believe in. It can't be elevated like that, or you have personal opinion deciding who to prosecute of the millions of people being offensive on social media on a given day.

@Chris

I think this should be punishable, yes. Not necessarily prison (though in this case, I personally would like to see that happen as an example to all who would, and have done stuff like this).

By the way, at no point did I exclude other stuff like intentionally broadcasting the burning of a quran during Eid or even a pink ribbon on breast cancer day - I think exactly the same principle applies. They're after trolls on the web aren't they? Or perhaps we should accept these bullies and the misery they wilfully and maliciously inflict, up to and including the suicide of their vulnerable, blameless victims?

Of course it's a can of worms, of course it's subjective. To my mind though, a verbal assault can be just as damaging as a physical one. Anyone who uses the "it's just words, they can't hurt" argument is being stupid in my view.

I was really hoping you were excluding everything else. Including it all is insanity. Where do you draw the line, given that you're proposing punishing people for hurting people's feelings?

If you say mean stuff about Labour can Peter get you locked up?

I agree this is difficult and subjective, but the dreaded "common sense" must surely apply. We don't lock people up for doing 31mph in a 30 zone, but we do if they're doing 90. I know it's a poor analogy as speed is a measurable parameter, but it's the same principle in libel cases generally and for the setting of damages in such cases for that matter.

There's clearly a world of difference between being careless, uncivil and even willfully offensive, and what this guy clearly premeditated, planned and went out and did.

(Btw, Peter and I have only ever disagreed about politics - but he's a good friend of mine. We've had some right ding dongs but it's hardly as though I've ever set out to deliberately offend him, less still pull anything like this kind of shit)

To exclude other stuff would be tantamount to saying "only things that really piss Cavey off personally should make it to the Statute Book" which clearly would be ridiculous, even by my standards.

For setting the level of damages, yes, not for determining whether libel has occurred. Speeding is a terrible analogy, as is libel, for that matter, as libel is "saying something untrue about someone that damages their reputation", basically. If you can prove what you said is true, you're off scot free. No grey areas there.


Yes, there is. But we've already seen with the "offensive messages by electronic communications" how this can be misused, or over applied. Even more so where the definition of the criminal offence concerned can cover everything from being just a bit offensive and what this guy did.

I'm genuinely staggered that you think common sense comes anywhere near the idea of locking people up for being offensive.


Well yes, quite, but in your brave new world if he ever got fed up all he'd have to do is say you'd offended him and off you go to gaol.

How do you prove you've been offended? You can't, so it's just a case of asserting something.

Did the guy pay for the poppy? What if he burnt the money instead?

Surely that'd be worse because everyone loves money. And think of all the poor people in the world.

Seriously though, the guys a bit of a dick and I feel that there probably should be some sort of recrimination for it - like being banned from facebook/twitter/forum/whatever, but a heavy police response and being banged up is a real over-reaction and I find that a little bit frightening to be honest.

That's because you get hopelessly turned on by thuggishness, you brainless old jackbooted bovver boy.

Get fucked, you tiresome little arse.

Well yes, that was my key point: the setting of damages (in a libel or defamation case) is already an entirely subjective matter, itself in turn based on intangibles such as 'damage to reputation' and suchlike. One court would therefore doubtless give a different result from another, if presented with precisely the same information and outcome. The point here is that, inevitably, subjective judgement calls are already firmly ingrained into the system; it's not as though we always have the luxury of objective, measurable parameters/evidence, in all matters concerning the law anyway.



My understanding of libel and defamation was that it's not only merely a case of saying something untrue that damages someone's reputation. You're the lawyer of course, not I, but this is what Wiki has to say about it (emphases are mine):



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

So, some grey area then?

In terms of the "group" being given "a negative or inferior image", to my mind there isn't too much of a leap to be made here in this particular example? The "group" are the surviving wounded War Veterans of whom the poppy specifically represents as a collective, most especially on Armistice Day. Burning said poppy, in this specific, derogatory and publicised manner, would seem to constitute and/or likely give rise to "a negative or inferior image"?




So, we're agreed then; if this distinction can reasonably and sensibly be made by the likes of you or I, it can certainly be made by an officer of the law, the CPS and/or a court (or jury for that matter). Good.



The fact that laws have been badly drawn up and/or badly applied (or indeed misapplied) does not in any way impinge upon the principle that there should, in my view, be legal sanction for conduct such as this. Look, I'm arguing a broad principle here, I'm not attempting to formulate an entire legal framework/manifesto. It's perfectly valid for me to express this viewpoint in broad terms.



Once again, I specifically did not say that. Legal sanction does not necessarily mean "locking people up" by default; that may be appropriate in extreme, repeat offender cases but equally, a £50 fine and/or community service may be appropriate.



I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. I'm not talking about people merely *disagreeing* with each others' views here, as I would've thought obvious to be honest mate.

No. I don't see what the defamation is. What has the image claimed about the war dead?


Agreed,


So your disagreement is by degree, rather than form. It's a massive disrespect, egregious, but still disrespect rather than defamation. Your solution of soldier assault is probably a more appropriate punishment than incarceration.