Tasteless yes, criminal? Really?

[Audley Strange]

Actually, I think I might get twitter follow all politicians, celebrities and journo's and cops in the U.K. and make complaints about everything they say that could be found offensive by anyone.

Laws against harsh rhetoric, what the fuck next, fines for starting anecdotes mis-en-scene, jail-terms for Irony? When Jan Moir says something that insenses the nation in a national newspaper, I want the fat cunt in custody.

Dangerous precedents, signifiers of ugly times ahead, a society of mollycoddled infantile totalitarian cowards. Can't say I'm surprised.

[JimC]

I don't think she said it as a joke.

I think she meant every word.

I hope the community work involves cleaning public toilets on Sundays...

Or better, on fridays... or are sunday public toilets extra yucky?

My thought involved saturday night drunks using the public toilets... :twisted:

[devogue]

So she tweeted:

"To be honest, if you wear a Help for Heroes t-shirt you deserve to be beheaded."

...and she got a criminal record, 250 hours of unpaid work as punishment, and was told she was lucky not be jailed (up to six months).

Utter fucking insanity.

And how shite were her lawyers, advising her to roll over and take it? This piece of shit could be torn apart in thirty seconds by a dozen people here I could name off the top of my head, never mind a fucking professional legal bod:

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8.20830, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/comm ... _offences/

The magistrate said:

"It had a huge impact and clearly caused offence and distress. We accept you didn't intend to cause harm and you felt it was a joke.

Now read the critical part of the law again: "the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive...provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient."

So if the magistrates accept she meant no harm, and that she meant to humour people, how the fuck could they possibly interpret that as "intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient"? Why the hell didn't her solicitor stand up and make that point immediately?

As for "distress", "anxiety", "gross offence" and all that other stupid bollocks, that was shredded long ago.

She should fucking appeal, instead of meekly accepting this disgusting injustice.

[devogue]

And this in a world in which Richard fucking Littlejohn exists.

[mistermack]

Hyperbole, I'm sure, but do you find this acceptable? Being convicted of what is essentially hurting someone's feelings that is.

We definitely have some bloody stupid laws here.

The laws are a worry, in terms of free speech I suppose, but I can't help feeling glad that the silly cunt has to do community service...

Why? I've said worse things about the Queen. Should I get community service too?

So have I. I've often said that come the revolution, I'd be quite happy to pull the lever on the guillotine.
But that's in the context of a debate about Royalty.
I think if you said it just after one of the royals had been beheaded, you'd probably deserve some pretty serious consequences.
The context has to come into it. And the likelihood of a breach of the peace being provoked by your words.

[Jason]

I think if you said it just after one of the royals had been beheaded, you'd probably deserve some pretty serious consequences.
The context has to come into it. And the likelihood of a breach of the peace being provoked by your words.

When did I shift into an alternate universe where I'm held responsible for how others choose to respond to what I say? Oh, I didn't.

Here's some context for you: You live in a corrupt, authoritarian, state. Abuse of power is rampant. Oppression is commonplace. Redistribution of wealth serves only select groups. People are tried for expressing themselves in a way the state disapproves of. No, it's not the USSR.

[Audley Strange]

I think if you said it just after one of the royals had been beheaded, you'd probably deserve some pretty serious consequences.
The context has to come into it. And the likelihood of a breach of the peace being provoked by your words.

When did I shift into an alternate universe where I'm held responsible for how others choose to respond to what I say? Oh, I didn't.

Here's some context for you: You live in a corrupt, authoritarian, state. Abuse of power is rampant. Oppression is commonplace. Redistribution of wealth serves only select groups. People are tried for expressing themselves in a way the state disapproves of. No, it's not the USSR.

The normal position is "it can't happen here" usually while it is.

[Mysturji]

And what about the people who threatened to rape and/or kill her? What about the arson threats? Are those going to be prosecuted?

Don't be silly. Those tweets were not insensitive® or provocative©. They tweeted in Righteous IndignationTM.