Teen Arrested for Posting Picture of Burning Poppy Online (UK)

pablomakaveli

Its not just poppy burning where this is a problem its even a bigger problem with twitter. I dot think idiots who do stuff like this should be prosecuted. Better for everyone to just ridicule them and make them realize what idiots they are.

Chuck Stone

The British need a constitution.

Zebra3

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I don't know about that.

The UK is a terrorist target due to its foreign policy, so it's more paranoid about these things and needs laws to give it increased powers.
We don't "need" those laws.

Britain has long since brought in powers that has seen it gently slide into an Orwellian nightmare.

It's own citizens are suffering as a result.

ArmaniJeanss

conorhal wrote: »

It would be great if they actually were silencing extremists or applying the law equally, but as I pointed out earlier, they are releasing Abu Qatatda today because they can't deport the poor precious to a country where he's wanted for terrorism.
Since I never hear of islamists getting hauled in for chanting death threats at a protest or handing out vile leflets outside a mosque I can only assume that these laws are being far from equally applied.

FWIW, a Muslim was fined £50 for a poppy burning offence during 2011 Remembrance.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3452429/.html

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

Britain has long since brought in powers that has seen it gently slide into an Orwellian nightmare.

It's own citizens are suffering as a result.

Oh Please.

This is a stupid piece of over policing, but Orwellian nightmare? You sound like Run to Da Hills.

Allyall

You're barely allowed to fart in the UK, without the fear that somebody may get offended..

You can get arrested for indecency.. :eek:

Adjective

indecent

1. offensive to good taste
2. not in keeping with conventional moral values; improper, immodest or unseemly

Synonyms

• (offensive to good taste): distasteful, in bad taste, in poor taste, offensive
• (not in keeping with conventional moral values): immodest, immoral, improper, unseemly

From HERE

UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant.

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[60] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[61][62] incitement,[63] incitement to racial hatred,[64] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[63][65] glorifying terrorism,[66][67] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[68][69] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[70] sedition,[70] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[71] defamation,[72] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[73][74] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[74] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[74][75] time, manner, and place restrictions,[76] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

You can get done for imagining the death of the Queen? :eek: How the F*ck would they prove that?

karma_

What he should have done is went to Belfast and burned a tricolour, wouldn't be arrested for that. ( Not that he should by the way.)

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The British need a constitution.

Why, so it can introduce anti Blasphemy laws like Ireland?

Nodin

Allyall wrote: »

You can get done for imagining the death of the Queen? :eek: How the F*ck would they prove that?

So if she reaches 90 and gets taken into hospital, they arrest anyone whose seen the news?

Manic Moran

FWIW, this is how the freedom of speech is described in the UK on Wiki.

In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[61][62] incitement,[63] incitement to racial hatred,[64] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[63][65] glorifying terrorism,[66][67] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[68][69] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[70] sedition,[70] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[71] defamation,[72] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[73][74] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[74] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[74][75] time, manner, and place restrictions,[76] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

I can see a number of those covering, to include 'hate speech'. Although many countries with 'hate speech' laws (a generic term) require that the hatred be along racial, ethnic, religious etc lines, not all do. The UK is one of these latter countries.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Part 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Part 4A states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Definitely qualifies here.

For the record, the Irish Constitution requires that the speech "shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State." Once can consider 'poppy burning' to be an attack on the organ of government that is the Army. Though I can't exactly see the Gardai expending much effort on whatever the Irish equivalent is, I can see how it could be covered.

Big Bottom

So people are willing to condone someone punching a child one day and cast a blind eye to this? Some of the things on here are unreal.

pablomakaveli

karma_ wrote: »

What he should have done is went to Belfast and burned a tricolour, wouldn't be arrested for that. ( Not that he should by the way.)

Out of curiosity i wonder would it be possible to prosecute loyalists who burn the tricolour on their bonfires on the 12 of july under the current legislation.

karma_

Big Bottom wrote: »

So people are willing to condone someone punching a child one day and cast a blind eye to this? Some of the things on here are unreal.

That's a fúckin' stretch and a half, comparing punching a child to what essentially amounts to destroying a moulded piece of plastic.

It's a dick move but to give someone a criminal record seems a tad extreme, is being an idiot criminal these days?

hatrickpatrick

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Free Speech would be not wearing a poppy, or starting a blog or perhaps uploading a youtube clip explaining why he feels poppy wearing (or remembrance day itself ) is wrong.

Free speech is not being filmed burning a poppy on November 11th whilst calling members of the armed forces 'squaddie cnuts'.

I'll defend the rights of the former to the death, whilst happily seeing the latter up in court.

Free speech is not being arrested for mere words or statements.
Bad taste and hurting people's feelings is not and should not be a criminal offense. Where do you draw the line if it is?

Gbear

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The correction wasn't needed, the taliban did reduce cultivation.

Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004–2007) than in any one year during Taliban rule. Also, more land is now used for opium in Afghanistan than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 92% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.

And where is all that money going? The taliban.

Cliste wrote: »

also props on the subtle Godwins ;-)

People don't seem to know what that means any more. It doesn't cover any reference to Nazi Germany.

Equal opportunity offence - what true freedom of expression should entail. I don't want to be seen to be taking sides so burn things that everyone despises and things that people seem to rush to wring their hands about.

You're burning a ****ing flower/flag/ornament/any other completely irrelevant inanimate object.

wes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why, so it can introduce anti Blasphemy laws like Ireland?

They had there own as recently as 2008:
Blasphemy laws are lifted

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh Please.

This is a stupid piece of over policing, but Orwellian nightmare?

Yeah, cos it's not exactly an isolated incident.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/12/arrested-poppy-burning-beware-tyranny-decency

Big Bottom

That person should be made give Veterans some home help as punishment.

Either that or community service.

Younger generations forget too easily what previous generations had to sacrifice for what we have today. Freedom!

AllGunsBlazing

Big Bottom wrote: »

That person should be made give Veterans some home help as punishment.

Either that or community service.

Younger generations forget too easily what previous generations had to sacrifice for what we have today. Freedom!

Just so long as that freedom doesn't extend to burning a plastic flower?

Zebra3

Big Bottom wrote: »

That person should be made give Veterans some home help as punishment.

Either that or community service.

Younger generations forget too easily what previous generations had to sacrifice for what we have today. Freedom!

Oh, spare us.

The world wars were fought between empires trying to occupy and crush people they deem racially inferior. Germany wanted eastern Europe, Britain wanted India and more.

Anyway, seems the so-called offence that was allegedly caused was reported by an organised group of right-wing nutjobs.

https://twitter.com/wegowherewewant/status/267998931630305280

Duggys Housemate

In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[61][62] incitement,[63] incitement to racial hatred,[64] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[63][65] glorifying terrorism,[66][67] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[68][69] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[70] sedition,[70] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[71] defamation,[72] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[73][74] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[74] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[74][75] time, manner, and place restrictions,[76] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

There's a freedom of speech law which might as well not exist. You end up with less than you would have thought.

Aodh Rua

Given the context, fair play to that kid. Among the poppy fascism which ensures that every single person (except Jon Snow) on British television is forced to wear the British poppy, it is completely refreshing to see at least one person (besides Jon Snow) is willing to slaughter the sacred cow of the poppy.

This intolerance for people who don't wear the British poppy is up there with something one would find in Taliban-run Afghanistan. It's incomprehensible that this jingoistic nastiness and intolerance is going on in a western liberal democracy like Britain.

Gbear

Aodh Rua wrote: »

This intolerance for people who don't wear the British poppy is up there with something one would find in Taliban-run Afghanistan. It's incomprehensible that this jingoistic nastiness and intolerance is going on in a western liberal democracy like Britain.

It really isn't "up there" but it's wrong for the same reason.

GLaDOS

The funny thing is, by arresting him, he's getting more publicity than he ever would have gotten otherwise, therefore spreading his 'offensive' message further than he could have possibly done by himself.

opti0nal

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yeah, cos it's not exactly an isolated incident.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/12/arrested-poppy-burning-beware-tyranny-decency

Or the eejit who got angry about delays at Ribin Hood Airport .

There's also been a case recently of two pervs who exchanged obscene private IMs and got done for 'publishing' an obscene statement.

BlaasForRafa

What this fella did was stupid and insensitive but that's no reason to arrest him let alone charge him. The police shouldn't be wasting their time on trivialities like this.

Rascasse

The DPP for England and Wales announced a review a while ago as it was clear this was getting out of hand. Though some people should think before they tweet.

The emerging thinking is that it might be sensible to divide and separate cases where there's a campaign of harassment, [or] cases where there's a credible and general threat, and prosecute in those sorts of cases.

"And put in another category communications which are, as it were, merely offensive or grossly offensive.

"[It] doesn't mean the second category are ring-fenced form prosecution, but it does I think enable us to think of that group in a slightly different way."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19910865

opti0nal

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

What this fella did was stupid and insensitive but that's no reason to arrest him let alone charge him. The police shouldn't be wasting their time on trivialities like this.

No, they've got much more important things to do:

Man held in police station for eight hours after taking pictures of Christmas celebrations in Accrington

He and his friend were taking photographs of Christmas festivities on 19 December, after attending a photography exhibition. The last images on his camera before he was stopped show a picture of a Santa Claus, people in fancy dress and a pipe band marching through the town.
He turned on his video camera the moment he was approached by a police community support officer (PCSO). In the footage, she said: "Because of the Terrorism Act and everything in the country, we need to get everyone's details who is taking pictures of the town.

or

Another London photographer arrested for "terrorism" (i.e. "taking a picture of a public building")

A photographer who spent his whole life photographing and painting around his home neighbourhood of Elephant and Castle in London was arrested under anti-terror laws and jailed, his DNA and fingerprints taken. He was released after five hours, once his Member of Parliament intervened. Under current policies, his DNA will remain on file forever -- though the EU has ordered Britain to cease this practice.

kowloon

I misread the title as '...burning puppy' . Glad I was wrong.

squod

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Police........... Kent

Stopped reading there.

Logical_Bear

Big Bottom wrote: »

So people are willing to condone someone punching a child that prodduced a knife and tried to mug a person on the way to work one day and cast a blind eye to this? Some of the things on here are unreal.

fyp

Míshásta

roughneck wrote: »

If the same law applied here ,we could get done for drowning the shamrock :

LOL

sdanseo

The UK government/police need to take out the rod they've had rammed up their arse for the last few years. This sort of crap is internet trolling, yes, but not worthy of being criminal.

Victor

leggo wrote: »

Freedom of speech is an idea that people believe exists thanks to watching American movies (and spending too much time on Reddit). We don't have a first amendment to our constitution in Ireland, the UK or Europe. It's not a 'thing' here.

***Cough***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland#List_of_amendments

http://www.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionofIreland.pdf

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Personal Rights
Article 40
...

6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

...

***Cough***

Big Bottom

Logical_Bear wrote: »

fyp

lol!

looks more like you botched my post!
Good attempt though!

Run_to_da_hills

This is an exercise designed to put fear into you and restrict free expression.

It is more than likely organised by the top level Freemasons in the police force.

Rascasse

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is an exercise designed to put fear into you and restrict free expression.

It is more than likely organised by the top level Freemasons in the police force.

Bet the fecking lizards are involved too. The bastards.

BlackEdelweiss

Can you imagine what they would do to you if you and a group of friends ran around a city dressed as soilders and shot 26 people, killing 13 of them at a civil rights march. Oh that's right, nothing!

extra gravy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The British need a constitution.

They have one, it's just not codified like ours is.

Frito

Opium from a Remembrance poppy? No chandu, kid. Put away your dream stick, there's nowt to see here.

Kev.OC

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't actually believe its free speech under most European countries definitions. Calling me, as a member of the UK Armed Forces, 'a squaddie cnut' violates my right not to be insulted as I go about my daily life. Why should some vague definition of 'free speech' trump this.
I'll defend your right to criticise the army and its employees though. This is what free speech means, and we have that in abundance despite hilarious ill-conceived comparisons to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (below).

I'm sorry but I had to call this up. No where in the UN Charter of Human Rights is there a right to not be insulted. I remember a comedian saying at one stage, and I'm paraphrasing here, that offence can't be given. The accepted terminology is to "take offence". Someone can take offence to something, but one can't "give" offence.

Looking through this thread, other posters have supplied links to various articles of a number of English laws. I think it was the European Convention (specifically Article 10) they incorporated into their domestic law in 1998 that mentions "insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace" and "indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency". From a long list of exceptions to the freedom of speech, I believe these are the most likely to be in play here.

At the end of the day, it seems the lad went out of his way to post a provocative picture on facebook, just to get a reaction. We can reasonably deduce he's not exactly a frontrunner for a Nobel Peace Prize at any stage in the near future. But if being a dick was an arrestable offence, there's very few of us here that wouldn't have seen a jail cell at some stage.

Nodin

Rascasse wrote: »

Bet the fecking lizards are involved too. The bastards.

....you think its bad now, wait till the anti-christ lizard gets here.

Scruffles

wes wrote: »

So much for free speech in the UK. Not the first time something like this has happened. There was another lad who said some in fairness really nasty stuff about British soldiers, who was up in court over it. Just goes to show that even in some parts of Europe, we don't really have free speech.

there is free speech,but with free speech comes consequences,its cause and effect.

this lad doesnt have to respect the actions of soldiers but he deliberately went out of his way to be a nob on rememberence sunday,am not in agreement with how far its gone but he needs to learn basic respect of his fellow man/woman,if he was going to do that out of his true belief he coud of left the dickish anti social behavior behind and done it on a different day.

hatrickpatrick

Scruffles wrote: »

there is free speech,but with free speech comes consequences,its cause and effect.

this lad doesnt have to respect the actions of soldiers but he deliberately went out of his way to be a nob on rememberence sunday,am not in agreement with how far its gone but he needs to learn basic respect of his fellow man/woman,if he was going to do that out of his true belief he coud of left the dickish anti social behavior behind and done it on a different day.

Being a knob is not illegal and should not be illegal.

end of the road

Big Bottom wrote: »

Disgracefully inconsiderate thing to do.

i think we all agree with that, but being such is not an arrestable or jailing offense nor should it be.

Big Bottom wrote: »

A few days in a cell might show him not to be so uncaring in the future.

i suspect your trying to wind up people but just incase your not, you really need to grow up. jail is for serious criminals who can't be in society, not "to show one not to be so uncaring in the future"
it was a picture of a burning poppy, the person who reported this to the police is the person who should be up before the courts for wasting police time.

dd972

check out Steve Bell's Guardian cartoon if no one's mentioned it already

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/13/remembrance-day-burning-poppy-cartoon


think this will put the thread to bed

end of the road

Big Bottom wrote: »

So people are willing to condone someone punching a child one day and cast a blind eye to this? Some of the things on here are unreal.

punching a child is an actual criminal offense and rightly so (even though one would feel like punching some of the ferrile youths who run riot round our towns and cities) burning poppys and especially posting a picture of one burning on the other hand, not something to waste time money or resources on

wes

Scruffles wrote: »

there is free speech,but with free speech comes consequences,its cause and effect.

Sure, but none of those consequence should involve jail time. The worst that should happen is some social censure, but personally the smart thing to do would be ignore someone looking for attention, as opposed to arresting him and giving him exactly what he wants.

Scruffles wrote: »

this lad doesnt have to respect the actions of soldiers but he deliberately went out of his way to be a nob on rememberence sunday,am not in agreement with how far its gone but he needs to learn basic respect of his fellow man/woman,if he was going to do that out of his true belief he coud of left the dickish anti social behavior behind and done it on a different day.

So? Doesn't deserve to go to jail for being a dick. Plenty of people are dicks all the time. If he wasn't arrested no one would know what he did. So, by arresting him, now his message will get even more attention. So well done to the people who found this so offensive that they felt he should be arrested. They just gave his message more reach, then it could ever have hoped to have gotten otherwise.

old hippy

BlackEdelweiss wrote: »

Can you imagine what they would do to you if you and a group of friends ran around a city dressed as soilders and shot 26 people, killing 13 of them at a civil rights march. Oh that's right, nothing!

Different times, different crimes

wes

end of the road wrote: »

punching a child is an actual criminal offense and rightly so

The poster your replying to left out the part, where the child in question had a knife and was threatening to stab someone, unless they handed over there wallet and phone. So not a criminal act, but an act of self defense.