Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Seen, Jul 3, 2017.
I'm all for free speech and, as I think you all know, I'm a big fan of sick/near-the-knuckle jokes, but even I'm offended by this stunt (so it must be fucking bad)
Just to be clear, I'm not in any way defending them or what they did, they seem like a bunch of twats, but I can't really see how it's a police matter.
If they asmit they’ve filmed it with the intention of sharing it with a wider audience (even if it is only with a few friends)then i think they’ll be hammered. If they say they filmed it for their own viewing and “entertainment” I don’t see that as an offence in law - not that im an expert.
As RC says, people say and so offensive things about DT everyday and it’s laughed off but many are vile and nasty and likely to cause offense.
Who decides what is acceptable and what is punishable
But is it a criminal offence to cause offence to someone? The problem is, we're living in the age of the permanently offended. You only have to look at the "news" (I use the word in its broadest possible sense - you know, Daily Mail, Yahoo, that kind of stuff) every day to see the latest shitstorm raised in Twitter over the slightest little thing. Whatever you say, whatever you do, someone somewhere is going to take offence. Like you say at the end of your post, who decides what is acceptable and what is punishable?
For this Grenfell Tower/bonfire business (and in most situations, I suspect, although if I actually stop and think about it I might think of some situations where I change my mind), the only people I think can really take offence are those who were personally involved in some way, whether that be losing friends/family, involved in the rescue operation, involved in cleaning up afterwards, picking up the pieces for those who survived, whatever. In the aforementioned Twitter shitstorms, you see people getting offended on others' behalf - white people getting offended at some supposedly racist incident (against black people), all the stuff Seen posted a while back about "mansize" tissues, etc. Can you take offence at something that's not aimed at you personally? I don't find the bonfire incident offensive. Very poor taste, yes, but not offensive to me personally.
No offence intended to Seen, who said he was offended
Yes it is. It is an offence to use behaviour that causes another person harrassment, alarm or distress. If this isn't an example of something that would distress the relatives and survivors of the tower fire then, frankly, I don't know what is.
In my view (and as I said, I know fuck all about the law) their only defence is that this was never intended to get outside of the domain of those that took part and therefore any offence (and therefore, any offence if you see what I mean) is an unfortunate byproduct.
Which would raise the question of, could someone who set out to cause offence in future do something deliberately and make sure that it went onto the internet "accidentally" and use the same defence.
I don't know, it's a fucking minefield. As you say RC, people find ways to be offended every single day but few of them ever come to court. Some of those cases are going to be borderline and come down to an individual's point of view as to whether they justify legal action. I'm willing to bet that this particular one though would have the overwhelming public opinion that it can be judged as offensive, if not to everyone, at the very list to the people that you've already listed, which is enough in my view to make it an offence.
As I said though, for me it will come down to their explanation of how it was made public. If one of those that took part uploaded it to facebook then I think they'll get fucked with a big stick.
But more hypothetical doubts. If the offence is "behaviour that causes another person harrassment, alarm or distress", imagine (as you've suggested) that the people who recorded it didn't intend it to go public like it has. They show it to one friend, who finds it hilarious and decides to post it up on Facebook, at which point it goes viral. Is it then that one friend whose behaviour has caused harrassment, alarm or distress to the people involved with Grenfell, rather than the ones who had the bonfire? What share of the blame goes to those who share the video and forward it on to their friends?
I don't know what the law is on it but they obviously think they can't be touched otherwise the idiots wouldn't have posted it online, then bottled it and handed themselves in when they saw the shit hit the fan.
They'll be charged one way or another because it's now too big a story to brush under the carpet without public outrage.
'Cops were today seen rooting through the bins outside his house'
That's going a bit fcuking overboard imo considering you have to be murdered nowadays before they'll even respond.
What are they looking for, a cardboard Helicopter?.
Yeah, it's like if you get burgled a couple of disinterested cops will show up 4 days later (if you're lucky) to tell you there's nothing they can do, yet tweet something racist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic and they'll be smashing your door down in minutes
...this is the original report from 2011...
Not that it makes this incident any more of a hate crime, of course, but still.
I went to fill up at Asdas and because it had gone 8pm only the two pay with card pumps were switched on, which were in a single lane.
Both were occupied but the silly cunt using the pump nearest to the queue of cars waiting had parked about 5 ft from the pump so that when the first car had filled up and fcuked off nobody could get past the car to access the first pump.
The later car was occupied by two asian fella's who thought it was a good idea to get out of the car and have a good ole chinwag while filling up the car with constant hands off and off the pump while talking.
After about 5 mins they eventually put the pump back in it's holster then still had a chinwag for another couple of minutes before getting in the car, then another chinwag whilst in the car while the queue was building as was my blood pressure.
The car did eventually leave and I must have been about a millisecond from leaving my car and ripping the cunts doors off and it had nothing to do with them being Asian but all to do with them being a couple of ignorant pricks.
TUI refunds holiday for 'horrifying' dead son tribute
Hotel staff created a "horrifying" effigy of a couple's dead son in a misguided attempt at a tribute.
Karen Baker had arranged for workers at a Jamaican resort to dress a room for friends Faye and Andrew Stephens, whose son Alex died in 2014.
Instead, she was left "sweating and shaking" when met by the sight of a body made out of clothes lying on the hotel bed.
TUI UK refunded the family for the "misunderstanding".
The Stephens, from Willesden, north-west London, have made an annual tradition of celebrating their son's birthday since his death, aged 22, in 2014.
His godmother Ms Baker, from Hertfordshire, who was also on the trip, tipped two members of staff at the Royalton Jamaica Resort to secretly adorn the couple's bedroom with balloons and a cake.
Instead, they created the effigy, replete with tears on its face and a can of lager clutched in its hand, next to petals spelling out "We miss you Alex".
Mrs Baker, who first discovered the effigy, said she was "utterly horrified" and removed the dummy before her friends saw it.
"When I walked into the bedroom, all I can describe is a dummy body on the bed," she said.
"Staff had gone through my friend's wardrobe and stuffed the clothes with towels to make it look like a body on the bed. They even put tears down the face and a can of lager in his hand.
"I was absolutely horrified - as you can imagine I was sweating and shaking. We just didn't want our friends to see it.
"I have truly never seen anything like it. I still look at the photographs now and can't believe somebody thought to do that", she said.
A body was made out of the couple's clothes and found lying on the bed next to petals spelling out "we miss you Alex"
A TUI UK spokesperson said: "We offer our sincere apologies to the Baker party for their holiday experience in Jamaica.
"We're following up with the hotel and believe it was a misunderstanding with no intention to cause upset."
The family received a full refund of £1,300 per person for the five-star holiday after raising the issue on BBC Three Counties' JVS show.
I would have been in initially shocked but it wouldn't have left me shaking and sweating as mentioned, looking for a bit of compo me thinks.