The Brit Thread

POSTED BY: peacekeeper
UPDATED: Monday, December 15, 2025 22:01
VIEWED: 6928
PAGE 3 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
No, you're not missing anything Rouka, that's how it is - the right to free speech (of the nasty variety)is not as respected here as in America. I personally find this kind of example quite worrying; I don't think the slope is as slippery as some here would probably argue, but I thought our principles of free-speech were stronger than this. In any case I think a twelve week jail term is ridiculous. I would limit the punishment for this kind of offense to a fine, probably just for the most extreme cases.

Quote:
Who decides what is grossly offensive?

There's probably a complex legal definition.

It's not personal. It's just war.

Thanks for the replies, PK and KPO.

It's not that I think this sort of horrible public comment should be without consequences or even, necessarily, beyond the reach of legal action. But the jail term does seem, to me, frighteningly extreme.

I looked up the law under which he was charged, the Communications Act of 2003, Section 127.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents

Quote:
127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

It just strikes me as so incredibly vague. Yes, what PN posts is disgusting, but I would never want to send him to jail over it.

If the guy had been specifically charged with slander or something pertaining directly to the victim and her family, something that specified a personal attack, which it appears to have been, if indirectly, I would feel less comfortable about this, but it appears that this law essentially responds to solely public sensitivity, which is incredibly subjective.

And even so, a fine should, in my eyes, be the full extend of the punishment. Jail time up to six months? For saying rude shit online? What about that bullshit Anti-Mohammed film, wouldn't that be considered grossly offensive by a large number of people? Would that be subject to jail time all by itself?

And I don't mean to imply that Britain is an unfree country with no regard for free speech or any general extrapolation of that sort. I was just startled by this specific thing and wanted to bring it up.

PEACEKEEPER

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:40 AM

I agree that the law is subjective.I'm sure that in a month or so, Sikipedia will be publishing jokes of that ilk and face no legal consequence whatsoever.
I don't know how it is elsewhere, but it seems that we are a nation that often gets through adversity by sticking up two fingers to it all and makes a big joke out of pretty much anything. I think this has been so harshly judged, because some subjects SHOULD always be taboo, particularly while the event is still unfolding, and on this occasion my first reaction is to praise the law for stamping it out.But I do see where you are coming from.
There are silly interpretations of law wherever you go in the world.I can remember a case not too long ago where a couple of Brits texts were intercepted where they were saying they were in America to "blow it to hell". The US authorities, not understanding the cultural slang for "partying", took it literally and threw them out of the airport straight back on the next plane.
But, when you consider the events that led to such paranoia, who are we to judge it.But I don't think there is any ambiguity than can be lodged in the respect of the above case.

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

NIKI2

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:22 PM

PK, one of the things I've always loved about DW is that it's SUPPOSED to be corny...and has held up its end excellently on that score. I wouldn't be caught dead watching "Elementary" because I'm offended that they're trying to Americanize it...and don't get me STARTED on Bond. Doll, he's been bought and paid for, long since hollywoodized and Americanized. I mean, Timothy Dalton, for heaven's sake? Being Brit isn't, in my opinion, all it takes to be Bond!

Magons, I know there's violence the world over, it's contemplating that while

Quote:
Abduction type murders are still rare enough to attract a lot of media attention

NOW, I'm guessing you're on the way to being like us, where they're common enough that they only get local attention, if that. Saddens me immeasurably.

As to DW being "Americanized", yeah--thus far, for me at least, keeping the characters Brit has been sufficient, and I'm praying they don't ever try to bring him back as a Yank after one of his regenerations. That would piss me off big time!

As an aside, it was an on-line Ozzie friend of long standing who introduced me to Torchwood--the offshoot of DW--and I THOROUGHLY enjoyed it for its short-lived incarnation (especially as James Marsters did some great guest spots...sigh...). Wish they'd do more...

As to the guns thing, I think Frem nailed it all the way down the line! We're stuck with how we began, with the Wild West mentality and our start as an insurrection, but I wouldn't wish it on any other country! Many of us would like it to be otherwise, but history molds societies, so it goes.

I, too, find the punishment for that guy worrying...if anything had to be done, a fine would be the most I would like to see. Apparently you guys AREN'T as obsessive about free speech as over here. In some respects I like that, as there are things such as the one you described which I don't think should just be allowed, but given the example, which I feel is way over the top, I guess I'd rather have our free speech, much as it pisses me off frequently.

As to the marijuana bush, what a lovely bush; can you blame the couple for growing it? Cannabis plants are quite lovely by themselves, too bad their product is forbidden. And it's a weed; it'll grow just about anywhere. Which is on reason Humboldt Gold does so well...that's temperate rainforest up there, lotsa fog and much cooler temps than down here, but it grows just great nonetheless.

(Thanx for bringing us something we can discuss outside our own political circus for a change, PK!)

PEACEKEEPER

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:58 PM

Quote;PK, one of the things I've always loved about DW is that it's SUPPOSED to be corny...and has held up its end excellently on that score. I wouldn't be caught dead watching "Elementary" because I'm offended that they're trying to Americanize it...and don't get me STARTED on Bond. Doll, he's been bought and paid for, long since hollywoodized and Americanized. I mean, Timothy Dalton, for heaven's sake? Being Brit isn't, in my opinion, all it takes to be Bond!

I have to disagree my lovely.Being a Brit is THE main consideration for being Bond.Mr Dalton wasn't the greatest incarnation, I grant you, and Mr Lazenby bombed like a Zeppelin partly because he wasn't British.Brosnan at least pretended to be a Brit(he is in fact an Irishman).But I would rather have a third rate Brit than a first rate Yank anyday. I know MGM et al provide much of the capital, but it is always produced at Pinewood and that shouldn't change for love nor money. I think an American Bond would KILL the franchise.

It's not just Elementary being in New York that is bothering me.It's the choice of Johnny Lee Miller as Sherlock that is a shocking piece of casting.He is just NOT the man for the job.What next, Justin Bieber in Downton Abbey???.Speaking of which, THAT is a fantastic piece of British Drama that has benefitted immensely from a US input.

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

NIKI2

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:04 PM

Quote:
Justin Bieber in Downton Abbey?

PEACEKEEPER

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:10 PM

With reference to the Jimmy Saville debate, the FAMILY have now removed his headstone from his grave to "Respect Public Opinion" and his charitable trust, which has made millions of pounds for disabled charities over 40years of work, are now changing their name to reflect public opinion. I find this SO troubling that a man's name can be maligned so tragically on hearsay. This is not justice under any circumstance. If these allegations were true, and I'm not saying they aren't, surely they cant be allowed after a man has died and been buried for so long.
I find it all very disturbing.

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

NIKI2

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:15 PM

Oh gawd, PK, that is TRULY awful! To have all that result from nothing but innuendo, to appease "public opinion", makes me just want to...well, shit, on second thought it's no surprise, is it? The trust can no doubt garner more contributions without his name, and I suppose the gravestone can be put back up after it all dies down. But the principle of the thing just sickens me.

I guess in stuff like this you guys are no beter than us...I imagine that nonprofit Sandusky worked with is trying to find ways to distance itself from him, too.

Sometimes I despair of all humanity...often, actually...

(you changed the name of this, didn't you, stinker? Confused me, it did, and I don't need no more confusion than I already got!) ;o)

PEACEKEEPER

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:31 PM

I thought the name change might garner a bit more interest from fellow contributors from my side of the puddle.Perhaps it could be a permanent thread for us. And plus the fact, I had to take your name from the thread to "Reflect Public Opinion"!!!!!. {And you knows that a joke, my love.lol)

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
With reference to the Jimmy Saville debate, the FAMILY have now removed his headstone from his grave to "Respect Public Opinion" and his charitable trust, which has made millions of pounds for disabled charities over 40years of work, are now changing their name to reflect public opinion. I find this SO troubling that a man's name can be maligned so tragically on hearsay. This is not justice under any circumstance. If these allegations were true, and I'm not saying they aren't, surely they cant be allowed after a man has died and been buried for so long.
I find it all very disturbing.

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

From what I have read about Saville, the fact that he was a sexual preditor of very young girls was widely known and accepted in the showbiz community, who must have done a bit of a Catholic Church in keeping quiet and covering up. Now I think that is the interesting story, why this behaviour was left unchecked and unreported.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Magons, I know there's violence the world over, it's contemplating that while
Quote:
Abduction type murders are still rare enough to attract a lot of media attention
NOW, I'm guessing you're on the way to being like us, where they're common enough that they only get local attention, if that. Saddens me immeasurably.

I don't think we're on our way to being like you, per se, as much as your country demonstrates what can happen when societies get too large, inequity becomes too great and you have in place some pretty zany gun laws (or lack of them).

I think levels of violence in countries is a complex thing to explore, so it isn't just about descending to the level of the US, whatever that might be, but looking at what are the factors involved that reduce/increase violent crime.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE