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

ArmaniJeanss

wes wrote: »

Yes, what he did was free speech actually. Now if your against free speech, then fair enough. Your perfectly entitled to that position, but to pretend that you are for free speech, and that what this guy wasn't free is utter nonsense.

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).

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Get back to me when you have googled "Freedom of Expression".
Even in the USA it is legal to burn the stars and stripes ffs!
The idea that a wholly peaceful act of protest, that had no racist overtones, no call to arms or violence could be a prosecutable offence in a supposedly modern western European democracy is beyond comprehension.
Like I said more like something one would expect of Britains great allies, the Saudis and Bahrainis.

LordSutch

krudler wrote: »

Being a dick is an arrestable offence now?

Its the fact that he went to the trouble of posting the picture on the internet, he broadcast the picture of a burning poppy on poppy day!!!

If he had kept it to himself then fair enough . . . .

Grayson

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).

By your definition, every comedian ever should be locked up if someone didn't find one of their jokes funny.

recylingbin

I was arrested last time I burnt a poppy.

Zebra3

conorhal wrote: »

What's really hilarious is that they're releasing Abu Qatada today because they can't deport a wanted terrorist! So it would appear that in the UK you can plan a murderous bombing campaign and sit pretty, but burn a paper poppy......

Sure isn't even Tony Blair walking around with nothing to worry about.....

DavyD_83

Idiot; Yes
Criminal; No

pickarooney

Burning poppies sounds like something the Taliban would do

GRMA

LordSutch wrote: »

Its the fact that he went to the trouble of posting the picture on the internet, he broadcast the picture of a burning poppy on poppy day!!!

If he had kept it to himself then fair enough . . . .

What use is a protest, political expression if you do it in secret? He was a bit of a dick and I wouldnt do it myself but it was his facebook (?) and he doesnt deserve to be arrested.

Gbear

We should start international burn a poppy day in solidarity.


Or how about international burn everything day?

National flags, poppies, bibles, korans, pictures of Obama, swastikas - if you own it (and it doesn't represent a health hazard or cause large amounts of chemicals to be released) you can burn it.

A big **** you to the industry of getting offended, in other words.

CreepingDeath

The UK is getting scary with it's thought police.

Probably because they introduced laws to try and silence extremists in the UK, but now has to appear to apply the same laws equally among other groups or individuals.

Gbear

pickarooney wrote: »

Burning Harvesting poppies sounds like something the Taliban would do

:pac:

Grudaire

Gbear wrote: »

We should start international burn a poppy day in solidarity.


Or how about international burn everything day?

National flags, poppies, bibles, korans, pictures of Obama, swastikas - if you own it (and it doesn't represent a health hazard or cause large amounts of chemicals to be released) you can burn it.

A big **** you to the industry of getting offended, in other words.

You must work for the multinational that creates National flags, poppies, bibles, korans, pictures of Obama and swastikas :pac:

also props on the subtle Godwins ;-)

conorhal

pickarooney wrote: »

Burning poppies sounds like something the Taliban would do

Na, Now arresting people for doing something so trivial as burning arbitrary symbols in a manner that they found offensive sounds like something the Taliban would do.

AllGunsBlazing

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The UK is getting scary with it's thought police.

Probably because they introduced laws to try and silence extremists in the UK, but now has to appear to apply the same laws equally among other groups or individuals.

Whatever path the UK goes down we are invariably not that far behind. I can honestly see the likes of Kenny and Shatter looking at these kind of developments in British society with some interest.

wes

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.

Lots of European countries put limits on free speech. Putting limits on free speech, doesn't change what it is. Again, your against it, and that is fair enough. If you think that anyone who insults there armed force should be jailed, then again that your position, but to claim you support free speech, is simply not true.

BTW, he wasn't calling a specific member of the armed force anything. It was a generic insult and nothing more. Now what he did was nasty, but putting him in jail is utterly stupid, and imho I would think that those in armed force in the UK, should have thicker skin.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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).

The difference between the 2 is the severity of the punishment, and what is above being insulted. In Saudi Arabia, they put Religion above insult, and in the UK, there armed forces. There both still preventing people from engaging in free speech.

keith16

NiallSparky wrote: »

There shouldn't be an obligation to pander to people's "cares" towards a rotten and imperialistic military culture that is responsible for the deaths of millions of people. The UK has degenerated into a police state that would be more appropriatly located in the places they're fighting wars than in Western Europe.

The UK is far from a police state.

Anyway, I still think it's over the top. But but but can kind of see the authorities point of view on this.

If this was 15 years ago, (prior to the global reach of today's internet), and this was some loon in Hyde Park, most people (including the police) would just ignore him.

Governments are afraid of todays viral internet however, and things like this could be seen as inciting hatred etc. as the platform and potential reach is many times bigger.

So, if you are the police, who would you rather have to deal with, this one idiot, or a baying mob outside his front door. I'm not saying it's right to arrest one person for the sake of appeasing this type of mob mentality, but I would think that's their approach.

It was like that guy who was jailed for his racist tweets about Fabrice Muamba after he collapsed. There is a difference between one drunken racist "opinion" between mates (which go nowhere) in the pub and one that gets retweeted hundreds of thousands of times.

The internet amplifies and the authorities are terrified of this. Not saying it's right, just want to try to provide some perspective.

RobbieTheRobber

pickarooney wrote: »

Burning poppies sounds like something the Taliban would do

Gbear wrote: »

:pac:

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.

CreepingDeath

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

Whatever path the UK goes down we are invariably not that far behind. I can honestly see the likes of Kenny and Shatter looking at these kind of developments in British society with some interest.

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.

conorhal

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The UK is getting scary with it's thought police.

Probably because they introduced laws to try and silence extremists in the UK, but now has to appear to apply the same laws equally among other groups or individuals.

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.

AllGunsBlazing

CreepingDeath wrote: »

We don't "need" those laws.

I certainly agree with you on that part.

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.