Arrested for causing anxiety?
Discussion
I know nothing more than his shown in this video:
https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/155347108250...
Does anyone know if this is a massive overreaction or a legitimate arrest?
https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/155347108250...
Does anyone know if this is a massive overreaction or a legitimate arrest?
As I understand it if it's the arrest I think it is, then the post was an arrangement of LGBT progress pride flags to resemble a swastika and last time I checked incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexuality is indeed one of the few areas covered under hate speech law and when you add in natzism your kind of onto a winner with a visit from the plod
(Malicious Communications Act 1988 Sec 1)
1(1) Any person who sends to another person –
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys –
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or in part, of an indecent or grossly
offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that
it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the
recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be
communicated.
1(1) Any person who sends to another person –
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys –
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or in part, of an indecent or grossly
offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that
it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the
recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be
communicated.
Bigends said:
(Malicious Communications Act 1988 Sec 1)
1(1) Any person who sends to another person –
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys –
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or in part, of an indecent or grossly
offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that
it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the
recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be
communicated.
Goodie. Can that be applied to, say, election leaflets *designed* to cause anxiety?1(1) Any person who sends to another person –
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys –
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or in part, of an indecent or grossly
offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that
it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the
recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be
communicated.
I can sense a rich seam of private prosecutions here…
skwdenyer said:
Bigends said:
(Malicious Communications Act 1988 Sec 1)
1(1) Any person who sends to another person –
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys –
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or in part, of an indecent or grossly
offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that
it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the
recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be
communicated.
Goodie. Can that be applied to, say, election leaflets *designed* to cause anxiety?1(1) Any person who sends to another person –
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys –
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or in part, of an indecent or grossly
offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that
it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the
recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be
communicated.
I can sense a rich seam of private prosecutions here…
Bigends said:
skwdenyer said:
Bigends said:
(Malicious Communications Act 1988 Sec 1)
1(1) Any person who sends to another person –
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys –
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or in part, of an indecent or grossly
offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that
it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the
recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be
communicated.
Goodie. Can that be applied to, say, election leaflets *designed* to cause anxiety?1(1) Any person who sends to another person –
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys –
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or in part, of an indecent or grossly
offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that
it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the
recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be
communicated.
I can sense a rich seam of private prosecutions here…
Or does there have to be intent specifically towards an individual recipient?
I can't believe people are actually defending this! Three police officers sent round because of a hurty picture? Try telling them your car's been stolen, see how many they send round then.
Even the Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones has said “something is wrong” when “incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don’t always get a police response”.
Jesus Christ.
Even the Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones has said “something is wrong” when “incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don’t always get a police response”.
Jesus Christ.
Ari said:
I can't believe people are actually defending this! Three police officers sent round because of a hurty picture? Try telling them your car's been stolen, see how many they send round then.
Even the Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones has said “something is wrong” when “incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don’t always get a police response”.
Jesus Christ.
I guess you live under a rock, or don't use social media, is is very common. Don't like the law lobby parliament. Police probably do them a lot as they are easy collars.Even the Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones has said “something is wrong” when “incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don’t always get a police response”.
Jesus Christ.
Id hazzard a guess that the detainee would argue that the arrangement of flags into a swastika was to bring attention to the power of the trans lobby to silence opposition, not cause anxiety.
Most people would realise doing is likely to cause issues. The detainee probably realised this is and did it anyway due to the PR value.
The complaint gets the police response they wanted. The detainee gets the PR / political point scoring they wanted.
Everyone is a winner.
(Except the taxpayer, who foots the bill for all the above).
Most people would realise doing is likely to cause issues. The detainee probably realised this is and did it anyway due to the PR value.
The complaint gets the police response they wanted. The detainee gets the PR / political point scoring they wanted.
Everyone is a winner.
(Except the taxpayer, who foots the bill for all the above).
Previous said:
Id hazzard a guess that the detainee would argue that the arrangement of flags into a swastika was to bring attention to the power of the trans lobby to silence opposition, not cause anxiety.
Most people would realise doing is likely to cause issues. The detainee probably realised this is and did it anyway due to the PR value.
The complaint gets the police response they wanted. The detainee gets the PR / political point scoring they wanted.
Everyone is a winner.
(Except the taxpayer, who foots the bill for all the above).
being a Nazi and using Nazi symbols in the UK isn't illegal. So could argue that i guess, but this was under mal comms and intent to cause anxiety would be obvious.Most people would realise doing is likely to cause issues. The detainee probably realised this is and did it anyway due to the PR value.
The complaint gets the police response they wanted. The detainee gets the PR / political point scoring they wanted.
Everyone is a winner.
(Except the taxpayer, who foots the bill for all the above).
Ouroboros said:
being a Nazi and using Nazi symbols in the UK isn't illegal. So could argue that i guess, but this was under mal comms and intent to cause anxiety would be obvious.
Why obvious? What’s the case law like? Does one have to demonstrate that the intent is to be especially anxiety-inducing? Or must it only be sufficient for a tiny rise in blood pressure? This seems an appallingly-drafted law (which should be of no particular surprise…)skwdenyer said:
Ouroboros said:
55palfers said:
I imagine my next gas bill will cause anxiety.
Should I phone plod?
needs to have intent, mens rea.Should I phone plod?
t. We can nail SPI-B and indy-sage.And Whitty for his 4000 deaths per day graph.
back of the net.
Ari said:
I can't believe people are actually defending this! Three police officers sent round because of a hurty picture? Try telling them your car's been stolen, see how many they send round then.
Even the Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones has said “something is wrong” when “incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don’t always get a police response”.
Jesus Christ.
I think all your posts about mask wearing and conspiracy theories are making me feel anxious. Even the Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones has said “something is wrong” when “incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don’t always get a police response”.
Jesus Christ.
Just wondering if they are deliberately causing anxiety and is that your intent?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff