This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Anyone else noticed this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25648019
The Home Office said "...new injunctions would never be imposed in an unreasonable way." Forgive me for thinking they are simply, well, lying.
Something to write to my new MP about...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25648019
The Home Office said "...new injunctions would never be imposed in an unreasonable way." Forgive me for thinking they are simply, well, lying.
Something to write to my new MP about...
In reply to MG:
Dumb and dangerous and actually quite odd from this government. Makes me wonder if there are any liberals left.
Dumb and dangerous and actually quite odd from this government. Makes me wonder if there are any liberals left.
In reply to MG:
It all depends on how you define "reasonable". What they mean is that the new injunctions will never be imposed in a way that the government disapproves of.
It all depends on how you define "reasonable". What they mean is that the new injunctions will never be imposed in a way that the government disapproves of.
In reply to davidbeynon:
If we have an independent judiciary, it's impossible for the Government to say the injunctions would never be imposed in ways the Government disapproves.
> It all depends on how you define "reasonable". What they mean is that the new injunctions will never be imposed in a way that the government disapproves of.
If we have an independent judiciary, it's impossible for the Government to say the injunctions would never be imposed in ways the Government disapproves.
In reply to MG:
Being annoying could be made illegal? Well looks like I am f*cked then! Thank god that being a tw*t, overly opinionated and an extremely loud prick are still just ok or I'd be multiple felon.
Being annoying could be made illegal? Well looks like I am f*cked then! Thank god that being a tw*t, overly opinionated and an extremely loud prick are still just ok or I'd be multiple felon.
In reply to MG:
Spotted it in the Guardian comment section the other day. Sounds like it's just asbos but with a wider reach. As usual it gets "marketed" to us with the tired old propaganda, on gov.uk it's described as something that's going to tackle the use of firearms by gangs! Misleading at the very least.
It seems to be a bit of a theme with this government, going to the press with something that's a problem and then using that to justify some random policy they want. The solution to the small number of benefits cheats is to rip genuinely disabled people off benefits and privatise the whole process. The solution to the deficit is to misleadingly label our welfare system as bulging and then reduce the welfare state to pre 1948 levels. The solution to tackling gang violence is apparently to make being annoying illegal. On top of the legal aid bill this is just another piece of erosion to our justice system imo.
You don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone was annoying to give them an ipna, just that they probably were and they're straight to the county court. Anyone over 10 years old ffs, courts are absolutely not a place for a kid whose been annoying. Asbos have already seen enough kids given a head start into the criminal justice system, ipnas can see a 14 year old imprisoned for something without the evidence being beyond reasonable doubt. wtf? Are we just becoming a country for middle class, middle aged white men who want a nuisance free life where they can stoke their pensions and use the law to keep the kids from playing football near their shiny new BMW? Welcome to 21st century Britain.
Spotted it in the Guardian comment section the other day. Sounds like it's just asbos but with a wider reach. As usual it gets "marketed" to us with the tired old propaganda, on gov.uk it's described as something that's going to tackle the use of firearms by gangs! Misleading at the very least.
It seems to be a bit of a theme with this government, going to the press with something that's a problem and then using that to justify some random policy they want. The solution to the small number of benefits cheats is to rip genuinely disabled people off benefits and privatise the whole process. The solution to the deficit is to misleadingly label our welfare system as bulging and then reduce the welfare state to pre 1948 levels. The solution to tackling gang violence is apparently to make being annoying illegal. On top of the legal aid bill this is just another piece of erosion to our justice system imo.
You don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone was annoying to give them an ipna, just that they probably were and they're straight to the county court. Anyone over 10 years old ffs, courts are absolutely not a place for a kid whose been annoying. Asbos have already seen enough kids given a head start into the criminal justice system, ipnas can see a 14 year old imprisoned for something without the evidence being beyond reasonable doubt. wtf? Are we just becoming a country for middle class, middle aged white men who want a nuisance free life where they can stoke their pensions and use the law to keep the kids from playing football near their shiny new BMW? Welcome to 21st century Britain.
In reply to Sharp:
Asbos don't require proof beyond reasonable doubt (thankfully - you try getting intimidated neighbours to court).
They've been in place for 15 years and the world doesn't appear to have collapsed.
Asbos don't require proof beyond reasonable doubt (thankfully - you try getting intimidated neighbours to court).
They've been in place for 15 years and the world doesn't appear to have collapsed.
In reply to Neil Williams:
And "Big Issue" salespeople!
> Could it be applied to "chuggers"? Every cloud...
> Neil
And "Big Issue" salespeople!
In reply to off-duty:
I'm surprised you're in favour of asbos, I thought they'd been more or less universally condemned as a farcical waste of resources.
That's the point, the world doesn't collapse when it's the poor and least privileged that are affected, nothing happens because no one cares. There are cases of people with mental illnesses being given asbos instead of treatment because they're just too easy to hand out. Giving a drug addict an asbo is about the stupidest thing you could do, because like most asbos it will be breached and then they'll get put into prison and there goes their life, crime and drugs. Giving a homeless alcoholic an asbo not to drink, wtf? Anyone who thinks that wont end with them drinking anyway and getting arrested for it is a moron and I don't think police officers are morons. It's just a convenient way to put them in prison without having to go through the proper legal procedure. They're just a pointless way to give young and/or vulnerable people criminal records.
Asbos have been given for ridiculous things, that one preventing a sex worker from carrying condoms springs to mind or the one ordering a suicidal woman not to jump into rivers. Begging isn't a criminal offence yet homeless people have been sent to prison for begging (get an asbo for begging, break it then get sent to prison for breaking it). I don't see how they help anyone.
When everyone is crying out for asbos to be scrapped it's ludicrous that instead the government is just turbo charging them and making them even easier to dole out.
I'm surprised you're in favour of asbos, I thought they'd been more or less universally condemned as a farcical waste of resources.
> the world doesn't appear to have collapsed.
That's the point, the world doesn't collapse when it's the poor and least privileged that are affected, nothing happens because no one cares. There are cases of people with mental illnesses being given asbos instead of treatment because they're just too easy to hand out. Giving a drug addict an asbo is about the stupidest thing you could do, because like most asbos it will be breached and then they'll get put into prison and there goes their life, crime and drugs. Giving a homeless alcoholic an asbo not to drink, wtf? Anyone who thinks that wont end with them drinking anyway and getting arrested for it is a moron and I don't think police officers are morons. It's just a convenient way to put them in prison without having to go through the proper legal procedure. They're just a pointless way to give young and/or vulnerable people criminal records.
Asbos have been given for ridiculous things, that one preventing a sex worker from carrying condoms springs to mind or the one ordering a suicidal woman not to jump into rivers. Begging isn't a criminal offence yet homeless people have been sent to prison for begging (get an asbo for begging, break it then get sent to prison for breaking it). I don't see how they help anyone.
When everyone is crying out for asbos to be scrapped it's ludicrous that instead the government is just turbo charging them and making them even easier to dole out.
In reply to LastBoyScout:
I have never known a Big Issue salesperson respond rudely (or indeed anything other than politely) to a "no thanks", so they're fine by me. Chuggers OTOH try to get in your way and can often be actively rude.
I would happily see the practice made illegal by whatever means.
OTOH, if they would just adopt an industry code of practice whereby "no thanks" means no more pursuit of anyone once they have declined politely, I'd be happy for them to exist, just like "tin-shakers" who are never pushy.
Neil
I have never known a Big Issue salesperson respond rudely (or indeed anything other than politely) to a "no thanks", so they're fine by me. Chuggers OTOH try to get in your way and can often be actively rude.
I would happily see the practice made illegal by whatever means.
OTOH, if they would just adopt an industry code of practice whereby "no thanks" means no more pursuit of anyone once they have declined politely, I'd be happy for them to exist, just like "tin-shakers" who are never pushy.
Neil
Post edited at 13:51
In reply to MG:
Sounds like another rubbish open Ended law open to abuse by the polis and the state to me. like the Criminal justice act, and the suss laws to me.
just say no!
Sounds like another rubbish open Ended law open to abuse by the polis and the state to me. like the Criminal justice act, and the suss laws to me.
just say no!
In reply to MG:
I don't think they are consciously lying but they do seem to be terminally stupid if they believe what they said. I fear that for once in his life a Monbiot may be right on this one.
> Anyone else noticed this
> The Home Office said "...new injunctions would never be imposed in an unreasonable way." Forgive me for thinking they are simply, well, lying.
I don't think they are consciously lying but they do seem to be terminally stupid if they believe what they said. I fear that for once in his life a Monbiot may be right on this one.
In reply to MG:
It's already the case, "causing annoyance" to someone online can get you up to 6 months in prison these days. Stupid Uk law.
> Anyone else noticed this
> The Home Office said "...new injunctions would never be imposed in an unreasonable way." Forgive me for thinking they are simply, well, lying.
> Something to write to my new MP about...
It's already the case, "causing annoyance" to someone online can get you up to 6 months in prison these days. Stupid Uk law.
In reply to RomTheBear:
I'm not sure it has ever been for as little as "causing annoyance" though I suppose that might be dependent on your annoyance threshold.
But luckily the law is slowly catching up :-
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/#a0...
> It's already the case, "causing annoyance" to someone online can get you up to 6 months in prison these days. Stupid Uk law.
I'm not sure it has ever been for as little as "causing annoyance" though I suppose that might be dependent on your annoyance threshold.
But luckily the law is slowly catching up :-
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/#a0...
In reply to off-duty:
Unfortunately it can be for as little as causing annoyance, or being offensive :
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
Unfortunately it can be for as little as causing annoyance, or being offensive :
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
Post edited at 01:20
In reply to RomTheBear:
No it can't.
Subject to significant provisos detailed in the CPS guidance which set various high thresholds in relation to evidential standards and public interest amongst other things, the message has to be grossly offensive or in the case of the section relating to annoyance it must also be false.
> Unfortunately it can be for as little as causing annoyance, or being offensive :
No it can't.
Subject to significant provisos detailed in the CPS guidance which set various high thresholds in relation to evidential standards and public interest amongst other things, the message has to be grossly offensive or in the case of the section relating to annoyance it must also be false.
In reply to MG:
Interesting thread. I remember a year or two back I started a thread along the lines of "What laws would you introduce if you were in charge".
One suggestion that received a lot of support was the introduction of a general offence of "Being a tw4t".
Seems UKC is 1 step ahead of the government again.
Interesting thread. I remember a year or two back I started a thread along the lines of "What laws would you introduce if you were in charge".
One suggestion that received a lot of support was the introduction of a general offence of "Being a tw4t".
Seems UKC is 1 step ahead of the government again.
In reply to off-duty:
Does writing "off-duty is a martian" on UKC to deliberately annoy you break the law?
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,
Does writing "off-duty is a martian" on UKC to deliberately annoy you break the law?
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,
In reply to elsewhere:
Arrrgh! Reading that is itself annoying (is the author a criminal now?) Who thinks this stuff up. Trying to make lying a criminal offence!!
> (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
Arrrgh! Reading that is itself annoying (is the author a criminal now?) Who thinks this stuff up. Trying to make lying a criminal offence!!
In reply to off-duty:
How do you define "grossly offensive" ? It could be as little as insulting someone on a forum, completely open to interpretation.
> No it can't.
> Subject to significant provisos detailed in the CPS guidance which set various high thresholds in relation to evidential standards and public interest amongst other things, the message has to be grossly offensive or in the case of the section relating to annoyance it must also be false.
How do you define "grossly offensive" ? It could be as little as insulting someone on a forum, completely open to interpretation.
In reply to elsewhere:
Someone was convicted because of this stupid law for making a joke on twitter. Following Cold weather his airport was shut down, and he said n twitter :"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
Anti terror police arrested him at his workplace. He was then charged and found guilty, had to pay a fine, and lost his job as a consequence.
It had to go to as far as a second high court appeal to get his sentence overturned.
> Does writing "off-duty is a martian" on UKC to deliberately annoy you break the law?
> 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,
Someone was convicted because of this stupid law for making a joke on twitter. Following Cold weather his airport was shut down, and he said n twitter :"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
Anti terror police arrested him at his workplace. He was then charged and found guilty, had to pay a fine, and lost his job as a consequence.
It had to go to as far as a second high court appeal to get his sentence overturned.
In reply to RomTheBear:
And since then the guidance (and to extent the law) has radically changed.
Hence my link.
Which you don't appear to have read.
How do you define "grossly offensive" ? It could be as little as insulting someone on a forum, completely open to interpretation.
Para 39 : - A communication sent has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. Just because the content expressed in the communication is in bad taste, controversial or unpopular, and may cause offence to individuals or a specific community, this is not in itself sufficient reason to engage the criminal law. As Lord Bingham made clear in DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40:
"There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates."
> Someone was convicted because of this stupid law for making a joke on twitter. Following Cold weather his airport was shut down, and he said n twitter :"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
> Anti terror police arrested him at his workplace. He was then charged and found guilty, had to pay a fine, and lost his job as a consequence.
> It had to go to as far as a second high court appeal to get his sentence overturned.
And since then the guidance (and to extent the law) has radically changed.
Hence my link.
Which you don't appear to have read.
How do you define "grossly offensive" ? It could be as little as insulting someone on a forum, completely open to interpretation.
Para 39 : - A communication sent has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. Just because the content expressed in the communication is in bad taste, controversial or unpopular, and may cause offence to individuals or a specific community, this is not in itself sufficient reason to engage the criminal law. As Lord Bingham made clear in DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40:
"There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates."
In reply to MG:
It's pretty stupid of politicians to try and outlaw "being annoying". At least it would be easy to round them up in westminster!
It's pretty stupid of politicians to try and outlaw "being annoying". At least it would be easy to round them up in westminster!
In reply to off-duty:
Well sorry but it doesn't define it much much better, it just says "reasonable standards" have to be applied, again much open to interpretation.
Personally I think that everybody should be able to say what they want online and or offline, even if it's stupid or grossly offensive, nobody has to read it or listen to it if they don't like it.
The twitter Joke case when someone ended up better arrested at his workplace by anti terrorist units and losing his job as a result is a good example of the absurdity of these kind of badly designed laws.
Of course guidance has been issued after many many people were charged often for making jokes, still I don't know what the hell is going these days as pretty much every law that comes out of Westminster if pretty much always flawed with technical problems.
Another guy who said on twitter that the British Army should "go to hell" was sentenced with community service. I don't really approve of the message but I think that if you can't vent and tell your army or government to "go to hell" once in a while without being charged there is a serious problem of free speech.
> And since then the guidance (and to extent the law) has radically changed.
> Hence my link.
> Which you don't appear to have read.
> How do you define "grossly offensive" ? It could be as little as insulting someone on a forum, completely open to interpretation.
> Para 39 : - A communication sent has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. Just because the content expressed in the communication is in bad taste, controversial or unpopular, and may cause offence to individuals or a specific community, this is not in itself sufficient reason to engage the criminal law. As Lord Bingham made clear in DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40:
> "There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates."
Well sorry but it doesn't define it much much better, it just says "reasonable standards" have to be applied, again much open to interpretation.
Personally I think that everybody should be able to say what they want online and or offline, even if it's stupid or grossly offensive, nobody has to read it or listen to it if they don't like it.
The twitter Joke case when someone ended up better arrested at his workplace by anti terrorist units and losing his job as a result is a good example of the absurdity of these kind of badly designed laws.
Of course guidance has been issued after many many people were charged often for making jokes, still I don't know what the hell is going these days as pretty much every law that comes out of Westminster if pretty much always flawed with technical problems.
Another guy who said on twitter that the British Army should "go to hell" was sentenced with community service. I don't really approve of the message but I think that if you can't vent and tell your army or government to "go to hell" once in a while without being charged there is a serious problem of free speech.
Post edited at 23:29
In reply to RomTheBear:
Freedom of speech in the UK? you don't really think it exists do you?
you might offend someone.
We live in an age when you are not allowed to say what you really think. lol
Freedom of speech in the UK? you don't really think it exists do you?
you might offend someone.
We live in an age when you are not allowed to say what you really think. lol
In reply to Blizzard:
I disagree. For all the people who are being made to feel uncomfortable for saying something like "paki shop", "don't be a gayboy" etc, expressions now 'outlawed' by political correctness, someone else is being allowed to say "get out of my shop until you can be polite" or "this is my boyfriend, Steve" or whatever.
I support the latter set of freedoms more than the former.
> We live in an age when you are not allowed to say what you really think. lol
I disagree. For all the people who are being made to feel uncomfortable for saying something like "paki shop", "don't be a gayboy" etc, expressions now 'outlawed' by political correctness, someone else is being allowed to say "get out of my shop until you can be polite" or "this is my boyfriend, Steve" or whatever.
I support the latter set of freedoms more than the former.
Post edited at 00:19
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...