I saw this big bear of man with a shaven head on the tube once wearing a t-shirt with the words "I AM FUCKING MANIAC" emblazoned on the front. He looked like a guy who would eat a baby for breakfast. People like this are attention seeking nutters. I hope the bloke arrested here gets the 'attention' he seeks; sick bastard.
Just on the back of a flag being banned. In the Spanish cup final, the Barcelona fans were banned from bringing in the Catalan Republican flag, the 'estelada'. Nazi flags and emblems are banned in Spanish grounds, and rightly so if you ask me. But an independance flag being classed in the same category? Sometimes, I genuinely feel the Spanish haven't quite got the hang of freedom of expression.
That pretty poor form @Chizz including a quote I made four years ago regarding adults wearing football shirts in such a sensitive debate.
I think you just get a little kick out of creating a bit of controversy.
I have gone back and edited that post, to make it even clearer that it was both old and covering a different subject. (I had, in fact, only seen it because that thread has been bumped (for good reasons) today).
I agree with what you said at the time about football shirts, ie "wear what you want and don't give a stuff what anyone else thinks". And I think it holds true in the current case: that's why I quoted it.
I know the content is different but why was this man arrested yet the bloke with an Islamic State flag outside Parliament was allowed to walk free without arrest?
Because the police get it wrong sometimes. I wasn't aware of this, and my first thought was that having a flag isn't illegal. I then did a bit of research and a quote from a copper at the time indicated that actually, in this case, it was.
“Wearing, carrying or displaying of an emblem or flag, by itself, is not an offence unless the way in which, or the circumstance in which, the emblem is worn, carried or displayed is such as to cause reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter or member of a proscribed organisation.
“While support of and membership of ISIS is unlawful it is not a criminal offence to advocate the creation of an independent state.”
Now call me old fashioned, but if draping a socking great flag around yourself and having your child wave one in the air isn't showing your support for something, I'm Charlie's aunt?
If I were walking down the street wearing a red and white scarf, with a red and white flag around my shoulders with a big white sword in a black circle on it, with the words "Charlton Athletic Football Club" written on it, and a policeman was looking for a Charlton fan for some unspecified offence, I wonder how far I would get in persuading him that in fact I had no interest in football and in no way supported whoever this "Charlton Athletic Football Club" were?
This does not mean that I have become a right wing nutter, just that I agree in this particular case that a mistake was made by a couple of coppers on the beat. They are not perfect.
The St Georges day before last, me and three of my mates were heading home from Greenwich back home to Maidstone and unfurled our St Georges Maidstone flag on the quiet late night train.
About 30 mins in we were approached by 3 policeman and asked to take it down as it could cause offence - I kid you not.
Just on the back of a flag being banned. In the Spanish cup final, the Barcelona fans were banned from bringing in the Catalan Republican flag, the 'estelada'. Nazi flags and emblems are banned in Spanish grounds, and rightly so if you ask me. But an independance flag being classed in the same category? Sometimes, I genuinely feel the Spanish haven't quite got the hang of freedom of expression.
Who enforced that ban? Was it the Spanish FA? Or UEFA? Or (horror of horrors) sponsors?
Alex Salmond got into hot water waving the Scottish Saltire at Wimbledon, in the Royal Box a few years ago.
Just on the back of a flag being banned. In the Spanish cup final, the Barcelona fans were banned from bringing in the Catalan Republican flag, the 'estelada'. Nazi flags and emblems are banned in Spanish grounds, and rightly so if you ask me. But an independance flag being classed in the same category? Sometimes, I genuinely feel the Spanish haven't quite got the hang of freedom of expression.
Who enforced that ban? Was it the Spanish FA? Or UEFA? Or (horror of horrors) sponsors?
Alex Salmond got into hot water waving the Scottish Saltire at Wimbledon, in the Royal Box a few years ago.
The company who printed that t-shirt also need to be fined for agreeing to print something so offensive.
But it ain't offensive, coz Chiss and Leuth said so. Get over yourself will ya ffs
No. It *is* offensive. It just doesn't matter that it's offensive. That's my view.
So if someone sticks a load of signs outside your house and all round your locality saying
"Chizz a c**t", you won't be offended and you'll be happy for them to remain ?
Anyway if you didn't like it, you just wouldn't read it, right ?
Where do you live ?
That would be offensive. But, as I've said, "being offensive" is not a crime in itself.
However, it would also be libellous. And I'd be happy to sue anyone who did put up signs saying that.
"Being offensive" and "libel" are two different things. That's why it's always a good idea to make sure you think twice before to you commit something to writing if you're only intending to cause offence.
I know the content is different but why was this man arrested yet the bloke with an Islamic State flag outside Parliament was allowed to walk free without arrest?
Because the police get it wrong sometimes. I wasn't aware of this, and my first thought was that having a flag isn't illegal. I then did a bit of research and a quote from a copper at the time indicated that actually, in this case, it was.
“Wearing, carrying or displaying of an emblem or flag, by itself, is not an offence unless the way in which, or the circumstance in which, the emblem is worn, carried or displayed is such as to cause reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter or member of a proscribed organisation.
“While support of and membership of ISIS is unlawful it is not a criminal offence to advocate the creation of an independent state.”
Now call me old fashioned, but if draping a socking great flag around yourself and having your child wave one in the air isn't showing your support for something, I'm Charlie's aunt?
If I were walking down the street wearing a red and white scarf, with a red and white flag around my shoulders with a big white sword in a black circle on it, with the words "Charlton Athletic Football Club" written on it, and a policeman was looking for a Charlton fan for some unspecified offence, I wonder how far I would get in persuading him that in fact I had no interest in football and in no way supported whoever this "Charlton Athletic Football Club" were?
This does not mean that I have become a right wing nutter, just that I agree in this particular case that a mistake was made by a couple of coppers on the beat. They are not perfect.
The St Georges day before last, me and three of my mates were heading home from Greenwich back home to Maidstone and unfurled our St Georges Maidstone flag on the quiet late night train.
About 30 mins in we were approached by 3 policeman and asked to take it down as it could cause offence - I kid you not.
Just to be clear - all you had done is unfurl a St Georges flag, nothing else, and the police told you to take it down else you might cause offence (I.e not a safety thing of summit)?
I know the content is different but why was this man arrested yet the bloke with an Islamic State flag outside Parliament was allowed to walk free without arrest?
Because the police get it wrong sometimes. I wasn't aware of this, and my first thought was that having a flag isn't illegal. I then did a bit of research and a quote from a copper at the time indicated that actually, in this case, it was.
“Wearing, carrying or displaying of an emblem or flag, by itself, is not an offence unless the way in which, or the circumstance in which, the emblem is worn, carried or displayed is such as to cause reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter or member of a proscribed organisation.
“While support of and membership of ISIS is unlawful it is not a criminal offence to advocate the creation of an independent state.”
Now call me old fashioned, but if draping a socking great flag around yourself and having your child wave one in the air isn't showing your support for something, I'm Charlie's aunt?
If I were walking down the street wearing a red and white scarf, with a red and white flag around my shoulders with a big white sword in a black circle on it, with the words "Charlton Athletic Football Club" written on it, and a policeman was looking for a Charlton fan for some unspecified offence, I wonder how far I would get in persuading him that in fact I had no interest in football and in no way supported whoever this "Charlton Athletic Football Club" were?
This does not mean that I have become a right wing nutter, just that I agree in this particular case that a mistake was made by a couple of coppers on the beat. They are not perfect.
The St Georges day before last, me and three of my mates were heading home from Greenwich back home to Maidstone and unfurled our St Georges Maidstone flag on the quiet late night train.
About 30 mins in we were approached by 3 policeman and asked to take it down as it could cause offence - I kid you not.
Just to be clear - all you had done is unfurl a St Georges flag, nothing else, and the police told you to take it down else you might cause offence (I.e not a safety thing of summit)?
Yeah.
Oh, and snorting charlie off the train drivers bald spot whilst singing anti-IRA songs and waving their willys around like helicopters.
I have to be honest, I don't know although searches were carried out entering the ground, a bit reminiscent of life at the Valley. I believe, but can't confirm, that it came by way of the Spanish government, and that UEFA were at least complicit, if not more involved. It's an ongoing thing. Barcelona often turn up in the Spanish cup final. They whistle the national anthem (the year they played Bilbao, the Basques joined in and the whole stadium erupted, so they turned up the volumen on the music), the government complain, so the fans take whistles to be even louder. I have to be honest, short of jamming the thing up my nose, I 'm not too fussed about an Independence flag, such as SAcotland, Basques or Catalans (provided it isn't deemed offensive for people to also wave a St Georges flag if they are in the mood.
I know the content is different but why was this man arrested yet the bloke with an Islamic State flag outside Parliament was allowed to walk free without arrest?
Because the police get it wrong sometimes. I wasn't aware of this, and my first thought was that having a flag isn't illegal. I then did a bit of research and a quote from a copper at the time indicated that actually, in this case, it was.
“Wearing, carrying or displaying of an emblem or flag, by itself, is not an offence unless the way in which, or the circumstance in which, the emblem is worn, carried or displayed is such as to cause reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter or member of a proscribed organisation.
“While support of and membership of ISIS is unlawful it is not a criminal offence to advocate the creation of an independent state.”
Now call me old fashioned, but if draping a socking great flag around yourself and having your child wave one in the air isn't showing your support for something, I'm Charlie's aunt?
If I were walking down the street wearing a red and white scarf, with a red and white flag around my shoulders with a big white sword in a black circle on it, with the words "Charlton Athletic Football Club" written on it, and a policeman was looking for a Charlton fan for some unspecified offence, I wonder how far I would get in persuading him that in fact I had no interest in football and in no way supported whoever this "Charlton Athletic Football Club" were?
This does not mean that I have become a right wing nutter, just that I agree in this particular case that a mistake was made by a couple of coppers on the beat. They are not perfect.
The St Georges day before last, me and three of my mates were heading home from Greenwich back home to Maidstone and unfurled our St Georges Maidstone flag on the quiet late night train.
About 30 mins in we were approached by 3 policeman and asked to take it down as it could cause offence - I kid you not.
Just to be clear - all you had done is unfurl a St Georges flag, nothing else, and the police told you to take it down else you might cause offence (I.e not a safety thing of summit)?
Yeah.
Oh, and snorting charlie off the train drivers bald spot whilst singing anti-IRA songs and waving their willys around like helicopters.
I know the content is different but why was this man arrested yet the bloke with an Islamic State flag outside Parliament was allowed to walk free without arrest?
Because the police get it wrong sometimes. I wasn't aware of this, and my first thought was that having a flag isn't illegal. I then did a bit of research and a quote from a copper at the time indicated that actually, in this case, it was.
“Wearing, carrying or displaying of an emblem or flag, by itself, is not an offence unless the way in which, or the circumstance in which, the emblem is worn, carried or displayed is such as to cause reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter or member of a proscribed organisation.
“While support of and membership of ISIS is unlawful it is not a criminal offence to advocate the creation of an independent state.”
Now call me old fashioned, but if draping a socking great flag around yourself and having your child wave one in the air isn't showing your support for something, I'm Charlie's aunt?
If I were walking down the street wearing a red and white scarf, with a red and white flag around my shoulders with a big white sword in a black circle on it, with the words "Charlton Athletic Football Club" written on it, and a policeman was looking for a Charlton fan for some unspecified offence, I wonder how far I would get in persuading him that in fact I had no interest in football and in no way supported whoever this "Charlton Athletic Football Club" were?
This does not mean that I have become a right wing nutter, just that I agree in this particular case that a mistake was made by a couple of coppers on the beat. They are not perfect.
The St Georges day before last, me and three of my mates were heading home from Greenwich back home to Maidstone and unfurled our St Georges Maidstone flag on the quiet late night train.
About 30 mins in we were approached by 3 policeman and asked to take it down as it could cause offence - I kid you not.
Just to be clear - all you had done is unfurl a St Georges flag, nothing else, and the police told you to take it down else you might cause offence (I.e not a safety thing of summit)?
Yeah.
Oh, and snorting charlie off the train drivers bald spot whilst singing anti-IRA songs and waving their willys around like helicopters.
Wouldn't be me then. Mine would be more like a flailing mouse than a helicopter (especially on Charlie)
It was only two days ago one of my best friends told me how they were told to take down a St George's flag in their office (they were decorating the place with stuff to celebrate the upcoming Euros).
The reasoning being that apparently one of the senior managers doesn't like what the flag stands for, and he was offended by it.
It was only two days ago one of my best friends told me how they were told to take down a St George's flag in their office (they were decorating the place with stuff to celebrate the upcoming Euros).
The reasoning being that apparently one of the senior managers doesn't like what the flag stands for, and he was offended by it.
the most astonishing thing about this whole discussion is that we're 3 pages in and nobody's yet got upset about the missing apostrophe on the t shirt. surely an internet record
the most astonishing thing about this whole discussion is that we're 3 pages in and nobody's yet got upset about the missing apostrophe on the t shirt. surely an internet record
I'm just not certain whether the apostrophe should be before or after the 's' .
the most astonishing thing about this whole discussion is that we're 3 pages in and nobody's yet got upset about the missing apostrophe on the t shirt. surely an internet record
I'm just not certain whether the apostrophe should be before or after the 's' .
As has already been quoted, arrest under section 5 of the Public Order Act seems entirely reasonable in this case. However, prosecution is unlikely since the wording of section 5 was changed in 2013 to remove the word 'insulting'. Under the previous definition 'threatening, abusive or insulting' he would have likely faced prosecution. It was without a doubt insulting.
The wording was changed precisely for the reasons being argued by some on here in an attempt to balance unlawful behaviour with freedom of expression.
Section 4 however retained the word 'insulting' and prosecution is likely if it can be proven that the person speaking or displaying the words did so with 'intent' to cause harassment, harm or distress.
As Leuth pointed out earlier - publicly identifying the moron is probably punishment enough.
The company who printed that t-shirt also need to be fined for agreeing to print something so offensive.
But it ain't offensive, coz Chiss and Leuth said so. Get over yourself will ya ffs
I believe they said yeah it is offensive but to censor someone based on offence was - certainly in their view - unacceptable.
To quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often wrongly attributed to Voltaire), I presume the line they would take is - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I think it was in VERY poor taste and the arrest under Section 5 is justified. Incitement's not a thing any more but I presume aspects of that would also come into consideration...
Are you saying he should have been arrested for displaying poor taste?
How about reading what I wrote? Like, actually reading what I wrote? You and I usually share a similar set of ideological values, Chizz, but in your eagerness to claim the moral high ground, you seem to have missed a couple of things.
"The arrest under Section 5 is justified".
Section 5, believe it or not, is part of a law/Act of Parliament, and I've just said that I think the detainment under that piece of rule-making is justified.
I also think that the T-shirt was in very poor taste.
To conflate these two ideas, and to say that I think he should have been arrested for displaying poor taste, is an aggregation of numerous logical fallacies in what I can only assume is an attempt to propagate your argument/censure mine.
It's also an attempt to make me look stupid, or otherwise outlandish, and I don't appreciate that very much.
Unless of course you were related to someone who died at Hillsborough!!
In that case, it would still be offensive. But, as harsh as it might sound, they'd still have to get over themselves.
It's not against the law to be offended. No-one has a right not to be offended.
The guy wearing the t-shirt appears to be a stupid, ignorant idiot. He shouldn't have worn it. But he did. People might get offended. I don't know if anyone did. Other people might be offended on their behalf. That's too bad.
the most astonishing thing about this whole discussion is that we're 3 pages in and nobody's yet got upset about the missing apostrophe on the t shirt. surely an internet record
I'm just not certain whether the apostrophe should be before or after the 's' .
As has already been quoted, arrest under section 5 of the Public Order Act seems entirely reasonable in this case. However, prosecution is unlikely since the wording of section 5 was changed in 2013 to remove the word 'insulting'. Under the previous definition 'threatening, abusive or insulting' he would have likely faced prosecution. It was without a doubt insulting.
The wording was changed precisely for the reasons being argued by some on here in an attempt to balance unlawful behaviour with freedom of expression.
Section 4 however retained the word 'insulting' and prosecution is likely if it can be proven that the person speaking or displaying the words did so with 'intent' to cause harassment, harm or distress.
As Leuth pointed out earlier - publicly identifying the moron is probably punishment enough.
Following on from what I've learned about the Section 5 change in 2013 then I'd like to revise my position that arrest was justified. According to the letter of the law, it wasn't.
I should also clarify that I don't know whether I feel he *should* have been arrested or not regardless of the law. Now that I know the position of the authorities on this I'm inclined to say that I'm more likely to be uncomfortable with his arrest (in the name of free speech I suppose).
It was only two days ago one of my best friends told me how they were told to take down a St George's flag in their office (they were decorating the place with stuff to celebrate the upcoming Euros).
The reasoning being that apparently one of the senior managers doesn't like what the flag stands for, and he was offended by it.
I think they are perfectly entitled to ask what he thinks it stands for.
I know the content is different but why was this man arrested yet the bloke with an Islamic State flag outside Parliament was allowed to walk free without arrest?
Because the police get it wrong sometimes. I wasn't aware of this, and my first thought was that having a flag isn't illegal. I then did a bit of research and a quote from a copper at the time indicated that actually, in this case, it was.
“Wearing, carrying or displaying of an emblem or flag, by itself, is not an offence unless the way in which, or the circumstance in which, the emblem is worn, carried or displayed is such as to cause reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter or member of a proscribed organisation.
“While support of and membership of ISIS is unlawful it is not a criminal offence to advocate the creation of an independent state.”
Now call me old fashioned, but if draping a socking great flag around yourself and having your child wave one in the air isn't showing your support for something, I'm Charlie's aunt?
If I were walking down the street wearing a red and white scarf, with a red and white flag around my shoulders with a big white sword in a black circle on it, with the words "Charlton Athletic Football Club" written on it, and a policeman was looking for a Charlton fan for some unspecified offence, I wonder how far I would get in persuading him that in fact I had no interest in football and in no way supported whoever this "Charlton Athletic Football Club" were?
This does not mean that I have become a right wing nutter, just that I agree in this particular case that a mistake was made by a couple of coppers on the beat. They are not perfect.
The St Georges day before last, me and three of my mates were heading home from Greenwich back home to Maidstone and unfurled our St Georges Maidstone flag on the quiet late night train.
About 30 mins in we were approached by 3 policeman and asked to take it down as it could cause offence - I kid you not.
How ridiculous. On St. Georges day late at night I would have been too pissed to question it, but would have really liked to have taken that further had I been there.
I know the content is different but why was this man arrested yet the bloke with an Islamic State flag outside Parliament was allowed to walk free without arrest?
Because the police get it wrong sometimes. I wasn't aware of this, and my first thought was that having a flag isn't illegal. I then did a bit of research and a quote from a copper at the time indicated that actually, in this case, it was.
“Wearing, carrying or displaying of an emblem or flag, by itself, is not an offence unless the way in which, or the circumstance in which, the emblem is worn, carried or displayed is such as to cause reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter or member of a proscribed organisation.
“While support of and membership of ISIS is unlawful it is not a criminal offence to advocate the creation of an independent state.”
Now call me old fashioned, but if draping a socking great flag around yourself and having your child wave one in the air isn't showing your support for something, I'm Charlie's aunt?
If I were walking down the street wearing a red and white scarf, with a red and white flag around my shoulders with a big white sword in a black circle on it, with the words "Charlton Athletic Football Club" written on it, and a policeman was looking for a Charlton fan for some unspecified offence, I wonder how far I would get in persuading him that in fact I had no interest in football and in no way supported whoever this "Charlton Athletic Football Club" were?
This does not mean that I have become a right wing nutter, just that I agree in this particular case that a mistake was made by a couple of coppers on the beat. They are not perfect.
The St Georges day before last, me and three of my mates were heading home from Greenwich back home to Maidstone and unfurled our St Georges Maidstone flag on the quiet late night train.
About 30 mins in we were approached by 3 policeman and asked to take it down as it could cause offence - I kid you not.
To be fair, I find Maidstone quite offensive as well...
Comments
People like this are attention seeking nutters.
I hope the bloke arrested here gets the 'attention' he seeks; sick bastard.
I think you just get a little kick out of creating a bit of controversy.
I agree with what you said at the time about football shirts, ie "wear what you want and don't give a stuff what anyone else thinks". And I think it holds true in the current case: that's why I quoted it.
About 30 mins in we were approached by 3 policeman and asked to take it down as it could cause offence - I kid you not.
Alex Salmond got into hot water waving the Scottish Saltire at Wimbledon, in the Royal Box a few years ago.
Oh, and snorting charlie off the train drivers bald spot whilst singing anti-IRA songs and waving their willys around like helicopters.
The reasoning being that apparently one of the senior managers doesn't like what the flag stands for, and he was offended by it.
The wording was changed precisely for the reasons being argued by some on here in an attempt to balance unlawful behaviour with freedom of expression.
Section 4 however retained the word 'insulting' and prosecution is likely if it can be proven that the person speaking or displaying the words did so with 'intent' to cause harassment, harm or distress.
As Leuth pointed out earlier - publicly identifying the moron is probably punishment enough.
How about reading what I wrote? Like, actually reading what I wrote? You and I usually share a similar set of ideological values, Chizz, but in your eagerness to claim the moral high ground, you seem to have missed a couple of things.
"The arrest under Section 5 is justified".
Section 5, believe it or not, is part of a law/Act of Parliament, and I've just said that I think the detainment under that piece of rule-making is justified.
I also think that the T-shirt was in very poor taste.
To conflate these two ideas, and to say that I think he should have been arrested for displaying poor taste, is an aggregation of numerous logical fallacies in what I can only assume is an attempt to propagate your argument/censure mine.
It's also an attempt to make me look stupid, or otherwise outlandish, and I don't appreciate that very much.
Which is fine - I'm not offended
It's not against the law to be offended. No-one has a right not to be offended.
The guy wearing the t-shirt appears to be a stupid, ignorant idiot. He shouldn't have worn it. But he did. People might get offended. I don't know if anyone did. Other people might be offended on their behalf. That's too bad.
I should also clarify that I don't know whether I feel he *should* have been arrested or not regardless of the law. Now that I know the position of the authorities on this I'm inclined to say that I'm more likely to be uncomfortable with his arrest (in the name of free speech I suppose).