PDA

View Full Version : Grenfell Tower Bonfire


Widger
6th Nov 2018, 07:44
So 5 idiots burn a cardboard box effigy on a bonfire and they get arrested.

Grenfell Tower bonfire: Five men arrested over video http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46106224

Now I am not condoning their idiocy or the very very poor taste but are we living in a police state where giving offence is illegal. What about the effigy of Boris and Teresa in Lewes, or the bonfires in Northern Ireland every year.

Bonfire night was all about anti Catholic rhetoric which in modern times would be considered a hate crime. What is so different here apart from the year? It was not that long ago we were burning effigies of Catholics on our own bonfires.

ORAC
6th Nov 2018, 07:51
Bonfire night in Lewis featured the burning of an effigy of Boris Johnson carrying the severed bloody head of Theresa May, with her blood being licked up by a an effigy of Jacob Rees Mogg as a cat.

No arrests were made.

surely not
6th Nov 2018, 08:01
I think the arrests are more likely to be for the very unpleasant words that accompanied the burning of the tower, plus the depiction of 'brown skinned' residents at the windows, making it clear that this was not a harsh political satire, but a racially motivated effigy about people who had not put themselves in the public domain until that night when circumstances tragically made them front page news. I see absolutely zero comparison with politicians who deliberately put themselves up for public judgement.

ATNotts
6th Nov 2018, 08:06
Of course if it weren't for (anti) social media then this event would never had been seen, and nobody could have been offended. Moreover, thousands of pound of hard pressed police funds, and hours of police time wouldn't be wasted satisfying those who have been offended.

Indeed, it may well be that if social media didn't exist the effigy of Grenfell Tower may never have been made.

On balance, are we better or worse off with social media?

sitigeltfel
6th Nov 2018, 08:06
Fines totalling £50 should cover it..

"A Muslim extremist who burned replica poppies on Remembrance Day last year has been fined £50 after being found guilty of a public order offence.

Emdadur Choudhury, a member of Muslims Against Crusades (MAC), was guilty of a "calculated and deliberate" insult to the dead and those who mourn them when he burned two large plastic poppies during a two-minute silence on 11 November, district judge Howard Riddle said.

Members of MAC were heard chanting "British soldiers burn in hell" before the burning incident near the Royal Albert Hall in London. "The two-minute chanting, when others were observing a silence, followed by a burning of the symbol of remembrance was a calculated and deliberate insult to the dead and those who mourn or remember them," Riddle said at Woolwich crown court."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/07/muslim-extremist-fined-for-poppy-burning

Nemrytter
6th Nov 2018, 08:23
On balance, are we better or worse off with social media?I'd say good, otherwise it's too easy to live in your own bubble. Social media, at the very least, opens your eyes to the level of idiocy amongst the general population.

ATNotts
6th Nov 2018, 08:34
I'd say good, otherwise it's too easy to live in your own bubble. Social media, at the very least, opens your eyes to the level of idiocy amongst the general population.

Agreed; but is people's idiocy encouraged by giving them the opportunity to publicise their crass stupidity to a wider audience?

Fines totalling £50 should cover it..


Very possibly; but how much will police costs be for that outcome. £50 fine and all police costs...... if they are proven guilty of anything. Even @rseholes are innocent until proven guilty.

KelvinD
6th Nov 2018, 08:36
Of course if it weren't for (anti) social media then this event would never had been seen, and nobody could have been offended. Moreover, thousands of pound of hard pressed police funds, and hours of police time wouldn't be wasted satisfying those who have been offended. Alternatively, think about how the police funds etc wouldn't have been wasted if these muppets hadn't done it in the first place.
On "Have I got News For You" last night, the topic came around to the Lewes bonfires and Ian Hislop made a comment along the lines of how we should stick to the traditional bonfire night, saying it was "far better to burn Catholics".

DaveReidUK
6th Nov 2018, 08:43
Of course if it weren't for (anti) social media then this event would never had been seen, and nobody could have been offended. Moreover, thousands of pound of hard pressed police funds, and hours of police time wouldn't be wasted satisfying those who have been offended.

That's a valid point.

In order to be an offence under the Public Order Act s.5 (the offence that Choudhury was convicted of), it needs to take place "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

It's going to be hard for the CPS to argue that the Act had in mind people being offended via social media, in 1986.

artschool
6th Nov 2018, 08:44
it's obvious distasteful, but there is no way they should be prosecuted for a crime.

artschool
6th Nov 2018, 08:45
That's a valid point.

In order to be an offence under the Public Order Act s.5 (the offence that Choudhury was convicted of), it needs to take place "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

It's going to be hard for the CPS to argue that the Act had in mind people being offended via social media, in 1986.

I am pretty sure that all the legislation about hate crime etc was invented in 1984?

sitigeltfel
6th Nov 2018, 09:08
Khan will be relieved that it knocked to 117th fatal stabbing in London last night off the top of the news pages.

ATNotts
6th Nov 2018, 09:24
Khan will be relieved that it knocked to 117th fatal stabbing in London last night off the top of the news pages.

Much as you clearly have a deep rooted hate for the man, I really don't believe he can be held responsible for every crime, serious or otherwise, in London. Perhaps if the Met. spent less time investigating hate crimes, and alleged crimes by the dead who can never be tried or convicted, they may have more time / resources to catch the murderers / get to the root of the problem.

ORAC
6th Nov 2018, 10:02
I presume the outrage at the Met investigating hate crimes is because the Labour Party is the focus of their current investigation?.....

ATNotts
6th Nov 2018, 10:16
I presume the outrage at the Met investigating hate crimes is because the Labour Party is the focus of their current investigation?.....

No, not at all, where there's a "real crime" then it should be investigated and prosecuted where the CPS believe prosecution is appropriate. But only last week Cressida Dick said that the police had to put their emphasis into core policing, and that doesn't include chasing after the demands of the "professionally offended" as, for example, Nottinghamshire Police have been doing for the past couple of years - during which time knife and gun crime has also increased (as it's not in the capital, of course nobody outside the area hears about it).

What makes you believe I am a die hard Labour supporter?? For what it's worth, I'm not, but neither am I an extreme right wing Conservative either!

ORAC
6th Nov 2018, 10:26
Presumably you mean the speech by Sara Thornton, not Cressida Dick, but she is with the Thames police. It was you you singled out the Met rather than the Nottinghamshire or any other provincial police force.

ATNotts
6th Nov 2018, 10:31
Presumably you mean the speech by Sara Thornton, not Cressida Dick, but she is with the Thames police. It was you you singled out the Met rather than the Nottinghamshire or any other provincial police force.

No Dick said similar and agreed with the position of Sara Thornton in a BBC Radio 4 "Today" interview last week.

ORAC
6th Nov 2018, 10:50
Returning to the original point, I was heartened that, during the R5L discussion of the incident this morning, even the representatitives of the Grenfell survivors stated that, reprehensibleas the video was, they though no crime had been committed.

In such circumstances I usually fall back on J. S. Mill and “On Liberty”, which defends freedom of speech and expression robustly, except where it may incite violence.

It should be noted that he starts his justification by noting the danger of “magistrates” (the authorities) using various justifications for suppressing views which oppose their own, but also the prevailing public opinion. Whilst this might be seen most nakedly in oppressive regimes, remember it is only a few years since Section 28 was rigidly enforced in the UK.

“Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compels all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism........”

“......Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.........”

artschool
6th Nov 2018, 11:25
its a bit like the pro Brexit march that they attempted in Liverpool last week.

they were stopped from marching and speaking.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/03/liverpool-runs-far-right-marchers-out-of-town

everyone may not like what they have to say but surely they should be allowed to say it?

KelvinD
6th Nov 2018, 11:44
I think the events in Liverpool panned out the way they did because of fears of violence. As the "far right" lot found themselves outnumbered by counter demonstrators by something like 5:1, they chickened out. When only 5 out of a threatened hundreds turn up, there isn't much point in a rally anyway. Pragmatism probably decided the outcome rather than prevention.

DaveReidUK
6th Nov 2018, 12:28
Presumably you mean the speech by Sara Thornton, not Cressida Dick, but she is with the Thames police.

Thornton left Thames Valley Police in 2015 to become chair of the National Police Chiefs' Council. She can reasonably be assumed to be speaking for most, if not all, Chief Constables.

Nemrytter
6th Nov 2018, 12:29
its a bit like the pro Brexit march that they attempted in Liverpool last week.You appear to be confusing pro-neo-Nazi with pro-brexit. How unfortunate.

Pegpilot
6th Nov 2018, 12:36
Well I can't see that the Grenfell Bonfire case is that much different from us Bradford City supporters enduring 30 years of taunting chants from opposing fans reminding us about the 1985 Valley Parade fire and its 56 victims. But the police never seem that bothered about apprehending the wind-up merchants when the chanting starts . So on balance, yes the "Bonfire" is deeply offensive, but criminal ? Nah.

Saintsman
6th Nov 2018, 13:27
There is a strong tradition of Black Humour in the UK at least. All of it could be considered offensive or in poor taste, but most people have a chuckle. In fact the comedian Jimmy Carr has made a career doing it and he attracts large audiences.

This incident is just a variation but probably not thought through. No crime though.


BTW, am I allowed to say 'Black' Humour?...

racedo
6th Nov 2018, 13:29
Lewes gets away with it every year even with some of the people there alllied with Ulster Loyalist groups.

Grenfell fire was bad taste but see it as not being illegal.

ATNotts
6th Nov 2018, 13:36
There is a strong tradition of Black Humour in the UK at least. All of it could be considered offensive or in poor taste, but most people have a chuckle. In fact the comedian Jimmy Carr has made a career doing it and he attracts large audiences.

This incident is just a variation but probably not thought through. No crime though.


BTW, am I allowed to say 'Black' Humour?...

Black humour is no longer permitted by the thought police, and the professionally offended. However it looks as though the people who did the Grenfell bonfire stunt did it specifically to post on social media,and the cause offence, for whatever reason. That is different to black humour, which as you say, most of us find amusing, and many of us have probably come up with examples in our own living rooms, the pub or the office.

artschool
6th Nov 2018, 13:39
BTW, am I allowed to say 'Black' Humour?...

no you are not. please turn yourself in to the nearest police station.

beamer
6th Nov 2018, 13:41
The perpetrators are quite clearly a bunch of tossers but should the police be wasting their time.....maybe, maybe not. Personally I would like to see Old Bill chasing real villains and clearing up the streets of knife crime etc bearing in mind their resources are limited. Remember all the 'jokes' that emerged in the aviation community after 9/11...... definitely black humour.

I was more irritated by the viral video of a woman in a headscarf ( lets leave it at that....) who quite brazenly stole a Poppy Appeal tin from a mini-market.

artschool
6th Nov 2018, 13:41
You appear to be confusing pro-neo-Nazi with pro-brexit. How unfortunate.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/far-right-brexit-liverpool-march-fascist-antifa-hope-not-hate-mayor-joe-anderson-a8617001.html

its as described in the independent newspaper?

Torquetalk
6th Nov 2018, 14:58
its a bit like the pro Brexit march that they attempted in Liverpool last week.

they were stopped from marching and speaking.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/03/liverpool-runs-far-right-marchers-out-of-town

everyone may not like what they have to say but surely they should be allowed to say it?

No that was a demo by fascists, promptly and overwhelmingly rebuffed by decent citizens of Liverpool. Well done the scouse! We know what they want to say and don’t have to go down that road again.

Artschool. Hmmn. Wouldn’t be much of that if the fascists had their way.

Thomas coupling
6th Nov 2018, 17:18
The alternative, of course, is to turn a blind eye....where will that lead us in years to come...If the jokes were about poor white children falling from the building or white mothers burning to death to protect their white children, perhaps some of them related to you.......how would you feel?
This is an assault on our (social) standards, we can reintroduce slavery, persecute minorities, imprison or castrate gays, and before long we are at each others throats. It all starts with words which lead to actions.
These perpetrators are sick people and need to be weeded out of society and re-educated.
This isn't Saudi or Brazil or Nigeria, FFS. We are supposed to be spearheading civilisation..................

sitigeltfel
6th Nov 2018, 17:34
A sixth person has now been arrested and all remain in custody. That's right, custody!

Meanwhile, paedophiles to be let off with a caution..

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/online-paedophiles-could-avoid-prison-13532430

pax britanica
6th Nov 2018, 17:39
Thomas C, you are right, you weep what you sow and in the UK for the past 20 years at least we have failed at public education and through the media sown the seeds of bigotry and ignorance, indeed ignorance and stupidity seem to be lauded. Both parties are to blame , they like the idea of a stupid ill informed uninterested electorate but they do not see what comes along with that. As to this incident , its not a crime but an appalling reflection on our society that we have people who actually think recreating a disaster in miniature is funny. would it be so funny if some people in say Liverpool burned a model of a BA737 to 'commemorate the Manchester Airtours incident 25 odd years ago

And ORAC , your comment seems to mirror my political views but on JB unless you are to the right of Hitler you are a communist or some sort of bleeding heart liberal at the elast

ShotOne
6th Nov 2018, 17:39
Yes, Thomas we could reintroduce slavery, castrations ...and all those other things. But in fact what we’re actually talking about is a few no-marks pulling a stupid stunt in extremely poor taste. I didn’t notice any outrage from you when an image of BJ, who you may not like, but is nonetheless a real person was burned.

pax britanica
6th Nov 2018, 17:48
Boris is a politician and therefore open to abuse at his image-he didnt wait terrified ina burning tower block wiith screaming children around to meet his death- bad taste from you sir, not the same thing at all.

And for a further example of me being grumpy and saying how peopel today cannot distinguish between horror and amusement try this one https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46110476. I know it is from the BBC and therefor straight from Moscow (oops they are right wing there now) so straight from world liberal leftist conspiracy HQ but in fact is true

artschool
6th Nov 2018, 17:50
No that was a demo by fascists, promptly and overwhelmingly rebuffed by decent citizens of Liverpool. Well done the scouse! We know what they want to say and don’t have to go down that road again.

Artschool. Hmmn. Wouldn’t be much of that if the fascists had their way.

haha. good one. maybe a quick check of the definition will help work out who are the fascists.

fascism noun [ U ] (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/help/codes.html)
also Fascism UK ​ /ˈfæʃ.ɪ.zəm/ US ​ /ˈfæʃ.ɪ.zəm/
​a political (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/political) system (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/system) based (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/based) on a very powerful (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/powerful) leader (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/leader), state (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/state) control (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/control), and being extremely (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/extremely) proud (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/proud) of country (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/country) and race (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/race), and in which political (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/political) opposition (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/opposition) is not allowed (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/allow)


freedom of speech is just that, not freedom of speech as long as certain people approve. that is the very definition of fascism.

skydiver69
6th Nov 2018, 18:31
The suspects seem to have been interviewed about s.4a of the public order act which is a summary only offence, but TV footage showed police conducting searches and taking photos of the scene. Unless I'm missing something police don't have s.18 search powers for summary only offences although if they were arrested for racially aggravated s.4 that is either way and therefore s.18 searches are allowed. I'm still surprised though that people were arrested as I would have thought that this incident could have been dealt with slow time and by voluntary interview. I'm not party to the full facts but I'm genuinely surprised that a- they were arrested b- that searches seem to have been made or c- that there are any genuine offences here.

KelvinD
6th Nov 2018, 18:31
There may (or may not) be a tad more to this Grenfell episode. The news is reporting that police have searched a property and taken away bags of evidence. Also heard on the news earlier were allegations that the perpetrators were making anti-Islam remarks in the video.

artschool
6th Nov 2018, 19:53
There may (or may not) be a tad more to this Grenfell episode. The news is reporting that police have searched a property and taken away bags of evidence. Also heard on the news earlier were allegations that the perpetrators were making anti-Islam remarks in the video.

you can hear them use the n word in the video.

Widger
6th Nov 2018, 20:06
I think the point I was trying to make us that November the 5th is in itself a national celebration of prejudice of a religious group. We celebrate by throwing an effigy of a Catholic on a bonfire. If it was an effigy of any other religious figure there would be outrage. It is double standards. If these people are guilty of a crime then surely, so is everyone else that takes part in bonfire night. We seem to have forgotten the reason for bonfire night and if people get outraged by some idiots, then why are Catholics not doing the same.

Torquetalk
6th Nov 2018, 20:17
haha. good one. maybe a quick check of the definition will help work out who are the fascists.

fascism noun [ U ] (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/help/codes.html)
also Fascism UK ​ /ˈfæʃ.ɪ.zəm/ US ​ /ˈfæʃ.ɪ.zəm/
​a political (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/political) system (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/system) based (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/based) on a very powerful (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/powerful) leader (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/leader), state (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/state) control (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/control), and being extremely (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/extremely) proud (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/proud) of country (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/country) and race (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/race), and in which political (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/political) opposition (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/opposition) is not allowed (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/allow)


freedom of speech is just that, not freedom of speech as long as certain people approve. that is the very definition of fascism.

North-West Front Line Patriots. A Neo-facist group. Just one of several variants, such as the North West Infidels who share membership in a shape-shifting game to pretend they are bigger and more representative than they are. They mustered a courageous 5 (or was it even 6) to get their anti-social message out there.

But don’t be deceived into thinking this is some minority group, who also has the right to be heard: They are Neo-fascists, they only believe in their right to free speech. If you cannot tell the difference between the big group of people, demonstrating against those who would curtail the rights and freedoms of other citizens (the good guys btw) and the small group, whining that they should be allowed to spread hate (those are the the bad guys btw), I am afraid you are lost.

I’ve seen the more threatening demos by fascists like these in action. Bunch of thugs bussed in from all over the country, marching through someone else’s highly mixed-ethnicity neighborhood (mine). Everyone was getting along just fine without them thank you very much.

The biggest internal threat is almost invariably from right-wing extremists, but the knuckleheads persuade themselves and other fools that they are some kind of courageous patriots. Traitorous, and sometimes murdering cowards more like. No better than the ISIS sh*ts.

But hey, the UK is a democracy and free speech is indeed a very important principle. So if you are happy to stand up for the rights of people to dismantle exactly that, have at it. Germany tried a really big social experiment like that and it didn’t work out well.

artschool
6th Nov 2018, 20:39
North-West Front Line Patriots. A Neo-facist group. Just one of several variants, such as the North West Infidels who share membership in a shape-shifting game to pretend they are bigger and more representative than they are. They mustered a courageous 5 (or was it even 6) to get their anti-social message out there.

But don’t be deceived into thinking this is some minority group, who also has the right to be heard: They are Neo-fascists, they only believe in their right to free speech. If you cannot tell the difference between the big group of people, demonstrating against those who would curtail the rights and freedoms of other citizens (the good guys btw) and the small group, whining that they should be allowed to spread hate (those are the the bad guys btw), I am afraid you are lost.

I’ve seen the more threatening demos by fascists like these in action. Bunch of thugs bussed in from all over the country, marching through someone else’s highly mixed-ethnicity neighborhood (mine). Everyone was getting along just fine without them thank you very much.

The biggest internal threat is almost invariably from right-wing extremists, but the knuckleheads persuade themselves and other fools that they are some kind of courageous patriots. Traitorous, and sometimes murdering cowards more like. No better than the ISIS sh*ts.

But hey, the UK is a democracy and free speech is indeed a very important principle. So if you are happy to stand up for the rights of people to dismantle exactly that, have at it. Germany tried a really big social experiment like that and it didn’t work out well.

are you being serious? so you think the way to preserve free speech is to curtail the free speech of others? a logical fallacy.

artschool
6th Nov 2018, 20:42
That is downright scary. I had always assumed custody was absolutely a last option and was reserved only for very serious offences where the public may be at risk if the offender(s) remained free. Now even judges and magistrates (although the latter I've always had a healthy disregard for) have totally caught the PC bug... and themselves likely feel threatened unless they do something "drastic". This is way, way out of line.

I recently told a woman in my office she was "super hot" (and she took it as a compliment)... if I said that in the UK in 2018 I'd be arrested.

the police probably realise that they are on a hiding to nothing, they want them in custody to get them to talk and perhaps say something incriminating.

46mins long and set in America, however it contains some sage advice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

flash8
6th Nov 2018, 20:58
the police probably realise that they are on a hiding to nothing, they want them in custody to get them to talk and perhaps say something incriminating. I think it requires at least a magistrate (or judge) to commit somebody to custody, and this based upon evidence of the seriousness of the offence, the criminal history of the defendant(s) I assume, and the likelihood of them re-offending if released on bail, possibly also I'd guess whether they'd be safe if released from angry mobs, now I'm not a lawyer and far from one - but in this case custody seems hugely over the top, and from experience of previous cases of PC infringement the judiciary now clamp down way out of proportion to the offences. This only breeds a climate of fear, and in the longer term it'll all end in tears.

Torquetalk
6th Nov 2018, 21:09
Oh what rot you spout.

Watch Terry Wogan reacting to his first ever black guest on Blankety Blank, or Jim Davison also on prime-time TV not all that long ago. Loss of identity my arse. Growing up more like.

And a well-intended compliment will still be received as one. Creepy behavior defining a professional relationship as sexual at the office won‘t.

You have to wonder how many professional disrupters trawl this forum.

skydiver69
6th Nov 2018, 21:13
I think everyone has misunderstood the reference to custody. In this context it means that the suspects have been arrested not that they have been imprisoned.

Gertrude the Wombat
6th Nov 2018, 22:15
I think the point I was trying to make us that November the 5th is in itself a national celebration of prejudice of a religious group.
Well, sort-of. There was a Catholic plot to murder the entire government, and it was detected and dealt with, to such an extent that it was hundreds of years before another Catholic terrorist group tried it again. And, with rather worse intelligence this time around, the Grand Hotel bombing only failed (to the extent that it did) because of incompetent engineering - the bomb was nowhere near big enough, or badly positioned, or both.

Anyway it's only an accident of history that we celebrate the defeat of some Catholic terrorists. Both sides were as bad as each other in those days, and it could easily have been the other way around.

neila83
6th Nov 2018, 22:35
I think the point I was trying to make us that November the 5th is in itself a national celebration of prejudice of a religious group. We celebrate by throwing an effigy of a Catholic on a bonfire. If it was an effigy of any other religious figure there would be outrage. It is double standards. If these people are guilty of a crime then surely, so is everyone else that takes part in bonfire night. We seem to have forgotten the reason for bonfire night and if people get outraged by some idiots, then why are Catholics not doing the same.


I suppose on the other hand, there is the possibility that burning an effigy of someone who died 400 years ago, guilty of trying to blow up the houses of parliament, may be just a teeny, weeny bit different, to mocking the people innocently burning to death in their homes a year ago, and laughing that they deserve it because..racism/benefits/choose your particular daily mail weekly hate. If you know with a close personal relationship to Guy who might be upset though I'll rescind that comment.

I'm not sure to be honest whether I think it should or should not be a crime, but those who think this is no different to burning a Fawkes effigy, or an effigy of a very much alive politician, have some very strange moral compasses. Do you even have any idea what happened inside that building to innocent people?

flash8
6th Nov 2018, 22:39
I think everyone has misunderstood the reference to custody. In this context it means that the suspects have been arrested not that they have been imprisoned.I just read that they have been released from custody. Guilty of gross stupidity perhaps.. but a criminal offence I think not.

ShotOne
6th Nov 2018, 23:13
“Misunderstood the reference to custody..”? Which part of locked in a cell do you think people are misunderstanding?

Another town, another bonfire. But burning Boris is ok “because he’s an MP” As is depicting the bloody severed head of the PM? Not to imply this ok’s this case but some here seem pretty selective about when to leap aboard the outrage bus.

flash8
6th Nov 2018, 23:20
Another town, another bonfire. But burning Boris is ok “because he’s an MP” As is depicting the bloody severed head of the PM? Not to imply this ok’s this case but some here seem pretty selective about when to leap aboard the outrage bus.Suspect the "brown" faces part of the case exponentially raised the blood pressure of the PC brigade, now not saying this in any racist context, merely as fact... imagine if Boris was "brown" (a bit of a stretch granted).... things would not be the same, MP or not!

KelvinD
6th Nov 2018, 23:48
Why not have a look at the video for yourselves? It was posted on You Tube but, if it has been removed from there, it can be found on Live Leak. The large English flag blowing in the breeze in the garden gives us a pointer to the character of these people. But let's not jump to conclusions as there is no evidence at all that Tommy Robinson was in the area!
There are comments such as "look at all the little ninjas burning" (cue lots of laughter), and "that'll teach them to pay the rent" (cue more guffaws).
One person present remarked "you lot are sick" but he was ridiculed for making that comment while making the video.
As for the silly arguments re custody, it is quite simple. If you are hauled in to your local cop shop, you may be detained and locked up while the police make further enquiries. The police have the right to do this, with a time limit of 24 hours and during that 24 hours they must either charge you, release you or seek an extension to the 24 hour period. If the police feel they have enough evidence to charge, then they can determine you should be put before a magistrate at the next opportunity. It is then up to them whether or not they bail you to appear at the magistrates court or hold you in custody until they get you to the court.
As I said earlier, I suspect we will be hearing more of this in the days to come.

flash8
7th Nov 2018, 00:08
YouTube reactions generally don't reflect the sentiment of the many, but are usually the result of the uneducated masses, a bit like a downmarket Daily Mail readers comments section. Most people who would be attracted to view this likely do so because they are inclined to support such actions, therefore the comments are slanted that way. People who comment on YouTube are a weird bunch... just look at the comments on any video.... it also seems YT don't bother to even censor anything.... which I guess is not surprising as it would be extremely difficult if not impossible.

Most right-thinking people would be abhorred no doubt by the video - still the crime is gross stupidity at best - not sure incitement could be viable here - and the problem is to charge as such risks the effect multiplying even further... something I am sure the authorities are aware of.

Krystal n chips
7th Nov 2018, 06:36
“Misunderstood the reference to custody..”? Which part of locked in a cell do you think people are misunderstanding?

Another town, another bonfire. But burning Boris is ok “because he’s an MP” As is depicting the bloody severed head of the PM? Not to imply this ok’s this case but some here seem pretty selective about when to leap aboard the outrage bus.

Had said effigies been the actual persons then, possibly, there may have been valid grounds for your angst........satire however, is precisely that, a satirical depiction and political satire has been a feature of the UK's history for many years.

There again, satire and sardonic comment isn't generally understood or appreciated here on JB.....

ORAC
7th Nov 2018, 07:50
Really? How long do you think it would have been before the organisers were behind bars if it had been an effigy of the Prophet rather than Boris?

clareprop
7th Nov 2018, 07:55
I'm up there with a high level of skepticism of chips on shoulders regarding free speech etc but having looked at the video, I think this episode crosses into something much nastier. This isn't a fancy dress poor choice or a few drunken comments, it appears to be a deliberate racial attack by bigoted people, one of whom is a teacher.

Krystal n chips
7th Nov 2018, 09:02
Really? How long do you think it would have been before the organisers were behind bars if it had been an effigy of the Prophet rather than Boris?


In all probability, very quickly.

However, as far as I am aware, said Prophet has never been a representative of the UK political system or an MP.....which is ever so slightly inconvenient I know when the effigies depicted, erm, are.

Shurely tho you must have viewed to works of Hogarth for example?........did a pretty good job of lampooning politics and UK society did he not ?

VP959
7th Nov 2018, 10:26
Although this was extremely distasteful and offensive, it was on private land I believe, in someone's back garden, and not a public event. I have a suspicion that there is more to these arrests than just the bonfire, and wouldn't be at all surprised to find that some of the group were already known to the police as being members of, or associated with, a group that the police may already have been aware of.

I abhor what they did, but would stand up for the right of anyone to hold views that I don't agree with, or that the many may find deeply offensive. The key issue here is that they seem to have chosen to publish their bigoted display of hatred by releasing the video. My guess is that by publishing the video, which apparently included racist comments, they may have committed an offence, rather than the private act of burning an effigy of Grenfell Tower itself being the offence (I stand to be corrected, but believe people can still express personal views in private without fear of arrest).

I suppose we can be thankful that racist bigots like this group seem too dim to understand that by posting the video of their antics they have pretty much guaranteed that they would be interviewed by the police and vilified by the majority of the people in this country. Be interesting to see how the teacher that was allegedly in this group comes out of this. Free speech is one thing, being seen to be openly racist and intolerant of the suffering of others aren't qualities that I'd want to see in someone that has a position of responsibility for children's education and welfare.

The Nip
7th Nov 2018, 10:41
Although this was extremely distasteful and offensive, it was on private land I believe, in someone's back garden, and not a public event. I have a suspicion that there is more to these arrests than just the bonfire, and wouldn't be at all surprised to find that some of the group were already known to the police as being members of, or associated with, a group that the police may already have been aware of.

I abhor what they did, but would stand up for the right of anyone to hold views that I don't agree with, or that the many may find deeply offensive. The key issue here is that they seem to have chosen to publish their bigoted display of hatred by releasing the video. My guess is that by publishing the video, which apparently included racist comments, they may have committed an offence, rather than the private act of burning an effigy of Grenfell Tower itself being the offence (I stand to be corrected, but believe people can still express personal views in private without fear of arrest).

I suppose we can be thankful that racist bigots like this group seem too dim to understand that by posting the video of their antics they have pretty much guaranteed that they would be interviewed by the police and vilified by the majority of the people in this country. Be interesting to see how the teacher that was allegedly in this group comes out of this. Free speech is one thing, being seen to be openly racist and intolerant of the suffering of others aren't qualities that I'd want to see in someone that has a position of responsibility for children's education and welfare.

I haven't or won't view this despicable video. What, IMHO has made matters worse, is those'celebrities' with their many followers, who were very quick to share the video. I am always suspicious why? Is it to be at the forefront of the outrage bus and to show all their loyal fans how righteous they are?
One such person works for the BBC, who rightly refused to show the video, but he was more than happy to share it.

artschool
7th Nov 2018, 10:55
In all probability, very quickly.

However, as far as I am aware, said Prophet has never been a representative of the UK political system or an MP.....which is ever so slightly inconvenient I know when the effigies depicted, erm, are.

Shurely tho you must have viewed to works of Hogarth for example?........did a pretty good job of lampooning politics and UK society did he not ?

Hogarth's work was banned last year after a court found a Harlot's Progress was found to be sexist and discriminatory against sex workers.

skydiver69
7th Nov 2018, 10:59
“Misunderstood the reference to custody..”? Which part of locked in a cell do you think people are misunderstanding?

Another town, another bonfire. But burning Boris is ok “because he’s an MP” As is depicting the bloody severed head of the PM? Not to imply this ok’s this case but some here seem pretty selective about when to leap aboard the outrage bus.
Some posters seemed to be inferring that the suspects had already been found guilty and had been imprisoned in custody so I was just making the point that at this stage they had only been arrested although they had been in police custody. I'd also made the point earlier in the thread that I thought that arresting them was OTT and that I couldn't see how searches could be justified under the circumstances known in public, so its not as if I was condoning the police action.

Haraka
7th Nov 2018, 11:47
I recall a time ,certainly in the late 60's, when "sick humour" was part and parcel of British Culture and often appeared in the "Media". Those such as Peter Cook, David Frost and others frequently dumped such remarks in commentary on events. For example Harry Roberts, the murderer of three policemen in 1966 who hid out sleeping rough in woods for weeks evading detection, was jokingly claimed by David Frost on one BBC programme as "rumoured to be applying for his Duke of Edinburgh's Scheme Gold Award ". There wasn't even a ripple of indignation.

The Grenfell Tower saga has brought out examples of some of the most base and venal behaviour by a series of false claimants. It also has been a sad political pantomime played out over the lives of the victims by a series of parties for their own gain. This latest fandango of pious posturing by the "offended" has to be seen in the light of those who have ,albeit in a totally clumsy and inappropriate way , expressed their cynical viewpoint on this societal disaster and it's consequent repercussions and revelations.

neila83
7th Nov 2018, 13:28
“Misunderstood the reference to custody..”? Which part of locked in a cell do you think people are misunderstanding?

Another town, another bonfire. But burning Boris is ok “because he’s an MP” As is depicting the bloody severed head of the PM? Not to imply this ok’s this case but some here seem pretty selective about when to leap aboard the outrage bus.

I don't think anyone burned Boris. As opposed to the people in that tower who did actually, literally, burn alive. So yes, there is a difference. He is alive, and his horrific death isn't being mocked. As a politician he is a legitimate target of protest, maybe it's distasteful but no-one is laughing at him actually burning alive or suggesting he should. Are the two really equivalent to you? Perhaps says more about you and your empathy levels and those on the 'outrage bus'.

neila83
7th Nov 2018, 13:31
I recall a time ,certainly in the late 60's, when "sick humour" was part and parcel of British Culture and often appeared in the "Media". Those such as Peter Cook, David Frost and others frequently dumped such remarks in commentary on events. For example Harry Roberts, the murderer of three policemen in 1966 who hid out sleeping rough in woods for weeks evading detection, was jokingly claimed by David Frost on one BBC programme as "rumoured to be applying for his Duke of Edinburgh's Scheme Gold Award ". There wasn't even a ripple of indignation.

The Grenfell Tower saga has brought out examples of some of the most base and venal behaviour by a series of false claimants. It also has been a sad political pantomime played out over the lives of the victims by a series of parties for their own gain. This latest fandango of pious posturing by the "offended" has to be seen in the light of those who have ,albeit in a totally clumsy and inappropriate way , expressed their cynical viewpoint on this societal disaster and it's consequent repercussions and revelations.

I think you've proved the opposite point to the one you think you did.

Do you think David Frost etc. made jokes about his victims and how they died? There's plenty of exactly the kind of humour you describe today. So perhaps jump off that outrage bus.

BAengineer
7th Nov 2018, 14:23
Khan will be relieved that it knocked to 117th fatal stabbing in London last night off the top of the news pages.


This ^^. 5 dead in the past 6 days and the yet the Met have the resources available to investigate a bonfire.. :ugh:

Haraka
7th Nov 2018, 15:46
"I think you've proved the opposite point to the one you think you did. Do you think David Frost etc. made jokes about his victims and how they died? There's plenty of exactly the kind of humour you describe today. So perhaps jump off that outrage bus"

Conversely, I think your knee jerk remarks indeed inadvertently support my point , but never mind. After all you were not around to witness the 60's in the U.K. , or anywhere else for that matter.
I suggest you troll elsewhere,simply because I am not on any "Outrage bus" and I don't rise to juvenile bait proffered by self-appointed Social Justice Warriors :)

Thomas coupling
7th Nov 2018, 18:08
Incidents like this serve to remind me that some societies (and I include GB in this) are only wafer thin when it comes to PC and civility. It worries me that if there were no rules or guidelines or education flagging up the problem then at the flick of a switch, we would have many of us at each others throats.
Whether it was for: poor/rich or black/white, or weak/strong. It's as if we are in a pressure cooker waiting for the relief valve to go off.
(Queue: Populism).

neila83
8th Nov 2018, 00:02
"I think you've proved the opposite point to the one you think you did. Do you think David Frost etc. made jokes about his victims and how they died? There's plenty of exactly the kind of humour you describe today. So perhaps jump off that outrage bus"

Conversely, I think your knee jerk remarks indeed inadvertently support my point , but never mind. After all you were not around to witness the 60's in the U.K. , or anywhere else for that matter.
I suggest you troll elsewhere,simply because I am not on any "Outrage bus" and I don't rise to juvenile bait proffered by self-appointed Social Justice Warriors :)

I offered an argument. You have offered insults. So who is the troll?

I would ask again, how people making jokes about a murderer is relevant? I only asked if Frost et Al routinely made jokes about the victims, which is what would be relevant here? That's not trolling, as I wasn't around in the 60s as you say, perhaps you could enlighten us?

I'm sure there's plenty of material on Harold Shipman around to show how wrong you are. Or there was Ricky Gervais' skit on Caitlyn Jenner, which he still riffs on.

So again, and since these rather contradict your point do you have a response?

Edit to add, since you're keen to educate us a bout the 60s there are a few things that confuse me. Now a lot of people like to reminisce about how good things were then before PC came and people started getting offended by things and ruined everything. I admit a lot was good, you could generally buy a house and raise a family on one income, and buy a house at a young age at that, tuition was free, people worked to a younger age, you got a lovely fat pension which anyone today can only dream of. But I digress.

But then I read that people got outraged by someone sitting down on a bus in the 60s. And I always think that can't be true because no-one got outraged then and certainly not by anything so trivial, but it seems to be part of the historical record. And the same people got outraged and went on marches and would hurt and sometimes kill people, because they wanted equal civil rights. And again, I think, but no-one got offended in the 60s and those are very strange things to be outraged by, and I'm always told the great American constitution made its people so much more free than everyone else, so I'm a little confused it was used to deny people rights.

There do seem to have been an awful lot of snowflakes around in the 60s, although there was no social media to record their, presumably very good reasons, to be upset about these things. Especially since these same people now accuse todays generation of being snowflakes for trying to prevent harm, rather than being denied their right to cause it.

I know you're not from the US but I wonder if it gives a good measure of what 60s people end to think is OK to be outraged by, and what is not. I mean to harken back to those days and say how great it was before PC, you have to be aware you're saying 'everything was much better when non-white people just shut up and had no rights and we could stamp all over them without repecussion'. A selfish view of 'better' but a view nonetheless.

Tankertrashnav
8th Nov 2018, 00:21
Hogarth's work was banned last year after a court found a Harlot's Progress was found to be sexist and discriminatory against sex workers.

Oh dear. I've got a nice set of those on the wall of my dining room. Perhaps I should be ready to turn them around to face the wall the next time the plod come round to check my shotgun cabinet!

IcePack
8th Nov 2018, 16:39
Don’t think it has been mentioned, but on the video it appears to show a female holding/placing the card board “model” onto the bonfire. However it would appear that only males handed themselves in. Just wondered if that very fact will hinder prosecution.

artschool
8th Nov 2018, 18:56
Don’t think it has been mentioned, but on the video it appears to show a female holding/placing the card board “model” onto the bonfire. However it would appear that only males handed themselves in. Just wondered if that very fact will hinder prosecution.
typical misogynistic behaviour of the patriarchy

eal401
9th Nov 2018, 15:31
The behaviour of the individuals was, there is no doubt, nasty. To arrest them however is a very dangerous precedent - especially in a city where people are being stabbed on a near daily basis.

Just tell me where the line sits between arrest and not being arrested for your actions. I'll wait....

KelvinD
9th Nov 2018, 16:13
You can be arrested for anything. All the bobby has to do is to say either you are being arrested on 'suspicion' of.. or you are being arrested in order to allow us to make investigations. In this case, the crime may relate to the publicising of their actions (via their video).

skydiver69
9th Nov 2018, 16:45
You can be arrested for anything. All the bobby has to do is to say either you are being arrested on 'suspicion' of.. or you are being arrested in order to allow us to make investigations. In this case, the crime may relate to the publicising of their actions (via their video).

Not quite. Firstly the home office wants the police to use more voluntary interviews so as that trickles down to the front line it has led to a reduction in arrests and second we have a necessity test as well as the custody sergeant to pass. One stumbling block is often that the greater the period between offence and arrest the lower the likelihood the custody sergeant will accept the prisoner unless it is for a serious offence If I am contemplating an arrest more than a month after the offence I'll quite often go and have a chat with the custody sergeant to see if they will accept my prisoner, with their decision varying depending on the circumstances. IIRC I think I've only ever had one example of a prisoner being refused.