Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Grenfell Tower Bonfire

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Grenfell Tower Bonfire

Old 6th Nov 2018, 06:44
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MARS
Posts: 1,033
Grenfell Tower Bonfire

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.
Widger is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 06:51
  #2 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,912
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.



ORAC is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 07:01
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,518
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.
surely not is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 07:06
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,627
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?
ATNotts is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 07:06
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 67
Posts: 895
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/...-poppy-burning
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 07:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
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.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 07:34
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,627
Originally Posted by Nemrytter View Post
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.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 07:36
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 677
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".
KelvinD is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 07:43
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,481
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 07:44
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: chester
Posts: 60
it's obvious distasteful, but there is no way they should be prosecuted for a crime.
artschool is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 07:45
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: chester
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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?
artschool is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 08:08
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 67
Posts: 895
Khan will be relieved that it knocked to 117th fatal stabbing in London last night off the top of the news pages.
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 08:24
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,627
Originally Posted by sitigeltfel View Post
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.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 09:02
  #14 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,912
I presume the outrage at the Met investigating hate crimes is because the Labour Party is the focus of their current investigation?.....
ORAC is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 09:16
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,627
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
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!
ATNotts is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 09:26
  #16 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,912
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.
ORAC is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 09:31
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,627
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
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.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 09:50
  #18 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,912
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.........”

Last edited by ORAC; 6th Nov 2018 at 10:32.
ORAC is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 10:25
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: chester
Posts: 60
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/...rs-out-of-town

everyone may not like what they have to say but surely they should be allowed to say it?
artschool is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 10:44
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 677
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.
KelvinD is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.