Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Man who filmed Grenfell Tower effigy cleared after key evidence hidden

43 replies

HelenaDove · 22/08/2019 20:14

www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/property-millionaire-who-filmed-burning-grenfell-tower-effigy-cleared-after-key-evidence-hidden-a4219566.html#Echobox=1566492215

News
Comment
Football
Insider
GO London
Lifestyle
Showbiz
Homes & Property
ES Magazine
Future London

News › Crime
Property millionaire who filmed burning Grenfell Tower effigy cleared after key evidence hidden

Tristan Kirk
1 hour ago

Click to follow
The Evening Standard
Paul Bussetti at an earlier hearing
Popular Videos
Man who filmed Grenfell Tower effigy cleared after key evidence hidden
Bournemouth vs Man City preview: Premier League prediction, team news
Watford vs West Ham preview: Premier League prediction and team news
Man arrested on suspicion of Libby Squire murder released by police

A property millionaire who filmed a Grenfell Tower effigy being burned on a bonfire has been cleared by a judge after key evidence was hidden from defence lawyers in a string of “appalling” failures.

Paul Bussetti, 47, was accused of causing public outrage when a video of the bonfire was posted on YouTube in November last year, showing the cardboard model of the doomed tower going up in flames at a private party.

Prosecutors argued the video was grossly offensive and fuelled by racist humour, insisting black and Muslim occupants of the tower were depicted in figures on the side of the model.

However, Mr Bussetti told Westminster magistrates court today the incident and video was intended as a “joke” and had been misunderstood by members of the public, as the figures on the side were actually mocking versions of his group of friends.

[Paul-Bussetti.jpg]
Paul Bussetti (PA)

As the judge was preparing to give her verdict in the case, following two days of evidence and at the end of a nine-month criminal investigation, it dramatically emerged that two key police interviews that supported the defence case had never been disclosed to Mr Bussetti’s legal team.

The maker of the effigy, Steve Bull, and another partygoer, Peter Hancock, had both told Met officers just days after the controversial bonfire that the figures on the model were intended to depict their group of friends, rather than actual victims of the Grenfell tragedy.

Mr Hancock also revealed to police that he had filmed the bonfire himself and send the clip to friends on WhatsApp, but had faced no criminal prosecution and was not called to give any evidence.

Defence barrister Mark Summers QC said in light of the revelations, it was “not even clear that the video on YouTube and in the national media was Mr Bussetti’s video”.

During cross-examination, it was suggested that Mr Bussetti and the host of the party, Clifford Smith, had “created” the claim that the figures on the effigy were their friends.

Mr Summers told the court it was “utterly outrageous that anyone knowing this sat through the cross-examination you heard today and let it continue”, bemoaning the fact two police interviews supporting Mr Bussetti’s case had not emerged until the trial was almost over.

Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said she was “appalled” by the state of the disclosure in the case, and demanded an explanation for the failings from Scotland Yard and the CPS.

Clearing Mr Bussetti of the charge of sending an offensive communication, she said the bonfire was in “colossal bad taste” but said the prosecution had failed to prove the case against him.

“I can’t be sure the video relied on by the Crown is the one taken by the defendant”, she said. “I can’t be sure the cut-out images are not the defendant and his friends.

he said the case could have been thrown out as an abuse of process due to the disclosure failures, adding: “Once someone is charged with an offence, there is a tendency to take the foot off the pedal and not to review cases much afterwards.”

Judge Arbuthnot said it was only the vigilance of prosecutor Philip Stott that had averted a “potential miscarriage of justice”, as she demanded an full explanation of what had gone wrong.

Mr Bussetti, a father-of-two who owns a lucrative property portfolio, filmed the Grenfell effigy going up in flames at the event on November 3 last year, and sent the clip to two WhatsApp groups containing a total of 20 people.

He insisted the figures on the model were of his friends, and he sent the video to people who “understood the joke”.

“The majority of the people in that (WhatsApp) group were at the party, they all found it funny, we all found it funny”, he said. “It was pictures of us on the box.

He said it was “certainly not” genuine Grenfell victims on the effigy, and argued public outrage at the video was based on a misunderstanding of the “joke”.

Mr Bussetti said one figure with red hair was a friend whose nickname is “Ginge”, another figure with thick eyebrows was his friend whose nickname is “eyebrows”, and a third was the host of the party, Clifford Smith, who is known as “The Ghost”.

“He tries his hardest to get a sun tan and he just comes back white”, said Bussetti, denying the claim that the figure is a baby.

Prosecutors claimed one of the figures was a Muslim woman in a niqab, and one attendee of the party in November last year is heard on the video saying: “Look, little ninjas getting it at the moment”.

But Mr Bussetti today insisted the figure was actually Mr Smith’s son: “When he was younger he used to do martial arts and called himself ‘ninja’, and we called him a ninja.”

He added that he himself was on the model, depicted with big ears as he had the nickname ‘Pluggy’, and Mr Bull had also included himself with a large nose.

During the trial, a string of racist messages Mr Bussetti had received and shared on WhatsApp were shown, including offensive jokes about Muslims, black people, and involving the KKK.

Asked directly if he is a racist, Mr Bussetti twice replied: “No”.

Mr Summers told the court: “It’s a group of frankly juvenile men – name calling, group skinny dipping, sharing pornography, name calling and when that doesn’t do it anymore, simple foul language.”

But he insisted the public had misunderstood the effigy “joke

But he insisted the public had misunderstood the effigy “joke” which Mr Bussetti had never intended to become public.

Judge Arbuthnot said the racist and abusive messages “showed the sort of person he is” but were not enough to “fil the holes” in the prosecution case.

When Mr Bussetti first handed himself in to police in November, during intense publicity around the video, he admitted the clip was “horrible” and added: “It’s just sick, there was no purpose.”

He did not mention that his friends were depicted on the model, but told the court today he was

Bussetti, from South Norwood, denied and was acquitted of sending an offensive communication, under the 2003 Communications Act.

OP posts:
picklemepopcorn · 22/08/2019 20:20

Really?

HelenaDove · 22/08/2019 20:24

@Awwlookatmybabyspider

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 22/08/2019 20:28

And yet they can clearly be heard in the video saying "this is what happens when you dont pay your rent"

So how can those paper figures on that effigy represent those at that bonfire night when they are property owners

OP posts:
picklemepopcorn · 22/08/2019 20:54

Even if they added images of each other to the tower, it's still a sick, disgusting reference to a tragedy.

I just don't understand.

FrogFairy · 22/08/2019 22:05

They are sick fuckers and imo their “explanation” is a crock of shit.

HelenaDove · 22/08/2019 23:03

Exactly Pickle.

OP posts:
OP posts:
SinisterBumFacedCat · 22/08/2019 23:38

Fucking racists getting away with it again

InsertFunnyUsername · 23/08/2019 00:22

Honestly, the "I used to call my son a ninja" excuse is ridiculous. And they're getting away with it. Scum.

HelenaDove · 23/08/2019 00:51

Pathetic isnt it. Obviously the best he could come up with.

OP posts:
SinisterBumFacedCat · 23/08/2019 09:02

It’s a good point about the “this is what happens when you don’t pay rent” comment, how could they be talking about themselves? Can’t believe no one in that court thought of that!

Belgravian · 23/08/2019 09:23

He was acquitted because another video was in circulation and so they couldn’t prove it was the defendants video that was the one that was seen by many.

ProfessorSlocombe · 23/08/2019 10:08

The real scandal here (that no one will see) is that the police tried to fit the defendant up and damn near got away with it. Which is no problem - if we're happy to live in a society where the police can get away with breaking the law, then that's our choice, obviously.

But it's not a great advert for the police, is it. I'm hardly more inclined to trust them after this am I ?

All else is frothing. People should only go to jail if it's been proven they've broken the law. No proof, no jail. It's a shame it seems to be such a complicated notion sometimes. Well I think it is.

Gentlemanwiththistledownhair · 23/08/2019 11:26

professor sort of. The real scandal is that the police seem to have been trying to sway the court case I'm their favour in order to secure a conviction.

After that, whether he has committed the offence or not can't be decided in that particular court case, because how could you ever be sure a conviction was safe?

ProfessorSlocombe · 23/08/2019 11:37

After that, whether he has committed the offence or not can't be decided in that particular court case, because how could you ever be sure a conviction was safe?

That's the corrosive danger of police fit ups - especially when they never face any fallout from what is quite frankly criminal behaviour. (You try lying in court to get someone banged up, and see what happens to you ...). It taints the entire justice system, and makes it a "justice" system.

This is one case - and it was uncovered. How many more uncovered ones are there ? How many people are there in jail who really are innocent ? How can we trust the verdicts of courts if we can't trust the police to start with ? (I apologise to no one for refusing to uncritically trust the police).

All of this matters because we're developing into the vigilante string-em-up society of the Wild West, egged on by a Home Secretary who would probably find hanging drawing and quartering "the easy option" with things like "proof" and "evidence" reserved for names for her two labradoodles.

Personally I hope a lot more of these cases fail. I have no problem for people being jailed for genuinely inciting violence. But you can't go around jailing people for being offensive twats. And if you can, there's people I find waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more offensive than a few dickheads actively seeking a response in an engineered manner.

Azeema · 23/08/2019 11:46

I do not see problem with bonfire or why outrage.
I went to bonfire night and see house parliament and Big Ben burnt up...
No one arrested for inciting violence against MPs...

LochJessMonster · 23/08/2019 11:49

I'm actually glad they got acquitted.

What they did was disgusting and disrespectful and they should at least have the decency to admit it was in poor taste, but I don't believe it should be treated as a criminal offence. That's one step too far imo.

ProfessorSlocombe · 23/08/2019 11:57

I do not see problem with bonfire or why outrage.

It was all sorts of wrong. Insensitive. Crass. Unpleasant. Nasty. Malicious. And certainly all knowingly so.

But criminal ?

I rarely have much good to say about the US and it's hypocritical institutions. But the one thing they got spot on - although it had to be neutered as it's just too damn powerful - is the first amendment. The recognition that we are all entitled to say what we think without fear of the law sticking it's clod-hopping size 13s all over our faces. As soon as you lose sight of that principle (or never have it to start with, like the UK) then you open the door for things like Boris Johnson deciding that social media companies should not promote anti-vaxxer bullshit. Or anti-Brexit bullshit. Or (and it's probably coming) anti-Boris bullshit.

It's a shame that the British public, by and large, have been conditioned to deal with outrage by insisting people are censored and censured, rather than by exercising their own rights and demonstrating their approbation. Freedom of expression is a two way street, and does not mean freedom to spout bile, bollocks and batshittery without challenge ... in fact it means the exact opposite. That bile, bollocks and batshittery can and should be challenged at every turn.

But, we are where we are. We are who we are. And we are going where we are going.

HelenaDove · 23/08/2019 14:01

I see your point. But i do wonder if the same opinion would be held if say sorry but this is all i can think of to compare if someone were to burn a doll replica of James Bulger on a Guy Fawkes night. Most heinous comparison i can think of. I dont think this would have entered the defendants heads though. Not because they care about children Because there were children who died in Grenfell. But because James Bulger was white and there wouldnt have been as much support for these defendants if they had done this.

OP posts:
LochJessMonster · 23/08/2019 14:17

I don't think its a racist thing. Burning a doll of James Bulger would, again, be a disgusting and disrespectful thing to do, but I don't think its a criminal act and shouldn't be treated as one.

The men involved in this are vile scum but not criminals.

HelenaDove · 23/08/2019 14:21

Loch Jess my point was there would be a LOT more ppl demanding they go to prison and a lot less people defending them in the scenario ive come up with

OP posts:
ProfessorSlocombe · 23/08/2019 14:54

If you want people to be sensitive to racism, you really have to stop calling them racists for being aware of race. Putting aside the extremely dodgy construct of "race" in the first place, if you are going to insist on creating it, you then have to accept there will be times it can be used as a valid appendage to a noun without any malice, ignorance or ill intent aforethought.

but I digress ...

Knitclubchatter · 23/08/2019 15:11

A joke in bad taste. Never thought it was anything more right from the start.

picklemepopcorn · 23/08/2019 21:14

Isn't there an 'offence' to do with offensive behaviour? This was designed to cause offence- and distributed for maximum impact. It poked fun at the tragic and horrific deaths of vulnerable people. Is that not an offence of any kind?

PegasusReturns · 23/08/2019 21:23

In 2019 there is no excuse for failure to disclose evidence that would undermine the offence.

The police involved should be ashamed of themselves

Swipe left for the next trending thread