Anyone seen woman arrested for saying f****t in a private text message?

His offence was so much worse so it shows there’s no justice.
She was a victim hospitalised after being attacked by a man who broke her skull and she ends up the bad guy because she called him a word and it wasn’t even to his face.
He didn’t go through anything like what she did and she was the one punished.
This world is sick.

His offence was so much worse so it shows there’s no justice.
She was a victim hospitalised after being attacked by a man who broke her skull and she ends up the bad guy because she called him a word and it wasn’t even to his face.
He didn’t go through anything like what she did and she was the one punished.
This world is sick.

And that changes her offense how?

I listened to the podcast with Piers Morgan.
I felt for her, she was genuinely physically hurt but the bad word was more important.

But her abuser broke the law and her skull and didn’t get prosecuted.

And that changes her offense how?

But her abuser broke the law and her skull and didn’t get prosecuted.

I think we've slightly gone off track here. I thought the point of this thread was that the word fagg*t was used and the woman was crininalised for it because the recipient took offence. If the facts are simply that she was harassing someone then the thread is fairly pointless. Do we know the facts yet?

You're just trying to minimise the offense.

She broke the law, was prosecuted and plead guilty. A law that's been on the books since the 1980s.

Would you be happy to receive multiple abusive and unsolicited messages. Because that is what is meant by malicious. Would you be happy to be told you can block that person or come off social media to avoid them? Do you think that would stop someone who would do this in first place? Because they just find other means to do something no right thinking person would ever do.

It is very easy to not send a barrage of malicious messages or make multiple malicious posts. Most right minded moral people know it is wrong and act responsibly. Those that don’t act responsibly face consequences in order for our freedoms to continue. That’s why the punishment for crimes is a removal of freedoms.

There are two things people are thinking about though:

• Is this law right? Do we want/need this law?
• If we do, are the police and the courts interpreting it in the right way?

My view is that the law needs to be revised. I don't think it is a good use of police and court time to prosecute someone for a one-off event like this. The police seem to be prioritising cases like this at the expense of more significant crimes, I assume because they are easy to investigate.

If the messages continued despite the recipient blocking them, or contained threats or incitement to violence, that would be different.

I understood that it was a barrage of messages in a short timeframe. I would consider that a one off and I guess the police also did if they didn't charge her with harassment.

In this case it was a "barrage of messages"

Not a one off

Where do you get your figure of 30 a day?

https://westgatesentinel.com/amp/story/international/11-uk-cops-storm-home-drag-naked-woman-from-bath-her-crime-one-text-calling-her-attacker-a-slur

It's not unprecedented, is it? Look at the number of arrests for speech in this country over the last few years. There are about 30 a day. Literally arresting people for things they say online or in private conversations. There have been quite a few high profile cases where the police have overreached and been forced to apologise. So yeah, I don't doubt that it's true - and if it isn't, well, the facts will be on record, won't they, so I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

https://westgatesentinel.com/amp/story/international/11-uk-cops-storm-home-drag-naked-woman-from-bath-her-crime-one-text-calling-her-attacker-a-slur

Working with women who have been murdered, almost murdered, had their dogs stabbed, their children removed, put in prison, forced into prostitution because of the very real THREAT of male violence.

Nah, you’re right. I don’t give a shit about rude words.

I know you’re not going to back down or stop using these women as a means to make your own, very separate point (ironically against a woman who was actually ASSAULTED by the person she called a bad word) so I’m going to bow out of this.

I hope you get the validation you need out of your whatabouting on this thread.

There are two things people are thinking about though:

• Is this law right? Do we want/need this law?
• If we do, are the police and the courts interpreting it in the right way?

My view is that the law needs to be revised. I don't think it is a good use of police and court time to prosecute someone for a one-off event like this. The police seem to be prioritising cases like this at the expense of more significant crimes, I assume because they are easy to investigate.

If the messages continued despite the recipient blocking them, or contained threats or incitement to violence, that would be different.

As a country we've decided, via our elected Parliament, that malicious communication is illegal. That offence can be aggravated where particular intent is used.

Using the word to describe a sort of meatball, or at least in my opinion in a an artistic context as in The Fairy Tale of New York is OK.

A police investigation will start with inviting you in for an interview. If you don’t cooperate then you will be arrested. For some activists the publicity of an arrest is all part of their campaign.

Alison Pearson has a huge public platform and she is meant to be a journalist. She posted an online story using a photo which she should have known was misinformation. At a time of heightened sectarian tensions between 2 communities in this country. Someone or many people reported it as incitement.

Once a crime is reported the police are compelled to do something which would be controversial either way. If it was NFA’d it would be as much as an issue.

The police don’t judge. They have a duty to investigate and the right to detain people who don’t cooperate with investigations. The CPS and the courts will provide checks and balances to administer of justice and judgement. Those principles elevate policing in this country way ahead of most of the rest of the world. It’s a good thing.

I don't agree. There seems to be plenty of people who are claiming that causing offence should be illegal. There have been a significant number of cases where someone wrote something fairly inoffensive on the Internet and the police turn up at their door. For example Alison Pearson. Or Graham Lineham, who was arrested months later by armed police. This is wrong and chilling.

The other issue is not being able to predict what will cause offence and to whom. No one wants the police at their door on Sunday morning like Alison Pearson and to have their books checked for wrong-think.

I think people who defend this or don't think there's much of a problem with the law as it is perhaps haven't done much reading in life to know it's worrying as to where this sort of thing might go. (That's just my personal opinion of course and I'm sure it doesn't apply to all).