shocked so many people think this is ok? Arrest of man who set fire to poppy!

[AlphaBeta82]

don't get me wrong he is an obnoxious, unpatriotic, idiot, but too call this an arrestable offence really concerns me. Have we lost that much of free speech in this country that if someone disagrees (on a personal social networking page!) with one of our traditions we throw them in jail. what happened to freedom of speech.

I am not defending his actions in the slightest, but it does concern me that this is what our country has come too!

Why does the law need amending?

Hesterton, I'm afraid I would defend your right to post a picture of yourself burning a book - any book - on your own Facebook profile, however much of a prat I might think you were.

You might be burning a book I wrote. Hell, you might even be burning a picture of me! I'd be intensely hurt. But I don't expect the police to enforce punishment on you for hurting my feelings. I can hide a post, hide you, block you ... same as I can turn off a TV programme that upsets me or close a thread on here.

If you accompanied your picture with an actual threat or libel of me, I'd consider using the law. But an offensive picture with "Take that, Garlic" underneath is not actionable - or shouldn't be.

He said something like 'how about this you squadey cunts' - I have seen the picture on Twitter.

And like I said on the other thread - so what? He is a nasty little toad but this should NOT be a criminal offence.

Now, if he'd been arrested for bad spelling ...

"If you burnt a Qu'uran and posted it, that would lead to prosecution under the same act. It would be intensely hurtful to religious Muslims and could cause considerable problems with communities and between them."

how is that the same as burning a poppy? a poppy has no religious affiliation. it isn't a religious book.

I believe there was also a picture of his bottom so maybe indecent exposure was part of the offense. I think he needs a boot up the said bottom by a "squadey" but not necessarily an arrest.

Hopefully it will scare the shit out of him and he won't be such a dick in the future.

I agree with Bilbobagginstummy.

Mon 12-Nov-12 18:04:49

I think it should be an offence to set fire to stuff in public without taking fire safety precautions. It's a pretty offensive way to behave.

I am absolutely fed-up with thoughtless morons burning bits of plastic, in particular.

I don't think this was done in public, just posted on fb...

Well, he burnt it somewhere. Can we check up on where he burnt it, in order to see what risks he could have posed to the public? I'm up for prosecuting him for any form of irresponsible-git-setting-fire-to-things type of behaviour! For example, could he have set his own residence on fire by accident, due to being negligent? Gwan, gwan.

I want to see copies of his carefully completed risk-assessments. I won't even comment on his (no doubt) appalling spelling on said forms!

its offensive and likely to cause a breach of the peace.

Such a dangerous argument. It can be used to shut down any protest or any dissent.

I think unless he is inciting others to commit a crime or creating a dangerous situation by putting others at risk by setting fires (hardly likely if he set fire to a paper poppy on a teeny plastic stick) this should not be a criminal offence.

My army husband (17 years) says that as long as he paid for the poppy-and therefore the money went to British Legion-then he can do what he likes with it. He has no problem with people who disagree with what the army does and definitely doesn't want him arrested.

This is not the first case of this kind, and it probably won't be the last.

But I am with the op on this. He is as entitled to his point of view as anyone else. I don't see why he should be arrested and silenced when my Facebook page was filled with pictures of poppy fields and soldiers on Sunday.

He didn't threaten anyone, he didn't endanger anyone. His opinion wasn't racist or homophobic.

He expressed himself poorly, and it was deliberately inflammatory. But why should expressing a contentious point of view be an arrest able offence?

I can think of a few politicians that should be under lock and key if that was the case.

Dangerous ground, this, to arrest someone for voicing their legal opinion publically.

Being offensive isn't illegal.

Doing something likely to cause a breach of the peace isn't illegal.

Malicious Communications Act sounds like a catch all law that could be used to cover just about anything you do online that Govt does not like.

This is worrying.

It's very worrying. There's an excellent piece in the Guardian about this business, and how the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging sentimental fuckwits that lined Rupert Murdoch's pockets all these years are becoming more and more of a threat to freedom.

Offended by something? Tough fucking shit. It's probably done you some good.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

It's pretty clear - and it's pretty much been the case since 1988.

Any person who sends to another person?
(a)a [F1letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys?
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any [F2article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

I'd say he falls under that - because what he did is by any right thinking person, grossly offensive - and was a malicious act.

However, I think the more interesting aspect is that there are massive grey areas - some very sarcastic posts can easily be interpreted as grossly offensive when someone else doesn't get the joke. And also that common understanding is that we live in a country where we have 'free speech' - that clearly (under law) has been open to interpretation for a while.

Yikes.

But that's saying it's illegal to post anything that may be offensive to anyone! FFS, it's a universal net - that is, a Stasi-type regulation.

How about "cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it ... should be communicated."?

When you post something to your own Facebook page - even with a badly-written message to HM Armed Forces - you're not "publishing" it with intent to distress squaddies (who would be unlikely to give a shit, anyway). You're posting what you think is an edgy statement to your FB friends and any hangers-on who might see it.

He should have had a decent defence. I'm getting quite worried by the speed with which case law is being constructed, using mouthy no-marks as fodder.

Police can't just arrest someone 'for burning a poppy'.

Actually they can arrest you for anything, they just have to justify it afterwards.

There are more offensive things than that on fb. Why aren't all the racists, homophobes and misogynists getting arrested then?

It does stink of being able to pick and choose.

If he is to be arrested then others should be too. I personally don't think he should have been, unless there's something else we don't know about.

WHat is happening is that the sort of morons who slobber over particular, high-profile cases that the media have been shovelling at them, the sort of people who endlessly repost soppy bullshit on FB with the 'If you don't repost, you don't CARE' tag at the bottom of it, are being allpowed to influence policy, predominantly because the Government finds it useful to encourage them to think this way.

I had a blogpost about the last manifestation of this, which was particulary infuriating, as the 'joker' who 'offended' the morons got a heavier sentence than the man who was found guilty of domestic violence.

Oh FFS, that Act should never have got through. It's vaguely worded and can essentially be used to punish people for practically anything.

Who decides what is "grossly offensive"?
I don't think drunkenly posting a picture of you burning a paper poppy with a badly-spelt "take THAT!" underneath counts as grossly offensive. Stupid, yes. Thoughtless, yes. Offensive? Only if you're a delicate, special flower with nothing actually important to worry about.