'Heather' Herbert Charged Over Ann Widdecombe Comments

[PandorasMailbox]

About time imo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ln31g8gvo

Vile man. Good.

This will probably deleted, but as an aside, who does he think he’s trying to kid looking like that. He really is a creepy looking weirdo.

Although this person's message was distasteful, I'm can't quite see how it meets the criminal threshold. Publicly hoping that a deceased individual's death was "extremely painful", and hoping that she died screaming shackled to her bed (referencing the pregnant prisoner story) is disturbing, but as Ann Widdecome herself said:

"Nobody has the right to live their lives being protected from offence or from insults or from hurt feelings."

The posts were made before the manner of Widdecome's death was made known, which makes it... slightly less worse?

That said, if the individual's employers see fit, they should be free to dismiss them for gross misconduct for making statements that reflect poorly.

I'm wondering if the police found worse in this person's other messages, or their harddrive...

Neither do I. Being offensive is not an offence, despite what that police van announced quite a while back. He could do with a good shunning, though.

What the hell does self dilate mean? And why does it have to be done on the floor??

Honestly I have no idea.

I’m not sure this is a good thing. I wonder what they’ve charged him with. Presumably misuse of communications and being grossly offensive.

I think most organisations have some such rule written into their employment contracts/HR social media policies. Problem is for a university which are notoriously left wing and inclusive they probably agree with him but can’t be seen to be agreeing with him! I wouldn’t be surprised if he keeps his job. Shame.

The whole polycule has a serious case of arrested development.

Hang on to your ignorance because once you know you can't go back, and it's yuk 🤮

I don't think the law has caught up with the implications of social media - in some ways, it hasn't caught up with the motor car, but that's another topic.

I don't know what the charge will be - but if I were to try and express it, it would be something like 'offending standards of common decency/humanity'. You don't wish a cruel death on someone just because you don't agree with them.

It was like when that American academic (what is it with university staff - do they think they're on a higher level and can say just about anything??) who wished the late Queen had died a painful death because of the British Empire??? These people are crazy and have lost sight of decent behaviour. If you don't like the British Empire, no problem, but why should that translate into wishing a painful death on an old woman?

I don't know if people like this have always been amongst us, or if social media and other factors have emboldened them and their repulsive views.

It could be malicious communications, surely? Intended to cause alarm or distress.

Malicious communications is very broad. The problem is, it makes it easy to arrest someone but not to convict them. This also worked in the favour of women arrested for such heinous things as tying a ribbon to a lamppost. And I guess the phrase "the process is the punishment" could apply, but it could also give them an opportunity to be a martyr.

Unpleasant though it is, if the tweet was wishing harm on someone who was still alive then you could maybe argue it was an attempt to invite violence. But because she was also (tragically) dead, saying "I hope she suffered" is heinous but not really incitement. And usually British jurors and British courts are quite hesitant to convict people for deeply offensive but not openly inviting violence posts.
So I wouldn't hold your breath for the arrest to lead to a conviction but I could be wrong.

Just watched this, the bloke is thick as mince. I can't believe he gets air time, unless it's to show him up as the silly man he is.

But under the Malicious Communications Act it is an offence to intend to cause distress, even if you think it shouldn’t be.
Might be a bit hard to argue there was no intent to cause distress when you’ve said you hoped somebody died screaming…..

I do agree that for this sort of thing losing a job in a public facing role would be proportional. Just because something can legally be done or said, doesn't mean you should say it or do it.

He might argue that as she's dead, the message wouldn't distress her and it wasn't addressed or targeted at any particular person, just put on the internet in general.

I don't know, IANAL. I can see both arguments. Just have to wait and see. I think his employer would be crazy to keep him on after that but universities are insane these days.

Scott. His name is Scott

Is it definitely Herbert who has been charged or one of his “friends”? They probably have had a good look through all his socials.

I really hope the police have checked the hard drives and phones of anyone in his home.

I don't think he should of been arrested for those posts as nasty as they were, it was not criminal, but it is an excellent opportunity to gather possible criminal evidence.

It does fall under mal comms. But I disagree with the law on mal comms, as I do 'hate speech'.

He's a horrible man, and his comments made me feel ill, but saying horrible, cruel, and hurtful things also needs to be protected as free speech.

And usually British jurors and British courts are quite hesitant to convict people for deeply offensive but not openly inviting violence posts.
So I wouldn't hold your breath for the arrest to lead to a conviction but I could be wrong.

@Persephonia1966 If he has been charged, I have to assume that the police think they have enough to make a good case. But, I do hope he hasn't been arrested and charged purely based on what he has said online, unless he has actually been inciting violence. Women have had plenty of experience in recent years of being "processed" in this way for completely legal speech. I wouldn't want this to start being used again, however heinous Herbert's comments.

Free speech should still mean something in Britain, and that should include the right to be offensive (in my opinion).

Wonder who strong armed this turnaround. Police Scotland must be so pissed. 😂

Meh it’s a tweet and it wasn’t great but ultimately it’s a play on Anne’s vile comment that female prisoners should be chained to the bed when giving birth even if they’re screaming. Anne wasn’t prosecuted for her words.

It means he had his penis turned inside out to make a sort of pseudo 'vagina'.

I've put vagina in inverted commas because obviously its just a hole that needs regular dilation to stay open rather than the wondrous and lovely thing a real vagina is.

It has no controlable musculature, no self cleaning or lubricating, no clitoris encompassing it etc. I imagine it's a bit mediocre compared to the real thing.

You could google it, but don't do it while you're eating. Or drinking. Or have recently done so.

... which she didn't make. Check Hansard.