Man jailed and teenager arrested for offending the British public.
Before I begin, keep in mind that I am a trainee teacher.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ann-maguire-leeds-teacher-tweets-3512456
A man called Robert Riley has been arrested and jailed for two weeks, mostly due
to innapropriate comments that were made in reference to Ann Maguire's death. He essentially said that the young man should have 'killed all the bastard teachers'. Now I only have to look at a general Daily Mail article on education to see this kind of comment. Blaming everything on teachers is one of the things I'll have to put up with in my career. However this man is simply an idiot, someone who is using twitter as a platform to air his warped perceptions of the world and is clearly attention seeking when you take into account his other posts. He's an unsuccessful Frankie Boyle or Jeremy Clarkson. He's no different from protesters claiming that British soldiers should die, (who seem to get away with this, correct me if I'm wrong). This man should not be in prison and a 16 year old boy should certainly not have been arrested for simply being tools. If anything, the publicity surrounding this has probably reached the family of Ann Maguire and potentially been upsetting for them, when a twitter deactivation would probably have prevented it reaching them altogether. The British public being offended has nothing to do with anything.
What effect will prison have on this person's ability to find a job or support themselves in the future?
I am offended by a number of things, usually located on the homepage of TSR. Do I expect ignorant pompous pricks to be arrested for their beliefs? No. Who gets to determine what is offensive language worthy of jail time and what is offensive language worthy of a face-palm? For me this sets a worrying precedent.
So in light of that, tell me what you think.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ann-maguire-leeds-teacher-tweets-3512456
A man called Robert Riley has been arrested and jailed for two weeks, mostly due
to innapropriate comments that were made in reference to Ann Maguire's death. He essentially said that the young man should have 'killed all the bastard teachers'. Now I only have to look at a general Daily Mail article on education to see this kind of comment. Blaming everything on teachers is one of the things I'll have to put up with in my career. However this man is simply an idiot, someone who is using twitter as a platform to air his warped perceptions of the world and is clearly attention seeking when you take into account his other posts. He's an unsuccessful Frankie Boyle or Jeremy Clarkson. He's no different from protesters claiming that British soldiers should die, (who seem to get away with this, correct me if I'm wrong). This man should not be in prison and a 16 year old boy should certainly not have been arrested for simply being tools. If anything, the publicity surrounding this has probably reached the family of Ann Maguire and potentially been upsetting for them, when a twitter deactivation would probably have prevented it reaching them altogether. The British public being offended has nothing to do with anything.
What effect will prison have on this person's ability to find a job or support themselves in the future?
I am offended by a number of things, usually located on the homepage of TSR. Do I expect ignorant pompous pricks to be arrested for their beliefs? No. Who gets to determine what is offensive language worthy of jail time and what is offensive language worthy of a face-palm? For me this sets a worrying precedent.
So in light of that, tell me what you think.
(edited 9 years ago)
Agreed. This is something one would expect to see in the novel 1984, not in the real world that supposedly promotes free speech.
I Agree as disgusting and pathetic that his post was. I think it is against the british public interest to prosecute this kind of speech
Original post by wildrover
It's a disgrace, what he said was sick and inappropriate but he should have the right to say what he did. Vote for civil liberties, vote UKIP
LOL! No.
Oh Britain 
Kinda goes against the "freedom of speech" thing. Unless you're stalking people online, or bullying people, by in large, people should be able to say what they want
I dont like the BNP, but they can say what they want, no matter how offensive I may think them to be
I dont like the BNP, but they can say what they want, no matter how offensive I may think them to be
Original post by wildrover
It's a disgrace, what he said was sick and inappropriate but he should have the right to say what he did. Vote for civil liberties, vote UKIP
Agree, agree, agree, WAIT WHAT NO.
People should unfollow him on twitter if they don't like what he is saying. He shouldn't be in trouble with the police for it.
The idea that someone could be arrested simply for saying something offensive is outrageous. However, wouldn't there be a case against him for incitement to murder?
Right to freedom of speech is a qualified right and subject to exceptions such as protection of morals. I imagine his sentence is more to do with the reference to drowning Muslim babies than the comment about the teacher.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Freedom of speech is a myth.
Original post by RumpeIstiltskin
Right to freedom of speech is a qualified right and subject to exceptions such as protection of morals. I imagine his sentence is more to do with the reference to drowning Muslim babies than the comment about the teacher.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
This is what I said. It looks like he could have reasonably jailed for incitement to murder. However, the apparently chose to prosecute based on the fact that what he said was offensive, not incitement to a crime. How on earth does that work?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish
This is what I said. It looks like he could have reasonably jailed for incitement to murder. However, the apparently chose to prosecute based on the fact that what he said was offensive, not incitement to a crime. How on earth does that work?
Article 10 ECHR
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
He was probably convicted of the offence of outraging public decency.
Original post by Hyde
"Freedom of speech" - as long as your speech is within set parameters.
That applies to every 'freedom' you have...
The tendency of police to arrest people for saying vile things on Twitter is one of the things that has shocked me most since moving to the UK.
I am, in fact, not an unqualified supporter of free speech; I believe that Britain has a tradition of sensibly regulating speech in order to prevent public disorder, to maintain harmony between the social classes, and so on. This country has traditionally believed that public order and social harmony are important pillars of a peaceful society, and I agree with that. I do not have a problem with the police intervening where someone is inciting violence, or even inciting hatred without particular violent exhortations.
However, I do not believe this case falls into that category. Further, such a prosecution fundamentally engages a citizen's Article 10 rights to freedom of expression, and I am skeptical about whether a magistrate (not a trained lawyer) and their legal advisor have sufficient legal acuity to undertake the "balancing exercise" that is required whenever the courts assess whether it is justifiable to interfere in a citizen's exercise of their convention rights
I am, in fact, not an unqualified supporter of free speech; I believe that Britain has a tradition of sensibly regulating speech in order to prevent public disorder, to maintain harmony between the social classes, and so on. This country has traditionally believed that public order and social harmony are important pillars of a peaceful society, and I agree with that. I do not have a problem with the police intervening where someone is inciting violence, or even inciting hatred without particular violent exhortations.
However, I do not believe this case falls into that category. Further, such a prosecution fundamentally engages a citizen's Article 10 rights to freedom of expression, and I am skeptical about whether a magistrate (not a trained lawyer) and their legal advisor have sufficient legal acuity to undertake the "balancing exercise" that is required whenever the courts assess whether it is justifiable to interfere in a citizen's exercise of their convention rights
Original post by Hyde
"Freedom of speech" - as long as your speech is within set parameters.
The first rule of freedom of speech is that you don't talk about freedom of speech.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Did anyone actually bother to read the source? He already has criminal convictions so he already has a criminal record
"Chairwoman of the bench Georgina Scannell voiced her disgust and said she was left with no choice but to send the defendant straight to jail.
She said: The offensive messages outraged the public. You had complete disregard for the tragic death of Ann Maguire.
Besides this, countless other vile messages were made by you.
You posted a series of racist messages claiming Nazi death camp Auschwitz was a "health spa" and suggesting that Muslim babies should be drowned.
The bench finds these were racially and religious aggravated.
The offences are so serious that only a period of immediate custody can be justified."
He was not jailed for offending the public, he was jailed for being a serial troll who habitually incited hatred and offended the families of victims of tragedies.
"Chairwoman of the bench Georgina Scannell voiced her disgust and said she was left with no choice but to send the defendant straight to jail.
She said: The offensive messages outraged the public. You had complete disregard for the tragic death of Ann Maguire.
Besides this, countless other vile messages were made by you.
You posted a series of racist messages claiming Nazi death camp Auschwitz was a "health spa" and suggesting that Muslim babies should be drowned.
The bench finds these were racially and religious aggravated.
The offences are so serious that only a period of immediate custody can be justified."
He was not jailed for offending the public, he was jailed for being a serial troll who habitually incited hatred and offended the families of victims of tragedies.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by FrostyLemon
What effect will prison have on this person's ability to find a job or support themselves in the future?
I know the area he is from quite well. I can honestly say getting a job isn't on the agenda there.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Fashion from yesteryear
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- My teacher is very attractive
- erections
- 17 and clubbing in Marbella?
- Is it time to rethink our criminal justice system and 'do things differently'?
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- Revision - Planet Lacey
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- He comments on girls clothing?
- Make it More Crime-ey !!
- Why are you concerned about migration?
- Craig Foster apologises to Sam Kerr for saying her crime was sackable
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- UK Police
- Why do girls find it offensive when their friends date their brother?
- Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
- Can you still wear a face mask in public?
- First time in the cinema
- Valdo Calocane gets hospital order- Families of the victims are angry about it
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?