Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slutty Salati)
    Context is important, if he'd asked a Muslim if they would be willing to answer some questions about their beliefs, it would have been fine. He picked out a random person and attempted to hold them responsible for actions they had nothing to do with.
    What he did was wrong but it is not inciting racial hatred
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Where does it say he was actually charged?
    http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/25/man-be...atred-5774716/
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35888748

    Free speech has to protect stupidity and the right to be wrong.
    Wha he has done is stupid it doesn't incite racial hatred and arresting him for it will not solve any problem, if you think the way to solve a problem is by attacking people's thoughts the people will react.

    It seems the 46% are getting their way.
    Freedom of speech is not codified into UK law.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonkatt)
    I don't think this guy needed arresting, I wonder if the event he tweeted even happened tbh, as far as I've seen, no complaint has been made by the person he spoke to. I think it might just be a stupid and misguided attempt at self promotion for his business, which appears to have backfired spectacularly.
    It's the airport tweet again.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    What he did was wrong but it is not inciting racial hatred
    If it fits the crime, then yes it would be. It wouldnt just be on that one tweet, but there were also others. the decision about whether to proceed would lie with the CPS.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It's the airport tweet again.
    I thought this was about that bloke in Croydon with his "mealy mouthed reply" tweet? That's what's linked to in the OP (I've not read all the thread though so if discussion has moved on I apologise).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonkatt)
    I thought this was about that bloke in Croydon with his "mealy mouthed reply" tweet? That's what's linked to in the OP (I've not read all the thread though so if discussion has moved on I apologise).
    Yes it is about the mealy mouthed reply tweet.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonkatt)
    I thought this was about that bloke in Croydon with his "mealy mouthed reply" tweet? That's what's linked to in the OP (I've not read all the thread though so if discussion has moved on I apologise).
    Sorry, should have said it's like the airport tweet all over again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Sorry, should have said it's like the airport tweet all over again.
    Oh I see. I think the guy who made the threat to blow up east mids airport (all be it an empty threat borne out if frustration) was more severe than this guy in Croydon, and was deserving of arrest and a *******ing, but a custodial sentence (which I think he got didn't he?) wasn't in anyone's interests.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with hate speech laws. You can raise points without being a c*nt about it.
    Again, there is a difference between caricature in fairness like South Park which leads to discussion, and demonisation; increasing the likelihood of violence. I think generating discussion is really important, particularly in difficult topics.

    Though, my opinion would change if there was suppression of 'freedom of speech' in real terms. But there isn't that really. You can say practically whatever you want, at least in respectful discussion.

    To digress, similarly there is suppression of internet content - which I am ambivalent about as the content is probably harmful considering the way society fails to deal with issues generated by completely open access. Though, it gets dubious when there become false positives and any nefarious use, making the issue rather difficult.
    It's sort of like drugs - if you let everyone have them without infrastructure to deal with it (education is key), and you unleash a bit of a monster if you make them widely available.

    Though I do hope for a totally free society with a good educational system, where there isn't a need for so many restraints (relative to none).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It's right that police have arrested him.

    Given the levels of Islamophobic hate crime, Muslims being punched and spat at in the street just for being Muslim, it's right that the police question him. The only way to stop these kind of crimes is to get in to the people that are supporting them and find out what they know.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It was a disgraceful thing to do, but it shouldn't be a criminal offence, in my opinion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So you can get arrested for being a **** on twitter these days... what a time to be alive.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tootles)
    Freedom of speech is not codified into UK law.
    It is so long as the Human Rights Act 1998 remains in force, but granted it is on pretty flimsy terms given Parliament can simply repeal it whenever it wishes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blondie987)
    He confronted an individual who had nothing to do with the attacks becasue of his ignorance towards her religion aka stereotyping and racism
    "One man wrote: "I confronted an Irish women yesterday in Camden. I asked her to explain Bono. She said 'Nothing to do with me'. A mealy mouthed reply."

    Lisa Holdsworth wrote: "I confronted a woman in Croydon and asked her to explain shredless marmalade. 'Nothing to do with me'. A peely-mouthed reply."

    What he said didn't warrant an arrest. A lot of people are angry about the attacks and act irrationally due to their anger. We should be arresting those who are endorsing the attacks.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    "One man wrote: "I confronted an Irish women yesterday in Camden. I asked her to explain Bono. She said 'Nothing to do with me'. A mealy mouthed reply."

    Lisa Holdsworth wrote: "I confronted a woman in Croydon and asked her to explain shredless marmalade. 'Nothing to do with me'. A peely-mouthed reply."

    What he said didn't warrant an arrest. A lot of people are angry about the attacks and act irrationally due to their anger. We should be arresting those who are endorsing the attacks.
    I didn't say it warranted an arrest but his actions should still be condemned, also you simply cannot compare Bono and marmalade to terrorist attacks
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blondie987)
    I didn't say it warranted an arrest but his actions should still be condemned, also you simply cannot compare Bono and marmalade to terrorist attacks
    Those were quotes from Twitter: parodies if you will. Just to show how stupid it is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    Those were quotes from Twitter: parodies if you will. Just to show how stupid it is.
    Oh right, sorry I don't use Twitter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blondie987)
    Oh right, sorry I don't use Twitter
    Me neither, but they were posted in the BBC article.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35888748

    Free speech has to protect stupidity and the right to be wrong.
    Wha he has done is stupid it doesn't incite racial hatred and arresting him for it will not solve any problem, if you think the way to solve a problem is by attacking people's thoughts the people will react.

    It seems the 46% are getting their way.
    Freedom of speech does not mean you have the freedom to insult and cause offence to people for discriminatory reasons.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.