The Law is an Ass

[Loz]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12462959

OK, the guy was being offensive, but arrested? For this? Really? We really need a free speech law in this country. It's getting beyond stupid.

[Bluerevolution]

Loz, you should post this in Football Focus, any reference to the disaster is distasteful but you are right, heavy handed approach. Lad should have had his ticket confiscated but that's all

[ruffers]

Ridiculous. How is being offensive a crime?

[pk]

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ridiculous. How is being offensive a crime?

This is how:

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

does that sound very wrong to you all?

[louisiana]

Which is why a policeman can order you to immediately remove a t-shirt bearing the words 'f*ck Blair' or similar. Apparently that causes alarm an distress to policemen.

[Loz]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> does that sound very wrong to you all?

So very, very wrong. That law is written in such a way that pretty much everyone, every day could transgress it. Which means that the decision as to whether this law is upheld is in the subjective opinion of the police, which is a VERY bad thing. Laws should be upheld or not be on the statute book. Not upheld when someone feels like it.

For instance, I just had a quick look through your posting history, looking for a possible example. It didn't take long. On Feb 10, you posted the line "and why do you keep making excuses for the racists?". Someone may have found that "insulting", whatever your intentions, and felt "alarm or distress". If they did, should you be arrested?

[Keef]

Michael Keaton was great in that film!

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > does that sound very wrong to you all?

>

> So very, very wrong. That law is written in such

> a way that pretty much everyone, every day could

> transgress it. Which means that the decision as to

> whether this law is upheld is in the subjective

> opinion of the police, which is a VERY bad thing.

> Laws should be upheld or not be on the statute

> book. Not upheld when someone feels like it.

>

> For instance, I just had a quick look through your

> posting history, looking for a possible example.

> It didn't take long. On Feb 10, you posted the

> line "and why do you keep making excuses for the

> racists?". Someone may have found that

> "insulting", whatever your intentions, and felt

> "alarm or distress". If they did, should you be

> arrested?

no, because i would rely on one of the statutory defences: 'it was reasonable'

[Loz]

That may work, but you would have to have your day in court to see if that works - you would still have been arrested by then, with all the issues that entails. And since this guy was arrested for 'making aircraft gestures', do you think you really have a chance?

With any law there should be a reasonable degree of understanding whether you are contravening it or not.

[KidKruger]

Basically the guy was causing offence, there were offended people, and in THIS instance mocking the death of the opposing team's former players in front of the opponent's supporters was deemed by police as out of order.

I'd go along with that.

I don't think THIS specific example in itself is a portent of reasonable protest being quoshed, willy nilly, by the police baddies.

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That may work, but you would have to have your day

> in court to see if that works - you would still

> have been arrested by then, with all the issues

> that entails.

but in fact that's not the case - because i have written what i've written and i haven't ended up in court and i pretty much knew that i wouldn't

> And since this guy was arrested for 'making aircraft gestures', do you think you

> really have a chance?

there's a lot of history around the gestures and football fans are clear what they refer to, as they are when e.g. idiots make a hissing sound (of gas chambers) to 'have fun' against tottenham

> With any law there should be a reasonable degree

> of understanding whether you are contravening it

> or not.

it's not an excuse not to know the law - i can't say that i am not guilty of speeding because i didn't know the speed limit and in this instance i think that if the guy did know the law then he'd realise that what he did was likely to infringe it

[hpsaucey]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Michael Keaton was great in that film!

Lol! Think he enjoyed himself in it.

[Loz]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> > With any law there should be a reasonable degree

> > of understanding whether you are contravening it

> > or not.

>

> it's not an excuse not to know the law - i can't

> say that i am not guilty of speeding because i

> didn't know the speed limit and in this instance i

> think that if the guy did know the law then he'd

> realise that what he did was likely to infringe it

That's sort of the point I was (badly) trying to make. Good law: don't exceed the posted speed limit. Bad law: don't travel at such a speed as to worry any nearby person. In the second case, knowing the law isn't likely to be of much use because it entirely depends who is nearby. Same with this other Public Order Act law.

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > > With any law there should be a reasonable

> degree

> > > of understanding whether you are contravening

> it

> > > or not.

> >

> > it's not an excuse not to know the law - i

> can't

> > say that i am not guilty of speeding because i

> > didn't know the speed limit and in this instance

> i

> > think that if the guy did know the law then

> he'd

> > realise that what he did was likely to infringe

> it

>

> That's sort of the point I was (badly) trying to

> make. Good law: don't exceed the posted speed

> limit. Bad law: don't travel at such a speed as

> to worry any nearby person. In the second case,

> knowing the law isn't likely to be of much use

> because it entirely depends who is nearby. Same

> with this other Public Order Act law.

so e.g. having an offence of 'dangerous driving' that doesn't list in objective detail every possible thing that could be seen as 'dangerous driving' is 'bad law'?

whilst it might be nice for everything to be everything to be written down it's not possible (fact) or proportionate to try to do so and if it was it wouldn't be possible to read it all anyway

[Huguenot]

I think you're probably being too demanding Loz.

The whole premise of the law is subjective - guilt is defined by being beyond 'reasonable' doubt. It's completely open to interpretation.

Personally I'm inclined to think that this an example of the law working well. An in-yer-face malicious glee in the personal tragedies of others is socially unacceptable. The fact that it's a twat at a football ground doesn't excuse it. It's only disappointing that the law can't impose a penalty of public humiliation and shame.

[Scribe]

Do me a bleedin' favour and get real! Should they have arrested John Clesse when he did his parody of German troops in Faulty Towers, seeing as so many sons and daughters of slain German troops would've been undeniably offended by such a mocking performance?

People, or should I say those who are too disconnected with reality, are too easily offended these days, and the police, or whoever punishes these 'outrages', seem too eager to accommodate this petty, unrealistic attitude.

Seriously, life's too short. So get a bloody grip!

[KidKruger]

Scribe it sounds like you disagree with my description of what I think happened.

At least that's what I sense from what you've written.

[Scribe]

Your "description" of what happened is misinformed, at best.

If the chap that made the gesture of an aeroplane - which, I'm willing to concede was almost certainly mimicked in reference to the Munich disaster - was checked in the form of a tongue lashing on the spot, as a result of his belligerence, then I'd say fair play. I don't, on the other hand, support what actually happened, in that a Manchester United fan spotted this so-called offensive behaviour on a YouTube video, and reported it to the police, who subsequently arrested the 'offending' fan at his home. That's just going too far, in my opinion.

[Huguenot]

You've rather disproved your own point Scribe, by poiting out that Cleese didn't find himself arrested.

You demostrate quite clearly that the police are not disconnected with reality, and they are clearly not "too eager to accommodate this petty, unrealistic attitude"

The fact is that the law often cannot differentiate in technicalities between lawful and unlawful behviour. Take knife carrying for example (it's allowed for 'good reason') - a teenager carrying one on a Friday night will be differently interpreted to one returning from Ikea with a bundle of shopping. The law however is just the same in both situations.

My own view is that some of the despicable behaviour of football fans covers the full range from ugly (if it's just a misplaced 'joke' from a barely evolved baboon trying to impress his mates) all the way to criminal if it's designed to provoke violent conflict in the lead up to a football tie.

You'll forgive me, I hope, for not considering this to be petty or unrealistic.

I'm not at all offended either.

[Scribe]

Huguenot, I think the comparison fits the context, albeit a bit petty on my part, I admit.

Granted, the Fawlty Towers sketch was interpretted in good faith as it had been established beforehand, by the show's very nature, that the real object of humour was Basil's ignorant insensitivity, and how it was being reflected by a large number of equally insensitive 'little Englanders'.

However, in my opinion, the comparison still stands, in that the viewer could misinterpret what is generally held as light humour, and see it as a slur aimed at all the German servicemen that perished during WW2. Humour, as I'm sure you already know, is subjective.

But what I can't swallow is that the police acted on something that's fairly run-of-the-mill. OK, from what I've read, this football fan made an insensitive gesture that poked fun at the loss of life, he should be pulled-up on it. But does that mean that I can now trawl through YouTube's millions of clips, find a video that mocks the Royalist troops that died in the English civil war, and report them to the police demanding that they should be prosecuted? I think not, somehow.

[Loz]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fact is that the law often cannot

> differentiate in technicalities between lawful and

> unlawful behviour. Take knife carrying for example

> (it's allowed for 'good reason') - a teenager

> carrying one on a Friday night will be differently

> interpreted to one returning from Ikea with a

> bundle of shopping. The law however is just the

> same in both situations.

Two examples, one where the court came to the right conclusion, but it took nine months and a full trial to establish the obvious. The other meant a pensioner ended up with a criminal record.

(Ugh. I just linked twice to the Daily Mail. I feel ill. Think I'll have a sit down.)

[ianr]

Another account: http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Police-arrested-disabled-fruit-knife-man/article-2183657-detail/article.html

[Huguenot]

I can see that Loz, but I can't think of any way of rephrasing the law on knife carrying that wouldn't let teenage thugs get away with it.

Hence we use 'good reason' and have to trust to the sense of the police and the courts, which may occasionally go awry.

In fact there was more to the Rodney Knowles story than met the eye. The Mail deliberately couches it to ridicule the police, calling it a 'penknife', however 'assault weapon' may be a more reasonable description.

In fact it was Buck Whittaker lock knife. In the UK this knife is completely illegal, regardless of 'good reason' for having it in your posession.

Here's the knife in question:

http://i.thisis.co.uk/275580/article/images/2183657/1581400-vlarge.gif

Secondly, the police had pulled him over because in the pub he'd just left he had threatened to use the knife on someone. The police got a call from the landlord after Knowles departed, warning them that he had been theatening violence with the weapon and was potentially drink driving.

The first breath test found Knowles over the drink drive limit, and by the time he had taken a blood test later the levels had dropped.

Knowles then made the decision to plead guilty to all the charges, knowing that as a result the truth of the event would not reach open court, and the public realise what a violent thug he was.

I have to say that in the light of the 'truth' the police and the judiciary come through with flying colours.

[Loz]

OK, that sheds more light on that case and I conceded the police probably got that one right. Still, it does leave the other one, though that involves airport security staff, who are hardly known for their common sense sometimes.

But the good news is that that article also showed that there is a good black and white side to the knife law: "[...] the law is clear: it is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, except for a folding pocket knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding three inches."

Still, it would be nice to know what constitutes a 'good reason'.

[KidKruger]

I've been stopped in the past for carrying a foldable lock knife, it was for use on picnics or when I 'ate rough' in the parks of London ie. buy a loaf, some cheese, fruit, piece of cooked chicken and head to park with stereo and beers. Cops always conceded it was reasonable, esp. as blade was covered in food stuffs from last visit !