• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

Be careful what you post on social media

Recommended Posts

I started a new thread as I really wasn't sure where this best fit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40574754

it could have gone under the pictures of blurks thread :Sick1: perhaps not, or if you google Gina miller under the sjw thread.  It could also have been the brexit thread  

Anyhow a count has been convicted of some online aggression thingy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it a bit worrying.  IMO any internet chat lies about level with pub chat.  Now, it might well be that pub chat would also be treated at this level in the law if only someone actually recorded all pub conversations (well, using 'pub conversations' as a proxy for 'sort of public conversations but with a limited audience'), but in the absence of such pervasive surveillance pub conversations exist as a private 'speak your mind' opportunity.  So, I think some types of internet discussions should be treated in law at a lower level.  To treat tweets at the same level as a newspaper column or a book seems to me to be the law being overzealous.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you post a death threat, however vague, to someone who, however much you disagree with them, is merely following a legitimate legal angle then you are out of order in my book.

If it's someone like Lee Rigby's murderers then fair enough, I think they should already be dead and I'd happily kill them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

If you post a death threat, however vague, to someone who, however much you disagree with them, is merely following a legitimate legal angle then you are out of order in my book.

If it's someone like Lee Rigby's murderers then fair enough, I think they should already be dead and I'd happily kill them.

I'm sure all of us on here have posted something, if taken out of context, could be construed in all sorts of ways. I see it as dgul says, it's 'pub talk'. A way of letting of steam at the incompetence of government by and large. I'd still like to see them all swinging from lamposts though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

I'm sure all of us on here have posted something, if taken out of context, could be construed in all sorts of ways. I see it as dgul says, it's 'pub talk'. A way of letting of steam at the incompetence of government by and large. I'd still like to see them all swinging from lamposts though 

I think you have just proved your own point very successfully here.

Let us know where to send the file laden cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SNACR said:

Would there be enough spare prison capacity to pursue this line with all the people who've posted similar things about say Piers Morgan?

Though that would be about rather than to.

I can't stand the bloke but I want him off the air rather than dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

If you post a death threat, however vague, to someone who, however much you disagree with them, is merely following a legitimate legal angle then you are out of order in my book.

If it's someone like Lee Rigby's murderers then fair enough, I think they should already be dead and I'd happily kill them.

I'm coming too, who's car we taking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, One percent said:

I started a new thread as I really wasn't sure where this best fit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40574754

it could have gone under the pictures of blurks thread :Sick1: perhaps not, or if you google Gina miller under the sjw thread.  It could also have been the brexit thread  

Anyhow a count has been convicted of some online aggression thingy. 

Well to be fair he did put a price on her head and set out the means of execution so it was pretty specific. You can never be sure that there is not some nutter out there who might pick up the contract. If he had simply mused that it would be a just providence for her to suffer an unfortunate accident with a steamroller at a traction engine rally I doubt the case would have come to court 

Edited by Flirtygirty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Flirtygirty said:

Well to be fair he did put a price on her head and set out the means of execution so it was pretty specific. You can never be sure that there is not some nutter out there who might pick up the contract. If he had simply mused that it would be a just providence for her to suffer an unfortunate accident with a steamroller at a traction engine rally I doubt the case would have come to court 

It was clearly a literary construct.

Now, I do think he has committed a crime, and he should be punished.  I did have my concerns about Miller's actions, but then that is the great thing about living in a country with a decent legal system -- things can happen and the legal system just has to take its course.  Just as democracy has happened and has to take its course.  I'd also agree that he was guilty of racist abuse which I found offensive.

But he's guilty of something which demands a custodial sentence!  That is bonkers.  Hopefully he'll get it suspended so at least I'll save the cost of sending him inside when there is little to actually gain from his incarceration.

I'm also a little concerned that she'll now sue in civil courts for damages, which shouldn't really be given as I don't really think she was ever in any danger (and she'll have known this, despite her statements in court).  I suppose she could get something for the racist abuse, though -- that's just being nasty for the sake of it.

Edited by dgul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

It was clearly a literary construct.

Now, I do think he has committed a crime, and he should be punished.  I did have my concerns about Miller's actions, but then that is the great thing about living in a country with a decent legal system -- things can happen and the legal system just has to take its course.  Just as democracy has happened and has to take its course.  I'd also agree that he was guilty of racist abuse which I found offensive.

But he's guilty of something which demands a custodial sentence!  That is bonkers.  Hopefully he'll get it suspended so at least I'll save the cost of sending him inside when there is little to actually gain from his incarceration.

I'm also a little concerned that she'll now sue in civil courts for damages, which shouldn't really be given as I don't really think she was ever in any danger (and she'll have known this, despite her statements in court).  I suppose she could get something for the racist abuse, though -- that's just being nasty for the sake of it.

But remember you are posting this with the benefit of hindsight ie her case has since been rejected. 

I frankly think she deserves everything that has come her way. Now will that statement land me in court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't like her.

He's a complete bellend who really should know better. How does someone so stupid accumulate that sort of wealth?

Anyway, i think he should be given a thorough dressing down for being an obnoxious dick but a custodial is a bit far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dgul said:

It was clearly a literary construct.

I am sure it was but the wording enabled the CPS to argue different in court and they won. 

21 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

But remember you are posting this with the benefit of hindsight ie her case has since been rejected. 

I frankly think she deserves everything that has come her way. Now will that statement land me in court?

Nope because it is non specific nor have you offered a putative bounty to those likely to it carry out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sgt Hartman said:

Don't like her.

He's a complete bellend who really should know better. How does someone so stupid accumulate that sort of wealth?

Anyway, i think he should be given a thorough dressing down for being an obnoxious dick but a custodial is a bit far.

The title is a bit of a giveaway. I would assume inherited wealth. 

 

IMG_0741.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Flirtygirty said:

I am sure it was but the wording enabled the CPS to argue different in court and they won. 

Nope because it is non specific nor have you offered a putative bounty to those likely to it carry out.

He argued it was satire which it quite clearly was. To think that an assassination only costs £5k should have been a giveaway...

23 minutes ago, One percent said:

The title is a bit of a giveaway. I would assume inherited wealth. 

 

IMG_0741.JPG

How did Miller acquire such wealth though? By marriage and she wasn't exactly born on the local estate... private school educated and so on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spunko2010 said:

He argued it was satire which it quite clearly was. To think that an assassination only costs £5k should have been a giveaway...

Bugger. I was hoping to get the old man under the patio for 500 quid. 

2 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

He argued it was satire which it quite clearly was. To think that an assassination only costs £5k should have been a giveaway...

How did Miller acquire such wealth though? By marriage and she wasn't exactly born on the local estate... private school educated and so on. 

My comment was aimed at him but good question. She also managed to fail her degree at university of east London. That takes some doing. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dgul said:

I do find it a bit worrying.  IMO any internet chat lies about level with pub chat.  Now, it might well be that pub chat would also be treated at this level in the law if only someone actually recorded all pub conversations (well, using 'pub conversations' as a proxy for 'sort of public conversations but with a limited audience'), but in the absence of such pervasive surveillance pub conversations exist as a private 'speak your mind' opportunity.  So, I think some types of internet discussions should be treated in law at a lower level.  To treat tweets at the same level as a newspaper column or a book seems to me to be the law being overzealous.  

A mate got 4 years for pub chat ....mind you the guy he was talking to was a plain clothes  cop and wired but what my mate said was "pub chat"   everyone knows the guy could not lie straight in bed without a ratchet strap yet he still did the time 

Edited by Long time lurking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

He argued it was satire which it quite clearly was. To think that an assassination only costs £5k should have been a giveaway...

We had this juicy tale of a convent girl, lesbians and a contract killing for £120 back in the 80's!

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/secret-lives-of-sex-and-violence-960820

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, One percent said:

Bugger. I was hoping to get the old man under the patio for 500 quid. 

My comment was aimed at him but good question. She also managed to fail her degree at university of east London. That takes some doing. xD

Pull her company accounts. Not sure where the title 'successful businesswoman' comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.