I couldn’t help but snigger at the Grenfell ‘guy’ story, because of the crass stupidity of putting it on SM. SM is awash with stupid people.
It does however raise a serious point, that if someone puts something on SM with you in without your express permission can or should you be held liable for the content. If you put it out there on your SM account, fair enough. When we do a squadron event I tell people present, by all means take photos, but if you put them on SM it must be just of your child. No general views etc unless you have everyone or parents express permission.
If you are an active participant, yes. If your actions are questionable or illegal then you should be held accountable.
I’m not so sure, as someone could post with malicious intent and you’d have the devil’s own job defending it. Get caught up in the heat of moment as you can do and before you know it, life becomes a nightmare.
I am so grateful that this didn’t exist when I was a teenager and older things in pubs, clubs, parties, maybe the odd photo a few weeks later, have a laugh and forget it. Can’t seemingly do that in the modern era.
1 Like
To an extent, the lack of context can make things look worse, and I know I’ve even been party to questionable actions and conversations - although never recorded. But in the context of illegal or immoral actions… Sometimes you’ve got to own it if you did it.
I think I saw that the effigy burners handed themselves in? If that’s right then credit to them. I expect that this isn’t who these people usually are, but that doesn’t change what they did.
Either don’t do the “crime” or don’t get caught - certainly don’t record and share it.
The last part of the last sentence is something that should be ingrained into anyone who dabbles in SM.
In the old days say or do something and it didn’t really matter, as it was unlikely to come up again.
I think they’ve turned themselves in, but would they had it been not been put all over the place? I was mightily confused that they were rambling on about this being a hate crime.
1 Like
Possibly bit of a stretch, but (having not viewed the video) I think there was something about comments made regarding the social standing and deservedness of the residents.
There are 2 points to this Grenfell story
- It can’t be hate crime as that has to involve someone causing harassment, alarm or distress to someone from a protected characteristics group, such as gender, religion, ethnic background, etc. Poverty and social class are not in that list (yet)!
- There is nothing else in the news as everyone is so bored about Brexit!!
I expect the hate crime label was some hyped up reporting or public outcry.
Politicians trying for column inches and air time along with the permenantly professionally outraged.
It was reported last night they referred to someone in a hijab as a ninja… I think that’s where the hate crime Is originating from.
Except they created the effigy and can claim that it is indeed a Ninja.
Also you can’t have a hate crime without a crime and since the act took place in a private place out of view of the public I think they are really going to struggle to find an offence which fits. (They can try for Section 5 of the Public Order Act but personally I don’t think what’s shown on Social Media fits).
2 Likes
The permently offended stike again.
So this did make me lol the BBC describing the exhibits removed from the property, which is quite obviously search kit that the Police have taken into the address and are now bringing out again!
2 Likes
which would imply that the victims of the fire have not been distressed by these events…
it might not be a “hate crime” by definition but it has caused distress, upset and anger
It certainly has, I think what they have done is crass, insensitive and idiotic, and I am not defending their actions. I am just pointing out that causing such outrage is not a criminal offence. The biggest problem is that there has to be proof of intent, which is very hard to obtain
3 Likes
The US mid results have made me come to the conclusion that that US politics is nuts. The talk has been of the democrats using their wins as an opportunity to do down the standing president. What about primarily doing the best for the American people, rather than point scoring?
1 Like
The West Wing made me come to the conclusion that that US politics is nuts.
It was a whole lot more fun too.
1 Like
Yes Minister/Prime Minister and the Jeffery Archer series were far more fun. In the words of the late Ian Richardson playing the Chief Whip Francis Urqhart ‘I like to put a bit of stick about’ Rick Mayall as Alan B*stard was outstanding.
1 Like
To be fair, one could easily make an argument that the best thing for the American people would be to do down the current president.
2 Likes
It is insane.
Polarisation in recent years has hamstrung the political system and made it increasingly nasty. And then they’re working from a 200 year old document most Americans treat as sacrosanct and is wholly unsuitable for modern America.
1 Like