Ranting, threatening, anti-cop Blogger slapped down with a fine

[editor]

Telecommunications Act 1984

Poor ol' Tobyjug. He's well banged to rights under that Act.

 

[agricola]

As the more sensible have noted, we dont know what the blog contained (indeed, the fact that the contents havent been reported tend to suggest their nature), so judgements on whether or not this was justified seem to be a bit pointless.

The bloke is a bit of a mug for ranting thus on his blog anyway, given that its all discloseable.

 

[butchersapron]

Telecommunications Act 1984

That sounds like a large part of the discourse on Urban!

Seriously though, it's not the first time that the Police have overreacted when one of their own is in the firing line...there was that case a while back of a bloke who ate a policeman's sarnie out of his lunch box and got done for theft!

And i'd do it again too! They'll never get us all.

 

[smokedout]

it's not the first time something like this has happened either

Cyber ASBOs Could Silence Bloggers

 

[bluestreak]

*panics*

Viva la policia!

 

[Brainaddict]

43. Improper use of public telecommunication system—(1) A person who—

(a) sends, by means of a public telecommunication system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;

Fuck me, I didn't know this law existed. Gross offensiveness is forbidden on the internet? Two thoughts:
(a) That seems to me to impinge on freedom of speech quite severely
(b) If it's ever enforced consistently....well, where the fuck would you start? Pictures of turds on bulletin boards?

 

[SpookyFrank]

The day the courts are as willing to do coppers themselves for acting like nasty bullying cunts this will magically become a fair verdict. Until then it's a crock of shit.

 

[untethered]

Should police officers and others be open to abuse for doing this work?

It depends what you mean by "abuse".

People should be free to criticise and rebuke others. They should not be free to threaten them.

The court decided that in this case, the defendant's words were a threat.

While we are not in possession of the full facts of the case, there is little doubt in my mind that the statement was made in exasperation as a rebuke, not as a threat. The officer may well have felt offended but it's stretching credulity to believe that he actually perceived it to be threatening.

 

[dennisr]

*panics*

Viva la policia!

you big jelly

 

[teuchter]

Fuck me, I didn't know this law existed. Gross offensiveness is forbidden on the internet? Two thoughts:
(a) That seems to me to impinge on freedom of speech quite severely
(b) If it's ever enforced consistently....well, where the fuck would you start? Pictures of turds on bulletin boards?

Neither did I.

I don't see how any porn website wouldn't fail to comply with (a).

Also

(b) sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, a message that he knows to be false or persistently makes use for that purpose of a public telecommunication system,

Causing annoyance or inconvenience? That casts rather a large net and would seem to encompass about 50% of the internet.

I guess this act was drawn up before the internet developed. I would say there would be quite a strong argument for revising it with this in mind? The internet now performs lots of functions that would previously have been carried out by printed media, which presumably wouldn't have been covered by it.

 

[untethered]

I see this case as part of a pattern whereby public sector workers (particularly "front line" ones) are becoming increasingly thin-skinned.

Yes, many do suffer real abuse (up to the level of serious violence). At the same time, they shouldn't be immune to or protected from robust views, criticism and spirited disagreement.

 

[untethered]

I guess this act was drawn up before the internet developed. I would say there would be quite a strong argument for revising it with this in mind? The internet now performs lots of functions that would previously have been carried out by printed media, which presumably wouldn't have been covered by it.

Indeed. Writing something on a public website is more akin to publishing a newspaper than it is to sending a letter or making a telephone call.

 

[teuchter]

Actually:

It seems that the 1984 act has been supplanted by the 2003 act.

Ofcom is proposing to repeal all remaining provisions and directions made under the Telecommunications Act 1984, with certain narrow and enumerated exceptions. The Telecoms Act, predecessor to the Communications Act 2003, has already been largely supplanted but some provisions were continued over as transitional arrangements. Ofcom intends that this should cease. Ofcom notes that “To a large extent the proposed exercise is precautionary and it is intended to ensure that no continued provisions and directions are left in place inadvertently“.

http://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=160

 

[agricola]

It depends what you mean by "abuse".

People should be free to criticise and rebuke others. They should not be free to threaten them.

The court decided that in this case, the defendant's words were a threat.

While we are not in possession of the full facts of the case, there is little doubt in my mind that the statement was made in exasperation as a rebuke, not as a threat. The officer may well have felt offended but it's stretching credulity to believe that he actually perceived it to be threatening.

I fail to see how you can make the first statement about not being in possession of the full facts and then go on to make the second - this is all about the context that the statement (the only part of the post that has been revealed) was made in.

Without that context it is surely impossible to make an independent judgement as to whether this was justified, no?

 

[smokedout]

from the reporting on the case it seems that the 'god help your new born baby' comment was the offending remark

if he had made other threats towards the copper id say it was pretty likely it would be reported, what the magistrate said of the rest of the content was that it was: articulate, detailed, specific and critical of the police and the CPS

so probably quite accurate then

 

[pk]

Having said that - look at the twat who's supposed to have made the offending statement.

He has got a touch of the Craig Meehan's about him.

I'd be more interested in checking the contents of his hard drive than inventing trumped up charges.

And this is the blog... turns out he's pissed of with eBuyer, and they don't like him much either, so they called the cops accusing him of something and he went to report it with the officer who was on maternity leave. Or something.

http://buyerhell.com/wordpress/?p=26#comment-61

 

[untethered]

I fail to see how you can make the first statement about not being in possession of the full facts and then go on to make the second - this is all about the context that the statement (the only part of the post that has been revealed) was made in.

Without that context it is surely impossible to make an independent judgement as to whether this was justified, no?

In terms of who gets convicted of crimes, we rightly leave those decisions to the courts who are hopefully in possession of all the evidence.

But we as the public have an interest in the administration of justice too, and usually we have to get our information second hand from the media.

The report (presumably written by a court reporter who was present at the trial) said that the first part of the blog post contained the defendant's criticism of the police officer's actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

The second part is as reported.

Try as hard as I might, I cannot imagine how a critical account of someone's actions can engender a "context" in which the reported statement could reasonably be perceived as menacing.

Can you? Could you write a couple of sentences (confining your comments to a fictional account of an interaction in custody) whereby the reported comment becomes meancing?

Something doesn't ring true here. My suspicion is that a rightly-offended police officer has decided to make a mountain out of a molehill and the courts have sadly backed him in it.

 

[smokedout]

he does seem like a bit of a twat

but im not sure thats a crime

 

[TopCat]

Why are people like pk and cockneyrebel having a go at the officer? He seems to have been instrumental to bringing theft charges against this man, who will now get his day in court. Should police officers and others be open to abuse for doing this work?

Fuck the police people in a non menacing way.

All coppers are sometimes unpleasant, threatening and violent.

 

[TopCat]

I fail to see how you can make the first statement about not being in possession of the full facts and then go on to make the second - this is all about the context that the statement (the only part of the post that has been revealed) was made in.

Without that context it is surely impossible to make an independent judgement as to whether this was justified, no?

Nah we can make all the judgements we want you less than totally bright police person you. Oh shit this politeness, it's just not me.

ACAB.

 

[Giles]

It depends what you mean by "abuse".

People should be free to criticise and rebuke others. They should not be free to threaten them.

The court decided that in this case, the defendant's words were a threat.

While we are not in possession of the full facts of the case, there is little doubt in my mind that the statement was made in exasperation as a rebuke, not as a threat. The officer may well have felt offended but it's stretching credulity to believe that he actually perceived it to be threatening.

If the bloke had a problem with the behaviour of this policeman, why not stick to slagging him off? Why even MENTION his family at all?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree that the message was threatening, but if his issue was with the policeman's behaviour as a policeman why even mention his baby.

BTW, the message "I know where you live" - is that threatening or not?

Depends on who says it, and general context.....

Giles..

 

[untethered]

If the bloke had a problem with the behaviour of this policeman, why not stick to slagging him off? Why even MENTION his family at all?

Because he was angry, so he said something that was inappropriate, offensive and unwise.

However, if everything inappropriate, offensive and unwise were illegal to say we would all be criminals, at least by someone's standards.

And he did stick to "slagging him off", which is why it's hard to see from this report why he has been convicted of sending a "threatening" message.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree that the message was threatening, but if his issue was with the policeman's behaviour as a policeman why even mention his baby.

In the same way as you might say, "I feel sorry for your wife." It's personal, it's offensive, it's not called for. But should it be criminal?

BTW, the message "I know where you live" - is that threatening or not?

Depends on who says it, and general context.....

That wasn't the case here, so the point is moot.

 

[agricola]

In terms of who gets convicted of crimes, we rightly leave those decisions to the courts who are hopefully in possession of all the evidence.

But we as the public have an interest in the administration of justice too, and usually we have to get our information second hand from the media.

The report (presumably written by a court reporter who was present at the trial) said that the first part of the blog post contained the defendant's criticism of the police officer's actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

The second part is as reported.

Try as hard as I might, I cannot imagine how a critical account of someone's actions can engender a "context" in which the reported statement could reasonably be perceived as menacing.

Can you? Could you write a couple of sentences (confining your comments to a fictional account of an interaction in custody) whereby the reported comment becomes meancing?

Something doesn't ring true here. My suspicion is that a rightly-offended police officer has decided to make a mountain out of a molehill and the courts have sadly backed him in it.

Well, for a start most of the offending blog post may well not have been included in the court report (which it isnt beyond the vaguest description, and even that may well be a neutral agreed-language summary of the content for the Press, provided by the Court) because it forms part of, or is relevant to, the forthcoming Court case relating to the blokes theft / fraud charges and the media do not want to (or have been told not to) predjudice that trial because of the reporting - until then, we do not have the context.

If the bloke had a problem with the behaviour of this policeman, why not stick to slagging him off? Why even MENTION his family at all?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree that the message was threatening, but if his issue was with the policeman's behaviour as a policeman why even mention his baby.

BTW, the message "I know where you live" - is that threatening or not?

Depends on who says it, and general context.....

Exactly. "I know where you live" is not by itself threatening, but "I know where you live" followed by a detailed description of your house might well be. The same, albeit referring to the officer's family, may well apply here.

 

[untethered]

Exactly. "I know where you live" is not by itself threatening, but "I know where you live" followed by a detailed description of your house might well be. The same, albeit referring to the officer's family, may well apply here.

It may well or it may well not.

This may be justice being done, but I don't think you could reasonably argue that it is being seen to be done.

 

[teuchter]

I'm still unclear as to whether that section of the 1984 Telecoms act applies to thi situation or not.

On the CPS website it says:

The Telecommunications Act 1984 section 43, see Stones 8 - 30107B, covers the sending of improper messages. Section 43(1)(a) relates to a message etc that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character and should be used for indecent phone calls. Section 43(1)(b) targets false messages and persistent misuse to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; it covers somebody who persistently makes silent phone calls (usually covered with only one information because the gravamen is one of persistently telephoning rendering separate charges for each call unnecessary).

That seems to suggest it really only should be applied to telephone calls. So is this what the guy is likely to have been charged under, or not?

 

[agricola]

It may well or it may well not.

This may be justice being done, but I don't think you could reasonably argue that it is being seen to be done.

Which is just nonsense - justice should be done, whether it is seen to be done is an irrelevance in this instance as we are missing most of the context for it.

Its also worth pointing out that not only was the DC a cop, he was also a witness in the case that is at the heart of this matter, which could well indicate why the CPS took the action that it has, as well as why the magistrates found him guilty.

 

[Sweaty Betty]

Would i get away with an anti-gordon brown blog??

Got my wage packet today and its £20 lighter

 

[untethered]

Which is just nonsense - justice should be done, whether it is seen to be done is an irrelevance in this instance as we are missing most of the context for it.

Did you just say that justice being seen to be done is "an irrelevance"? It may be to you but it certainly isn't to me.

Its also worth pointing out that not only was the DC a cop, he was also a witness in the case that is at the heart of this matter, which could well indicate why the CPS took the action that it has, as well as why the magistrates found him guilty.

So you think that this thin-skinned constable would have been intimidated from giving evidence in a theft case even after the defendant voluntarily apologised and removed the blog post had not the court convicted him here?

Shouldn't constables be made of sterner stuff?

 

[agricola]

Did you just say that justice being seen to be done is "an irrelevance"? It may be to you but it certainly isn't to me.

Your point is sort of moot, given you included the part that said in what instance it was an irrelevance. As you did this, I will repeat it - it is an irrelevance because we do not have the whole picture.

So you think that this thin-skinned constable would have been intimidated from giving evidence in a theft case even after the defendant voluntarily apologised and removed the blog post had not the court convicted him here?

Shouldn't constables be made of sterner stuff?

They should, but when the threats appear to be aimed to family members, and when the person making the threats is a defendant, then it is a different kettle of fish. Until the whole lot of trials is over with, we cannot from this position say whether or not this is justified.

 

[detective-boy]

s.43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 was repealed by the Communications Act 2003. The "replacement" offence was s.127 of the 2003 Act, which, presumably, is the offence which was charged. It is the only potential charge I am aware of which contains the word "menacing" as one of the things defined ... and that word features in the report.

As this guy has been convicted and fined by Magistrates I find it hard to understand how pk can allege he hasn't been charged with anything - Magistrates can only convict and fine if someone if brought before them on a charge or a summons (which is effectively the same thing, delivered by letter rather than verbally).

I agree with agricola's comment that the fact that the comments were aimed at an officer involved in a prosecution probably led to the matter being treated a little more seriously than it may otherwise have been - it could, in effect, be seen as a low-level attempt to pervert the course of justice / intimidate a witness and the CPS and Courts take an extremely dim view of anything like that.