Ah yes. Clearly I'm gulty of willfully ignoring anything that doesn't suit me in order to avoid getting "owned".
Cos it couldn't possibly be that I don't constantly check back on every post I've ever made, just in case somebody disagrees with it a day or more, and several pages, later, could it? :rolleyes:
Or, even if people DO disagree with me, my head isn't so far up my own arse that I feel compelled to take issue with people who express a differing opinion.
I am quite able to sleep at night in the knowledge that there are people in this world who will, on occasion, disagree with me.
Well you clearly felt compelled to take issue with me on this thread, before I'd even posted in it !!! :eek:
You sound very angry and bitter, Si. I suggest you chillax for once and try and post something that sounds reasonably pleasant.
In the phone call he also said: "I just want to let you know how pleased I am." He added: "What goes around comes around." He was arrested a short time later.
It would have been funnier if 'a short time later', the police had simply gone around to his house, and shot him.
And then called a press conference: "We just want to let the public know how pleased we are..."
Firstly the officer was only "slightly injured" and it was this slight injury the bloke passed comment on. Had he said the same about an officer's death or serious injury it would have been a qualitatively different thing.
Secondly it was an essentially private rather than public comment. He didn't broadcast it on the net with the associations of incitement for others to repeat the offence.
Given the above, 6 weeks or incarceration at all is perhaps excessive for a first offence. Particularly if the police force in question say in their PR that they invite comment or feedback from the public.
Should a policeman saying "he got what he deserved" about a criminal who gets similarly injured, be sacked as opposed to being spoken to by a superior?
There's no equivalence here - criminals DO deserve what happens to them; police officers performig their duty do not.
Incite who? The operator in the police control room? If this matter had not gone to court nobody would have been any the wiser as to what he said.
So you don't think he might have expressed those same views elsewhere to other people..?
Perhaps he was hit on the head by a meteorite that very day and totally out of the blue thought it might be a good idea to phone and express these views. Just maybe having recovered from the blow he's now gone back to knitting jumpers for the local wildlife in case it gets cold.
So you don't think he might have expressed those same views elsewhere to other people..?
Perhaps he was hit on the head by a meteorite that very day and totally out of the blue thought it might be a good idea to phone and express these views. Just maybe having recovered from the blow he's now gone back to knitting jumpers for the local wildlife in case it gets cold.
There's no equivalence here - criminals DO deserve what happens to them; police officers performig their duty do not.
But a policeman saying "He got what he deserved" about a criminal who gets injured is no more "performing his duty" than a criminal is. He is, like the criminal (and you here) simply expressing a personal opinion. As such all should have the same freedom of expression of personal opinion in an essentially private forum. In fact criminals have more right to express their private opinions than members of the Queen's constabulary sworn to keep the peace.
But a policeman saying "He got what he deserved" about a criminal who gets injured is no more "performing his duty" than a criminal is. He is, like the criminal (and you here) simply expressing a personal opinion. As such all should have the same freedom of expression of personal opinion in an essentially private forum. In fact criminals have more right to express their private opinions than members of the Queen's constabulary sworn to keep the peace.
I agree with you there. No issue with them saying it about a prison sentence, but they shouldn't, and probably wouldn't, if a criminal got hurt or killed.
But a policeman saying "He got what he deserved" about a criminal who gets injured is no more "performing his duty" than a criminal is. He is, like the criminal (and you here) simply expressing a personal opinion. As such all should have the same freedom of expression of personal opinion in an essentially private forum. In fact criminals have more right to express their private opinions than members of the Queen's constabulary sworn to keep the peace.
Phone calls are covered by the malicious communications act which makes it an offence (and has done for some time) to abuse, make offensive, threatening or false calls. (or emails, letters, or other “electronic communications”, which can include Facebook posts etc.)
If this guy had said it to a police officer walking down the street in public, he wouldn’t have committed any offence. At worse, perhaps a minor public order offence, but only one worthy of a fixed penalty.
If a police officer phoned up a criminal and said "he got what he deserved", etc then that too would be considered an offence. Simply remarking it with pals or whatever isn't covered by the same law.
Smaller crimes against 'the system' will always attract harsher sentences than smaller crimes against the person, given that they don't want people to replicate them. It's more difficult to do that against the person, as people will always scrap, but it puts a stop to other people phoning up the 999 number for stupid reasons.
For that reason alone this sentence was a good idea.
For that reason alone this sentence was a good idea.
None of the stories reporting this, all of which appear to be based on a press release by Lincolnshire Police, mention the use of 999. If he had dialled 999 I would have thought that would have featured heavily in the story.
None of the stories reporting this, all of which appear to be based on a press release by Lincolnshire Police, mention the use of 999. If he had dialled 999 I would have thought that would have featured heavily in the story.
Whatever number he used, he's a thoroughly unpleasant little piece of crap. If all else failed, they could have charged him with wasting police time.
Comments
Well you clearly felt compelled to take issue with me on this thread, before I'd even posted in it !!! :eek:
You sound very angry and bitter, Si. I suggest you chillax for once and try and post something that sounds reasonably pleasant.
Beyond that, I'm done with you.
No, I was checking up on a thread about a guy who doesn't seem to like the police much.
Admittedly, something about MAW's post, which I quoted, made me think of you though.
We need to make an example of people like that so others will think twice before they do something stupid.
It would have been funnier if 'a short time later', the police had simply gone around to his house, and shot him.
And then called a press conference: "We just want to let the public know how pleased we are..."
There's no equivalence here - criminals DO deserve what happens to them; police officers performig their duty do not.
Perhaps he was hit on the head by a meteorite that very day and totally out of the blue thought it might be a good idea to phone and express these views. Just maybe having recovered from the blow he's now gone back to knitting jumpers for the local wildlife in case it gets cold.
This had me spluttering!
But a policeman saying "He got what he deserved" about a criminal who gets injured is no more "performing his duty" than a criminal is. He is, like the criminal (and you here) simply expressing a personal opinion. As such all should have the same freedom of expression of personal opinion in an essentially private forum. In fact criminals have more right to express their private opinions than members of the Queen's constabulary sworn to keep the peace.
Actually, no, I'm not yet.
You haven't given your opinion on the thread topic. So you seemingly just came on here to have a pop at me.
What is your opinion on the thread topic ?
I agree with you there. No issue with them saying it about a prison sentence, but they shouldn't, and probably wouldn't, if a criminal got hurt or killed.
Phone calls are covered by the malicious communications act which makes it an offence (and has done for some time) to abuse, make offensive, threatening or false calls. (or emails, letters, or other “electronic communications”, which can include Facebook posts etc.)
If this guy had said it to a police officer walking down the street in public, he wouldn’t have committed any offence. At worse, perhaps a minor public order offence, but only one worthy of a fixed penalty.
If a police officer phoned up a criminal and said "he got what he deserved", etc then that too would be considered an offence. Simply remarking it with pals or whatever isn't covered by the same law.
Work on your people skills a bit and I'll get back to you.
For that reason alone this sentence was a good idea.
None of the stories reporting this, all of which appear to be based on a press release by Lincolnshire Police, mention the use of 999. If he had dialled 999 I would have thought that would have featured heavily in the story.
Whatever number he used, he's a thoroughly unpleasant little piece of crap. If all else failed, they could have charged him with wasting police time.