Hillsborough banner

drykiddrykid Posts: 1,510
Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-37156360

Struggling to get my head around that, two Man Utd fans jailed, not for putting up the banner, but just for sharing a photo of it online. Isn't that exactly what the BBC have just done? Why is one a crime but the other perfectly acceptable? Seems odd to me.

EDIT: oops community work not jailed, but the point remains the same...

Comments

  • jsmith99jsmith99 Posts: 20,382
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It seems stupid that there's no evidence, or even a suggestion, that the two men had any connection to the banner itself, but were guilty of putting a photograph of it on a website (Facebook).

    As drykid points out, this is exactly what the BBC has done, albeit a different website.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I agree. An unbelievably crass decision, and one which surely leaves an open goal for any appeal, given that the BBC showed the same banner.

    I'm struggling to comprehend why it should be a crime anyway. It's merely a photograph of a bridge with a word written on a banner draped over it, put on facebook as illustration. I've seen far worse things than that on facebook.

    If this is a crime, then we'd all better watch out very, very carefully, lest we inadvertently lift the wrong stone. I'm imagining that many people might have decided to photo that and upload it to face book under "look what we saw today on the way to the game". Equally, many others would like and/or share it - thousands if public profile.
  • Sport1Sport1 Posts: 8,819
    Forum Member
    Isn't it a question on intent? The banner was displayed on the way into Manchester as Liverpool fans were travelling there for a game. Posting the image was probably seen as provocation, whilst the BBC are reporting the news.
  • drykiddrykid Posts: 1,510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sport1 wrote: »
    Isn't it a question on intent? The banner was displayed on the way into Manchester as Liverpool fans were travelling there for a game. Posting the image was probably seen as provocation, whilst the BBC are reporting the news.

    I assume that intent must be the key factor, but how do you judge intent? If I'd been driving along that road and saw the same banner then I probably would've taken a photo of it and posted it online too, but only to make a point about the crazy tribalistic nonsense that football fans indulge in. But if I'd said that in court would anyone believe me? It seems a murky area to say the least.
  • Sport1Sport1 Posts: 8,819
    Forum Member
    drykid wrote: »
    I assume that intent must be the key factor, but how do you judge intent? If I'd been driving along that road and saw the same banner then I probably would've taken a photo of it and posted it online too, but only to make a point about the crazy tribalistic nonsense that football fans indulge in. But if I'd said that in court would anyone believe me? It seems a murky area to say the least.

    Well one of the idiots decided to use the image as his facebook cover picture. It was an inadvertent use. I presume the judge took that kind of thing into account.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sport1 wrote: »
    Well one of the idiots decided to use the image as his facebook cover picture. It was an inadvertent use. I presume the judge took that kind of thing into account.

    one of them? - yet they both got the same sentence.
  • Sport1Sport1 Posts: 8,819
    Forum Member
    blueblade wrote: »
    one of them? - yet they both got the same sentence.

    The other one may have done so, I have just read about one of them.
  • Evo102Evo102 Posts: 13,630
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    I agree. An unbelievably crass decision, and one which surely leaves an open goal for any appeal, given that the BBC showed the same banner.

    I doubt they'll have any chance with an appeal because they pleaded guilty to the offence.
    drykid wrote: »
    I assume that intent must be the key factor, but how do you judge intent? If I'd been driving along that road and saw the same banner then I probably would've taken a photo of it and posted it online too, but only to make a point about the crazy tribalistic nonsense that football fans indulge in. But if I'd said that in court would anyone believe me? It seems a murky area to say the least.

    Intent and context. I'm sure if they'd have post the same image whilst condemning it or even in the form of a balanced citizen journalist blog piece then they probably wouldn't have seen the inside of a police station let alone a court.
  • testcardtestcard Posts: 8,202
    Forum Member
    The picture from the BBC news story is credited as "Liverpool Echo".
  • CLL DodgeCLL Dodge Posts: 115,620
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    The law's an ass.
  • drykiddrykid Posts: 1,510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Evo102 wrote: »
    Intent and context. I'm sure if they'd have post the same image whilst condemning it or even in the form of a balanced citizen journalist blog piece then they probably wouldn't have seen the inside of a police station let alone a court.
    But then you're saying the onus is on the person using the photo to expressly contextualise it if they want to stay out of prison. Surely in a free society it should be the other way around, that the image itself should be considered for what it is - just an image recording something that actually happened - and that to make the use of it criminal there should be overwhelming evidence that the intent in doing so was to cause offence? Which doesn't seem to be the case here, at least going by the BBC write-up of events.
  • Evo102Evo102 Posts: 13,630
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    drykid wrote: »
    But then you're saying the onus is on the person using the photo to expressly contextualise it if they want to stay out of prison. Surely in a free society it should be the other way around, that the image itself should be considered for what it is - just an image recording something that actually happened - and that to make the use of it criminal there should be overwhelming evidence that the intent in doing so was to cause offence? Which doesn't seem to be the case here, at least going by the BBC write-up of events.

    Well I and I doubt you have actually seen these blokes facebook page and so can't judge the context in which it appeared.
  • drykiddrykid Posts: 1,510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well, true, which is why I said I only have the BBC article to go on. But if they'd posted the pic on Facebook with a comment underneath saying "LOL! Look at this Liverpool fans!" then I assume the case would be centered around "offensive comments made on Facebook" rather than the use of the photo itself. But as it is there's no mention of any comments made about the photo.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The local media report in the Liverpool Echo, can be seen here
  • PorkchopExpressPorkchopExpress Posts: 5,534
    Forum Member
    The pair of clowns admitted guilt to the charge. What's the judge supposed to do?
  • codebluecodeblue Posts: 14,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    District Judge John Temperley told Meanock: "If there was evidence that you had put up this banner yourself, then I would undoubtedly be sentencing you to custody."

    So jail for someone putting up a banner.

    No no matter how incorrect they may be, surely they cannot be jailed for their opinion?

    Why arent the tens of thosands of united and liverpool fans, who sing songs about hillsborough and the munich air disaster, jailed?

    Why isnt the BBC, who host the offensive picture on their website, in court?

    Is tweeting the story jailable?

    is talking about it an offence?
  • spkxspkx Posts: 14,870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    They pleaded guilty so that ends the case there and then.

    It doesn't say in what context they posted the photos which I suspect is key. There's a difference between posting something to your timeline compared to another's for instance.
  • ZangiefZangief Posts: 409
    Forum Member
    in this country offending people through words is worse than crimes of violence. these people should have been protected by laws. the right to offend should not be against the law
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    codeblue wrote: »
    District Judge John Temperley told Meanock: "If there was evidence that you had put up this banner yourself, then I would undoubtedly be sentencing you to custody."

    So jail for someone putting up a banner.

    No no matter how incorrect they may be, surely they cannot be jailed for their opinion?

    Why arent the tens of thosands of united and liverpool fans, who sing songs about hillsborough and the munich air disaster, jailed?

    Why isnt the BBC, who host the offensive picture on their website, in court?

    Is tweeting the story jailable?

    is talking about it an offence
    ?

    It's wholly subjective, personal opinion based, and it's far from clear. That's what makes the entire case so bloody disturbing.

    I would not have pleaded guilty, as no line in the sand can possibly be drawn. It's totally down to personal opinion.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Zangief wrote: »
    in this country offending people through words is worse than crimes of violence. these people should have been protected by laws. the right to offend should not be against the law

    That's simply not true, but I do have reservations about this case.

    We could argue we see far worse all the time, but Hillsborough has an air around it where no one dare say anything about it, for fear of this. Those in authority are scared not to act in case they get a torrent of abuse, and criticism.

    We know how bad it was, and the terrible things that followed, but this seems a step too far.

    I suspect the defence solicitors told the accused they are on thin ice pleading not guilty.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,676
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I suspect if the date on the banner had been 29/5/85 instead it would never have come to court.
Sign In or Register to comment.