Hillsborough banner
drykid
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...
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...
0
Comments
As drykid points out, this is exactly what the BBC has done, albeit a different website.
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.
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.
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.
I doubt they'll have any chance with an appeal because they pleaded guilty to the offence.
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.
Well I and I doubt you have actually seen these blokes facebook page and so can't judge the context in which it appeared.
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 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.
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.
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.