NEW Debate (!) - Online "Hate" Crimes

[IndoMike]

I'm fine with criticism. I'm not fine with Spanky (And you reporting a post) giving me 10 infractions points for 'personal abuse' when I call someone (You) an idiot and for name calling - And then Spanky calling me names repeatedly after.

To confirm; no crime has been committed Mike. Whether you like it or not, this is just confirmation that you don't understand British law. Call it 'verbal diarrhoea*' as much as you like, I call it our judiciary system. You may be offended but the law doesn't care! Get over it, snowflake.

I never reported a post. Please withdraw that accusation right now. Please mods confirm that i have not reported any of Laddie's posts.

 

[elginCity]

Jesus. How many times does it have to be said that intent is not necessary for someone to have broken the law?.

This is an interesting point. Apparently, the owner of the video uploaded it to a private whatsapp group. Let's assume a third party in the private group, someone possibly not even at the bonfire, uploaded to mainstream social media, who do you consider would be culpable for the crime ?

 

[ExeterCityLad]

I never reported a post. Please withdraw that accusation right now. Please mods confirm that i have not reported any of Laddie's posts.

Fair enough if you haven't. I apologise. In which case Spanky was going off on a wild one and decided to decide you were offended, on your behalf.

His message, and I copy and paste, states:

Dear ExeterCityLad,

You have received an infraction at exeweb.com forums.

Reason: Abuse
-------

I really didn't want to do this, but whatever your political persuasion, this post is very simple personal abuse.

Please, no matter how much you disagree with someone, or how much frustration you feel at being unable to swing them round to your train of thought, don't reduce your argument to abusive name calling.

Rgds

Spanky
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.exeweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1755756

__________

Of course this is before Spanky then calls me a fruit loop and a troll. But that seems to be allowed.

 

[IndoMike]

I never reported a post. Please withdraw that accusation right now. Please mods confirm that i have not reported any of Laddie's posts.

Laddie : do you hear me?!

 

[IndoMike]

Fair enough if you haven't. I apologise. In which case Spanky was going off on a wild one and decided to decide you were offended, on your behalf.

His message, and I copy and paste, states:

Dear ExeterCityLad,

You have received an infraction at exeweb.com forums.

Reason: Abuse
-------

I really didn't want to do this, but whatever your political persuasion, this post is very simple personal abuse.

Please, no matter how much you disagree with someone, or how much frustration you feel at being unable to swing them round to your train of thought, don't reduce your argument to abusive name calling.

Rgds

Spanky
-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.exeweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1755756

I did not report your post. If the mods decide to take action based on what they read that's not my business. There is apparently an official system for reporting a post and I have not used it in your case. Once again you're making an assumption which is false : dangerous thing to do. I still await your apology.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

This is an interesting point. Apparently, the owner of the video uploaded it to a private whatsapp group. Let's assume a third party in the private group, someone possibly not even at the bonfire, uploaded to mainstream social media, who do you consider would be culpable for the crime ?

This is exactly what happened and why I keep reiterating - DID NOT BREAK THE LAW.

But who cares about facts? Terry and Spanky boy don't for sure. Apparently I'm a hard line right winger and it's "my opinion and not fact" for saying this.

Head. Wall. Banging.

 

[Terryhall]

Doesn't matter if it could Spanky, for goodness sake! This is tiresome!!!! The person who posted it needed to have expected it (Or intended) for it to!!

Argh. This is like talking to a 5 year old kid.

The person who posted it would either need to have intended it to, or to have been aware that it was likely that it would (not the same as "expected".) Despite sharing to a private whatsapp group, in todays world they would have to be aware that (a) once they post it they lose control over where it goes (b) it would not be unlikely for it to be shared further and seen by others who may find it grossly offensive.

This is all covered in several previous posts but more than happy to continue to summarise this point for you in different ways.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

Head. Wall. Banging.

...........................

 

[IndoMike]

The person who posted it would either need to have intended it to, or to have been aware that it was likely that it would (not the same as "expected".) Despite sharing to a private whatsapp group, in todays world they would have to be aware that (a) once they post it they lose control over where it goes (b) it would not be unlikely for it to be shared further and seen by others who may find it grossly offensive.

This is all covered in several previous posts but more than happy to continue to summarise this point for you in different ways.

One thing is for sure : if you don't post it it can't be shared.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

The issue is, for some bizarre reason - Terry thinks this breaks the law because the person who posted it to a private whatsapp group had reasonable belief this was going to go viral and reach the people connected to Grenfell. It's madness. It's a joke. I think he knows he's talking codswallop now and doing his best to avoid admitting he's wrong.