Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
dhickl

Sentancing

Recommended Posts

I couldn''t see it posted anywhere, but I see the guy who tweeted the comments about Vaughan has a 1 year community behaviour order and 120 hours community service.

Fair punishment I think. I believe it was more stupidity than malicious intent, so it''s enough to set an example, but not enough that it will stay on his record forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="dhickl"]I couldn''t see it posted anywhere, but I see the guy who tweeted the comments about Vaughan has a 1 year community behaviour order and 120 hours community service. Fair punishment I think. I believe it was more stupidity than malicious intent, so it''s enough to set an example, but not enough that it will stay on his record forever.[/quote]

Not long enought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="dhickl"]I couldn''t see it posted anywhere, but I see the guy who tweeted the comments about Vaughan has a 1 year community behaviour order and 120 hours community service.

Fair punishment I think. I believe it was more stupidity than malicious intent, so it''s enough to set an example, but not enough that it will stay on his record forever.[/quote]We all can''t have it both ways.  Say he was given something that followed him around forever.  Then people would moan if he lived on the Dole while complaining nobody will employ him.Anyway, did he need punishing again?  IMO he''s had his mug plastered all over the net.  Been branded a dirty racist.  Banned for life at Carrow Road  so I should imagine he''s been cringing with his own embarrassment for weeks now.  Filthy drug dealers and burglars get away with less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="SPANGLES"][quote user="dhickl"]I couldn''t see it posted anywhere, but I see the guy who tweeted the comments about Vaughan has a 1 year community behaviour order and 120 hours community service.

Fair punishment I think. I believe it was more stupidity than malicious intent, so it''s enough to set an example, but not enough that it will stay on his record forever.[/quote]We all can''t have it both ways.  Say he was given something that followed him around forever.  Then people would moan if he lived on the Dole while complaining nobody will employ him.Anyway, did he need punishing again?  IMO he''s had his mug plastered all over the net.  Been branded a dirty racist.  Banned for life at Carrow Road  so I should imagine he''s been cringing with his own embarrassment for weeks now.  Filthy drug dealers and burglars get away with less[/quote]Very well said Spangles.The Magistrates hand out silly fines to line their pockets and do give people who are not criminals records (even if they are only cautions) that follow them around for ever.  Employers can be so picky these days!Like you say it is the real criminals that get away with things in society due to the courts, police and general public being scared of them.The guy although daft had been punished more than enough in my opinion too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the arguments from both sides. The punishment can be seen as pretty harsh. His comments were totally unacceptable but he has been publicly identified and shamed as being a racist. That is likely to make his life around Norwich and Norfolk very hard from now on. Criminalising him is therefore unneccessary has he has already been deservedly humiliated. The police could have therefore spent resources on other issues concerning those who present a more genuine threat to the community at large. However on the other hand by virtue of police taking the incident very seriously, it has sent out a very strong message that such behaviour is completely unacceptable in society.

 

Wherever you stand on the incident though it just shows the need for people to be much more responsible with social networking sites and discussion forums. Every word you write is potentially accessible to anyone in the world. As a result these websites are capable of generating a massive news story or sensation in no time at all. Mark Bright may have contributed to this by contributing in an incredibly unprofessional manner by attacking Norwich City football club as a whole. But that is neither here nor there. People must understand the potential wider issues as one comment like that lad made can inadvertently create negative publicity for both the club and the area as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find his opinions cretinous and repulsive, but in a democracy we are all allowed opinions. He didn''t urge anyone to commit criminal acts and commited none himself except to express a thought that most of us would rather not hear.

But it should not be a criminal offense to express an opinion, regardless how crass it is. It''s a very dangerous slope when we start punishing people for thought crimes.

How long before mentioning our six-fingered friends down the road becomes a thought crime because it upsets the disabled?

How long before banter is banned from the terraces because some of it cuts a very fine edge?

He is a stupid boy and it seems according to Norfolk magistrates he is now a thought criminal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming that his comments broke the law relating to expressing racial hatred, possibly the Public Order Act 1986. Here''s a link if anyone is interested - it would certainly seem to cover what this guy did :

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/criminal-law-restrictions-on-freedom-of-expression/racial-hatred.html

The crux is that the comments were displayed for all the world to see.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may as well shut this forum (and the internet) down now then. If I had a penny for each time I have seen people called "Gay" or "retarded" in a derogatory sense I would be a rich man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Buckethead"]Well as both Delia S. Tickers and Mustachio Furioso you were a man if that helps your little dilemma.


[/quote]

Please stick to the topic, there''s no time for idle chit-chat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke also in effect being punished for being honest about it. And in this case, been a piss easy target to the police What does that teach young people in society??? Lie through you teeth, swear blind your account has been hacked.  Make up some story about forgetting to log off in a public library. The police certainly would''ve have bothered investigating and the club would''ve given him the benefit of the doubt.  And nobody would''ve known about it except for about two or three people who actually saw the deleted comment.Also as a side issue.  You can''t play the ''you must be responsible'' when using social media websites card.  That''s also ****ing nonsense, because while you have people pretending to be other people for whatever reason, you can''t have both ways.  Why isn''t there anything done about Twitter users pretending to be Norwich players?   Why don''t the police get involved with Twitter users pretending to be Adolf Hitler or any other dictator?Answers on a post card to Archant Towers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the response he''s received from the official bodies, i.e. the club and the courts, has been spot on and largely appropriate.

 

Where he has been harshly dealt with is in terms of the media coverage which has marked him for life. I have some sympathy for him in those terms, because his real mistake is in not realising how much power your words can have online. He''s obviously not the sharpest tool and probably thought that everyone who followed him would be someone who likes him and therefore wouldn''t take offence. However, having read his further comments on here it''s clear that his views weren''t a one-off slip of the tongue or off-hand comment so I don''t have too much sympathy either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will start by saying that I am 100% not racist. My question is though, Why is it that as soon as the word "Black" is used, its racism?. If you ask a black man what he is, he will tell you he is black. Would I be in trouble if I called you a White idiot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he didn''t use the word ''black'' in the offending Tweet, and I suspect you realise that.

 

He broke the law in ''public'', got caught out, and has now been punished for it. And now some people are suggesting that the punishment is ''harsh'', or that his treatment by the media is the same?

 

Cry me a freakin'' river...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m not saying that Luke''s punishment has been harsh, but I think some of us are finding out just how seriously our authorities view and treat such crimes. Perhaps we hadn''t realised how easy it is to let your big mouth or typing fingers get you into trouble but now we do.

I think Luke has been made an example of, a very public example and almost a precedent to some of us and thats not always a good thing.

Live and learn eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Buckethead"]Well as both Delia S. Tickers and Mustachio Furioso you were a man if that helps your little dilemma.


[/quote]

 

OOOFF. Lovely stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="im spartacus"]the self righteous lynch mob are very quiet ? perhaps there is a public stoning later in the week [:D][/quote]

 

Totally agree spartacus, apparently I''m a racist, homophobic et all, no concrete evidence mind, just internet mythology spread by a few ''no marks'' on here who can''t read my posts through properly.

 

The lad was stupid and wrong and he deserved some of what he got, but soon rapists will get less than him, hell, plod even get away with murder ffs!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"apparently I''m a racist, homophobic et all, no concrete evidence "

other than your own posts on here

"just internet mythology spread by a few ''no marks'' on here"

the delightful irony of wiz complaining about spreading ''mythology'' on the internet

wiz would be a hilarious send up of some blinkered small minded bigot if the sad truth wasn''t ............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="City1st"]"apparently I''m a racist, homophobic et all, no concrete evidence " other than your own posts on here "just internet mythology spread by a few ''no marks'' on here" the delightful irony of wiz complaining about spreading ''mythology'' on the internet wiz would be a hilarious send up of some blinkered small minded bigot if the sad truth wasn''t ............[/quote]

 

Back it up then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, what he did was stupid, and wrong.  And he did break a law.However - food critic Giles Coren also "broke a law" recently, he broke the Ryan Giggs super-injunction, arguably breaking the Giggs'' familys'' privacy and enabling Giggses'' ex to sell her story.  But because what he said was repeated by 80,000 or so people who considered the "law" that he broke to be ridiculous, no action was brought against him. So my question is - who creates the law in this area now ?    Are tweets only punishable if public opinion decides them to be ?   Or is the law forgotten if a celeb breaks it ?One thing is for certain - twitter is not the equivalent of banter down the pub with mates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"]Firstly, what he did was stupid, and wrong.  And he did break a law.However - food critic Giles Coren also "broke a law" recently, he broke the Ryan Giggs super-injunction, arguably breaking the Giggs'' familys'' privacy and enabling Giggses'' ex to sell her story.  But because what he said was repeated by 80,000 or so people who considered the "law" that he broke to be ridiculous, no action was brought against him. So my question is - who creates the law in this area now ?    Are tweets only punishable if public opinion decides them to be ?   Or is the law forgotten if a celeb breaks it ?One thing is for certain - twitter is not the equivalent of banter down the pub with mates.[/quote]Yep, the internet is a million miles away from what it used to be.  It used to be millions of self policing little islands of fun.  Now it''s kettling of the masses onto massive social media sites with Big Brother acting as God. And BB''s little army of narks running to him every 5 minutes crying about all the unsavory language demanding severe punishments to keep us in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Firstly, what he did was stupid, and wrong.  And he did break a law.

However - food critic Giles Coren also "broke a law" recently, he broke the Ryan Giggs super-injunction, arguably breaking the Giggs'' familys'' privacy and enabling Giggses'' ex to sell her story.  But because what he said was repeated by 80,000 or so people who considered the "law" that he broke to be ridiculous, no action was brought against him.

So my question is - who creates the law in this area now ?    Are tweets only punishable if public opinion decides them to be ?   Or is the law forgotten if a celeb breaks it ?

One thing is for certain - twitter is not the equivalent of banter down the pub with mates.
[/quote]

---

 

Actually, blah, I believe Coren was referring not to Giggs but to ANOTHER FOOTBALLER with a super-injunction. But that doesn''t affect your question. The flippant answer is that Coren is a foul-mouthed self-publicist who probably wanted nothing more than to be prosecuted and that the legal authorities did us all a favour by not going after him. The serious answer is I don''t know, but I suspect it was thought prosecuting an individual rather than a news organisation was over the top. Is that logical? Possibly not. But there is always leeway in the law. Sometimes people get an informal warning or a police caution for an offence for which they could be prosecuted.

 

But the law itself has not changed. The laws that affect the internet - defamation, contempt of court, copyright infringement etc etc  etc- are the same ones that exist to do with any form of publishing. And that is what you are doing on the internet - you are publishing to the world, just as if you were publishing a newspaper.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×