They Would Say That » the law

Where Are The Police? Oh They’re Busy On Twitter

admin — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:16:56 +0000

You would think that in a country that claims to have free speech you could say pretty much whatever you want and make a joke if you wish.

I have seen plenty of comedians on TV talking about blowing up the Houses Of Parliament, suggesting that maybe Guy Fawkes wasn’t so bad and I am sure, unless my memory fails me, that I have seen news programmes with members of the public when invited to give their views on MP’s expenses saying that MP’s should be hung from the lamposts. I have certainly said that myself about some of the banks management.

So the point is we all say things we don’t mean either in jest or to make a point but it doesn’t mean we will carry out the threat. I’ll bet that in any social gathering someone, at some point will say something along the lines of we should shoot the lot of them, they all need hanging or we should blow the lot of them up.

So, when a 26 year old, on finding out that Robin Hood airport was closed due to snow he posted on Twitter that, “Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!” it was pretty obvious to anyone but an imbecile that it was said in jest. The week referred to the fact that he was due to fly from that airport a week later.

Yes we live in times of uncertainty and there is an ever present threat, as there always has been right back to Guy Fawkes and before, though the availability of explosives does seem to be commonplace these days.

Anyway, apparently the MI5, MI6, all the government terrorist threat experts and the bomb squad use twitter to find out where all the threats are coming from. So, it comes as no surprise that as soon as they saw a joke posted they leapt into action. The result of which was that this man appeared in court last week charged with menacing or something similarly serious sounding.

Why didn’t they just charge him with speaking in a public forum? That seems to be the real crime he committed and in this day and age it seems we are not allowed to say anything we might think, or maybe we are not allowed to think. The thought police are very active and apparently spend their time on Twitter.

He was found guilty and released on bail awaiting sentencing which, it was pointed out, might well include a custodial sentence. Maybe all the prisons are empty and they are looking for ways to fill them up again but that wasn’t the situation last time I heard any figures. Rumor has it that our jails are filled to bursting.

You would think that when there are real crimes being committed every day and people live in fear of attack, hiding inside their homes every day, that the police really do have better things to do.

It’s yet another sad tale of society, or rather governance and regulation, gone mad and a sad day for justice and democracy.

It seems very odd that when everything appeared to be going pear-shaped in Iran after their election politicians here were applauding the freedom Twitter gave people to voice their opinions yet as soon as a British citizen says something the British authorities don’t like they come down on him like a ton of bricks.

Hypocrisy is best served by British politicians because they truly are the experts.

Gagging Order Prevents news About Tiger Woods

admin — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:00:15 +0000

Apparently lawyers for Tiger Woods have obtained an injunction preventing UK publishers from publishing certain information about Tiger Woods on websites and in newspapers or on TV.

It is good to know we live in a country that could support users of twitter and other websites who were able to get news out about what was happening in Iran after the disputed election result there. Meanwhile here we are prevented from talking about something as unimportant as details about…. something or other that presumably is about or in reference to Tiger Woods and whatever he has been doing.

I thought freedom of speech was something we were supposed to enjoy in this country. We are quick to criticize other countries that restrict it. Personally I couldn’t care less about what TW has been up to and wouldn’t want to publish it if I knew, but it does bother me that I am prevented from doing so.

If you want to know I expect it is all over the American media on their websites but I can’t be bothered to look myself and no doubt people who do live in freedom loving democracies are able to Tweet about it.

Personally I’d rather go and take some photographs of some unimportant buildings somewhere in the UK. Oh, I forgot. I can’t do that because I’ll get arrested for terrorism.

What is this country coming too?

Gardian Gagged – Is This Democracy?

Making Noise During Sex Can Be Illegal

admin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:53:54 +0000

We all prefer quiet neighbors who cause no trouble. Most neighbors are good and we get on well. Sometimes they make a bit of noise but you have to have a bit of give and take because sometimes we do things that might be annoying for other people.

Some people go to extremes and a woman in Washington on Wearside got an ASBO earlier this year because she made so much noise during lovemaking. She has just lost an appeal that claimed it was a breach of her human rights to deny her the opportunity to express her personality whilst making love.

She now faces a trial for breaching the ASBO and making a breach of the peace for her noisy behavior since the order was put in place.

I have every sympathy for the neighbors but this does seem ridiculous. I would have thought that advice about making the bedroom more soundproof might have been a better use of the authorities time than to spend it putting this lady through the embarrassment of an ASBO and now court cases.

Presumably there is the possibility of a custodial sentence if you breach an asbo and the idea of sending someone to jail for being noisy when they make love is too ludicrous for words. I hope they find a solution that allows her to enjoy her fun and her neighbors to sleep peacefully.

Do We Really Need Helicopter TV Shots?

Gardian Gagged – Is This Democracy?

admin — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:21:27 +0000

It is sometimes hard to remember that we live in a democracy. There are plenty of examples where government appears not to listen to public opinion and does whatever it wants regardless but at least we usually know what they have done.

The Guardian is reporting that it has been prevented from writing about a question due to be asked in the Houses of Parliament by a gagging order in which somebody, or some company, has got a court to prevent the newspaper reporting on what is happening in Parliament. No matter that you elect these people to act on your behalf. It seems that a company or individual is able to prevent us knowing what is being said.

The Guardian reports that:-

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.
The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

Members of Parliament are protected and can basically say whatever they want in Parliament without fear of prosecution but it does seem ridiculous that in a democracy we are prevented from knowing what they say.

Presumably we will eventually get to hear about it one way or another but this seems to stink whichever way you look at it.

** UPDATE **

The Guardian has just announced that the ban on publishing has been lifted since lawyers acting on behalf of clients have given up their attempts to prevent the reporting of Parliamentary business.

The Guardian now reports that the question to be asked in parliament is the following one from Labour MP Paul Farrelly:-

“To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.”

This will be a feather in the cap of Guido Fawkes who had correctly assumed this was the question that was being blocked from publication.here

No More Babysitters? – Another Poorly Prepared Law

admin — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:04:57 +0000

Two female police officers who previously had an arrangement whereby each would babysit for the other when they were working has been stopped by Ofsted under the Childcare Act 2006.

Officers representing Ofsted knocked at the door of one of the women and informed her that they had become aware she might be running an illegal childcare service. She, as any normal person would, thought that this was clearly a misunderstanding and invited the officers in to explain. Even after fully explaining the situation she was told that to continue their arrangement they would both need to become registered childminders and pass all appropriate tests or face prosecution.

To become a registered childminder is not a simple process of simply checking you are a decent person. There are all sorts of rules and regulations to follow and I know personally one lady who gave up because she got fed up with being required to follow what seems like silly rules such as having enough black as well as white dolls and having to follow irritatingly complicated procedures with the ever present fear of an ofsted inspection at any time. I guess if you are running a childminding nursery looking after dozens of children it all makes sense but for one or two children it seems excessive.

The problem for the two police officers was that the exchange of service for each other has been considered to be a ‘reward’ by the Ofsted officers which is a reasonable thing to decide since there clearly is a reward in that they each help out the other.

The law was clearly never intended to stop people babyminding for close friends under such an arrangement and Vernon Coaker the Minister for Children, Schools and Families is speaking to Ofsted about the interpretation of the word ‘reward’. It is hard to see how they could interpret it any other way than that which they have done and all they are doing is enforcing the law as it stands.

This would seem to be another example of a law rushed through parliament with the best of intentions but without the appropriate time spent on it to ensure it does what it is supposed to do. In this case that was to protect children and parents from dodgy childminders but it was surely never intended to stop the practice of babyminding for friends now and again to earn a few pounds or in an exchange of service by friends.

It is a worrying thought that there may be dozens more laws that have been rushed through parliament in recent years that are full of careless errors such as this and that ordinary decent and honest people may well suffer for the lack of care taken.

Apparently this does not apply to anyone looking after the children in their parents home so employing a schoolgirl or friend to regularly babysit to allow the parents to have a break and earn a few pounds is not affected by this law.

Government Error Helps Kids Find Gay Porn Site