Abduction of 5 Year old Girl April Jones

Originally Posted by Damien

Yeah. I still wonder the benefit of prison terms for these cases. I can probably agree they should be prosecuted, maybe, but a community service order and/or a fine seems better. Putting someone in prison is a overreaction, we already have problems with overcrowding and putting someone inside a cell for comments they made on the internet is a step too far.

It's just part of a larger concern that we have more and more laws and less and less freedom.

I know where you are coming from and it is a worry ,social media in some cases is likened to a few people having a private conversation in the pub and if any of them told such sick jokes they would not be prosecuted it would be treated as a private conversation so we do have to tread carefully .

In this case i think the judge locked him up for his own safety

[Derek]

12 weeks? Seriously???

It was in exceptional bad taste but in all honesty say that a message posted on facebook and not directed at the family deserves jailtime and a harsher punishment than this, this or this?

[Pierre]

Frankie Boyle's on borrowed time then.

Seriously though, to think you can be jailed for offending someone....................

especially as what is and what isn't offensive is subjective and differs from person to person.

It's the thin end of the wedge.

I have no problem with being charged and punished, it's what he has been charged with I have an issue.

Had he been charged with outraging public decency or something, then it would be more palatable.

Its thought Police. 12 weeks for offensive posting on Facebook? what a waste of resources Police time and the cost of trial and sentence

According to comments which I can verify on Slashdot these messages where posted on his wall.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

According to comments which I can verify on Slashdot these messages where posted on his wall.

Sorry to be daft, but what does that mean exactly?

Originally Posted by danielf

Sorry to be daft, but what does that mean exactly?

It means he just posted it for the consumption of his 'friends' rather than directing it at a community or group of people. It's the internet equivalent of telling a joke in a bar amongst friends as opposed to shouting it in a supermarket.

[danielf]

So going on post #150, a warning would have been more appropriate.

I have to say this does look rather worrying.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by danielf

So going on post #150, a warning would have been more appropriate.

Without the message being directed at someone I would previously have thought the chances of proving a crime were limited however in the new world where someone, somewhere is permanently offended about something it seems like common sense is going out the window.

Originally Posted by Derek

Without the message being directed at someone I would previously have thought the chances of proving a crime were limited however in the new world where someone, somewhere is permanently offended about something it seems like common sense is going out the window.

Have you ever had to deal with one of these cases?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Derek

Without the message being directed at someone I would previously have thought the chances of proving a crime were limited however in the new world where someone, somewhere is permanently offended about something it seems like common sense is going out the window.

Surely the decision to prosecute lies firmly with the CPS, and the decision to impose such a ludicrous sentence lies with the judge? It seems quite simple to me. The CPS should take a step back and not prosecute because they can, but because it actually serves a purpose.

Originally Posted by danielf

Surely the decision to prosecute lies firmly with the CPS, and the decision to impose such a ludicrous sentence lies with the judge? It seems quite simple to me. The CPS should take a step back and not prosecute because they can, but because it actually serves a purpose.

I suspect conviction rates are a performance indicator for CPS lawyers. I can see why they would go for the jugular if they thought they could.

As for the sentence, well in this case there was no judge, there was a panel of magistrates, who are in essence people who do jury service for a hobby, except with the added benefit of passing sentence after they have decided on guilt. I don't mean to do JPs a disservice (not least because an old and dear friend of mine is one) but it's not without good reason that most people accused of an 'each way' offence (one that can be tried either by a jury at Crown Court or by magistrates) opt for jury trial. On like-for-like cases, magistrates are a lot more likely to find a defendant guilty. Whether or not they are similarly gung-ho when it comes to sentencing, I can only speculate.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Damien

Have you ever had to deal with one of these cases?

Offenses under the Communications Act? Plenty but those were always fallouts between friends or partners. I can't say I've ever had to deal with one without a clear cut 'victim'.

Originally Posted by Derek

Offenses under the Communications Act? Plenty but those were always fallouts between friends or partners. I can't say I've ever had to deal with one without a clear cut 'victim'.

Just wondered how much day-to-day policing is taken up with people making comments on Facebook or Twitter (that aren't directed at an individual).

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Damien

Just wondered how much day-to-day policing is taken up with people making comments on Facebook or Twitter (that aren't directed at an individual).

I've not had to do the day to day stuff for a bit, however when I speak to other cops the amount of electronic, low level stuff seems to be increasing and due to its nature takes up more time than other 'crimes'.