Facebook case: Sex offender is awarded £20,000 in damages

[Mr Angry]

Local story with potentially wide ranging implications.

"Damages of £20,000 have been awarded to a convicted sex offender who took an action against Facebook and the operator of a page called Keeping our Kids Safe from Predators 2.

Facebook Ireland Limited, hosted a page operated by Joseph McCloskey.
The High Court in Belfast concluded the information published by Mr McCloskey "harmed the public interest, creating a risk of reoffending".

The plaintiff, CG, was convicted in 2007 of a number of sex offences.
He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and released on licence in 2012."

BBC.

[MalteseFalcon]

The Human Rights law was a good idea in theory, but sadly it has been hijacked by the **** it was meant to protect us from.

[RichardCoulter]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I have recently been dealing with a case where a black man immediately punched a man with severe learning difficulties after he racially abused him in a bar.

In my view, the black customer was at fault and should be punished by the law. The man with learning difficulties should be accessed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by healthcare professionals.

In the end it will be for the CPS to decide.

[alanbjames]

Just because a person has learning difficulties doesnt mean they dont know right from wrong.

I have a nephew who was let down majorly by the education system and has a lot of learning difficulties which should have been caught while in primary school but he wasnt diagnosed until second year of comprehensive and he got specially tutored. At the age of 18 he landed a dream job working in Swansea on a basic wage of 40hrs earning more than his own father does. He threw it all away by making an outburst of racial comments towards a person also working there.

He will tell u himself he knows he did wrong but because his mum and dad use those terms he found it funny to do so himself.

Part of the reason i dont bother with a lot of my close family.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by alanbjames

Just because a person has learning difficulties doesnt mean they dont know right from wrong.

I have a nephew who was let down majorly by the education system and has a lot of learning difficulties which should have been caught while in primary school but he wasnt diagnosed until second year of comprehensive and he got specially tutored. At the age of 18 he landed a dream job working in Swansea on a basic wage of 40hrs earning more than his own father does. He threw it all away by making an outburst of racial comments towards a person also working there.

He will tell u himself he knows he did wrong but because his mum and dad use those terms he found it funny to do so himself.

Part of the reason i dont bother with a lot of my close family.

People with learning difficulties may or may not know that what they say is wrong depending on the individual and the actual situation- which is why I said that I think that the individual who made the racist remark needs to be assessed by a professional to ascertain this.

People with lifelong learning difficulties, such as ADHD, Aspergers Syndrome, Autism etc often get things wrong because they perceive things differently, have social boundary issues etc etc. They may behave in an immature, unusual or inappropriate way or make inappropriate jokes without even realising it.

In the example that you quoted about your relative, he may have actually known it was wrong, but if he did not have learning difficulties, he may have had the capacity to weigh up the consequences of saying what he did and decide to keep quiet.

It's not as straightforward as it first appears.

Whilst not in anyway justifying the assailant's actions, how did he know the person who abused him had learning difficulties?

Oh so if I get abused by someone if they have learning difficulties they get a pass what a patronising and condescending attitude. People with learning difficulties of which there is a huge range often know perfectly well what is right and wrong and certainly the vast majority know and understand racism definitely so if they say it in the correct context to a person that would be insulted by it. As for this case the guy was a sex offender and shouldn't have got a damn penny and it is cases like this that illustrate why a growing number of the public are losing faith in justice in the uk.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Whilst not in anyway justifying the assailant's actions, how did he know the person who abused him had learning difficulties?

As far as I know, he didn't. If it goes to court, i'm pretty sure that his solicitor will cite this, as a defence against disability discrimination is to claim that a person is not guilty of disability discrimination if they can prove that they were not aware that the person was disabled. The reaction of the black man was so severe, however, that I doubt that it matters much in this case.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Oh so if I get abused by someone if they have learning difficulties they get a pass what a patronising and condescending attitude. People with learning difficulties of which there is a huge range often know perfectly well what is right and wrong and certainly the vast majority know and understand racism definitely so if they say it in the correct context to a person that would be insulted by it. As for this case the guy was a sex offender and shouldn't have got a damn penny and it is cases like this that illustrate why a growing number of the public are losing faith in justice in the uk.

Being a sex offender carries a whole set of punishments and sanctions by society- this does not include allowing other people to break the law in relation to them.

If a person with learning difficulties does something wrong, efforts to resolve this should be made by those trained to do so. This may include punishment, education, training, monitoring etc.

In this case, what was not tolerated was the use of extreme violence by the young black man against a much older disabled man. Proper procedures are in place to deal with verbal assaults without behaving like an animal and bringing our venue into disrepute.

Whichever way it pans out, this individual and his partner are permanently barred; as, for example, what's to stop him beating up a customer with a physical disability who accidentally falls onto him?

You appear to be moving the goalposts from "punched" to "extreme violence".....

Shouldn't you, as the venue manager, be going into this with an impartial viewpoint - discover the evidence, find out all the facts, and then make a judgement?

It sounds as if you have made your mind up already....

btw, if it goes to court, couldn't the person with learning difficulties also be charged with a hate crime offence?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Oh so if I get abused by someone if they have learning difficulties they get a pass what a patronising and condescending attitude. People with learning difficulties of which there is a huge range often know perfectly well what is right and wrong and certainly the vast majority know and understand racism definitely so if they say it in the correct context to a person that would be insulted by it. As for this case the guy was a sex offender and shouldn't have got a damn penny and it is cases like this that illustrate why a growing number of the public are losing faith in justice in the uk.

Perhaps his victims will get some compensation now, providing they're informed of his windfall

Originally Posted by Hugh

Whilst not in anyway justifying the assailant's actions, how did he know the person who abused him had learning difficulties?

I think the point is, he doesn't need to know whether the person insulting him has learning difficulties. He does need to know that the law forbids punching someone, even if they verbally abuse you.

---------- Post added at 08:29 ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

btw, if it goes to court, couldn't the person with learning difficulties also be charged with a hate crime offence?

Potentially. I think that's why Richard said the abuser in his analogy should be subject to professional assessment - to determine level of personal responsibility.

Thank you for the clarification.

Was John Prescott ever prosecuted for punching the protester who egged him?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thank you for the clarification.

Was John Prescott ever prosecuted for punching the protester who egged him?

Nope prezza got lucky, there's a little known bylaw that insists the public punch men with mullets in the face whenever they're seen out

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You appear to be moving the goalposts from "punched" to "extreme violence".....

Shouldn't you, as the venue manager, be going into this with an impartial viewpoint - discover the evidence, find out all the facts, and then make a judgement?

It sounds as if you have made your mind up already....

btw, if it goes to court, couldn't the person with learning difficulties also be charged with a hate crime offence?

I regard being repeatedly punched in the face as being extremely violent.

I aren't the venue manager, I just happened to turn up to do a till audit one afternoon. I happened to arrive at the same time as the police and an ambulance.

I would agree with you - being repeatedly punched is extremely violent.

Unfortunately, this is the first time we knew it was 'repeatedly'.....