Real England

I thought I was unshockable but I've just watched (part of) some video footage of a group of people burning an effigy of Grenfell Tower at a bonfire gathering and, it turns out, that I am still shockable.

^ that

what's fucking right with these people

Where was this done? Lewes?

Nobody knows.

It would be a bit much even for Lewes.

Nobody knows.

The accents were a bit of giveaway?
Anyway, the halfwits have handed themselves in (or at least some of them have).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46106224

In a nice bit of Real England gallantry seldom seen in these PC days, I note the men have handed themselves in, presumably to save the blushes of the delicate English Rose who seemed to take such delight in the whole affair.

“The police investigation of the Grenfell bonfire video is more chilling and disgusting than the video itself. That people are being arrested for things they said in their back garden suggests Britain is morphing into a police state”, says Brendan O’Neillhttps://t.co/IRJFDMhtPj

— spiked (@spikedonline) November 6, 2018

Is it now a crime to be a twat

oh ffs, Tatchell was doing his thing earlier as well. Just fucking zip it arseholes.

there are still survivors from that block walking about in a permanent PTSD daze ffs.

Is it now a crime to be a twat

Brendan O'Neill doing a citizen's arrest on himself!

people are being arrested for things they said in their back garden and then posted on the internet which seems an important distinction

yep and effectively becoming a publisher of racist hate material. Any fucker can be racist in their garden and won't get swooped on by the PC Gestapo.

I'd imagine a largely unseen aspect of Real England is vast swathes of gardens with people making racist comments in them.

Yeah the garden is what makes this story england to me

Brendan obviously undermines himself by framing this in the most twattish way possible, but isn't there a legitimate left/liberal case for being concerned about what the limits of what the police can to prosecute under the Public Order Act? e.g.more of this kind of stuff: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/teenager-arrested-burning-poppy-facebook

Tatchell saying because the section 4a public order offence was weaponised against him in the 80's he will be implacably against it used in any other context is a bad argument imo. But that is my opinion and I'm sometimes a kneejerk on these type of matters when they involve "twats"!

I guess the point is that it isn't you, me or Tatchell who'll get to decide in what cases these laws are and aren't applied, so it becomes a question of how much you think you're likely to trust the judgement of the people who will decide?

I'd forgotten about that guy on the skateboard mentioned at the end of the Guardian article. can't seem to find any record of whether or not he was convicted in the end

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/11/article-2231431-15F895E9000005DC-522_634x523.jpg

Pleaded guilty, fined £65. https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/remembrance-day-gatecrasher-sorry-29001361.html

I don’t think they will be charged and, if charged, they probably won’t be convicted.

oh dear, bad news for Spiked. I suppose one thing in Tatchell's favour is not making these idiots into cause celebres.

This is probably as good a case as any for Twitter-shaming them out of their jobs or w/e rather than trying to find a law that fits.

but isn't there a legitimate left/liberal case for being concerned about what the limits of what the police can to prosecute under the Public Order Act?

Indeed there is. This is the Act used (some years ago) cack-handedly by some constabularies to arrest men kissing each other in the street because A.N.Other person might be offended and thus cause a public order offence by wanting to beat them up. Keeping the Queen's peace being a cornerstone of British policing. This, though, is hardly the same, as it's clear an offence has been committed.

Brendan O'Neill's arguments are always wrong, doesn't matter if you accidentally agree with him on individual points sometimes, his weasily arguments are always put together in the cause of evil. I'd say best ignore him, but that doesn't seem to have worked so far. If I have time one day I'd like to make a list of all the terrible positions he's taken over the years, maybe that could be a useful thing to fish out whenever anyone is tempted to listen to anything he says.

wealth & power insulate you from online shaming, it works best on the vulnerable

This, though, is hardly the same, as it's clear an offence has been committed.

It seems possible an offence has been committed but I don’t think it’s clear. It’s also not entirely clear whether the people in the video have committed an offence, or potentially just the person uploading.

I don't want to watch the video, is it obviously racially motivated?

Yes

I assumed, obv, but I figure in terms of hate speech socioeconomic class isn't protected where race is (supposed to be)

It's like the nazi dog guy - from the vague descriptions you hear it just sounds like a joke in bad taste, but when you see the video, yes, it's blatantly racist shit.

As noted upthread I can hear cunts making jokes like that in any pub or semi-public space, don't feel like actively seeking them out online

I'm pretty sure if someone stood in the garden next to Mr O'Neill's and shouted "Brendan you're a fuckwit" every night, he'd probably want the police state to do something about it.

xxp - well I get your point but the Act is pretty clear that you can't get away with this unless you're indoors and/or no-one who would be offended sees it. Having said that I'm still not sure anyone (including those arrested) will want it to go to court, the fine could be a lot bigger than £65, so presumably they'll just apologise for any offence caused and get a slap on the wrist. I imagine this is why they have handed themselves in?

It’s a weird point of law that is still up for debate but, as it stands at the moment, a garden doesn’t count as a dwelling but a gazebo or shelter in a garden might. Either way, unless you could show they intended other people present to be offended, I don’t think S4a would apply automatically. It’s probably one that will feature on law syllabi for years to come. But yes, if they have any sense they should probably accept a caution just to save the expense.

I'm pretty sure if someone stood in the garden next to Mr O'Neill's and shouted "Brendan you're a fuckwit" every night, he'd probably want the police state to do something about it.

"btw most Irish see you as an English fuckwit and are laughing at you" might be a bit of a mouthful to add on to that initial over the hedge barb at O'Neill.

The term we use is “tansplaining”.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dro5TCJX0AIwilW.jpg

https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/09/sainsburys-launches-brussels-sprouts-and-pigs-in-blankets-flavour-tea-8021096/amp/

I just wasn't made for these times.

I tried the sprout crisps. They were not good.

Crisps I can understand (and Walkers have launched a variety pack of Christmas dinner flavours this year but without sprouts) but tea?

Think it's supposed to be a joke present. Expect it will be 99% thrown away in January.

I don't know why but I am sure a list of all the crimes belongs in this thread.
https://files.chippy.ch/pnc.txt

C 4.5.53 PERSISTENTLY REFUSING TO MAINTAIN SELF

just scrap them all except for this one:

C 12.13.46.2 FAIL TO GIVE PRODUCE OBSERVE OR DO ANY NOTICE LICENCE RULE OR THING WHICH PERSON IS REQUIRED TO DO

It's like Borges' Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge ... on acid!

You'd think these would cover all bases:

C 12.13.1.1 DOING ACT RESULTING IN CRUELTY TO ANIMAL
C 12.13.1.2 CAUSING ACT RESULTING IN CRUELTY TO ANIMAL
C 12.13.1.3 PROCURING ACT RESULTING IN CRUELTY TO ANIMAL
C 12.13.1.4 PERMITTING ACT RESULTING IN CRUELTY TO ANIMAL
C 12.13.1.5 DOING ACT RESULTING IN ANIMAL SUFFERING UNNECESSARILY
C 12.13.1.6 CAUSING ACT RESULTING IN ANIMAL SUFFERING UNNECESSARILY
C 12.13.1.7 PROCURING ACT RESULTING IN ANIMAL SUFFERING UNNECESSARILY
C 12.13.1.8 PERMITTING ACT RESULTING IN ANIMAL SUFFERING UNNECESSARILY
C 12.13.1.9 OMITTING TO DO ACT THEREBY RESULTING IN ANIMAL SUFFERING UNNECESSARILY
C 12.13.1.10 CAUSING OMISSION OF ACT THEREBY RESULTING IN ANIMAL SUFFERING UNNECESSARILY
C 12.13.1.11 PROCURING OMISSION OF ACT THEREBY RESULTING IN ANIMAL SUFFERING UNNECESSARILY
C 12.13.1.12 PERMITTING OMISSION OF ACT THEREBY RESULTING IN ANIMAL SUFFERING UNNECESSARILY
C 12.13.1.13 CONVEYING OR CARRYING ANIMAL SO AS TO CAUSE UNNECESSARY SUFFERING
C 12.13.1.14 CAUSING ANIMAL TO BE CONVEYED OR CARRIED SO AS TO CAUSE UNNECESSARY SUFFERING
C 12.13.1.15 PROCURING ANIMAL TO BE CONVEYED OR CARRIED SO AS TO CAUSE UNNECESSARY SUFFERING
C 12.13.1.16 PERMITTING ANIMAL TO BE CONVEYED OR CARRIED SO AS TO CAUSE UNNECESSARY SUFFERING

but then:

C 12.13.37.1 MUTILATE KICK BEAT IMPALE STAB BURN STONE CRUSH DROWN DRAG ASPHYIATE A WILD MAMMAL W/I TO INFLICT SUFFERING

Why 'MAMMAL'?!

state as psychopathic demiurge that is sometimes struck with sudden obsessions - badgers, just completely fixating on badgers

C 5.10.271 USE BADGER TONGS IN COURSE OF KILLING BADGER
C 5.10.272 USE BADGER TONGS IN THE COURSE OF TAKING BADGER
C 5.10.274 USE BADGER TONGS IN THE COURSE OF ATTEMPTING TO TAKE BADGER
C 5.10.292.1 USING BADGER TONGS IN THE COURSE OF KILLING OR TAKING OR ATTEMPTING TO KILL OR TAKE A BADGER

C 5.10.282 DISTURB BADGER WHEN IT IS OCCUPYING BADGER SETT

I thought you were joking