Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Captain Sir Tom Moore RiP

Let's be careful out there

Wasn't sure where to put this, almost needs a thread on its own but things need to be carefully phrased. This was twitter so presumably has a wider reach (and the twat was clearly a twat) but ...

news.stv.tv

Man found guilty of ‘grossly offensive’ Captain Tom tweet

Joseph Kelly found guilty of ‘grossly offensive’ message about Captain Sir Tom Moore.
news.stv.tv news.stv.tv
 
two sheds said:
Let's be careful out there

Wasn't sure where to put this, almost needs a thread on its own but things need to be carefully phrased. This was twitter so presumably has a wider reach (and the twat was clearly a twat) but ...

news.stv.tv

Man found guilty of ‘grossly offensive’ Captain Tom tweet

Joseph Kelly found guilty of ‘grossly offensive’ message about Captain Sir Tom Moore.
news.stv.tv news.stv.tv
Click to expand...
Tasteless, yes - but 'grossly offensive' worthy of criminal conviction? SMH. Seen far worse things said on these boards about the living.
 
two sheds said:
Let's be careful out there

Wasn't sure where to put this, almost needs a thread on its own but things need to be carefully phrased. This was twitter so presumably has a wider reach (and the twat was clearly a twat) but ...

news.stv.tv

Man found guilty of ‘grossly offensive’ Captain Tom tweet

Joseph Kelly found guilty of ‘grossly offensive’ message about Captain Sir Tom Moore.
news.stv.tv news.stv.tv
Click to expand...
I'm guessing this guy probably has Irish republican sympathies. Ofcourse, no Irish republican was ever in the British Army :rolleyes:
 
Note the substantially different prosecution guidance for Section 127 offences for Scotland vs England & Wales:

Prosecutors must consider each case on its own facts and circumstances
however some particular factors which may weigh against prosecutorial
action being both necessary and proportionate are:
• The suspect has expressed genuine remorse and particularly where
this has been done spontaneously and expeditiously
• Swift and effective action has been taken by the suspect to remove
the communication in question, to have it removed by others or
otherwise to block access to it.

This is not an exhaustive list and it may be that both of these factors would
be required along with others before the scales would be tipped against
prosecutorial action.


  1. Prosecutors must be satisfied that a prosecution is required in the public interest and, where Article 10 is engaged, this means on the facts and merits of the particular case that it has convincingly been established that a prosecution is necessary and proportionate. Particular care must be taken where a criminal sanction is contemplated for the way in which a person has expressed themselves on social media.
  2. Prosecutors therefore should, where relevant, have particular regard to:
    1. The likelihood of re-offending. The spectrum ranges from a suspect making a one- off remark to a suspect engaged in a sustained campaign against a victim;
    2. The suspect’s age or maturity. This may be highly relevant where a young or immature person has not fully appreciated what they wrote;
    3. The circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim, including whether they were serving the public, whether this was part of a coordinated attack (“virtual mobbing”), whether they were targeted because they reported a separate criminal offence, whether they were contacted by a person convicted of a crime against them, their friends or family;
    4. Whether the suspect has expressed genuine remorse;
    5. Whether swift and effective action has been taken by the suspect and/or others for example, service providers, to remove the communication in question or otherwise block access to it;
    6. Whether the communication was or was not intended for a wide audience, or whether that was an obvious consequence of sending the communication; particularly where the intended audience did not include the victim or target of the communication in question.
    7. Whether the offence constitutes a hate crime (which may mean Article 10 is not engaged, but may also be a factor tending in favour of a prosecution in the public interest).

    Social Media and other Electronic Communications | The Crown Prosecution Service

    www.cps.gov.uk www.cps.gov.uk
 
Thora said:
His message was "the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn”

You might not agree with him or like the message, but it's pretty mild??
Men are all over the internet wishing rape and death on women every day and most of those messages don't even get deleted.
Click to expand...
I know what his message was. Not sure why you thought someone would comment without knowing that badc fact? I’m sure you would never do that.

It doesn’t matter whether I agree with or disagree with his message, although as it happens I disagree, it’s what the court thinks.

He’s deffo a twat. The fact that lots of other twats get away with being twats doesn’t make it any less sweet when one twat gets called for being a twat. And unless this twat has a long history of being a twat ( and I suspect he may do) then this recent occasion will probably see him get a moderate or small fine.
 
A380 said:
I know what his message was. Not sure why you thought someone would comment without knowing that badc fact? I’m sure you would never do that.

It doesn’t matter whether I agree with or disagree with his message, although as it happens I disagree, it’s what the court thinks.

He’s deffo a twat. The fact that lots of other twats get away with being twats doesn’t make it any less sweet when one twat gets called for being a twat. And unless this twat has a long history of being a twat ( and I suspect he may do) then this recent occasion will probably see him get a moderate or small fine.
Click to expand...
It's fucking stupid that being a twat, or writing something a bit rude about a dead person, gets you into court in the first place. Even more stupid that some people would celebrate this :confused:
 
Thora said:
It's fucking stupid that being a twat, or writing something a bit rude about a dead person, gets you into court in the first place. Even more stupid that some people would celebrate this :confused:
Click to expand...
Maybe. But that’s down to the Scottish people to decide with their legal system that is massively different to the one in England and Wales. I don’t know much about Scottish law. I’m not really celebrating it, just ever so slightly smiling inwardly that one twat got his comeuppance.

It’s like that saccharine motivational poster about someone throwing a single starfish back in the sea…
 
Saw about more money being paid in management fees than actually handed out. I wonder who out of the abuser above and management shows less respect

Eta: FEWER :mad:
 
Last edited:
And I thought she was all simple middle class and apple pie, sitting loyally next to her dad all those times, and all of the time she was a scheming ..
 
Can't say I've researched this much, but afaik this isn't about the original Tom Moore wandering round his garden money which, presumably did go to the intended charities. It's about another charity set up in his name - from which they've been legally or otherwise, syphoning wheelbarrows full of money from (and into companies set up specifically to be the recipients of said wheelbarrows). So, at some point as Tommy is newly dead, or perhaps even before, they must have had the conversation: 'gee, well, that's that then. Unless...'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom