Beating flashy to it - Grenfell Video

Ill freely admit this lot sound like ladyparts but what exactly have they done that is criminal or merits arrest rather than a good old “name and shame for being a tvvat”?

Would be very interested to see how the potential criminal charges are framed.  Anyone getting the charges whack them up would you?

I think you'll find that they're guilty in the court of public OUTRAGE

I believe they have been arrested but not yet charged. 

they were arrested under s4a of POA 1986 which requires a specific intent. They must have intended to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" through the use of "threatening, abusive or insulting" words or signs.

The cardboard model may constitute insulting or abusive signs possibly and the words used certainly insulted and probably abused.  

Acts done in the private home are excepted under s4 as follows: where a person has no reason to believe it would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling then they do not carry the relevant intention and are not therefore guilty of the offence.

the filming and then posting of it presents the point for debate. Some involved may argue they had no reasonable belief it would be made public. The person filming and posting may argue there was no intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress or that the words weren’t used by him, but others who had no reasonable belief he would post it, that they didn’t constitute insulting, threatening or abusive words or that that posting the vid doesn’t constitute the ‘use of’ etc.

While we might all think ‘idiots - slap them’ this is a bit tricky for the CPS to navigate given the state of the law, public opinion and the CPS’  immense track record in the application of the Code of Conduct for Crown Prosecutors. 







What a relief that the police don't have other calls on their time. 

There should be a simple offence of gross criminal idiocy for which the penalty is a day or two in the stocks where people get to throw 28-day aged dog poo bags at the offender. 

To be fair, that's sort of already happened to these idiots .

the police really are thoroughly tired of all this nonsense. When will the politicians realise that the only people that care about this are recreational outrage brigade on social media. we've got a murder rate in london higher than new york FFS.

But wouldn’t it be great if we could just hurl shit rather than tweet it?

The problem for the rozzers here is the age old issue of the requirement of mens rea and actus reus needing to occur simultaneously in an offence requiring intention. Hands up who remembers the 1972 case of R v Court?*

R v Court. A sweet shop owner assaulted a 12 year old for pinching sweets by picking her up and smacking her bum, mum complained, police arrested for assault, when asked why he did it he said ‘I dunno- buttock fetish I suppose’ whereupon he was charged with indecent assault. On appeal it was held that the intention required for the more serious offence was articulated ex post facto and not present at the time the actual assault occurred so he could only be charged with the lesser offence of simple assault. 

The problem with an s4 charge (as you've noted) is that (as I understand it) it happened in a private back garden.

I'm interested by the ridiculous 2003 Communications Act offence.  Putting to one side the woefully subjective nature of the offence, can someone explain to me why it isn't an offence (if the material is found to be "grossly offensive" for not only the original person who posted it, but also the people who RTd it, especially when they RT is saying "OMG this is SO grossly offensive"?  

Asking for my pal Sajid.

Yes I agree. Let’s have police managing the knife crime not policing the twittersphere but to address the let’s have debagging, wedgies, poo hurling and bogwashing as part of the civil summary process for civil idiots. 

Tbf they’ve handed themselves into the police rather than any active investigation taking place, so I can imagine the rozzers looking at one another confusedly realising that “something” must be done. 

The perps will probably accept a caution and we can all move on. 

the issue with tweeting (and the internet in general)  it is that its anonymous. hurl sh*t in real life and expect to get b*tch-slapped. 

but hurling sh*t and tweeting sh*t are effectively the same thing. excluding defamation, you should basically be able to say whatever the fvck you like on tw*tter. the politicians would get a lot more credibility by saying "look guys, we can investigate knife crime and burglary more effectively, but you're just going to have to accept taht there'll be a handful of racists kicking around the internet". its a small price to pay that i think most people would be in favour of

or we could just ban social media


When they do get a caution then the Po will spend a few Brazilians of pounds defending and explaining their position on social and traditional media and everyone will tweet their outrage and there will be a JR and a judicial inquiry into Grenfell 2. Our society is entirely out of hand and bollocksed up. 

119 people have been stabbed to death in London since 1 January 2018. That’s more than ten football teams. 

Ah, R v Court. The headnote makes the case sound less bad than it is. On the evidence, it was a pretty clear case, I think.

From Lord Ackner's judgment:

"The appellant, aged at the material time 26 years, was an assistant in his mother's gift shop in Abersoch. In the summer of 1985 J., who was then 12 years of age, was on holiday in that area. She had been to the shop on several occasions during her holiday. On two of those occasions the appellant had asked her "Have you ever been spanked?" To this question she replied "No." The appellant then said "That's the kind of girl I like." Some days later when J. entered the shop, the appellant again asked her if she had ever been spanked and when she said "No," he asked her "Will you let me spank you?" She said "No." He then pushed her to the back of the shop and sat on a chair watching her. She was dressed in shorts and a T shirt. As she began to walk past him, he caught hold of her right upper arm with his left hand and pulled her across his knees. He said nothing, but struck her on the outside of her shorts across her bottom with his right hand about 12 times. The girl's brother then appeared and the appellant stopped hitting her. J. got off his lap and as she and her brother walked towards the counter the appellant said to her "If you don't tell you can have these" and he then picked up some items from the display and put them in the bag she was carrying, saying "If you don't tell you can have these."

The girl on returning home appeared to be very upset by the incident, explained to her mother in the hearing of her father what had happened and he, having subsequently obtained an apology, but no explanation from the appellant for his conduct, informed the police. When interviewed by the police the appellant admitted spanking the girl and when asked "What makes you want to do this?" he replied "I don't know, buttock fetish." The officer asked how long had he had this fetish and he replied "About nine years."

Yes Heff it was a bad case but an interesting appeal point IIRC. 

I recall (maybe indirectly) Lord Goff got a bit confused and amusing in his judgment where he talks about how getting on to the tube and getting your clothes caught in the door and they get torn off the discovering you are inside the carriage bollocks out and there is the actual reus of indecent exposure but no intention at the material time.


from this we conclude Goff did not wear underwear and had a vivid imagination. 


Well, I do. 

in retrospect it was just another push back against overly technical rules of evidence. Lord Goff's dissenting speech is, to more modern eyes, bizarrely technocratic.

yes, just read that. No one he said would regard a man accidentally tearing clothes of a woman as he tried to leave the tube as a sexual assault. heh.

Heh. The 70s eh?  Different times. Jumpers for goalposts, fluorescent sweets that give you mouth cancer, rapists in the bushes, isn’t it, mmm? 

Anyone know of Wellington's whereabouts when that film was made?

How did this get into the public domain? Presumably one of these awful people posted it?

And people wonder why there’s knife crime in immigrant communities 

tribalism benefits no one.

Back on topic, i think I heard the police describe it as a hate crime. Which did make me wonder.

CPS guidelines dictate that hate doesn't actually need to have happened for it to be a hate crime. 

Various constabularies around the country also reaching out to their populus to ask them to report their fellow man for hate crimes (Edinburgh i believe) and even non-hate crimes (south yorks police i believe)

The police’s ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ states ‘Evidence of… hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident,’

further ‘[The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor… the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.’

So you don’t need actual evidence to prove hate crime, just a feeling.

‘Hate Crime Procedure’ of the Surrey Police reads ‘apparent lack of motivation as the cause of an incident is not relevant as it is the perception of the victim or any other person that counts’. But the incident must still be recorded as a hate crime.

Right so hate incident is a thing as well as hate crime.

so was this bonfire a hate incident or a hate crime?

it is complicated and no wonder the police are overrun with people reporting other people being mean to them.

i suspect its linguistic and, for the purposes of this conversation, incident and crime are the same.

the filming and then posting of it presents the point for debate. Some involved may argue they had no reasonable belief it would be made public.


These days, if your mate films your actions, especially if it is something unusual or what might be considered amusing, then there is a high probability of said mate posting it online. 



That is a reasonable opinion but based on the anecdotal evidence of "loads of things" finding their way on line. As a proportion of 'total things filmed' we will never know if the proportion that inds up online is 99% or 1%, and with that in mind its not reasonable to conclude there is a "high probability" any more than it is reasonable to conclude there is a "low probability" of it winding up online

It's not a proportion of "total things filmed" that needs to be considered, but a proportion of "total things filmed that are something unusual or what might be considered amusing". 


irrespective. unless you know the "total things filmed that are something unusual or what might be considered amusing" then you have no way of knowing what proportion of those might wind up on the internet

Indeed.  Same as not knowing the "total things filmed", which will be a far larger pool. 

These people need to get a grip. Bonfire Night is a "hate crime" against Catholics, but peeps just suck it up.

It does seem strange that at a time when the police have said that they won’t investigate some things that they KNOW to be crimes they are spending so much time trying to determine if a crime has even been committed 

that Surrey Police guidance stuff is for recording the incident. It doesn’t mean it will be treated or recorded as a crime and investigated (unless it is a crime of course - but not all hate incidents are crimes)

3-ducks makes a decent point (wtf?) ... where do we go from here? Bonfire night must be banned, surely, as the burning of effigies of renowned followers of Rome May indeed contravene that guidance. 

This was really, really twattish but it shouldn't be a crime.


struandirk06 Nov 18 15:56

that Surrey Police guidance stuff is for recording the incident. It doesn’t mean it will be treated or recorded as a crime and investigated (unless it is a crime of course - but not all hate incidents are crimes)

if a no subjective test needs applying, then it is a crime by virtue of the "victim" dictating that it was a crime