Freedom of Speech and the Queens Death

ElBurroSinNombre said:
It doesn't matter what you think about the opinions of the protestors, that is not the point. Acting like a ** is not an offence in criminal law. I don't think that they were trying to cause distress either, they are entitled to voice an opinion and they are doing just that in a peaceful manner. And in some cases they are being arrested for it.

If we stand for anything as a country we stand for freedom of speech and expression. This action by the police is completely contrary to that.
Click to expand...
Slavery wasn't an offence under criminal law either. It''s more complicated than strict legal definitions. And I disagree they weren't trying to cause offence.

We stand for lots of things in this country including freedom of speech but also decency and respect. All those - and many others - will carry different weights at different moments in time and will have differing consequences in different circumstances.

I just don't think this is the freedom of speech hill to die on.
 
Kip said:
Slavery wasn't an offence under criminal law either. It''s more complicated than strict legal definitions. And I disagree they weren't trying to cause offence.

We stand for lots of things in this country including freedom of speech but also decency and respect. All those - and many others - will carry different weights at different moments in time and will have differing consequences in different circumstances.

I just don't think this is the freedom of speech hill to die on.
Click to expand...

You don't stand for free speech, actually you are happy for people to be arrested when exercising their rights peacefully, your post says as much. Free speech extends a lot further than just opinions that you agree with.

You can't stop people from saying things that you don't agree with at times that you don't like it. That is because we live in a free society where our freedoms of expression should be protected in law. In this case they are not being protected, in fact people are being arrested for exercising those freedoms. IMO There is a kind of mania about the queen's death that seems to have affected people's judgement.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
You don't stand for free speech, actually you are happy for people to be arrested when exercising their rights peacefully, your post says as much. Free speech extends a lot further than just opinions that you agree with.

You can't stop people from saying things that you don't agree with at times that you don't like it. That is because we live in a free society where our freedoms of expression should be protected in law. In this case they are not being protected, in fact people are being arrested for exercising those freedoms. IMO There is a kind of mania about the queen's death that seems to have affected people's judgement.
Click to expand...
Happened with Diana
Mass hysteria
 
Wizaard said:
I can see both viewpoints here.

Silently holding a placard shouldn't be an arrestable event.

Shouting abuse at a cortege at people who have lost their mother is different.

I do wonder if the protestors will refuse to take the public holiday entitlement?
Click to expand...
A few of us where I work asked if we could come in to work on the day of the funeral. Can't be done, complete shut down so probably not an option in most workplaces.
 
Kip said:
There's more than one principle. There's a time for taking a strict legal approach and a time for not acting like a **.

Everybody referenced above was deliberately pushing the boundaries for no other reason than wanting to cause distress. None of opinions expressed were original or needed to be heard at that particular moment in time.

If these same people say the same things again in a couple of weeks in a different environment then I doubt the police will look twice at them.

And if they do, I'll be on the side of the twats.
Click to expand...

Simply don't agree. In a couple of weeks the moment will have passed. The thread is about freedom of speech not about when is the best time to exercise it.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
www.theguardian.com

Preston ban football fan for life for derogatory tweet about the royal family

A source told the Guardian that the tweet, since deleted, said the optimal way for the week to end would be for the royal family to all die on their way to the Queen’s funeral
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


The PNE fan seems like quite a sick person if what is reported is true. However, I wonder if a ban such as this has any legal basis, I don't think he has done anything illegal.
Click to expand...
I think on this one that the football club can act like a pub landlord and say we just don't want you here.
The Royal family aren't my thing, but mistakenly in my view a lot of people think they benefit the country, so this week is probably not the week for loud and public dissent out of respect for the majority view, but people should be allowed to decide that for themselves.
Respect also goes to the Queen for the job she did with relatively little choice, but from the 20th September there is no way that those that have been arrested this week should be prevented from making their views known in the none violent way that they did.
But the view from the preston fan who hoped they all die going to the funeral is unacceptable, I don't think decent people hope for others to die.
 
Last edited:
gjr69 said:
I think on this one that the football club can act like a pub landlord and say we just don't want you here.
The Royal family aren't my thing, but mistakenly in my view a lot of people think they benefit the country, so this week is not the week for loud and public dissent out of respect for the majority view.
Respect also goes to the Queen for the job she did with relatively little choice, but from the 20th September there is no way that those that have been arrested this week should be prevented from making their views known in the none violent way that they did.
But the view from the preston fan who hoped they all die going to the funeral is unacceptable, I don't think decent people hope for others to die.
Click to expand...
How is holding up a placard saying Not my King loud dissent?

Don't get me wrong, I think shouting out at a cortege is out of order, but silent protest doesn't break any laws.
 
Wizaard said:
How is holding up a placard saying Not my King loud dissent?

Don't get me wrong, I think shouting out at a cortege is out of order, but silent protest doesn't break any laws.
Click to expand...
It isn't by any normal standards, that person shouldn't have had any involvement with the police.
I also read about a barrister in London who was about to write a fairly benign message on a card he was going to hold up and the police stepped in to threaten him with arrest before he even wrote it!
Feelings are running high this week, it might just be a case of the police trying to nip trouble in the bud but they can't be allowed to continue like this after the funeral.
Although according to some snowflakes on here the hard left republicans are out in force tonight so with that level of sensitivity in place the police will find it easy to say people are being distressed or harassed. Slightly worrying.
 
gjr69 said:
It isn't by any normal standards, that person shouldn't have had any involvement with the police.
I also read about a barrister in London who was about to write a fairly benign message on a card he was going to hold up and the police stepped in to threaten him with arrest before he even wrote it!
Feelings are running high this week, it might just be a case of the police trying to nip trouble in the bud but they can't be allowed to continue like this after the funeral.
Although according to some snowflakes on here the hard left republicans are out in force tonight so with that level of sensitivity in place the police will find it easy to say people are being distressed or harassed. Slightly worrying.
Click to expand...
Looking back, all the Oyston protests would now result in mass arrests.
 
Wizaard said:
Looking back, all the Oyston protests would now result in mass arrests.
Click to expand...
Possibly, the random element would be is the average police officer supportive of your protest or not. As most protests to some extent are anti establishment most protesters will be up against it. Oystons is a weird one because outside of themselves very few people like them!!
 
Brazil said:
Simply don't agree. In a couple of weeks the moment will have passed. The thread is about freedom of speech not about when is the best time to exercise it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, we disagree. But I don't think you can have a debate about freedom of speech without considering the context. Even the self-styled bastion of free speech - the USA - has the proviso you can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. Going to a funeral and abusing the deceased and the deceased's family is shouting 'Fire' imo.

Charles will still be King in a couple of weeks and Andrew will still be a nonce so plenty of opportunity for all those who wish to protest.
 
Kip said:
Fair enough, we disagree. But I don't think you can have a debate about freedom of speech without considering the context. Even the self-styled bastion of free speech - the USA - has the proviso you can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. Going to a funeral and abusing the deceased and the deceased's family is shouting 'Fire' imo.

Charles will still be King in a couple of weeks and Andrew will still be a nonce so plenty of opportunity for all those who wish to protest.
Click to expand...
Abuse, yes, we agree is a no no. Holding up a blank card but arrested for thinking about writing on it? Really?
 
Wizaard said:
How is holding up a placard saying Not my King loud dissent?

Don't get me wrong, I think shouting out at a cortege is out of order, but silent protest doesn't break any laws.
Click to expand...
does not break any laws but it is low life. Downright low life.
 
Lala said:
In my opinion he should have been told to pipe down, removed from the area if he continued, and then just let go again.

Massive overeaction for spouting an opinion that most of us share and no threat made either 👎

Its a step too far if you ask me.
Click to expand...
I thinks that is what will have happened, maybe taken to a police station, put in a cell and after a few hours driven home. But some and on here will make an issue over it. Would rather see people making issues about young men caught with knives, getting let off and free to go.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
It doesn't matter what you think about the opinions of the protestors, that is not the point. Acting like a ** is not an offence in criminal law. I don't think that they were trying to cause distress either, they are entitled to voice an opinion and they are doing just that in a peaceful manner. And in some cases they are being arrested for it.

If we stand for anything as a country we stand for freedom of speech and expression. This action by the police is completely contrary to that.
Click to expand...

​


5Harassment, alarm or distress.​

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [harassment, alarm or distress or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.


so jimmy Armfield's funeral procession is travelling along the road watched by thousands of pool fans and a few Knob enders start shouting out at his son following the coffin what do you think would happen.
they would be arrested to stop public disorder
 
Last edited:
For me, there is something fundamentally wrong about a protest aimed at the participants in a Funeral Cortège. It’s about as low as you can go as far as your ‘timing’ is concerned. So I struggle to have much respect or sympathy for anyone who chooses to get involved.

I do also believe strongly in freedom of speech, though I do accept that there are limitations. The Police should (wherever practical) try to facilitate and support peaceful and reasonable protest in my view. So arrest (and particularly charges) should be a last resort, necessary etc..

In the case of the lad in Edinburgh, I think arrest was possibly justified. There was a risk to public order, the crowd was already getting agitated and he probably needed to be removed from the situation (and prevented from returning). I’m not sure he should have been charged, but perhaps that is procedural?

I haven’t really seen the other stuff, but I don’t necessarily think it unreasonable for the police to move people on (request they leave an area) if they consider they pose a risk. The key role of the Police is security and crowd control (maintaining public order) during these events and so is possible that the same leeway or ability to facilitate and protect protestors may not be practical.

Hopefully common sense will prevail 👍
 
foggy said:
I can see the argument for removing someone who is seriously breaching the peace at what is quite clearly an 'event' of national mourning. One person shouting abuse at a rapist for 10 seconds as he passed does not meet what should be a very high bar for arresting that person. And certainly not whoever it was who was arrested for holding a sign peacefully.
Click to expand...
“rapist”?
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
www.theguardian.com

Preston ban football fan for life for derogatory tweet about the royal family

A source told the Guardian that the tweet, since deleted, said the optimal way for the week to end would be for the royal family to all die on their way to the Queen’s funeral
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


The PNE fan seems like quite a sick person if what is reported is true. However, I wonder if a ban such as this has any legal basis, I don't think he has done anything illegal.
Click to expand...
To be fair, PKE Thor had been overstepping the boundaries of indecency for years up Beacon Fell, and didn't receive a ban from North End. It's a shame for him, he probably still has to go, where as this fan has received a real blessing.
 
seasiderjohn said:

​


5Harassment, alarm or distress.​

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [harassment, alarm or distress or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.


so jimmy Armfield's funeral procession is travelling along the road watched by thousands of pool fans and a few Knob enders start shouting out at his son following the coffin what do you think would happen.
they would be arrested to stop public disorder
Click to expand...

How does displaying a sign that says 'Not my King' fit in with the terms of clause B? It is not threatening or abusive IMO.

The guy who reportedly shouted 'sick old man' to Prince Andrew is a debatable case; harassment : possible, alarm : no, distress : possible, disorderly behaviour : possible given the context. That happened in Scotland anyway so the law he was arrested under is probably different there. In any case, it's a low bar if he is arrested and charged for doing something so minor, a quiet word and being moved on would be more appropriate IMO.

Your last paragraph imagines a situation which is really not comparable with either of the above real situations.
 
seasiderjohn said:

​


5Harassment, alarm or distress.​

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [harassment, alarm or distress or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.


so jimmy Armfield's funeral procession is travelling along the road watched by thousands of pool fans and a few Knob enders start shouting out at his son following the coffin what do you think would happen.
they would be arrested to stop public disorder
Click to expand...
So this only applies to the one in Edinburgh. None of the others meet this threshold. And with regards to that particular case, there is clearly more of a public interest defence for protesting a royal family, and in particular the protection of a man who raped a teenager, than a universally beloved footballer. I doubt a protester at such an occasion would have a public interest defense.

Even so, and as a reply to BFC3 too, you can remove these people without charging them. I'm fine with the Prince Andrew protester being removed, that seems sensible to me. But to charge them is a disgrace.
 
foggy said:
So this only applies to the one in Edinburgh. None of the others meet this threshold. And with regards to that particular case, there is clearly more of a public interest defence for protesting a royal family, and in particular the protection of a man who raped a teenager, than a universally beloved footballer. I doubt a protester at such an occasion would have a public interest defense.

Even so, and as a reply to BFC3 too, you can remove these people without charging them. I'm fine with the Prince Andrew protester being removed, that seems sensible to me. But to charge them is a disgrace.
Click to expand...
It really depends....

In the case of the bloke in Edinburgh, he seemed intent on continuing to shout abuse (despite being removed from the situation) so I think it's reasonable to arrest him, to prevent a further breach of the peace, public order issue.

There's some information HERE which seems fairly balanced about how things work.

Being arrested for simply holding a banner, seems to be OTT to me, but it's hard to comment without understanding the full circumstances. Ideally the Police should facilitate the process and provide some protection to the Protestors.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
It really depends....

In the case of the bloke in Edinburgh, he seemed intent on continuing to shout abuse (despite being removed from the situation) so I think it's reasonable to arrest him, to prevent a further breach of the peace, public order issue.

There's some information HERE which seems fairly balanced about how things work.

Being arrested for simply holding a banner, seems to be OTT to me, but it's hard to comment without understanding the full circumstances. Ideally the Police should facilitate the process and provide some protection to the Protestors.
Click to expand...
You can arrest him and hold him for 24 hours and release without charge
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
How does displaying a sign that says 'Not my King' fit in with the terms of clause B? It is not threatening or abusive IMO.

The guy who reportedly shouted 'sick old man' to Prince Andrew is a debatable case; harassment : possible, alarm : no, distress : possible, disorderly behaviour : possible given the context. That happened in Scotland anyway so the law he was arrested under is probably different there. In any case, it's a low bar if he is arrested and charged for doing something so minor, a quiet word and being moved on would be more appropriate IMO.

Your last paragraph imagines a situation which is really not comparable with either of the above real situations.
Click to expand...
why is the last paragraph not comparable 1 a funeral procession 2 a few people with different views to the majority.
I would say its quite comparable
foggy said:
So this only applies to the one in Edinburgh. None of the others meet this threshold. And with regards to that particular case, there is clearly more of a public interest defence for protesting a royal family, and in particular the protection of a man who raped a teenager, than a universally beloved footballer. I doubt a protester at such an occasion would have a public interest defense.

Even so, and as a reply to BFC3 too, you can remove these people without charging them. I'm fine with the Prince Andrew protester being removed, that seems sensible to me. But to charge them is a disgrace.
Click to expand...
public interest would come into it as it could cause public disorder at the hypothetical funeral when the majority turn on the minority
 
Newholland said:
Genuinely didn’t know. How long a sentence did he serve... I’ve completely missed this😳
Click to expand...
How about we bring this unoriginal tedium to an end and you realise that when internet commenters say things they do not do so with the full authority of the the UK criminal justice system. Avftt is not a court room, if you hadn't noticed.

Funny thing is, Prince Andrew is legally not able to claim he didn't rape his victim as per the terms of the £12m settlement he voluntarily accepted in order to not face charges.
 
foggy said:
How about we bring this unoriginal tedium to an end and you realise that when internet commenters say things they do not do so with the full authority of the the UK criminal justice system. Avftt is not a court room, if you hadn't noticed.

Funny thing is, Prince Andrew is legally not able to claim he didn't rape his victim as per the terms of the £12m settlement he voluntarily accepted in order to not face charges.
Click to expand...
Yet another with a condescending attitude 😉
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
www.theguardian.com

Preston ban football fan for life for derogatory tweet about the royal family

A source told the Guardian that the tweet, since deleted, said the optimal way for the week to end would be for the royal family to all die on their way to the Queen’s funeral
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


The PNE fan seems like quite a sick person if what is reported is true. However, I wonder if a ban such as this has any legal basis, I don't think he has done anything illegal.
Click to expand...
I still don't get the logic of why they would reward him with a lifetime ban watching PNE when he did such wrong.
 
What if I held up a card which said ‘dear king, why did you take a huge bag of cash from a Saudi Arabian Prince? What were you offering in return? If a UK business man or any other official had done that they’d have been arrested. Why weren’t you? Surely it was piss poor judgement and smacks of corruption and is borderline criminal?’

1. Would I be arrested for that?
2. Is there a piece of card big enough to write that all on or would I have to do a sequence of cards like in Love Actually?
 
Malced said:
What if I held up a card which said ‘dear king, why did you take a huge bag of cash from a Saudi Arabian Prince? What were you offering in return? If a UK business man or any other official had done that they’d have been arrested. Why weren’t you? Surely it was piss poor judgement and smacks of corruption and is borderline criminal?’

1. Would I be arrested for that?
2. Is there a piece of card big enough to write that all on or would I have to do a sequence of cards like in Love Actually?
Click to expand...

Charles is about to avoid about 200 million pounds of inheritance tax. How is this okay?
 
Malced said:
What if I held up a card which said ‘dear king, why did you take a huge bag of cash from a Saudi Arabian Prince? What were you offering in return? If a UK business man or any other official had done that they’d have been arrested. Why weren’t you? Surely it was piss poor judgement and smacks of corruption and is borderline criminal?’

1. Would I be arrested for that?
2. Is there a piece of card big enough to write that all on or would I have to do a sequence of cards like in Love Actually?
Click to expand...
👏👏
 
Malced said:
What if I held up a card which said ‘dear king, why did you take a huge bag of cash from a Saudi Arabian Prince? What were you offering in return? If a UK business man or any other official had done that they’d have been arrested. Why weren’t you? Surely it was piss poor judgement and smacks of corruption and is borderline criminal?’

1. Would I be arrested for that?
2. Is there a piece of card big enough to write that all on or would I have to do a sequence of cards like in Love Actually?
Click to expand...
It’s this isn’t it.

I stay as indifferent regarding the monarchy as possible, But, giving credit where it’s due, such as the Queens service to the nation during her reign.

But, why does that mean we have to turn a blind eye to the shades of corruption and lack of accountability for other instances relating to monarchy led behaviour ?
 
Lala said:
It’s this isn’t it.

I stay as indifferent regarding the monarchy as possible, But, giving credit where it’s due, such as the Queens service to the nation during her reign.

But, why does that mean we have to turn a blind eye to the shades of corruption and lack of accountability for other instances relating to monarchy led behaviour ?
Click to expand...
Because it's easier?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top