Dubstepforum.com

Looks abit fishy to me? Fake? Seems like the only source for this story is the site that op linked to..

matthewcradduck wrote:Looks abit fishy to me? Fake? Seems like the only source for this story is the site that op linked to..

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16187397
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-we ... -30517979/
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/892913-teen ... fghanistan

Also btw Russia Today's a fairly reliable source (as reliable as any other news network I'd guess - it's got an agenda like the BBC does).

tyger wrote:soldiers generally don't go to afghanistan with the intention of murdering civilians, but they can end up in situations where they have little choice but to do precisely that.

When the hell is it EVER acceptable to murder civilians? If you mean caught in a crossfire or something accidental, then ill give you that..but your post makes it sound like intentionally killing a civilian......

tyger wrote:soldiers generally don't go to afghanistan with the intention of murdering civilians, but they can end up in situations where they have little choice but to do precisely that.

I think some of them do it for fun though.

Yanno?

Which one do you reckon is a racially aggravated public order offence?

[quote="angry kid"]People gassin about the deaths of soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed.. The women who have been raped.. The children who have been sliced up..! Your enemy’s were the Taliban not innocent harmless familys. All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE FOKKIN SCUM! gotta problem go cry at your soliders grave & wish him hell because that where he is going..”

[quote="outraged girl"]Cheeky smelly pakki tnuc wants tying to a tree n shooting …Smelly fukker..Lock him up n throw the key away ..Grrrhhhh….SKUM…!!”


let em choose sides of 10 000 each
& have a massive mud wrestle...
spectator entry fees to the families of the war dead

magma wrote:His post was unpleasant, but since when was being unpleasant illegal?

This will never stand up in court... the Police are clearly being utter fucking idiots.

It's a Public order offence under s.19 of the Public Order Act 1986

Atkinson wrote:

magma wrote:His post was unpleasant, but since when was being unpleasant illegal?

This will never stand up in court... the Police are clearly being utter fucking idiots.

It's a Public order offence under s.19 of the Public Order Act 1986

1986 Public Order Act, Section 19 wrote:19 Publishing or distributing written material.E+W+S(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
(2)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting.
(3)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.

It has to be racially offensive to be illegal. It wasn't... it was just offensive. He's a dick, but he's not a criminal.

magma wrote:

Atkinson wrote:

magma wrote:His post was unpleasant, but since when was being unpleasant illegal?

This will never stand up in court... the Police are clearly being utter fucking idiots.

It's a Public order offence under s.19 of the Public Order Act 1986

1986 Public Order Act, Section 19 wrote:19 Publishing or distributing written material.E+W+S(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
(2)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting.
(3)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.

It has to be racially offensive to be illegal. It wasn't... it was just offensive. He's a dick, but he's not a criminal.

Yes, essentially there has been no crime committed. I'm not massively surprised it's West Yorkshire police doing it either since I've seen them giving a group of guys absolute hell for refusing a search in the town centre (as they are legally allowed to do so)... The 7/7 bombers also came from Leeds mostly I think too so they like to appear 'hot' on this stuff


<<<< Look at the bull man getting all smarmy with his big camera!

Notice how the citizens are eventually coerced in to complying, the police know that they can't legitimately do anything or they would have just arrested them - something they have no power to do. I remember another time smoking a spliff on the town hall steps as me and my mate watched some asians getting searched by police on ther other side of the square while we were being completely ignored

As the explanation of cracking down on dissent on the first page notes, the UK is getting very fucked up

Look at subsection (b) though, racial hatred is likely to be stirred, which in effect it is?

Atkinson wrote:Look at subsection (b) though, racial hatred is likely to be stirred, which in effect it is?

Only if "soldier" is an ethnic group, but last time I checked soldiers came in all creeds and colours. He didn't even mention race..

magma wrote:

Atkinson wrote:Look at subsection (b) though, racial hatred is likely to be stirred, which in effect it is?

Only if "soldier" is an ethnic group, but last time I checked soldiers came in all creeds and colours. He didn't even mention race..

this

magma wrote:

Atkinson wrote:Look at subsection (b) though, racial hatred is likely to be stirred, which in effect it is?

Only if "soldier" is an ethnic group, but last time I checked soldiers came in all creeds and colours. He didn't even mention race..

what was the censored word?

rayman612 wrote:

magma wrote:

Atkinson wrote:Look at subsection (b) though, racial hatred is likely to be stirred, which in effect it is?

Only if "soldier" is an ethnic group, but last time I checked soldiers came in all creeds and colours. He didn't even mention race..

what was the censored word?

cityzen wrote:^^I'm guessing the blanked out bit is 'white'.
oh, it's 'fooking'.... how is that racially aggravated offense?

"(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."

muslim speaking out against war in middle east? likely to stir up hatred against muslims?

only way i could see it being held up
still dumb law, should be able to say what you want, even if its racist

should depend on the morals of others to solve these things

rayman612 wrote:still dumb law, should be able to say what you want, even if its racist

agreed, imo freddom of speech has to be absolute otherwise it isn't freedom

i would like to weigh in on this and just say

i like afghans

SEND HIM BACK! SEND HIM BACK!

you don't have free speech in England??

i men, if you did, this would be a really easy case to dismiss
if it were even conceived in the first place
which it wouldn't be

People are allowed to say what they want
If we had a law against igniting racial hatred with words in the US, our jails would be spilling over
almost everyone would be in jail
especially politicians and news pundits

Today wrote:you don't have free speech in England??

i men, if you did, this would be a really easy case to dismiss
if it were even conceived in the first place
which it wouldn't be

People are allowed to say what they want
If we had a law against igniting racial hatred with words in the US, our jails would be spilling over
almost everyone would be in jail
especially politicians and news pundits

Actually, we do and there's been quite a lot of debate about how far you can go since people have said far worse things than this! Generally, even extremely inflammatory stuff is tolerated to a certain degree

Fucking joke and some people in this thread are too.