Topic: Political blogger convicted after calling councillor a cunt on Twitter
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q started this discussion 14 years ago #18,799
elmo joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #310,747
dat nigga is a cunt
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #310,750
@OP
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-04/16/convicted-after-saying-c-word
Wot? If all he did was call her a Cunt he would not be in current deeeeeep doo doo.
Skimmed the article and I can see why he is in deeeeeep doo doo & so does HE!!
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-04/16/convicted-after-saying-c-word
Wot? If all he did was call her a Cunt he would not be in current deeeeeep doo doo.
Skimmed the article and I can see why he is in deeeeeep doo doo & so does HE!!
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 15 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,080
He also posted the councillor's home address and a picture of the house.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,088
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,089
The story isn't quite as simple as swearing on Twitter and telling people to post poo though councillors' letterboxes, however. The blogger (whose blog You've Been Cromwelled was down at the time of writing) has a long history of dispute with Bexley Council. He was allegedly banned from attending council meetings in Bexley for six months in 2011 for "being disruptive". Shortly after this, he received a letter from his blog hosting company asking him to edit foul language on his site - which is highly critical of Bexley councillors - or have it removed. According to Spiderplantland, the hosting company said it was acting on the instructions of the Metropolitan police. The blogger then moved his site to an offshore hosting account.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,143
@previous (F)
Sounds like a typical activist retard. It's good he got the slap across the face he needed.
Sounds like a typical activist retard. It's good he got the slap across the face he needed.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,181
@311,089 (F)
> he received a letter from his blog hosting company asking him to edit foul language on his site - which is highly critical of Bexley councillors - or have it removed
> the hosting company said it was acting on the instructions of the Metropolitan police
What a bunch of pussies. Even America is better than that.
> he received a letter from his blog hosting company asking him to edit foul language on his site - which is highly critical of Bexley councillors - or have it removed
> the hosting company said it was acting on the instructions of the Metropolitan police
What a bunch of pussies. Even America is better than that.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,182
@previous (A)
Simple solution would be for the blogger to move to Google blogs
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/
Simple solution would be for the blogger to move to Google blogs
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,197
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,199
@previous (A)
lolnono
When he gets out of jail. Someone here said he published the home addresses however I remember reading that the addresses were already public.
lolnono
When he gets out of jail. Someone here said he published the home addresses however I remember reading that the addresses were already public.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 17 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,422
Poo qualifies as terrorism now. All monkey's fling poo when they are pissed, therefore all monkey's are terrorists.
kook !nH6RAuX8mo joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 56 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,433
@previous (H)
feces is considered to be infectious and dangerous, sending it to someone is very illegal.
feces is considered to be infectious and dangerous, sending it to someone is very illegal.
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,437
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
Of course poo is dangerous. Everything humans do is wrong and dangerous. It's original sin redux. Even something as simple as copying a DVD is wrong and dangerous. Every law the government makes is necessary and righteous simply because humans are such scum.
Of course poo is dangerous. Everything humans do is wrong and dangerous. It's original sin redux. Even something as simple as copying a DVD is wrong and dangerous. Every law the government makes is necessary and righteous simply because humans are such scum.
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,438
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,441
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
Yeah but see the fucked up part is: it is indeed the same thing to lawmakers.
Yeah but see the fucked up part is: it is indeed the same thing to lawmakers.
dw joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,474
deeeeeep doo doo
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,482
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,484
@previous (G)
Terrorist!
And you'd change your position if you owned copyright to something. So what? You're basically arguing people seek to use government as a weapon in protecting their own interests. Whoa. That's fucking genius.
Terrorist!
And you'd change your position if you owned copyright to something. So what? You're basically arguing people seek to use government as a weapon in protecting their own interests. Whoa. That's fucking genius.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,485
@311,433 (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
Then arrest all dogs and monkeys and horses. I want every horse arrested for making poo that I have stepped in over the years. All dogs must be arrested NOW.
Then arrest all dogs and monkeys and horses. I want every horse arrested for making poo that I have stepped in over the years. All dogs must be arrested NOW.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 38 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,499
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,503
@previous (G)
I support individual rights, which is why I own a gun. You may want to consider that before coming near my house.
I support individual rights, which is why I own a gun. You may want to consider that before coming near my house.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,505
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,512
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,514
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,516
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,517
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,519
@previous (G)
Or I could blow you away for doing so. But you see, no jury would acquit me on the argument that I felt physically threatened by poo. But when the government's involved, poo is a deadly weapon.
This kind of double standard is how fascism creeps in.
Or I could blow you away for doing so. But you see, no jury would acquit me on the argument that I felt physically threatened by poo. But when the government's involved, poo is a deadly weapon.
This kind of double standard is how fascism creeps in.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,520
@previous (H)
Okay, now I'm confused. First you're outraged at the government's anti-poo laws, and now you're against protesting these laws by throwing poo at your house.
Only through action can we get rid of these facist poo laws.
Okay, now I'm confused. First you're outraged at the government's anti-poo laws, and now you're against protesting these laws by throwing poo at your house.
Only through action can we get rid of these facist poo laws.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,554
Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1
(This is the wording of this section as amended by Section 43 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. It applies to offences committed from the 11th May 2001 onwards)
(1) Any person who sends to another person
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive
(ii) a threat or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
(This is the wording of this section as amended by Section 43 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. It applies to offences committed from the 11th May 2001 onwards)
(1) Any person who sends to another person
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive
(ii) a threat or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,587
@previous (K)
Wot the fuck?
> (a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys
> (i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive
No way the Chans could exist if this were true
Wot the fuck?
> (a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys
> (i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive
No way the Chans could exist if this were true