A Twitter user jailed for C word - is this an erosion of freedom of speech?

Originally Posted by mertle

sorry never realisted this was serial offender so would assume its for number offenses not one. If so the news links say he was not found guilty dont trust anything at moment. Alot councillors today its power trip nd alot jumped up little right so so's. We got couple wont go further but god knows how they keep getting back in beyond me are people blind. Dont know how good or bad bexley's are mind.
.

That arrest you refer to was last tuesday 10th april in which he was arrested for breaching bail conditions ahead of his trial on 13th april in which he was found guilty.Research Mertle ,it's a good thing

Political Blogger “Olly Cromwell� of the Bexley area was today found guilty of sending a grossly offensive communication subject to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, at Bexley Magistrate’s Court

http://www.pitkanary.com/2012/04/13/...ions-act-2003/

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Actually, the BBC is the one news outlet you can trust as they have a duty (by their Royal Charter) to be as impartial as possible.

You are joking Carl, The BBC can not be trusted anymore. They are just as bad as the rest.

---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 ----------

Originally Posted by mertle

sorry never realisted this was serial offender so would assume its for number offenses not one. If so the news links say he was not found guilty dont trust anything at moment. Alot councillors today its power trip nd alot jumped up little right so so's. We got couple wont go further but god knows how they keep getting back in beyond me are people blind. Dont know how good or bad bexley's are mind.


Maggy Agree we should never trust papers today. Beeb even with there selective propeganda news. There was demo by disabled outside westminster yet these parasites we supposed to pay licence fee for impartiality IGNORED it.

Then maybe you should double check what you about to post as you have been doing this constantly. Just look at how you accused Richard Branson of something he did not do and you did it on a public forum. Be careful or one day it might come and bite you on the bottom

Originally Posted by mertle

sorry never realisted this was serial offender so would assume its for number offenses not one. If so the news links say he was not found guilty dont trust anything at moment. Alot councillors today its power trip nd alot jumped up little right so so's. We got couple wont go further but god knows how they keep getting back in beyond me are people blind. Dont know how good or bad bexley's are mind.


Maggy Agree we should never trust papers today. Beeb even with there selective propeganda news. There was demo by disabled outside westminster yet these parasites we supposed to pay licence fee for impartiality IGNORED it.

Never let facts get in the way of a rant, eh?

You need to understand that if you keep posting stuff that isn't true, CF'ers will, imho, assume everything you post is not based on fact.

Re the Disabled protests outside Parliament not being reported by the BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15413935

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15399724

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13348326

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13365335



Just because you haven't seen it reported, doesn't mean it wasn't.....

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Just because you haven't seen it reported, doesn't mean it wasn't.....

Or bothered to double check that what is posted is correct in the first place.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Never let facts get in the way of a rant, eh?

You need to understand that if you keep posting stuff that isn't true, CF'ers will, imho, assume everything you post is not based on fact.

Re the Disabled protests outside Parliament not being reported by the BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15413935

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15399724

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13348326

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13365335



Just because you haven't seen it reported, doesn't mean it wasn't.....

but what about the "MEDIA BLACKOUT" Hugh

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Never let facts get in the way of a rant, eh?

You need to understand that if you keep posting stuff that isn't true, CF'ers will, imho, assume everything you post is not based on fact.

Re the Disabled protests outside Parliament not being reported by the BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15413935

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15399724

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13348326

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13365335



Just because you haven't seen it reported, doesn't mean it wasn't.....

Typically extravagant BBC... Sending in Journos to write 4 stories where one would do..

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sirius

You are joking Carl..

No of course I aren't. Every word I wrote is absolutely true. There is a Royal Charter and their rules say they have to be as fair and impartial as possible. (though that may be paraphrased. Not sure of the precise wording.)

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

but what about the "MEDIA BLACKOUT" Hugh

Is that the one that Dave ordered?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

No of course I aren't. Every word I wrote is absolutely true. There is a Royal Charter and their rules say they have to be as fair and impartial as possible. (though that may be paraphrased. Not sure of the precise wording.)

Another way to look at it is the BBC manages to get it's news output criticised by both Labour and the Tories.. That at least means it is fair.

[Derek]

Hmmm.

What is striking is that despite the defence requesting for sentencing to be decided to today, the District Judge instead decided to set a sentencing hearing at Bromley Magistrates Court on Wednesday 9th May at 13:30, with a representative of the Probation service present. This raises a question as to whether a custodial sentence may be given. An offence under s127 of the Communication Acts 2003 can lead to a custodial sentence of up to 6 months.

Surely this means he hasn't been jailed yet which makes the thread heading even more misleading?

Anyway whilst the "Ooooh he said something nasty on a computer" brigade are a bit of a joke this seems like a culmination of a long running campaign rather than a single tweet involving a bit of (very) bad language.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

You may want to do a bit of research Mertle before defending idiots like this bloke

It would appear that ,after a little basic investigation that the blogger in question is a deeply offensive chap who has been up before the beak on numerous occasions for ,posting addresses and encouraging readers to post faeces through their doors ,abusing them on line and sending a grossly offensive communication subject to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
No it is not a restriction of free speech or any other such nonsense .It is making sure that idiots like this cannot be offensive or encourage others to do illegal acts whilst hiding behind the anonymity of a blog or tweet .
I won't post any links to his site as this is a family forum ,just type olly cromwell into google if anyone wants to give him time of day

Do we know the person who was jailed??

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Do we know the person who was jailed??

Nah ,i have no doubt he's composing a letter of support ,denouncing all lovers of a "failed capitalist government" donning his kharkies and preparing for the coming revolution

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

Nah ,i have no doubt he's composing a letter of support ,denouncing all lovers of a "failed capitalist government" donning his kharkies and preparing for the coming revolution

Maybe...but he hasn't been back on here for a while

[Gary L]

Who are we talking about?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Why does the thread title mention Facebook?