RIP Ann Widdecome

[First Aspect]

Not sure I fully agree. The law in this country deals with concepts rather than strict definitions in may circumstances

For example you are allowed to use "reasonable force to defend yourself". The law does not strictly define reasonable force for good reason. It all depends on the circumstances
Similarly with offences of careless and dangerous driving. The definition is falling below the standard of the reasonable driver or falling far below the standard of the reasonable driver

These are not the only examples
"Abuse" is not like say speeding where it is possible to have a strict definition.

No one has a problem with people being allowed to defend themselves, nor a problem with people being prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving.
It is a matter for the court to decide whether behaviour is such than an offence has been committed



I oppose all forms of abuse of anyone


Unlike many it seems , I am happy to call abuse wrong irrespective of the views of the perpetrator or the victim
The tribal attitude of many of justifying abuse handed out to people whose views they disagree with is simply fuelling a race to the bottom and an increase in abuse in society.

Abuse of Jewish people or Muslim people is wrong
Abuse of people based on skin colour is wrong
Abuse of people based on gender is wrong

Abuse of anyone is wrong. Disagreeing with someone or opposing their views is not the same as abuse

There are protected characteristics, yes, none of which describe Ann W. It's also not possible to defame a deceased person, and so I wonder whether any "criminal" abuse would have to have another victim? I also wonder if there is legislation specific to Scotland.

I dimly recall being told that "breach of the peace" is a police Scotland go-to in order to shut people up for such heinous acts as swearing. There is also "threatening or abusive behavior" which open to broad interpretation.

As I say above, I think this will go nowhere once an adult looks at the case. The Fiscal will probably have a bit of a public interest threshold and threshold of criminality problem with this one. Has all the hallmarks of the police doing what they think the public thinks they should, to me.

Time will tell. The actual offence alleged has not yet been made public.

 

[spen666]

There are protected characteristics, yes, none of which describe Ann W.

So its ok to abuse someone if you do not mention protected characterisitics?

What a sad view

It's also not possible to defame a deceased person, and so I wonder whether any "criminal" abuse would have to have another victim? I also wonder if there is legislation specific to Scotland.

I dimly recall being told that "breach of the peace" is a police Scotland go-to in order to shut people up for such heinous acts as swearing. There is also "threatening or abusive behavior" which open to broad interpretation.

Threatening or abusive behaviour is a crime in England and Wales as well

As I say above, I think this will go nowhere once an adult looks at the case. The Fiscal will probably have a bit of a public interest threshold and threshold of criminality problem with this one. Has all the hallmarks of the police doing what they think the public thinks they should, to me.

Time will tell. The actual offence alleged has not yet been made public.

Its incredible you can express a view on something you admit you do not know what you are expressing a view on

 

[Pblakeney]

Its incredible you can express a view on something you admit you do not know what you are expressing a view on

Your first day on an internet forum? 😂

 

[First Aspect]

So its ok to abuse someone if you do not mention protected characterisitics?

What a sad view




Threatening or abusive behaviour is a crime in England and Wales as well

Its incredible you can express a view on something you admit you do not know what you are expressing a view on

If trolling on the internet is a crime....

Firstly stating that no protected characteristics apply does not mean all other abuse is fine. That's ridiculous and you well know that it is.

The rest of my post is really a series of questions. None of which you have answered.

One set of questions relates to who the victim is here. Does it have to be someone living, can it be so iety as a whole?

Another set of questions applies to the law in Scotland. Does it differ in a way that could be material to these circumstances.

This leads to a further question as to what the person has actually been charged with or could have been charged with.

My final point is merely a guess, hence it is presented as such. If the crime is criticising someone who has just died, then this individual seems to me to be one of very many who have criticised Ann W since her death, particularly before the circumstances became clear. I don't see a public interest in pursuing prosecution of this one person out of many. So my stupid astonishing uneducated guess is this will end in a caution at most because it's a colossal waste of time andoney to take it any further.

 

[spen666]

If trolling on the internet is a crime....

Firstly stating that no protected characteristics apply does not mean all other abuse is fine. That's ridiculous and you well know that it is.

So why bring it up if its not relevant.?

Protected characterisitcs are irrelevant in this context. Its a simple proposition and I am amazed you or anyone else finds it hard to agree - ALL abuse is wrong

The rest of my post is really a series of questions. None of which you have answered.

No, because I am not discussing defamation and have never mentioned it. Nor did I raise or discuss the case you are apparently referring to.



My point is simple all abuse is wrong

One set of questions relates to who the victim is here. Does it have to be someone living, can it be so iety as a whole?

Another set of questions applies to the law in Scotland. Does it differ in a way that could be material to these circumstances.

This leads to a further question as to what the person has actually been charged with or could have been charged with.

My final point is merely a guess, hence it is presented as such. If the crime is criticising someone who has just died, then this individual seems to me to be one of very many who have criticised Ann W since her death, particularly before the circumstances became clear. I don't see a public interest in pursuing prosecution of this one person out of many. So my stupid astonishing uneducated guess is this will end in a caution at most because it's a colossal waste of time andoney to take it any further.

You are raising a case when by your own admissions you haven't got a clue what the case is.

From your questions, you do not even seem to understand the difference between a crime and a tort ( civil law) matter
You carry on discussing your ignorance, but don't expect me to get involved in the discussion around a case where even the offence alleged is not known.

Happy to discuss it when there are facts upon which we can have a discussion and when you have decided whether you want to discuss civil or criminal law matters. The two are not interchangeable

 

[Rusty Nails]

Not sure I fully agree. The law in this country deals with concepts rather than strict definitions in may circumstances

For example you are allowed to use "reasonable force to defend yourself". The law does not strictly define reasonable force for good reason. It all depends on the circumstances
Similarly with offences of careless and dangerous driving. The definition is falling below the standard of the reasonable driver or falling far below the standard of the reasonable driver

These are not the only examples
"Abuse" is not like say speeding where it is possible to have a strict definition.

No one has a problem with people being allowed to defend themselves, nor a problem with people being prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving.
It is a matter for the court to decide whether behaviour is such than an offence has been committed

I oppose all forms of abuse of anyone


Unlike many it seems , I am happy to call abuse wrong irrespective of the views of the perpetrator or the victim
The tribal attitude of many of justifying abuse handed out to people whose views they disagree with is simply fuelling a race to the bottom and an increase in abuse in society.

Abuse of Jewish people or Muslim people is wrong
Abuse of people based on skin colour is wrong
Abuse of people based on gender is wrong

Abuse of anyone is wrong. Disagreeing with someone or opposing their views is not the same as abuse

In other words this statement, in legal terms, as far as the law taking action is concerned, is not simple at all

Its really a simple concept Abuse is wrong.

The rest of your post just describes it in anodyne, simplistic terms, in the same way as saying violence, cheating, dishonesty are wrong without explaining the context in every case. The law may recognise broad concepts but the formal legal action that may take place requires a lot more detailed evidence about other concepts such as cause, justification, motivation and impact.

 

[spen666]

In other words this statement, in legal terms, as far as the law taking action is concerned, is not simple at all


The rest of your post just describes it in anodyne, simplistic terms, in the same way as saying violence, cheating, dishonesty are wrong without explaining the context in every case. The law may recognise broad concepts but the formal legal action that may take place requires a lot more detailed evidence about other concepts such as cause, justification, motivation and impact.

So you think its fine to abuse people when it suits you?

If not, you would be able to say abuse is wrong.


It says a lot about anyone that they can try to excuse or justify abuse

 

[First Aspect]

So why bring it up if its not relevant.?

Protected characterisitcs are irrelevant in this context. Its a simple proposition and I am amazed you or anyone else finds it hard to agree - ALL abuse is wrong



No, because I am not discussing defamation and have never mentioned it. Nor did I raise or discuss the case you are apparently referring to.



My point is simple all abuse is wrong





You are raising a case when by your own admissions you haven't got a clue what the case is.

From your questions, you do not even seem to understand the difference between a crime and a tort ( civil law) matter
You carry on discussing your ignorance, but don't expect me to get involved in the discussion around a case where even the offence alleged is not known.

Happy to discuss it when there are facts upon which we can have a discussion and when you have decided whether you want to discuss civil or criminal law matters. The two are not interchangeable

You listed the protected characteristics, but okay.

What do you talk about at the pub? Only things you are absolutely.sure have already happened?

 

[briantrumpet]

Just sayin'...

 

[Rusty Nails]

So you think its fine to abuse people when it suits you?

If not, you would be able to say abuse is wrong.

It says a lot about anyone that they can try to excuse or justify abuse

So you think it's fine to make things up when it suits you?

If not you would be able to quote where I have said abusing people is fine, otherwise it is clear you are making stuff up.

It says a lot about anyone that they can make stuff up to win an argument on the internet.

 

[briantrumpet]

So now you think it's fine to make things up when it suits you?

if not you would be able to quote where I have said abusing people is fine, otherwise it is clear you are making stuff up.

It says a lot about anyone that they can make stuff up to win an argument on the internet.

There seems to be a lot of "criticism = abuse" about these days. It must be an easy mistake to make. I think it's even worse when it's humorous, given how Binny McBinface has gone down in in the Faragesphere.

 

[briantrumpet]

It's probably just as well no-one's dared a character assassination of any Reform politicians, as that would be so far beyond the pale that they would deserve a life sentence, with no parole. Metaphors are strictly verboten.

Anyway, enough politics... I could murder a bowl of strawberries right now.

 

[spen666]

You listed the protected characteristics, but okay.

What do you talk about at the pub? Only things you are absolutely.sure have already happened?

I never mentioned the issue of protected characteristics. I mentioned examples of abuse that is wrong irrespective of anything else.

 

[spen666]

So you think it's fine to make things up when it suits you?

If not you would be able to quote where I have said abusing people is fine, otherwise it is clear you are making stuff up.

It says a lot about anyone that they can make stuff up to win an argument on the internet.

You repeatedly take issue with my posts saying all abuse is wrong.

The only logical conclusion is you think abuse can be acceptable

 

[First Aspect]

I never mentioned the issue of protected characteristics. I mentioned examples of abuse that is wrong irrespective of anything else.

You smell. Really badly.