i was joking lol but its a dumb way to go

jrm was right to say it could have been avoided if the people wernt retarded

The most worrying thing about the whole Grenfell disaster was the guy being arrested for having a Grenfell-parody guy-fawkes analogue that he burned on Nov 5th

lmao

Arrested and successfully prosecuted

that sounds amazing

what was he charged with?

Under some form of hate speech law

tell a fib, he was charged, taken to court, then cleared

but it would have still most likely bankrupted him

He was charged under the same act that Dankula was

He was essentially saved by a technicality - they couldn't prove that it was him that uploaded the footage, or that he actively allowed it to be uploaded

5 charged though so what about al lthe others

charged with laughing too much lol

i jsut watched the vid its pretty funny ngl

schoolboy bantz tbh

of course

this is a law that definitely needs to go

or at the very least be modified

i think go is the correct response

any law that makes jokes illegal cant be saved

the law was intended to prevent the abuse of communication networks to target people with abuse - so mass mailing porn, or using a phone autodialer to harass people

it was never designed with youtube in mind - all you need to do is modify the law to make it clear that for an offence to occur, the person must be pushing this content TO people

Watching Youtube is a purely consential - you physically cannot be forced to watch something

Won't that just make more sites force an "opt in" option

Don't you just love laws that are deliberately left for interpretation rather than being very clear and to the point?

What sites, Wacka?

Youtube is already "opt in"

I dunno I just kinda jumped into this convo only reading your message :p

They can't force you to watch videos

But for example news sites could force people to click button to accept receiving whatever

Like the way they try to get you to turn off ad blockers

And you have to go in inspect element and delete all the modal dialogs and get rid of the classes on the body tags.. very annoying

That's a company, not a person

You could say, it's an article written by someone.... Just like someone uploading a video

If it's on their website, then it's not being forced on people, therefore the law shouldn't apply

It's not abuse of a mass communications network

That's what the law was intended for

Didn't Andrew Doyle write an article for the independent under a made-up name, with no background and it got published.... And it was all bollox

Why would be surprised by that?

I wonder if he could get done like dank did