Clearly...
... not a high achieving biology student if he fails to grasp the utter daftness of racism.
Nice to see a nasty troll getting what's due, shame he'll be out within a month.
A Welsh biology student was jailed today for tweeting racist abuse at footballer Fabrice Muamba after the Bolton midfielder collapsed during a match. Liam Stacey, 21, tweeted "LOL **** Muamba. He's dead!!!" as medics tried to revive the 23-year-old player, who had suffered a heart attack during an FA Cup quarter-final match …
...you might want to track down the tweets he made AFTER other twits took him to task. Personally I'd prefer it if the target of his racist comment took him up on the offer to fight - and seriously hurt the pillock - jail will have to do instead.
Indeed. I wonder if he knows what an F1 hybrid is?
It's my favorite way of upsetting educated racists. To get (say) plants with big red flowers, you selectively breed for such, in several completely separate groups. The trouble is in-breeding. The flowers get bigger and redder, but other recessives make the plants become weak and disease-prone. Then you mix up the groups. The bad recessives are different, and recede. What they all have in common is big and red, and they grow strong and healthy and much bigger and redder than any of their parents.
How does that annoy racists? It's setting the trap. You now get them to agree that in the past, humanity lived in small villages and rarely married outside even a 10-mile radius. (The inbred village idiot was commonplace).
Then you get them to agree that humans with free will direct their own breeding through their choice of partner. What are they choosing for? Strength, beauty. Intelligence? Probably all of those. Universal choices? Also probable. Weak Stupid offspring don't have great chances in the world. (I'll pass on ugly: beauty is in the eye of the beholder).
And once you get them to agree that every village was selecting these traits, offset by inevitable inbreeding, you point out that the industrial revolution increased 10 miles to 100, and that air travel has increased it to span the globe. Interracial marriages are creating human F1 hybrid children. Strong, beautiful, intelligent people.
I can't prove it, but it's far more plausible than the opposite. And racists? the inbred village idiots are still with us. They seek each other out!
This was my first thought from the article but in viewing the said persons twitter feed through the subsequently linked youtube video it seems the tag of 'racist' is appropriately applied. Also in generaly; he just seems to be a vial person.
For those of you who wish to verify this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE
Confirmed - It's the F*** four letter word (F-bomb) we all know, not some obscure racist epithet... which confirms the suspicion that the quote in the article really isn't obviously racist *by itself*.
After all, if we were to arrest every person who had ever dropped a mean-spirited F-bomb about a sports figure in general, or a sports figure of a different race in particular, those stands wouldn't be nearly as crowded would they?
That said, in context of his other tweets, like these little gems in response to other tweeters (is that what they're called?):
- "I aint your friend you w*g c**t ....go pick some cotton"
- "go suck muamba's dead black "d**k and then you aids ridden t***t"
- "owwww go suck a n****r "d**k you f*****g aids ridden c**t"
- "Your mothers a w*g and your dad is a rapist"
...the issue is much less ambiguous. The article really should be more clear about this, because it seems to be his racist comments after that initial comment that are the most damning - not the one quoted. Without the context of his follow on rants the story really doesn't make much sense - or worse, comes across as some sort of knee-jerk overreaction.
Thanks for that. Yes, it does make things clearer. If one believes that people should be locked up for having opinions (no incitement to anything except contempt for the objectionable chap), then yes, the sentence might be deemed appropriate. Personally, I think the whole concept of thought-crime is wrong, and a real civilisation would not have these laws.
What happened to "I disagree absolutely with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it"?
Those people defended our rights... to the death... now we're just left with the cowards that will put us in prison for any speech they disagree with.
As far as "inciting racial hatred" goes, yep he is a vile racist but as you say, the only incitement I see is contempt... is inciting the contempt of those holding majority belief a crime? According to this judge, it is.
Note that the (very few) racial slurs ("go <vacuum clean> a <rimes with 'eager'> <poultry> you aids ridden <rimes with 'punt>" or "Go pick some cotton") appeared only after the original comment, replying to unknown and probably not-that-nice twits.
Twits for twats, that is.
BTW, I miss the old "anti-twitter" stance of El Reg...
My thoughts were similar: "he's obviously a complete cock, but how is it racist?" Then I had a look at his other tweets.
From the Metro:
"Stacey - a student at Swansea University - followed this message with several replies to other members of Twitter which were offensive or racist in nature."
Forgive my lack of worldly knowledge, but I'm finding it difficult to insert a 4 letter word into the '****' to make that tweet racist. "Saes"?
NB, best not to give me a long list of examples, just tell me if it is or isn't possible :/
Even if not racist, it is extremely offensive and he deserves a little time in the clink.
Although, if it was just "Muamba. He's dead!!!", isn't that entirely accurate, given what his doctor then said.
So, sitting and watching people throw insults at each other is your idea of fun?* You can't possibly be suggesting that you think he should have illegal physical harm inflicted on him merely for having ideas you don't agree with, can you?
*If so, you must get a lot more pleasure out of coverage of Prime Minister's Question Time than I do.
Indeed, but note just because his heart could not beat on its own doesn't mean his brain and other organs were deprived of circulation for all that time. As you see, hats off to the medical team, and the biomedical research underpinning what they did to keep him not just alive but not brain dead.
Quite rightly, this little slimeball has been condemned for his vile, disturbing comments. But what people should be finding more disturbing is that in 21st century Britain people are now being jailed for expressing an opinion. Previously you could only be brought to book if you incited violence but now it seems an opinion that's at odds with the mainstream can earn you a stretch in the clink. How long is it before this is extended to religion or even politics?
Sorry, but I'm with Voltaire on this one.
It does make you think how the "tweets" are classed: expressions of opinion or publication. IIRC you can be done for (racial) abuse no matter where you are. Quite rightly so but you have to be addressing and abusing someone. But incitement to (racial) hatred is a bit of different matter and being a bigoted tosser usually doesn't count. Didn't Blair push something through under the guise of anti-terrorism that basically neutered the right of free speech?
The guy's a knobhead and his exclamations are despicable but I don't think the court's time should be devoted to this. If it is then thought-crimes will be next and then we're all doomed.
"....what people say can hurt deeply"
How can you possibly quantify hurt feelings?
Some people are deeply offended if you tell them you're an Atheist, they take it as a denial of their God. Should all Atheists be jailed for causing "Deep hurt"?
Feelings should never be protected by laws, to do so would allow censorship of almost anything just on the say so of some fragile or manipulative crybaby.
visit here:
https://twitter.com/#/walken4gop
would you really like this type of thing to be OK over here?
i know its a slippery slope and we cant allow mission creep here (i.e. Atheists being arrested for saying bollocks to religious types etc) but i also think that vile people like that need to be stopped from being able to say what they like.
btw - feel free to send the guy some lovely messages... i did ;)
Children are considered vulnerable and are therefore rightly under the protection of adults so the bullying would need to be stopped but that's a far different thing from criminalising the bullying children for name calling.
I would rather a world where I defend myself from insults and nobody has the right to go crying to the state to stop me expressing my opinions. You prefer a world where nobody dare say anything controversial in case someone says it gave them sadface resulting in an arrest for the crime of 2nd degree upsetting.
Firstly, it's not only children who harass; in this case, it was done by an adult.
Secondly, it's not only children who are subject to persecution. Gays, blacks, Asians, physically handicapped... the list goes on.
You're clearly being facetious in your second paragraph; it looks like you don't have either the experience or empathy to understand just how vicious people can be and what it can result in.
Think about it: if someone you knew was subject to abuse all day, everyday, would you be happy to do nothing and have nothing done about it? No matter what the consequences?
As a human being, you are responsible for your own actions.
The school bully should be punished through some type on in-school suspension (basically, remove them from the population) and given classes on how to treat others; which their parents have obviously failed at. If it persists, throw them out of the school.
The one being bullied, well, again, we are responsible for our own actions.
The school itself should be receptive to claims of persecution and be willing to take swift action. Of course, they'll have to wade through false claims and use their own judgement. And, as imperfect as that sounds, they'll make some wrong calls.
Regardless, none of this has anything at all to do with some nit making horrible comments via twitter. So what if the guy is a d**k? Government involvement (courts/jail) is completely inappropriate. It's the opinion of one person. Did he actually incite anything other than a backlash against himself? No.
A more appropriate punishment would have been for the university to expel him for bad behavior with a note placed on his file to be sent along with any records requests.
That's not what was said; the comment was "Feelings should never be protected by laws". Of course intervention is necessary in out of control bullying, but that intervention comes from parents and teachers, not the justice system. There's a difference between 'a dickish thing to do' and 'a crime punishable by imprisonment'. If being mean was a crime we'd all be in jail.
Having said that, where do you draw the line? We have harassment laws to deal with people who go out of their way to cause distress and an atmosphere of fear in their victims which does sound a bit like feelings protected by laws.
At the end of the day, the right to say what we want will always clash with the right to feel safe when nutters get involved. We can't scrap one or the other so we'll always have to try and balance them as best we can.
Do what? That's the question. I can't see anybody suggesting racism should be ignored any more that bullying should be, but this guy has been sent to prison. I think a stint of community service, would have been more appropriate, but I'm still not comfortable with people being sanctioned by the law for expressing opinions, even vile ones. When Americans defend free speech they don't mean they'll cheerfully put up with abuse. They respond in kind, using their right to free speech.
"So if a child was being bullied at school constantly, to the point of suicide, your reaction would be to say "stop being a crybaby"? Or would you acknowledge that verbal abuse can be just as hurtful as being punched and do something about it?"
I wouldn't send the bully to prison for 8 weeks.
He wasn't jailed for expressing an opinion. He was jailed for inciting racial hatred. The law that introduced that particular crime goes to quite a lot of trouble to differentiate it from the mere expression of an opinion, viz:
"(1)A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any 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."
In order for someone to be found guilty, a) or b) has to be proved.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III
Murderers often get 15 years, rapists can get less than five. Is murder only 100 times worse? Is rape only 30x worse?
It's not to say he's anything less than a horrible person, but as the proverb says "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me". If we can't bring back a day in the stocks (limited to squishy projectiles), community service would have sufficed.
I can't help the feeling that here we have a judge and a legal system playing to the gallery.
How does his sentence stack up against the repeated fines, asbos and community service orders that we regularly see handed down for theft, assault, robbery and so on?
His views and opinions may be abhorrent, but so is heavy-handed punishment for thought-crime.
Agreed. The general public will find many things "abhorrent", but that does not make them illegal. I fear that this is a slippery slope. The guy is clearly an idiot and an a**hole, but since when does that equate to jail time?
I am trying to understand the logic and law being applied here. If someone refers to a person as a c*** or a whore, then they won't go to jail. But if they say that the person is a c*** that loves n***** d*** , then they do go to jail because it's racist?
The UK has real crime and social issues - I don't think this is one of them.
'District judge John Charles told the third-year undergraduate... that his sentence had to "reflect public abhorrence"'
Why? This, in itself, sounds like a slippery slope.
Public oppinion should count for nothing in a court of law. The law is written, case law developes, this sets the framework (along with taking into account motivation, consequences and likelihood of reoffending). To "reflect public abhorrence" in a sentence makes the court far too political for my liking. Public oppinion changes so much (not long ago making racist comments would not have been seen as offensive by the majority, nor would homophobic or sexist comments) that it should not be used in a fair, unbiased judicial system.
There is a difference between picking and choosing which laws to adhere to, and what the judiciary should do when sentencing. "Exemplary sentencing" has nothing to do with justice, and the magistrate(s) have made another of those stupid decisions that they, in their middle-class smugness, so often make. If this bloke's lawyer isn't going for appeal, he is failing in his duty.
> Someone robs my 75 year old mother's purse with cash + house keys from her shopping trolley.
> The Police do nothing.
What can they do?
They will have obtained camera footage from the store and attempted to identify the thief, but if the camera didn't actually catch them in the act there is nothing they can do. They might even know who did it, but knowing and being able to prove it are two different things. Without proof or some evidence they would not even be able to question the thief without being accused of harassment. Even if the police had grabbed him in possession of the purse he could claim he found it and the police would not be able to prove otherwise. The police don't do nothing, they do what they can which happens to be very little.
And I'm now more convinced than ever that sending this guy to jail is utterly abysmal. He said some nasty things - boo hoo. Did he ever treat a black or other ethnic person differently or direct hatred towards them in person? I don't know but if he did then let's do him for that, not for some fairly tame idiotic comments from a young man who was drunk and thought for some ridiculous reason that since it's only Twitter he can say what he likes. Should have deleted his account and given him some community service is a deprived area - job done. Instead they put an otherwise intelligent student in jail for 2 months and completely ruin his life for a few lines on a nonsense website?
Imagine if I said on here "away and shag yer maw you jock cnut" directed at a Scottish person. Does that mean I should be jailed for racial hatred?? (I'm Scottish by the way, that's why I picked that one) Makes me feel slightly ill thinking about things I've said or had sent in text messages that could have me thrown in jail.
Find a grip and hang on for dear life.
> Imagine if I said on here "away and shag yer maw you jock cnut" directed at a Scottish person. Does that mean I should be jailed for racial hatred?? (I'm Scottish by the way, that's why I picked that one)
Self-hate of this sort is inciting racial hatred - Go to jail, go directly to jail.
A disturbing trend, indeed. Most Orwellian.
"not for some fairly tame idiotic comments from a young man who was drunk and thought for some ridiculous reason that since it's only Twitter he can say what he likes."
Being drunk should not be a defence for any crime.
Far too many people assume that they should not be held responsible for their actions just because they were having a good time.
Sorry to come over all Daily Mail, but some people really do make me think we should have to apply for a licence to breed...
The only reason why his guy is put in jail is because Fabrice Muamba is a footballer.
Would he get the same sentence if it was some random unknown?
Why was he given a custodial sentence? Why not an ASBO or Community Service (Break-ins, theft, muggings, constant abuse from feral kids in the neighbourhood, etc).
I watched the video and the guy's conduct is appalling. I am nontheless disquieted by the fact that you can be jailed in the UK just for saying some appalling words on a single occasion. Oppression is dangerous for all of us, even if it seems right at first. The guy is frightened when he realizes his mistake, even apologizing 7,8,9 times.
Not sure if the chap is a genuine racist or just a sweary dickhead, probably the latter.
im a sweary dickhead and he is much worse than me...
i will agree that prison is not maybe the answer as the police whenever i have needed them have been useless cnuts themselves.
someone broke into house - took them 6 weeks to come over and finger print
someone stuffed my car in a car park. right infront of police controlled CCTV cameras - they didnt check it out or even contact me back
the issue is that divvies seem to be able to leave all their contact details when they do stuff like this now.
Watch what you post now guys (especially on social media)
Basically this guy was jailed for being a troll on the internet. I have personally seen comments on Youtube and other sites that were a lot worse than this with regard to racism.
So now the precedent is set it will be interesting to see what happens next.
First off when did having an opinion contrary to the majority become a crime ? If such trivial things get you locked up, why has not the people of phorm been tossed into jail? Bankers too. Oh and Politicians. Every time one of them says some thing vile,racist or homophobic are they going to be locked up?
The UK does not have as much freedom of speech as the US. Those in power may try to say we have full freedom of speech, but in practice, we don't. In the UK we would not have Supreme Court protection for the West Bough Baptist Church holding up their awful signs at soldier funerals.
Some will say this is a good thing and the UK approach is more pragmatic. Myself, I believe that as soon as you start chipping away at freedom of speech, even with your heart in the right place, it gets easier to chip away at it for bad reasons. Or to mis-use the existing laws against speech they were not designed to censure. I envy the US treatment of free speech being sacrosanct even if it causes offence and hurt, like the West bough baptist church. It is a double edged sword and as far as I am concerned, as soon as you started limiting it, you place limits on good speech as well as bad. Any limit does that...
You will find things that are just as hate filled being sung on a football terrace, and certainly being said on football chat forums about hated rivals. This guy made a twat of himself and he knew it, but if he hadn't made the racial slurs and had merely kept recommending to others to 'rape their dogs' he would not be in prison now. This 'incitement to racial hatred' is a load of crap.
The scrotes who tried to break into my shed and torched someone elses get another community order when a stint in jail as Big Bubba's new best friend would have sorted them out and then this twat gets 8 weeks due to the public's abhorrence at his crime of nasty tweeting!
It would appear that the judiciary take on board public feeling when its newsworthy but couldnt give a toss the rest of the time.
Dont get me wrong he is an idiot and deserves to be publicly ridiculed but 4 weeks in jail (he will do half) costs the taxpayer for no real public value.
I am part of the public and have no abhorrence.
Such vicious punishment for a made up non-crime shows how completely immoral the state and politicians guiding it have become in the grips of cancerous political correctness.
The sad thing is the state has done much more to incite racial hatred than this dickhead did, a similar comment about a white footballer wouldn't have raised and eyebrow. Unequal treatment based on race is racism and this is a blatant case.
Still that is political correctness for you, nothing to do with caring, everything to do with appearing to care to dishonestly portray yourself as better than anyone who appears to care less. Like an arms race it escalates, each player continually having to appear to care more than the next. Having reached dizzying heights the players now consider it acceptable to lock up people who won't play the game.
This bloke may have been insensitive and crass, however the state has no place making a political-correctness judgement to jail him for this bogus race-hate crime; I don't recall seeing race-hate prosecutions for non-native race people for their words or actions against the native race, thus this brings the law into disrepute!
The very idea of 'Positive Discrimination' is idiotic double-think, because it is still discrimination and two wrongs don't make a right; just enacting this toxic legislation is a treasonous corruption of the law.
Lastly the state should stop being an idiotic Socialist and Corporatist tyrant and go back to the basic principles of Common Law, not these fake crimes.
As some one who knows him personally.... This was massively out of character and vey very stupid....
He wanted to work in forensics for the police, that's out the window now... 3 years of uni, with no idea of what to do after it all....
It's sad, that one night of drunken celebration (the wales grandslam win) lead on to one comment being made out of bad choice, which got responses that goaded responses and now... Has ruined the rest of his life.
He's not a bad person. Not even a little bit. He just said the wrong thing...
And unfortunately, unlike in reality, Twitter is a breeding groud for keyboard warriors on both sides.
...don't tweet.
He could have said those words to his mates in private, they would all have laughed callously, and no one would have been any the wiser. He could have emailed those words (not smart, of course) and he would probably have escaped prosecution THIS year... but maybe not NEXT year.
The whole thing hinges on this foolish idea of "racism" - believing there "race" has any objective meaning at all puts you in the same class as Heinrich Himmler. Scientists realised that there is no such thing as race (apart from the human species) many decades ago. Yet stupid politicians continue to think in those terms.
Try this thought experiment. Imagine that:
1. The guy who tweeted those exact words was, like Muamba, black. Presumably that would be fine, as they are both of the same "race". (And besides, when did you last hear of any black person being prosecuted for racism?)
2. The footballer who had a heart attack was white, and the tweeter was black. Now it would be racist again, yet I can't imagine any prosecutor touching it with a twenty-foot pole. (See above, black people cannot be guilty of racism).
It would be nice if everyone could simply realise that we are all just people. Skin colour is a very obvious characteristic, yet it doesn't mean much at all (except, unfortunately, in cultural terms). Height and intelligence are just as important, yet no one gets jailed (yet) for mocking short or stupid people.