‘Grenfell’ bonfire

Where are you coming from Baggs? Are you saying they were trying to bring about some sort of social awareness ?!!

But it sounds as if it was ineptly staged.

I haven't watched the video, if that's what you mean, me.

As a political comment on a disaster that shouldn't have happened but for the criminal, or possibly only criminally careless, attitudes of cheapskate builders/shoddy council (whatever led to the tragedy), I actually think the idea of a burning effigy of Grenfell Tower on Bonfire Night is genius.

To even think about making something such as they did speaks volumes. So in my opinion they should receive harsh reality checks to wipe the stupid grins of their faces.

Baggs well I’ve heard it all now. Really Really Really.? You’ve heard/read the words used? The comment about the ninja and those I posted above.

more power to....elbows

Brid that’s whats being investigated. ab I really don’t think that we can make that call - we were not in GT that night. But FWIW saying ‘jump’ or ‘that’s what you get for not paying your rent’ is hardly amusing, jokey or friendly is it. I don’t think for one minuteBaggs you can infer they handed themselves in because they are ashamed - they sat there and made a quite detailed model? Then burned it, filmed it and put it deliberately online? They are probably more scared than ashamed and I still don’t get your use of the word ‘directly’ it’s not in the legislation.

I posted what's below on the wrong thread.

Actually, on second thoughts, if the burning of the effigy was a comment on the council and the builders of the Grenfell Tower, I don't think it was so wrong after all.

I very much doubt if it was meant as a comment on the people who lived and died in Grenfell Tower. I think it was a comment on the event, which shouldn't have happened.

If the the effigy burning was a comment on those responsible for the tragedy, then more comment to the video-makers' elbows, I say.

Bridgeit it was distressing but was it a threat or abusive ?

Thanks for explanation Baggs, I can see that if it was privately done it would not be classed as criminal,
But if it has been put it in the public domain by the perpetrators surely that would be covered by law ?

am I right in thinking that some posters beleive that these immature morons weren’t doing anything wrong?

I can only speak for myself, not other posters, bridgeit, but no, you are not right if you think I don't think the men who made the video did anything wrong. Of course they did something wrong. What they did was crass and disgusting.

But not criminal because it was not a direct attack on other people. Nobody was put at risk by their stupidity in making the video and posting it publicly.

It seems they handed themselves in to the police, which suggests they are ashamed of themselves, as they should be.

Iam64 I understood that police have left the force in their droves--------and who can blame them ? It's those and retired officers who've never been replaced because of the reams of paperwork involved instead of them being able just to get on with their job. Then when there's a charge of sorts it goes to the CPS eventually who then decide whether a case goes to court or not. When nothing happens it's soul-destroying to an officer who has nabbed a criminal all for nothing. So complacency sets in.
The whole justice system needs reshuffling !
My daughter works with border police and a couple of retired officers who were never so glad as to leave todays policing behind with its paperwork and different rules and regulations.

Paramedics alike have to attend other duties as well as what they were trained for and they're becoming thin on the ground too. Having worked for the NHS I hold them in high regard so biased I am. However I do believe that a few more millions are going to be pumped into the NHS.

Yes Brid some posters are minimising it in several ways such as it’s not a crime and/ or effigies are burned elsewhere and/or it’s a joke

Well as none of us is a lawyer, let’s leave it to those investigating at the moment but it can be said that it was filmed, it was put online deliberately, once online it is available to everyone - that’s a fair stating point for investigation. Had it not been out online, it would not have been covered by that legislation

I am confused , am I right in thinking that some posters beleive that these immature morons weren’t doing anything wrong?

This is difficult, it wasn’t threatening, no one was harassed , I am sure it caused distress but was there threats, abuse or insults ?

I can’t find the word ‘directly’ in the legislation

Why is it worse than burning effigies of Guy Fawkes?

The important word is "directly".

If individuals have indeed been directly threatened with violence by the effigy-burning, it's a different matter of course.

I think crass covers all that, me.

From the BBC website
The men have been arrested under section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986, which covers intentional "harassment, alarm or distress" caused via the use of "threatening, abusive or insulting" words or signs.

Baggs have you actually read the statement from the police as to what they are actually investigating!

A 'joke' in very, even extremely, bad taste does not need investigating by the police. It's not a crime to be crass.

Perhaps use of police investigating allegations against dead people is a waste of time