Man jailed in Britain for showing gory photo on cellphone

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4289892.stm

Something about this just rubs me the wrong way. It’s not a pleasant thing to inflict on someone, but showing someone an upleasant photo deserves 60 days in jail?

Very British.

Very British.

Thats exactly what I thought when I read the thread title. They are whacky over there anyways. Do you know you have to pay a fee to own a TV over there? Truly whacky shit. Its like 150 american bucks a year too.

There’s a bit of a difference between an unpleasant photo and a graphic execution, don’t you think? When I think of unpleasant gory photo I think of compound fractures, not watching somebody die by beheading.

(Not that I wouldn’t consider someone randomly showing me compound fractures to be a pretty huge violation of my privacy and personal space too.)

So they guy’s in jail for two months because he made someone upset? Oh no! Someone showed me something I didn’t want to see! I am forever tramatized and shall never regain that pure mental state.

Well, yeah, people can be forever traumatized by seeing something. Hell, there’s not a person on this board who doesn’t have an accidental (or not) viewing of goatse.cx burned into their brain.

The problem is that it shouldn’t be legislated to throw someone in jail for this, it should instead be made legal to beat the shit out of them. The overly oppressive assault laws have emasculated society so that there is no fear of retribution, and thus no reason not to be a dick.

Also, if you think this is some kind of barbaric solution, keep in mind that the right to beat the shit out of someone for being a dick is self-regulating. If you’re a dick about it, someone will beat you up to stop you from beating other people up. It’s a beautiful thing.

H.

p.s. Before arguing, go play your favorite shooter without punkbuster for a few hours, KTHX.

They are whacky over there anyways. Do you know you have to pay a fee to own a TV over there? Truly whacky shit. Its like 150 american bucks a year too.

That pays for the BBC. £125 a year for channels devoid of adverts, The Office, Band of Brothers, Blue Planet etc is an absolute bargain in my book.

Yeah but dont you still pay for cable on top of that?

You’re right, it is a very extreme image.

But an effective illustration, I think, is something I saw here in the states on TV. A show ended on the History Channel, and the trailer began for the next show. It was a show about the history of torture and execution, and a number of extremely violent and gory executions was shown as the backdrop to the trailer, as music and and a voiceover describing the show were played.

It didn’t bother me, but it struck me that this was a series of very unpleasant and shocking images shown in a quite unavoidable context to anyone watching that channel. It was just thrown on the screen, no different to any other trailer spot.

In Britain, someone goes to jail for doing this to someone in public!

This isn’t intended to be a gross national slur (I’m British, for starters!), just an illustration of one of its weirdest cultural quirks, wherein the very British interest in polite conduct is combined with the very British desire to nanny and be nannied.

Yeah but dont you still pay for cable on top of that?

You get 5 Channels on “Free to air”, ie you plug your ariel in and you get BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4 and 5. This is what your licence fee gets you though all the revenue goes to the BBC.

£50 (one off) gets you something called Freeview which is all the BBC and ITV cable TV and Radio channels, CNN and a few other odds and sods

On top of that if you want movies, sports or Murdoch’s stuff you have Cable or Satellite which is from about £10-20 a month (including Broadband on Cable) for the basic gubbins such as the Freeview stuff above, SKY one, god channels, basic MTV and a few other nick-nacks though the bulk of the channels worth watching are still subscription based on top of that i.e. you’d pay an extra £20 on top of the above fee to get Sports, an extra £5 for movies and so on, though there’s normally a number of package deals that bring the cost down to around £35 a month for pretty much everything but smut.

Choice is yours.

This isn’t intended to be a gross national slur (I’m British, for starters!), just an illustration of one of its weirdest cultural quirks, wherein the very British interest in polite conduct is combined with the very British desire to nanny and be nannied.

I’m still intruiged as to how the guy got himself arrested to begin with let alone finding himself in prison. I live here and I’m still speechless over it. I can only assume we were trying to find a way to outdo the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction hysteria.

“you put your entire live feeds on 5 second delay loops? pffft we sent a man to prison for showing ONE person a nasty video clip”.

???

It’s another word for antenna.

No, that’s aerial. Ariel is a mermaid.

At first I was just amazed by this story, but I suspect I’m not hearing all the details of what happened. A lot of whether this was wrong or not depends on the clip itself. If she was shown 10 minutes of footage, where it was pretty obvious something nastly like a beheading was going to happen, then she would be extremely stupid to have watched it and the man could hardly be blamed. If he shoved it in her face and she immediately got the gruesome vision of a brutal beheading burned onto her retina, then his behaviour would have been as bad as someone exposing their genitals in the park.

Still, I think 60 days in jail for that act is incredibly harsh.

When did snuff become "unpleasant pictures? Seriously people, what the fuck?

British understatement, sorry.

“I say, he cut orf his head.”

Actually, when the History Channel starts advertising TV shows with snuff, aren’t we long past the “what the fuck” stage?

I’m just wondering why the girl didn’t look away or shut her eyes. It’s not like he strapped her into a Clockwork Orange type of machine to view the image.

Actually, I think that was the problem…

Anyways, I don’t think, like always, that the entire story was told in that report, but the magistrate’s quote threw me off:

You struggle to understand why he had a widely available (the Internet!) image on his cell phone? Uh, woop-de-fucking-shit for you? What does it matter what he has on his phone?

Additionally:

Give me a computer, an internet connection and week with her and I will make her mind the strongest three pounds of grey matter you have ever known.

So what we really need to do is completely desensitize everyone to extreme violence? Wonderful.

Child porn next please! :roll:

Yeah, I thought that at first, but then I thought you could argue the same with a flasher exposing himself in the park. Yeah, you can look away, but you will probably see enough to upset you before you can.