Old Holborn & Free Speech

Why do people struggle with the concept of free speech. It's not hard, but so many seem to think free speech is the freedom to say what doesn't offend me. Well the professionally offended have been out in force and the story of Old Holborn is all over Twitter.

Lets just be clear about this, Old Holborn was a bit of a dick. He posted some horrible stuff, sometimes he could be funny but often he would be offensive. That shouldn't be hard to deal with on the internet, I mean you can ignore what he says. Even better than that Twitter has a block button, glorious my brothers we can never be offended by him again. I was horribly bullied as a child, both verbally and physically. You know what I was told, just ignore what they are saying, words can't hurt you. It's true you know, words are meaningless things to which we place a value. I get loads of abuse on Twitter, as you would expect when you say such controversial things as "I agree with the cap on benefits." You have 3 easy ways of dealing with online abuse, ignore, wind them up (my personal favourite) or block. I know how hard this is for the professionally offended. Hell when you offend them once they start looking through your Twitter history for more stuff to take offence at. When someone who has abused me for something I said then re tweets a comment from a month ago for their friends to have a go at you know you are dealing with an idiot. 

Old Holborn is having his life systematically ruined by these people. Publishing his address, phone number and sending death threats to his family. Phoning his place of work and making threats as well, is this covered by the malicious communications act? The aftershocks are already happening, @obotheclown has announced he is leaving twitter because he is worried about the security of his family and friends, the threat of exposure and possibly police action.

We stand at an important point in our history. The controversial issue of "hate crime" has been in the news as it now includes "goths" (beating someone to death should carry the same sentence whatever the reason, not carry more because of race, religion or how you dress), what's next? Carrot tops, fatties, half pints, blonde bimbos, slap heads or toffs? Press regulation is already making papers nervous before it comes in, how else can you explain Guido scooping over a month ahead that Rolf was being questioned by police? Now add Old Holborn, police looking in to his actions for being offensive. We won the last big battle, the "Twitter joke trial" but can we win this?

If anything I have said offends you please take time to explain it in writing, put it in an envelope and shove it up your arse! (Said in solidarity with Old Holborn)

Rob

Chuck the Charm it’s Time to Get Tough

This is a guest piece from @Battsby who was one of the inspirations behind this blog. Read more of his work at "When I'm King"

So there you are, driving along in your automobile, Chuck Berry appositely providing a soundtrack to your perfect afternoon. An empty road stretches out ahead, straight as a die and not a car in sight. Almost a mile in the distance you see a slouching figure approaching a pedestrian crossing. Obviously he’s going to look right, look left, look right again and cross in the knowledge that he has the best part of a minute to negotiate his passage. But no, of course he doesn’t do that, because the correct etiquette today is to press the button first, then proceed as outlined above and be well on his meandering way to buy crack or smack or cigarettes as you slide to a halt at an empty crossing.

My contempt for these people knows no bounds because not only is it extremely discourteous, it is a microcosmic example of the lengths people will go to in order to avoid thinking for themselves, or about others. It may be sheer ignorance, it may be a sense of entitlement, but whatever it is it needs nipping in the bud right now. The phenomenon of road related rage is well known, but today its petrol-fuelled headlessness spreads out across the land like a tin of toxic, tactless treacle, oozing its way everywhere, never to be fully rid from the fibres of our society. Getting your kicks on Route Sixty-six is more than likely to end up with getting your head kicked in, out in the sticks these days.

 b

We used to know how to behave in a crowd, a queue, an audience, but I see little evidence today of classic British good manners. Children loudly demand instant gratification and their teenage parents give in immediately, as they’ve been trained to do, the chocolate-covered little ingrates pressing sticky fingers everywhere as unembarrassed mothers hand over empty wrappers to be scanned at the checkout. They waddle around, these products of Cool Britannia, with no particular place to go and bellies bigger than Buster Bloodvessel, constantly grazing on garbage and leaving a trail of packaging behind them. Woe betide if you have a low-walled frontage because to them it is just a convenient skip.

Intervene in any way to correct, protect or prevent a breach of the peace and you will become a target. Once upon a long ago there was an expression “don’t cheek your elders”. One two three four - Happy days, five six seven eight - they’ll be swinging off your garden gate and calling you a pedophile. Then the law will be called in to ‘protect’ you from the vigilantes and pretty soon you’ll be hounded out of town. Because the law is on their side; they’ve got rights, haven’t you heard? All for politely requesting they use the bin provided not three feet away from where they are busily fouling their own patch.

It would be depressing enough if such behaviour was recognised as being wrong and as such was fought against on a variety of fronts but, sadly, at least part of the problem stems from sheer ignorance of once died-in-the-wool protocols coupled with an utter disregard for the rights of others.

Justice, Mr B style!

So, Come On! That’s Too Much Monkey Business but You Can’t Catch Me, they say. So maybe it’s time to begin the fight back? Maybe it’s time we returned to a system where the Bobby on the beat could administer a good old thrashing on the spot? If Johnny won’t B Goode he can suck my police state Ding-a-Ling till the Wee Wee Hours… and that’s about as many Chuck Berry songs as I dare cram into the final paragraph! Be courteous out there.

Now then Jimmy, what did you do?

What do you believe?

I was torn a couple of days ago.  Really torn. 

On the one hand, I regularly despair for our society and the inherent implications for trial by jury when I see people jump to conclusions about a person's guilt or innocence of a serious crime without knowing any of the facts of a case themselves.  "He looks just the sort!", or, "Hang the bastard!", are comments often seen on Twitter before someone has even been charged of an offence. 

On the other hand, I've seen too many tearful press conferences on television myself where I KNOW the stepfather did it, and why can't anyone else see this obvious fact?!  And as for that bloke who looks like a right paedo in that mugshot? - yeah, he's DEFINATELY guilty.  (And Chris Huhne is CERTAINLY guilty of perverting the course of justice!*) ... *For the avoidance of doubt for any CPS lawyers reading, this is satire.

So, I guess we're all human - we all make snap judgements sometimes.  Particularly if the person we're judging is eccentric or looks different or odd.

All of which perfectly describe Jimmy Savile.

I was actually disappointed to hear Esther Rantzen all over the news pretty much saying that all the accusations publically levelled on Jimmy Savile over the past few days were unequivocally true, based merely on her watching of a documentary preview.  And, almost immediately afterwards, came out Savile's friends and family, saying that it was impossible that the man they knew could be capable of such heinous things.

It seemed unfair that a dead man's entire reputation could be ruined by rumours and a couple of statements made decades after the events they alleged.

But then I watched the programme.

The verbal evidence supplied was overwhelming, particularly that from Sue Thompson, who worked for the BBC in Leeds.  She told of opening Savile's dressing room door and finding him with a girl, who looked about 14, on his knee.  "It was his tongue, that was just sort of coming out of her mouth, that stuck in my head," she said.  It was this horrendous mental image that stuck in mine, too.

The statement of the woman who was a young girl at Duncroft Approved School, describing how she was sent to the school's isolation unit after complaining about Savile's wandering hands broke my heart.

Top QC Ian Glen confirmed that, in his opinion, were Savile still alive, there would be more than enough evidence to have him arrested.  This was key for me.

And then came Esther Rantzen, who days earlier I had somewhat dismissed.  Visibly upset, she conceded that "The jury isn't out any more ... We all blocked our ears to the gossip.  There was gossip, and there were rumours".

At the end of the day, sadly, there is often little more than verbal evidence in these kind of situations.  Even if Savile were not dead, it would still essentially boil down to a "he said; she said" matter.  And there are plenty of cases where lives have been ruined and people imprisoned over false accusations.

But when the pile of circumstantial or oral evidence becomes so great; when you see the whites of the victims' eyes, and hear the damage done to them in their voices, there can only be one conclusion.

As I write this, it has just been announced that Scotland Yard is to launch a full investigation.  This is, of course, to be welcomed, although I have no idea what good it will do - you can't prosecute a dead man.  But why ... WHY did it take so long, given that the rumours seem to have been so abundant, and around for so long?  Some people have been saying that times have changed and young women would find it much easier to come forward these days, but sadly the facts simply don't support this rose-tinted view - there are disturbing parallels with today.  One girl bravely came forward years ago about Savile, only to be told by the CPS that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute.  The very same thing happened to at least one of the poor victims of the Asian paedophile ring in Rochdale.  There was undoubtedly an overwhelming view in the 1970s and 80s that post-pubescent girls were perfectly capable of "asking for it" by the way they dressed or bahaved, despite being legally underage.  The poor girls' social workers in Rochdale had written them off as "promiscuous", too.  Little has changed.

The burden of criminal proof is, of course, 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  It's one thing to make a snap judgement on a person's guilt or innocence, but to see in this programme what would essentially be the full prosecution evidence placed before a court, and then make an informed decision is quite another.  It's why it is absolutely vital that trial by jury is protected above anything else in our legal system. 

I've now seen the evidence.  I think I'm reasonable.  And I have no doubt.  

Simon

For more from I Like Being Right follow us on twitter, @ilikebeingright or our Facebook page