Slashdot Mirror
Essex Police Arrest Man Over Blackberry Water Fight Plan
An anonymous reader writes "Under the banner headline 'Police reassure residents they are working to keep county safe,' Essex police proudly proclaimed that they arrested a 20-year-old man from Colchester who 'allegedly sent messages from a Blackberry encouraging people to join in a water fight.' Having also made a number of arrests of people sitting at home on Facebook, Acting Assistant Chief Constable Mason wrote: 'Police will continue to monitor social networking sites for unlawful activity.'" That's some good police work there, Lou.
The police are just looking out for the man's interests. If he took his Blackberry to a water fight it could get wet and be ruined and it would just end in tears (which he would hide by getting wet again). They saved his Blackberry to tweet/text/post another day.
They're really determined to become Airstrip One, aren't they?
asking undefined amount of people to meet in public is illegal in increasing number of countries.
because that's a riot. or unlawful assembly. or whatever.
he should've sold something and advertised for people to come buy it - at least that's still legal almost everywhere.
next up, banning using post office to invite people. commercial spam's going to be ok though.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
This is an age-old debate but in my opinion there needs to be significant compensation for arrests that don't lead to convictions. Even more so if the arrest doesn't even lead to a charge.
The way things are at the moment, people who are wrongly arrested are expected to see their eventual release as a "relief" and be thankful for it. That's not how it should be. Otherwise the police had might as well arrest and hold everyone, take their time investigating all of them, and then release everyone who didn't do anything wrong.
In the venn diagram of arrests and convictions the target intersection is 100%. Currently it is nowhere near 100% and that is not entirely due to a flawed court system, it is partially due to too many innocent people being arrested.
Does he not have the freedom of assembly? Does he not have the freedom to call for an assembly? What part of a water fight is not legal? If he was planning a non-crime, then what is the pre-crime? Can you be arrested for a pre-crime in England?
So this storiy is basically a tacit admission either that:---
Blackberry and Facebook are doing realtime or near-realtime surveillance of users and sending suspicious information to the British police; or
The British police are capable of, and are, listening in on Blackberry or Facebook* without the co-operation of these corporationsi i.e., they're surveilling network traffic or similar. Facebook is entirely conducted through HTTPS nowadays, so if this be the case, that the bobbies can listen in is an even more significant revelation.
* This conclusion wouldn't hold of course if the police are merely trolling through what people post in public on Facebook, which is entirely a possibility considering how ignorant many people are about discretion and privacy.
Liberty in your lifetime
How many deaths were caused by people crossing the street at appropriate crosswalks and with the traffic lights? Better make that illegal. How many deaths playing football in after work leagues? Better make that illegal. How many deaths falling out of bed? Better make that illegal!
I don't say this often, because I try to be generally polite even on the internet, but your logic is retarded. It is what leads to kids not being able to play tag during recess. It is the levels of paranoia that makes an adult male hesitate to help a terrified child because someone might think that they are trying to kidnap them. It is a significant portion of what is wrong with our society: the idea that everything and everyone can, and should, be made as completely safe as possible, regardless of the consequences.
And just so we're absolutely clear, I'd rather live in a world where one or two people die having a water fight than live in a world where someone can arrest an adult for planning a water fight.
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Under article 11. Since there are two different systems of Law in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Convention on Human Rights is the final adjudication on this. So he can go to a water fight - however the possibility that a water fight could affect the "peace" it could be restricted on the grounds of possible public safety. In Scotland, which is the country with a different legal system, the possibility that a "water fight" could get out of hand would be classed as "intent to commit a breach of the peace". However a regular water fight in a sensible location would be hardly fall into that category.
However this is all academic because it appears to come from a collection of stories in today's Colchester gazette where it reports that a man was arrested for trying to organise a thousand strong water fight in the town centre or 'inciting public disorder.'http://mobile.gazette-news.co.uk/news/9194795.Man_charged_after_allegedly_trying_to_organise_a_mass_water_fight/
I'm reasonably certain that if their is any truth in the story, the local constabulary would have to take it seriously and avoid charges of complacency.The story appears to have been drawn from the Monday morning court calendar - the normal source of news on a Monday morning. The same report mentions another man, posting on facebook, one assumes he is the main feature of this post and he was released without charge.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
And just so we're absolutely clear, I'd rather live in a world where one or two people die having a water fight than live in a world where someone can arrest an adult for planning a water fight.
As a corollary I'd like to go on record preferring a country (or world) where there is a small risk of being blown up by a terrorist nutjob to one where I am made "safe" from insignificant risks by the loss of significant freedoms, while things that pose much larger actual risks are allowed to go on, largely because someone is making a pile of money off of those larger risks.
In general I prefer freedom to safety, though I will accept a certain amount of restriction where it makes reasonable sense. But for Crom's sake, do it for real reasons, not for political expediency.
WALSTIB!
Any assembly over a certain number requires a permit because the following needs to be done;
1. Extra policing arranged in case things get out of hand.
2. Extra clean up to deal with the mass of garbage left behind by many people.
3. Extra paramedics to deal with injuries.
4. Restroom facilities for such a large number of people.
5. Blocking off streets so people do not get run over.
The article is also misleading in showing two people with small water pistols. What was being organized was hundreds, if not thousands, of people converging in downtown public streets to in effect take over the area and have a water fight. Any business in their right mind would close their doors to protect themselves from the mayhem. Don't the shops and business have a right to do business? Who will pay for the policing, Who will pay for the cleanup? Who will pay for damages?
A water fight is not illegal; hundreds of people taking over a city centre without proper planning and a permit for what ever reason, even a water fight, is illegal.