I think the situation can still get even worse ... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kids-young-12-spotted-carrying-9035134 And that's just kids, how many adults are now going to be tooled up?
One has to wonder though. Is this whole thing just a carefully engineered situation to divert attention from other issues? I mean, the brexit planning, the war in Syria, the dubious deal Britain is doing with Saudi Arabia, the ever increasing tensions between Britain and Russia over their political disagreement over Syrian intervention, China setting up for global conquest, the taliban seizing control of areas that Britain and America spent 10 years winning, IS still existing, immigrants causing chaos in France. There's a lot of news at the moment. We are in interesting times. I therefore wonder if this clown thing is potentially a manufactured distraction.
The police should have cracked down hard on it when it started, but there's no police to deal with it
I could be. But that would require me to have been born after Dim's death. And as he was last seen not too long ago on another forum, I'd wager that he is still alive and therefore has yet to reincarnate. Besides, as far as I can tell, I'm still alive, and have been since before the Internet was invented. Of course all of this could be lies. Who knows?
Ah! You've seen him on another forum. So maybe you've caught it from him. We'll have to think up a cure for you. I'm sure @ARMANDII can help.
A double dose of the Blue Pills, a strengthened Special jacket, 3 months living in a Hut in the Kalahari Desert watching videos of Putin dressed as a Clown telling the West what a great guy he is might help.
I think they put out press releases warning that dressing up in scary outfits and carrying knives, axes, machetes, hammers, etc. around with the intention of scaring the living daylights of vulnerable people in public places (or even in their homes with clowns in their gardens tapping on their windows with knives, etc.), 'might be committing an offence'. Apparently, the police have also been putting the onus on fancy dress shops to vet customers and not provide outfits to nutters with knives, hammers, fake firearms, etc.
The difficulty is though, you can't discriminate against someone just because they've chosen to go about in public wearing an outfit that conceals their identity. Even if they then act in a way that some might see as threatening, they still have their legal right to express themselves.
Not quite accurate, clueless, as while the wearing of clothing and masks is not, in legal terms, covered directly by the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10 of the European Convention n Human Rights, nor is it covered directly by Common Law. "United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law. In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace(which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals), sending any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature), incitement, incitement to racial hatred,]incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,] glorifying terrorism, collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch, sedition (no longer illegal, sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009(with effect on 12 January 2010)), obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency, defamation, prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings, prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors, scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[ time, manner, and place restrictions,harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising. UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. However, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 guarantees freedom of speech (within institutions of further education and institutions of higher education) as long as it is within the law (see section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986). UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of Lords—the then highest court of appeal—revived the so-called Reynolds Defence, in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time. The ruling removed the awkward—and hitherto binding—conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3–2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding. Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to "the jargon of the old Soviet Union." But, as you can see, the use of such costumes and masks can be interpreted as being used in a threatening manner, as in this present craze, or as harassment, causing alarm/distress or be viewed as a Breach of the Peace. So, legally, it's in the use of such costume etc that provides grounds for prosecution not the wearing of it.
I know. I was being facetious I was drawing parallels with another group of clowns that where uniforms in London and other British cities, gathering together, and then calling for others to be harmed for no other reason than that such others don't want to be in their club. Or to put it another way, I see no difference between someone dressing in black and waving a banner calling for infidels to be beheaded, and someone wearing a different uniform and waving a fake knife or axe at random strangers.
