Teenager Arrested In England For Criticizing Olympic Athlete On Twitter 639
An anonymous reader writes "A teenager from Dorset, England was arrested for sending a Twitter message to Olympic athlete Tom Daley saying: 'You let your dad down i hope you know that.' Police arrested the 17-year-old boy as part of an investigation into 'malicious tweets' after Daley and his teammate missed out on a medal. Daley's father died from cancer last year. While it is rarely used and the police have not indicated whether they are pressing charges, the Communications Act 2003 s.127 covers the sending of improper messages. Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. Sean Duffy was convicted and sentenced earlier this year for similar comments. I look forward to tens of thousands of arrests across England over the next few days as all public remarks which may cause offense, regardless of their target, are investigated by the law."
According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning, but the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made.
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
"relates to a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character."
Isn't it nice to have such ambiguous laws that they could use against anyone whenever they please?
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm offended by your suggestion that I or someone I know might ever say something mean in public and should be arrested. I demand you be arrested!
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm offended and I've arrested myself!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the kid is a real jerk for saying what he said. Now I'm criticizing him in a public space, as I'm sure many other people are in less kinder words. Should I be arrested, because my criticism might hinder him to pursue posting things on the internet?
We can have a lot of freedom in life, but the freedom to not be offended is not an option. The fact that what you or I say might hurt someone's feelings is not a sufficient reason to prevent us from saying it.
Re: (Score:3)
though he didn't directly harass him - it was re-tweeted by a swim team member.
And if you think this couldn't happen in America, well it can - as long as the person posted under a pseudonym or anonymously and can be tracked down (since laws exist for cyberbullying that can land you in jail for 5 years, and you can tack on 2 more for being annoying in a provision carried over from the communications decency act [schneier.com] ).
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the soultion for this sort of "harassing" is just learn to ignore people. That's it - that's the entire remedy. People will say deeply offensive things to you in life; adults simply shrug and move on with life, they don't throiw temper tantrums, or ask Mommy to make it stop.
Stalking is different, but we're not talking about stalking here, but one-off remarks.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the soultion for this sort of "harassing" is just learn to ignore people. That's it - that's the entire remedy.
Yeah. No.
As a high school teacher I can honestly say that this approach doesn't work with about 10% of teenagers (and some sociopathic adults) in a public forum. Especially if for some reason you can't leave that forum (I.e. it's your job.).
If a person is determined to get attention, and you ignore them, they will just keep looking for more and more offensive things to say, until they can get a response. Best to remind them of expectations of behaviour early, and the likely consequences of breaking those expectations. Then enforce.
Once you get past a certain point of offensiveness, and you don't respond, you're basically giving them permission to continue being offensive. Moreso if there's a certain implied anoymousness involved (Like on the Internet). Seen 4Chan recently? :D
Re: (Score:3)
Used to be that if some kid got too offensive, the other kids would eventually smack him upside the head and the jerk would learn better. NOW, the kids who tried to teach the jerk some manners (albeit in the rather direct way of kids) would be the ones in trouble. The natural social enforcement mechanism has been removed in favor of only allowing "Mommy make him stop!"
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Christian and an American, it seems obvious to me that in order to have a free society, both Christians and Atheists must be free to criticize each others viewpoints in the public square of ideas. Otherwise, how does anyone have freedom of religion (or the freedom not to have a religion)?
I certainly wouldn't want to be arrested for quoting the Bible: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." And if I want that freedom, I must allow Atheists the same freedom.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying I'm an atheist is ok, saying you are stupid because you believe in god is not.
What about someone saying that you will burn in hell for eternity because you are an atheist?
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying I'm an atheist is ok, saying you are stupid because you believe in god is not.
What the hell? Of course it's OK! In fact, you are stupid because you don't think it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
like in your own home
The kid isn't being accused of breaking and entering. If he were it would be the athlete facing jail time (assuming the athlete took reasonable steps to defend himself).
You've got to shift your viewpoint a little if you want to understand what's going on around you. The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish.
It is holy from the standpoint that no one should be forced to espouse a view they find repugnant. It is practical because once we start regulating speech the regulators will make it so we criticize them (it might hurt their feelings or upset the social order if the regulators were criticized).
This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone. If you allow people to be chased out of public light by intimidation and harassment then you wind up with less freedom, as your personal freedoms to pursue things like sports are hindered by those who would hide behind free speech.
If the athlete saw the tweet, it is because the athlete chose to participate in an extremely public forum. It's not like he was just walking around shopping. He was using a medium design to allow as many people as possible to communicate. If you're going to do that you have to expect some flames no matter who you are. As for the larger question of freedom to walk around in public: someone instantly recognizable, or someone hounded by paparazzi might have case to make for restricting to what extent they should be protected in public from speech. That is indeed a difficult topic - but the answer there is not to put a blanket ban on all speech but to figure out a way to tailor the rules for only the difficult cases. The fact that Johnny Depp can't walk around without attracting a mob should not be the basis for regulating interactions between a lesser known athlete and a teenager. In cases where an individual is really annoying, there are other ways for the public to handle it. For example, as a small business owner I could refuse to hire him. What? That's illegal discrimination? Well, at least I could refuse to sell him anything at my store! Wha..? That's illegal too! Well, I suppose I could tell everyone what a jerk he is because... oh yeah, we just made that illegal. Um well I suppose I could - oh H#ll, just arrest him. Why bother with social pressure when it's so much easier to send him to jail?
Re:Wow... (Score:4)
What a horrible argument from fallacy this is. A single message is not "abuse", and your point is completely invalid.
Re: (Score:3)
This kid chose to reach out into a public place to harass and intimidate someone. If you allow people to be chased out of public light by intimidation and harassment then you wind up with less freedom, as your personal freedoms to pursue things like sports are hindered by those who would hide behind free speech.
I am sorry I can't agree. Being a public figure exposes you to a certain amount of comment. What you are really suggesting is that a right to be sheltered from the opinions of others exists. It can't. What if the Athletes mother had said this to him, should she be jailed? Personal I would be much more hurt to hear something like that come from my mom, who I love and respect, and would trust to judge the opinion of my Father much more than coming from some f**k head on Twitter!
What you are really sugges
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Informative)
In England you can be arrested for "going equipped". For example if you have a crowbar, pliers and other tools in your car they will claim that you are going equipped to commit burglary, you don't actually need to do the crime.
Re: (Score:3)
The key thing the parent missed out was that to be guilty of "going equipped" the police need reasonable suspicion of what you're going to do with the objects. If you "go equipped" with a baseball^Wcricket bat in the back of your car, you can quickly prove your innocence by saying "I was on my way back from playing cricket this morning". If you have a crowbar in the back of your car, you can simply say "I need to open a bunch of crates at work today", etc.
The context is very important.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
or
to be grossly offensive? These were sent to other twitterers and it's probably these that prompted the arrest.
source: (LiberalConspiracy [liberalconspiracy.org])
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are adequately covered under other laws regarding intimidation and assault [look it up]. "You let your dad down" is not a threat.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Interesting)
Those are threats of violence made in public. Such things are already going to get someone arrested. No need for a new law.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
If anything the new law means a lower punishment for threats made on the internet, because everyone knows internet tough guys never follow through.
If they did, I'd beat them up.
Re: (Score:2)
I have friends that would send those tweets to people in jest... I couldn't imagine being arrested because of it.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you don't imagine. Not just being arrested, but how other people feel about such things.
I think we'd be a lot better off if other's feelings were given a little more imagination. Of course what a lot of people don't realize causes upset is somebody whose feelings are being disregarded.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
That was back when punching someone in the nose for being rude was also not seen as a crime.
Perhaps we'd be better off going back to that.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you don't imagine. Not just being arrested, but how other people feel about such things.
I think we'd be a lot better off if other's feelings were given a little more imagination. Of course what a lot of people don't realize causes upset is somebody whose feelings are being disregarded.
You're saying I don't care about other people?? That really hurts. I do care. I can't believe you would say such a thing about me. You don't even know me!
;-)
What's that number I can call?
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy strawman batman! Nobody said anything about "criminalizing thought crimes". People have every right to blurt out all the hateful things they want, but if they give people reason to believe it's actionable (like this tough guy saying he'd drown Tom Daley in the pool), well then, free speech can be a rope you hang yourself with. Being free to say what you want in no way means you should be free of the consequences of your words. If they are hateful, people will respect you less. If they contain threats of murder, people will call the police to come by your house. I see nothing wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
And those are a fraction of the comments he made.
It probably only took one or two people to report him to the police for them to have to investigate it, find threatening messages posted on a public board, and go an arrest him.
I also doubt it was the comment to the diver himself that triggered the arrest. It was the tweeter's massive meltdown when he got called out.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Assault has always been illegal and no stupidity laws were needed by politicians that are more interested in looking like they are doing something that actually taking the time to think about what needs to be done and doing something useful. Assault does require contact, a threat to do something causes harm if the person threatened believes the threat to be real. That is the kicker though, these stupid laws do not require any harm so they are clearly stupid. If I say to you that I am going to kill you when I catch up with you and you know I am joking, under the old laws there was no crime but under the current system it is a crime. If I say that I am going to kick your teeth in and mean it, there is no change. All that is new is that now innocent people can be sent to prison with ease.
Re: (Score:3)
Taken in context, I'd say no.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/rileyy69-aka-reece-of-weymouth-and.html [blogspot.co.uk]
That kid has issues, sure, so what. Look at how the so called normal people treated him? Fucking despicable. Who's the bully here? Who is doing *actual* harm to whom? Compare the size of the audience, and how the athlete instantly called the guy an "idiot", while identifying himself as one.
Bah.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're probably just too stupid to understand them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, doesn't the indecent or obscene part effectively and unambiguously outlaw basically any form of cybersex?
You need to look at the second paragraph of the act:
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
So two lovers having cybersex wouldn't be guilty since they aren't trying to annoy each other.
Re: (Score:2)
So pretty much all the people on XBox Live would be called up on arrest charges for annoying people... in that some are actually trying to annoy others.
Think of the Children(tm) (Score:2)
He wasn't arrested for the criticism. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly.
According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning, but the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made.
gee, ya think that maybe the death threat itself is what got the cops involved? just possibly?
He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually (Score:5, Informative)
No, he did not make any threats. You clearly didn't actually read the article. Threats of violence actually are NOT enough to lead to arrest, but asshole-ish tweets are. Read the article before posting such crap.
I can't believe I'm linking to The Huffington Post as a better source but for lack of any other site that is explaining it better, here's a timeline of the tweets [huffingtonpost.co.uk].
Here's the tweet in question:
@TomDaley1994 i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky twat your a nobody people like you make me sick
It is listed in the Guardian article but doesn't say it's from the arrested suspect.
Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:He Did Appear to Make a Threat Actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they arrested him because of his usage of the word "your" instead of "You're".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He wasn't arrested for the criticism. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a debate in the original submission comments [slashdot.org] about this. Perhaps the other tweet allegations should have been mentioned, but I strongly concur with the submitter's position.
Per Chambers para. [30] [bailii.org], the guy who jokingly "threatened" to blow up an airport:
if the person or persons who receive or read it, or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character.
Therefore the sort of "ridiculous banter" which might be uttered by a serial troll (as this guy is - he has made several threats in the past to lots of people) does not seem on the face of it to be unlawful. The police would be acting overzealously
Re: (Score:2)
just because the law is broad enough that a threat doesn't need to be made does not mean that any and all arrests under the law are made over non-threatening messages.
Re: (Score:3)
"@HazelBergeron i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky twat your a nobody people like you make me sick" - is that jokey banter now?
I know there is a message like this one to Daley which has been quoted in various places, but I'm not sure it was ever posted from his account. FWIW someone (Mathemagician?) helpfully provided to me this link to retrieve all his tweets [allmytweets.net].
It seems he has made a few stupid i'm-gonna-kill-you style Twitter posts to various people over a period of time, though I'm not sure that one was directed specifically at Daley. In the context of his behaviour, it seems evident that they are ridiculous banter.
Even ignoring c
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Hang down your head, Tom Daley (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the teenager threatened Daley with drowning is only referenced in a convenient side note. Because that would cause less fear and hysteria than the submitter actually intended to stir up.
But are the two tweets from the same person? Or did the cops, ehrm, cop out, and went for the first tweeter due to convenience or ignorance?
Not just criticism (Score:3)
When I heard about this story for the first time on the radio this morning, my reaction was essentially "WTF- they're policing untasteful comments on twitter now?".
Having read about it a little more, my reaction mellowed significantly. Actual threats (albeit unrealistic) are just about within what I would consider to be the remit of the police. Of course it would depend on what exactly is done by them about it. Simply arresting and cautioning him would strike me as being proportionate. Any kind of sentence beyond perhaps a small (less than £50) fine would probably not be.
Classless (Score:3)
I know Slashdot will cover the free speech part of this "case" which is very valid, but I'd like to point out how absolutely classless this teenager is. Hopefully, he will see the error of his ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it appears there were other more threatening tweets sent out related to the tweet in the summary. It is unclear whether the teenager sent them or others did... regardless, I can now see why the police got involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While that may well be true, being an asshole isn't (or at least SHOULDN'T be) illegal.
That said, thought the summary doesn't seem to mention it, I've heard other statements that the tweets included a threat on the athlete's life. If that's the case, its understandable. If he's just being a jerk though, then just ignore him.
Re: (Score:3)
What? Yes, the initial tweet was bullshit. But you know what? An athlete earns money by people caring about them, positively or negatively. And then this clown, with a HUGE audience. calls the 17 year old jerk an "idiot"?
FYI, because I strongly doubt you follow UK sport, the "athlete" in question is also a teenager and, to my knowledge, has never worked in a circus. Frankly, IMHO, the poster of the initial tweet is an insensitive idiot.
In days of yore, this was solved differently (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A future where people can troll each other? Yes. I very much prefer trolling and being trolled to being beaten.
And we already have laws against the other things like false accusations and threats.
Re:In days of yore, this was solved differently (Score:5, Funny)
People had more respect for each other back then.
citation needed, fuckface
Re: (Score:2)
According to the prophesies told in a book called "1984", Governments subscribing to this religion are doing their best to make its apocalyptic predictions come true.
Re: (Score:3)
In days past, this was solved differently. The kid would've had his ass kicked. People had more respect for each other back then. Nowadays, every coward troll can peep out whenever they're bored or feeling malicious. Is this the future we want?
You could also not be part of the twitter/facebook/whatever social site movement. Then you don't see or receive said comments. The real deal is if you interact with the public, you can get _all_ of the public. It's the cost of an open forum.
Re: (Score:2)
See the movie "Idiocracy" for more examples of our future.
Re: (Score:3)
No, we should duel each other to death upon every insult like in the good ol' civilised days.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that 17 year old is a total loser and should be punished - but not by the government. Instead, it should be by Twitter and his parents (though it seems that they've already failed, so I wouldn't count on them doing much.)
Maybe some public humiliation (like that brought on by this story) would work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the future we want, it is the future we deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Threats of violence are not menacing? (Score:2)
...but the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made.
Nothing requires arrests to be made, but surely threats of violence are by their nature 'menacing'?
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, recent case law has established that threats of violence are sometimes clearly not menacing [slashdot.org].
Consider: I'm going to force my cock so deep into your throat that I burst your appendix.
Might be more to this one... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, just noticed that more details of the exchange, including screen-caps of the deleted posts, are available at this blog [blogspot.co.uk] (along with a bit of commentary, so you can make your own mind up.
There could be more to this... (Score:3)
Sigh... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's worth pointing out that the idiot in question actually apologised to Tom Daley before he was descended upon by a good portion of Daley's 800,000 followers. It's at this point that @Rileyy_69 began lashing out with offensive tweets and is most likely what he's been arrested for.
Daley himself sparked the whole thing off by retweeting the initial message (which wasn't actually offensive) complete with the sender's username. IMO Daley showed poor judgement there.
There's a reason "Don't Feed the Trolls" is
Re: (Score:3)
Daley himself sparked the whole thing off by retweeting the initial message (which wasn't actually offensive)
And there was me thinking that telling someone they let their Dad down when their Dad died less than a year before was out of line.
I guess I'm just too sensitive.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Informative)
"It's at this point that @Rileyy_69 began lashing out with offensive tweets"
Actually, it isn't. A glance at his history (now, unfortunately, protected) showed that threatening rape, assault on pregnant women, knifing, strangling and the rest was his long-term form. As it happens, Twitter, which is fast becoming a sewer, is full of people talking like that, and it's only because he was foolish enough to get involved in a public figure that it came to attention. But that doesn't make it any less unpleasant. Clearly, he's like that all the time.
Trolling on Twitter == Arrest. (Score:2)
This is clearly some 17 year old kid shit talking on Twitter. Just a troll. Getting the police involved is ridiculous, unless he was to continue to do it (i.e., harrassment).
Then again, judging from the other tweets this kid has done, he has some serious problems. Some form of Twitter-Tourettes at least.
Hopefully the police will drop it, but the experience will cause the idiot to grow up. Haha, unlikely.
In other news, Jan Moir of the nasty UK "news"paper the Daily Mail can write things about athletes being
Re: (Score:3)
Given that the guy tweeted a death threat ("I'm going to find you and I'm going to drown you in the pool"), I see the police intervention as needed. Even if the threat wasn't meant seriously, I think every death threat *should* be taken seriously. Saying you're going to kill someone in a public forum is just idiotic whether or not you actually meant it. And even though he deleted the tweet, the threat was still made.
Let the police investigate and, if this guy was just being an idiot, give him a good scar
Jeremy Clarkson (Score:2)
Re:Jeremy Clarkson (Score:4, Informative)
Because, if the Twitter joke trial has taught us anything, it's that there is an important difference between comments made in jest and actual, serious threats against someone's well-being.
Saying "My ideas for the opening ceremony were rejected. I suggested we should crash a burning Jag into Mitt Romney." is clearly not an actual threat to carry out such an action.
Saying "Come on then you cunt, I'll stick a knife down your fukkin throat now comeback and stop hiding from me" can be more reasonably seen as an actual threat, context permitting.
The police have overreacted by arresting him, but the accuracy of the reporting of the incident by the media has been astonishingly poor.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is true, why haven't they arrested Jeremy Clarkson for his comments about Mitt Romney? [jalopnik.com]
Wait, people take Clarkson seriously?
Tweets were directed at Daley (Score:2)
I think the biggest problem was that the tweets were directed at Daley, rather than just being written on the teenager's feed.
Daley was clearly upset about it which is why he re-tweeted the comment which was then re-tweeted by his followers (including several celebrities).
Frankly I was very disgusted when I read what the teenager had written. Losing your father when you're only 18 sucks enough without some twat goading you over it.
Lesson... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the flip side is that social media doesn't produce anything worth reading anyway. It is generally poorly written junk. If you want to contribute in a meaningful way, work on Wikipedia or write for Examiner.com. Look at me post junk on slashdot...ugh.
Re: (Score:3)
And the flip side is that social media doesn't produce anything worth reading anyway.
Well, if you had more interesting friends...
HORRIBLE MIND CONTROL IN GREAT BRITAIN* (Score:5, Interesting)
*According to the Guardian, another (since deleted) tweet threatened Daley with drowning.
So, the Slashdot story summary is a completely fabricated pile of shit, with a little explanation on the bottom, after the preceding propaganda already riled up the prejudices and produced a cascade of comments from the usual Salshdot poster who can't even bother to read the story summary, nevermind the story, before commenting in completely contrived, manipulated outrage.
Congratulations Slashdot, you are playing the same game as Fox News: half-truths intended to incite anger, without relevance as to actual truth.
Guy threatened someone with violence, guy arrested. Common sense, end of story. Everything else is bullshit.
Both title and content of this post are wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
The one thing that's puzzling is that according to the article the same tweeter first made a disparaging comment, then apologized, then backtracked and threatened Daley and was abusive to others. That's some odd behavior. Was he high? Is he suffering from bipolar disorder? perhaps someone hacked his account? I don't know
What an douche (Score:2)
People should be able to say whatever they want, but that's a really shitty thing to say. Intentionally malicious.
I think if the law wants to get involved, make the kid spend a few weekends in a hospice center as "community service". Monetary fines and other nonsense just don't matter in cases like this.
SLASHDOT EDITORS, DO YOUR JOB (Score:5, Insightful)
Weapon of choice (Score:2)
Re:Wait, what?? (Score:5, Informative)
"the law doesn't require threats of violence for an arrest to be made" - i.e. an arrest can be made even if no threat of violence has been made. If a threat of violence has been made then an arrest can also be made.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh crap! "Improper" grammar/structure. I'm doomed
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
*stupidest
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When you threaten to kill people?
@_ollyriley come on then you cunt i’ll stick a knife down your fuckin throat now comeback and stop hiding from me
@theroycropper do you want me to come to your fucking house now with a rope and strangle you with it
UK doesn't have the US constitution either (Score:2)
The UK having the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would suppose that the United States Constitution applies to the UK. It does not. While some may muse about how much influence the USA has politically over the UK, the UK does have its own legal system. However, it does not have a written constitution [wikipedia.org].
Re:Np such thing as free s[eech (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right that England isn't covered by American laws. Why should it be? It seems you're yet another typical American who's never been anywhere and 100% believes the propaganda your schools and TV brainwashes you with that US == the world.
I've lived in both countries and you really think people are 'freer' to speak their minds in the US than the UK? Thats laughable.
You need to check your facts too:
Free speech has long been recognised as a common law right in Britain, it also has a statutory basis in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act.
Re:THE OLYMPICS ARE GAY (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet at the same time you've unambiguously stated that they are homosexual.
I can see only two ways out of this:
- either you're suggesting that there are no female athletes at the olympics, and that Caster Semenya is merely a little more obvious than most, or
- all Olympic athletes love male chickens.
While the latter may well be true, it feels a little oblique to the discussion at hand.
However, it's still quite beyond me how olympic athletes can be deemed faggots [pixmac.com] or faggots [tqn.com].
I can only conclude that you are in fact delusional and that olympic athletes represent a broad spectrum of sexual diversity and chicken consumption.