Man arrested for singing "Spiderpig" to police

[Carcharodon]

I think it's more an anomaly that you're arguing a "what if" situation.

Ah jeez, I'm sorry...I didn't realize you were mentally disabled. I should have realized sooner.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I present the "why" and "where"...

"Mullen sang the song to officers on 25 July while sitting in the back of a police van after being involved in a fight in Blairgowrie, Perthshire."

I have a really really hard time believing the police arrested a man for getting involved in a fight, but the man did time in jail for something a lot more trivial. I mean, why wasn't a sentence passed down for the fight he got arrested for? If the cops and judges really were corrupt and conspiring to put this man away for singing "Spiderpig," you'd think they'd have the wits to sentence him to those 3 months in jail for the fight, if only to cover their own asses. But no, this seedy conglomeration of easily annoyed policemen and marionette justices were stupid enough to abuse their power and not try to hide it at all.

On the other hand, maybe (just maybe) the instance of "breaching the peace" was when the man got involved in a fight that the police had to break up, and the person who wrote the article manipulated the facts for the sake of having a more sensational story.

This is a possibility, but not necessarily one that the article support. It is just as likely that there are multiple charges and therefore multiple sentaces given. The man may have been sentanced to another 8 months of jailtime for the fight and then 3 for "breeching the peace".

Also I find it unlikely that the term for getting into a fight is "breeching the peace" even in the UK I would wager that it would be a charge for "assault".

 

[Manic]

This is a possibility, but not necessarily one that the article support. It is just as likely that there are multiple charges and therefore multiple sentaces given. The man may have been sentanced to another 8 months of jailtime for the fight and then 3 for "breeching the peace".

Also I find it unlikely that the term for getting into a fight is "breeching the peace" even in the UK I would wager that it would be a charge for "assault".

The 8 months was given to him for an entirely different incident that occurred in November where he assaulted an officer who tried to arrest him for breaking his curfew in October.

Also, there was no additional jail time given when he originally got arrested. He was sentenced to 3 months for "breaching the peace" in July. 3 months later, it's October, he's out, but he violates his curfew and gets arrested again.

It makes absolutely no sense for this man to get arrested for a fight, then get 3 months in just jail for singing an annoying song. I'm calling it like I see it, and the reporter spun this case to make it sound more interesting.

 

[Majic Walrus]

The 8 months was given to him for an entirely different incident that occurred in November where he assaulted an officer who tried to arrest him for breaking his curfew in October.

Also, there was no additional jail time given when he originally got arrested. He was sentenced to 3 months for "breaching the peace" in July. 3 months later, it's October, he's out, but he violates his curfew and gets arrested again.

It makes absolutely no sense for this man to get arrested for a fight, then get 3 months in just jail for singing an annoying song. I'm calling it like I see it, and the reporter spun this case to make it sound more interesting.

Where do you get all of this information? We don't know if he was given any additional time beyond three months.

We can determine that "Breach the peace" means as defined here:

The word “peace” in Breach of the Peace is thought by most to mean the opposite of “war”. Many police officers and magistrates consider a broader interpretation meaning not to annoy and not to be rowdy – any breach of the normal state of society.

A breach of the peace is not, as such, a criminal offence, but founds an application to bind over. The standard of proof is nevertheless the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt.

Which means that breaching the peace could be assault and could also be something else... Liking singing spider-pig.

It's obvious that there is bias when you read the article. Those sensative to cops will read what they like and those who are more likely to dislike cops will read what they like.

Point being, we don't know what actually happened beyond what the article mentions.

 

[Manic]

Where do you get all of this information? We don't know if he was given any additional time beyond three months.

We know he was given three months in July, and was out of jail in October. It says so right there in the article. The first incident was in July, and he was arrested again in October. He couldn't have been serving any additional time if he was already out three months later.

We can determine that "Breach the peace" means as defined here:

The word “peace” in Breach of the Peace is thought by most to mean the opposite of “war”. Many police officers and magistrates consider a broader interpretation meaning not to annoy and not to be rowdy – any breach of the normal state of society.

A breach of the peace is not, as such, a criminal offence, but founds an application to bind over. The standard of proof is nevertheless the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt.

Which means that breaching the peace could be assault and could also be something else... Liking singing spider-pig.

Right. You just said it yourself. The term "breaching the peace" is broad enough to include assault. He was arrested for getting in a fight. It says so right there in the article. If that was his reason for arrest, why the hell wasn't he charged for it? Why only charged for something a hell of a lot more trivial? It doesn't make sense.

It's obvious that there is bias when you read the article. Those sensative to cops will read what they like and those who are more likely to dislike cops will read what they like.

Point being, we don't know what actually happened beyond what the article mentions.

**** the cops. They don't have anything to do with this. They arrested a dude with a history of alcohol abuse for getting in a fight. A judge would be responsible for passing the sentence. If this journalist is telling the truth (and not spinning the truth for sensationalism and the sake of garnering more attention), then we should all be mad at the idiot judge who decided that this guy deserves a worse punishment for being an annoying singer than he does for violence. Again, that's assuming this article has no spin.