A man facing jail for a "grossly offensive" Halloween costume has had his conviction successfully overturned on appeal after an intervention by the Free Speech Union (FSU).
In October 2023, David Wootton posted to Facebook pictures of himself dressed as Salman Abedi, a costume he wore to a Halloween party. Abedi, the Manchester Arena bomber, murdered 22 people and injured over 1,000 at an Ariana Grande concert in 2017. Wootton wore an Arabic-style headdress, a T-shirt reading “I love Ariana Grande” and a rucksack marked with the words “Boom” and “TNT”. One photo was captioned: “Bet I get kicked out of the party.”
On Facebook, his post prompted various responses, some positive, others outraged. One woman took screenshots and went to the tabloids, and later to the authorities. On October 29th there was a story in the Sun. On November 1st, he was arrested and interviewed by the police. After the media attention, he lost his job as a car mechanic. He has since changed his name.
Last September, he was convicted after a trial of sending a grossly offensive message online (he did not, as has been reported elsewhere, plead guilty). The charge and conviction went through, although not because the costume was in some way ‘Islamophobic’. He was facing up to two years in prison.
Last month, however, with the help of the Free Speech Union, his conviction was overturned at appeal.
“We are not sure it’s grossly offensive,” said Mr Recorder Knox, a part-
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Anyone here read Richard D Hall’s book about the Manchester bombing? Or indeed Iain Davis’s book defending Richard D Hall who makes the case that the bombing was a fake and a psyop? If true David Wootton was perhaps taking the mickey out of a staged event? Just saying.
To answer the question, no, but perhaps make an exception if the joker is the President and he posts a picture of himself dressed as the Pope.
He’s a disgusting tw@t and I wouldn’t want to know a idiot like this that would stoop so low, and that’s his punishment, but being an arse should never be a crime.
You can only take offence you cannot give offence!
Has everyone forgotten Megan Markle’s hubby who went, in his youth, to an extremely posh party dressed as an SS officer?
Remarked on by our Beloved Leaders and their lickspittal media as being in ‘questionable taste’, but no spell in pokey that I remember.
A bit odd, surely.
Did the “offended” person sit there at watch it through to the end. When I am really offended I have nothing further to do with the offender. That is why I left the Conservative Party.
And why I don’t watch fictional programmes like BBC News and current affairs and no longer subscribe to The Spectator or The Telegraph.
If they are going to arrest people for ‘black humour’, then they will need to arrest 90+% of the Armed Forces, the Fire Brigade, Ambulance Service and err … the Police Force.
There’d be a lot of stand-up comedians banged up too.
To adapt what Voltaire may or may not have said, “I may not approve of your bad taste but I defend your right to express it.”
As ever, offence is taken, not given.
Very poor taste and an insult to the victims and families involved, but obviously not a crime. Same as those stupid pro-terrorist men with the idiotic name ( ‘Kneecap’, WTF? ) who wear their nana’s tea cosy on their head. Personally, I was more offended by this costume;
https://x.com/PunchingCat/status/1918400098569945185
To my mind what this is all about is the outrage of TPTB that the annoying oiks of the hoi-polloi are now free to publish their opinions and photographs as they wish. A few years ago you could only get published via a news editor or similar but these days all these ‘dreadful’ people can just publish themselves and TPTB are outraged. Just as they were outraged when the railways gave us oiks the freedom to travel they are now outraged that social media has given us oiks the freedom to publish. To my mind that is what this sort of thing is all about, they want to put us back in our boxes. And,as it happens, they are quite keen to restrict our freedom to travel as well.
100%.
It has been dismaying to me when debating these things with friends to discover that deep down what underlies their view is a belief that most people are stupid and dangerous and need to be kept under control. And of course theor own views and opinions are the valid ones.
What Thomas Sowell calls The Vision of the Annointed.
And what David Starkey calls “the tyranny of the Know Betters”
Twenty years ago, just go to the party, probably via several pubs and a bus, be outrageous, drink too much, go home alone…. Simple, just stop using social media, problem solved.
The modern rise of ‘the offended’ has encouraged the inner coward and arsehole of many people to come racing to the surface. Offence is now an industry and is encouraged by The Left as a way of getting its own way through force and fear.
The question of what people should or should not be allowed to say isn’t one I struggle with.
It couldn’t be clearer to me that people should be able to say literally anything they want and should only have to face consequences for the damage that is clearly proven to have been caused by their words.
And in no case is being offended or upset idamage nor is it provable. I could claim to be deeply offended and emotionally hurt and no one could know whether it was true or not.
But I know I’m in a minority in that position.
The vast majority of people I encounter believe in free speech right up to the point where they hear something they really don’t like or consider threatening.
No
People cannot be offended without their own consent——–Therefore if people get offended then they are choosing to be offended. We have gone way too far down the rabbit hole of shutting everyone up, mainly because people are exposing government absurdity on almost everything, and we are being silenced to protect government from embarrassment.
It isn’t even true that causing offence is considered a crime.
I am profoundly offended and genuinely upset by many things like ULEZ zones, brain dead NetZdro policies, the taxes the state rips off me all the time, the vacuous virtue signalling of footballers “taking the knee”. Many things.
But I have no protection from the state from these constant offences.
”People cannot be offended without their own consent——–Therefore if people get offended then they are choosing to be offended.”
Yes, there’s a few on here that could do with remembering that. Not very consistent in practicing what they preach, IYKWIM… 🙂
I can’t think of anyone here who has been “offended”. Who exactly do you mean?
Is that sarcasm or are you just being over-sensitive and paranoid I’m referring to you again?
Neither. I just don’t think many/any regular posters here fall into the “offended” category, generally.
Interesting you take it upon yourself to speak for all other posters, though, isn’t it? As if you’re patrolling this place and scouring all posts 24/7 and are arrogant enough to presume what everybody else is thinking.
There’s been many posts of mine where people have spat their dummies out, going by their responses, usually involving accusations they’ve never yet been able to back up. They’re offended by my opinions which I’ll continue to unapologetically share. I think people like you are blinkered and see only what you want to see. Terrorist supporters, misogynists, you name it….There’s been so many over the years.
I’m certainly not speaking for other posters. Just sharing my impression of them.
As for “patrolling” and “scouring”, well, I do read most of the comments as there are not that many, and I reply to some.
Do please name the people who “spit their dummies out”.
Why would I? If you’re supposedly paying such close attention then that should be clear as day. And the irony isn’t lost on me that you’re doing an awfully good job of behaving like you’re offended by my rather simple, non-controversial reply to Varmint.
It’s like when you stuck your oar in yesterday when I was responding to somebody else about free speech absolutists. You were so hyper-sensitive about my remark you thought I was referring to you! That exchange didn’t even concern you, but here you are again, a repeat performance. 🙄
I think you need to get over yourself. Either that or ask HL if he needs a hand moderating this place, seeing as you spend so much time on here and enjoy pulling people up ( well, just me, seemingly ) on what they choose to post. But “free speech absolutism for the win”, eh?😏
I’d tread carefully or you’ll be looking like a right hypocrite in front of everybody.
There’s a difference between being offended and disagreeing with what someone has said.
I was under the impression these “exchanges” were all for public consumption, seeing as this is a public forum where the posts are visible and repliable to for all who subscribe. If you want to have private conversations, maybe look into direct messaging people.
And I think the “few on here” are doing a grand job of illustrating my point!😆 Thanks chaps.👍 Offended, much?🤡 What further proof is needed?🤷♀️
Being offended about other people being offended, seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black . Isn’t the issue that there really are some things we ought to be offended about and others that we should accommodate within a spirit of freewill reciprocity.