Who Is Joseph Kelly? Wiki, Bio, Charged, Age, Many More Facts You Need To Know

Joseph Kelly Wiki

35-year-old Celtic fan accused of ‘offensive’ tweet about Captain Tom Moore who wrote ‘yan, auld buddy, buuurn’ hours after the death of the NHS hero Joseph Kelly, 35, from Castlemilk in Glasgow, allegedly sent mail on February 3. Read tweet: ‘The only good British soldier is a deed, burn auld man, buuuuurn’ First decision to blame Kelly causes backlash from freedom of expression advocates Whether Kelly refused to tweet or denied that the message was offensive under the Communications Act is not yet known.

A Celtic fan denied the accusation against him via an ‘offensive’ tweet about Captain Sir Tom Moore, who wrote ‘burn, auld fella, buuurn’ the day after the death of the war hero and NHS fundraiser.

Joseph Kelly, 35, of Castlemilk, Glasgow, allegedly tweeted on February 3: “The only good British military is a deed, auld man, buuuuurn.” He was later charged under the Communications Act 2003, which banned ‘severely offensive’ messages.

Whether Kelly refused to post the tweet or whether he denied that the message was offensive under the Communications Act is not yet known. Kelly was given a trial date on Thursday, June 17. The act of blaming Kelly sparked a protest when they asked everyone to ‘freely protect’ while questioning why the police were using the legal system to prosecute ‘idiots who tweet stupid things’. do not speak, even if you disagree with what is said ‘.

The SNP comes as the SNP continues its efforts to introduce a new hate crime law that will make ‘fueling hate’ a crime – a ‘vague’ definition that critics believe can cancel culture. Kelly, who posted photos on Facebook showing himself wearing a Celtic scarf, was not ready yesterday when the lawsuit was summoned at the Lanark Sheriff’s Court and his innocent allegation was presented by attorney Archie Hill on his behalf. The Communications Act, passed by the British Parliament but also valid in Scotland, criminalizes “electronic communications” that are “grossly offensive or inappropriate, obscene or threatening”. It was recently used in the US to accuse a police officer who was accused of posting a ‘heavily offensive’ image of George Floyd’s arrest with other officers in the WhatsApp group.

He refused to send the message and the case will go to court.

The charges against Kelly are as follows: ‘On February 3, 2021, you Joseph Kelly used social media to send you a post containing a largely offensive or indecent, obscene or threatening character via a public electronic communication network, and this is the now deceased Captain Sir. It contained offensive statements about Tom Moore. ‘

Sheriff Nikola Stewart made an interim appearance for Wednesday 19 May before the trial date, which falls on Thursday, June 17.

Sir Tom, who conquered the hearts of the nation with his fundraising efforts during the first coronavirus lockout, died at Bedford Hospital on February 2 after the Covid-19 test was positive.

He walked 100 laps in his garden before his 100th birthday and raised over £ 32 million for the NHS.

The decision to indict Kelly was announced earlier this month and sparked a backlash on the grounds of freedom of expression.

Laurence Fox tweeted: ‘The police should be free to do their job to investigate true crime, rather than arrest fools who tweet stupid things.

‘Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of any open society. Protect it even if you don’t like it or don’t accept it. ‘

A libertarian Scottish Twitter user wrote “my country is a joke” next to an article announcing the accusation.

Political mentor Adrian Hilton wrote: ‘I would like to know why this man was arrested, unless this tweet threatened violence or provoked civil unrest or caused other harm. We have the right to be ‘offensive’ and that is a high bar … ‘

This comes as the SNP continues its attempts to introduce a controversial new hate crime law that would make ‘hate-inducing’ a crime.

Senior attorney Thomas Ross, QC, is one of the highest-profile critics of the SNP’s hate crime bill.

He warned that it would be ‘impossible’ for the Scots to know if they committed a crime, which could lead to controversy over controversial issues.

He believes the laws are already in place to deal with those who have committed hate crimes, whereas the ambiguous language used in the Bill could lead to the acquittal of serious offenders.

Serious concerns arose, including vague language and references to ‘inflamed material’.

Lawyers, politicians, campaigners and religious groups believe the law can have a devastating effect on freedom of expression.

In particular, they believe that an episode that refers to ‘hate-inducing’ indicates that someone could be blamed for comments perceived as offensive, even if not intentionally.

There are also concerns that people could be prosecuted for possessing ‘provocative material’, which could include books, blogs, brochures or social media. Those who share, transmit or repeat such material can also be blamed.

Ross said: ‘If the Scottish Government is to create a crime that can be committed unintentionally, the drafters must clarify the basis of the crime. They failed to do this.

The language used in the bill is so difficult to understand that it will be impossible for the man or woman on the street to know when to cross the line.

One might think, ‘I don’t intend to be offensive and I don’t think this comment is abusive, but what could a legendary sheriff think about this if the financial prosecutor is persuaded to sue? Why take this chance