I wouldn't apologise, general public be criticising me I be poppin a cap in their ass yo
A rapper who acted as a spokesman for Ed Balls' anti-cyberbullying campaign last November has been caught sending abusive texts to a listener who called into a radio show, the BBC reports. Chloe Moody texted The Chris Moyles Show on Radio 1 to express the opinion that band N-Dubz were "losers" and that frontman Dappy (whose …
Um, aren't sending death threats illegal under UK law? Or does it have one of those "Celebrity Clauses" whereby anyone remotely famous can get away with (threatening) murder?
From what little I've seen of Mr. Dubz, he takes himself far too seriously and can't accept the fact that many folk (myself included) think he's a right royal twat.
A/C because I don't want to receive death threats myself....
NDubz in mobile retailer "I need a 'phone to answer those who be dissin' me"
Shop assistant "Can I reccomend the unlimited text package?"
To assist MrDubz on this endevour, I've found a list of people who think he's a tw@
Whilst no fan of the "music" I've seen Dappy a few times on the tv and he's always come across as one of the most amiable people you could wish to meet. As thick as two short planks and several sandwiches short of a picnic but a thoroughly nice guy. I may be WAY off (my upbringing is about as far from "street" as you could possibly imagine) but my understanding is that the sort of language and the expressions he used wouldn't be considered an actual death-threat. That's just the way such people speak. I don't like it and certainly don't condone it but my understanding is that such words are just an expression of anger, not an actual death threat.
Obviously, the long arm wouldn't see it that way and the girl says she has not decided whether to report it to the police or not yet (having reported it to the "proper" authorities - Max Clifford - first).
...understand the law. It the person on the receiving end of the messages feels that there life it being threatened and it is reasonable for them to do so the in law it's a threat. As such it is a criminal offence. I don't think anybody would consider it unreasonable to consider that message a death threat.
Even if we exclude the law when you say, or text, anything you surely consider how those words are likely to be understood by the recipient. To do otherwise would be to miss the point of using words in the first place, i.e. to communicate. If something is said, or texted, in the heat of the moment then perhaps it's excusable. This was not, however, in the heat of the moment, but 24 hours later. I think any reasonable person would consider this to be premeditated, in which case I think we are safe to assume that the threat was intended.
Anyone remember the discussion we had about the use of the word "queer" the other week? Some people were of the opinion that if the user of the word didn't mean it to be offensive, then it wasn't offensive, even if the hearer of the word thought it was.
Meanwhile, here we have people saying, "he issued a death threat" therefore it's a criminal offense, however if he didn't mean it because "that's the way this sort of person speaks" then surely the hearer, as per the previous discussion, can't be offended and it can't be an offense.
(Aside: yes, I think anyone who issues death threats or makes remarks that incite violence should be banged up.)
Absolutes: yes, useful. Opinions: not useful as it means that one person can say something and mean it whilst another can hear it and be offended - whose opinion wins?
What do you mean by an "actual death-threat"? You do realise, I hope, that someone who is seriously intending to kill someone doesn't advertise it in advance.
And as for "anyone who issues death threats or makes remarks that incite violence should be banged up": let's not be stupid; we don't have enough prisons for that. Also, I'd really rather the police didn't waste my money going after people whose only crime is saying something.
For a funny example of how people massively overreact nowadays, see this:
Meanwhile, burglaries continue unabated ...
He really was a bit of a scrotebag on Never Mind The Buzzcocks - the true test of whether you're a worthy person or not is whether you can roll with the jabs and have a bit of a laugh at yourself (like Basshunter, as much as I detest his music), or if you just throw a massive strop (and walk out like Preston).
"Dappy himself is yet to apologise to Moody directly for his childish behaviour (which led one over-excited newspaper to cry "BBC in new 'Sachsgate'")"
Over-excited? Let's see: -
Sachsgate: two celebrities annoy another celebrity by phone, in an unfunny but relatively harmless prank.
New Sachsgate: celebrity(?) makes death threats against a member of the public.
I know which of the two seems worse to me, but perhaps I just have an odd opinion of this kind of thing.
If you can't see that there's one big difference then you are as dumb as you seem.
Ross and Brand were employed by the BBC at the time of "Sachsgate" and the juvenile stunt* was recorded and broadcast by the BBC. IOW it's clear that the BBC had an awful lot of control over events. The point being that Ross and Brand were being juvenile *unts, but the BBC should have exercised editorial control.
In the case of Dappy he was not employed by the BBC and the BBC did not broadcast his childish outburst. In this case the BBC's only error was in allowing Dappy to see the phone number.
"If you can't see that there's one big difference then you are as dumb as you seem."
Why thank you!
"Ross and Brand were employed by the BBC"
So your point is that it's okay for celebs to do anything they like, including issuing death threats to members of the public, as long as they're not employed by the BBC? Interesting viewpoint.
Balls needs hauling over hot coals for this one too. He was only too happy to accept a bit of celebrity endorsement for his campaign without bothering to consider what sort of person that celebrity might happen to be.
But then what sort of example has been set for Balls? Bliar was the one who introduced the celebrity culture to British politics and Pa Broon is the one that thinks that writing to an X Factor loser (and they're all losers) is as important as writing to the family of a dead soldier. Do they really think that sucking up to the Z list will win them votes. Of course the problem is that politicians are a flock sheep so they're all at it now in case they are missing out on something.
But then isn't Ed going to lose his seat in the next round of constituency boundary moves? Couldn't happen to a nicer despicable loser.
Anyone daft enough to name their band "N-Dubz" (or similar) is eventually going to put their foot in it. It's almost a law of nature. I hope MsMoody alerts the authorities, the pretentious, self-important little prat deserves whatever TheBeak can do to smack him with a dose of cold, hard reality.
I've never heared of N-dubz before reading this article but dippys actions has proven that the woman was correct in calling them losers, but thats slightly insulting to losers
I think the best thing he could do now is kill himself, he needs to take himself out of the gene pool before he spawns monsters as repulsive and disgusting as him.
I wonder if dippy is cybersafe now?
Point a camera at a chip shop in Kent and get arrested. Hand out death threats, harass someone and generally act like a stalker and it's OK, plod is too busy sledging on his riot shield or handing out public order fundraising tickets. Glad to see their priorities are all sorted. Or could it be that because this guy has met a senior Minister, is a celebrity in certain quarters he's untouchable from a PR perspective.
@AC 16:12 - yes, bell-end fits nicely.
I hadn't thought about the Data Protection aspect when I heard about this on Friday, but I think Auntie Beeb ought to face the music on that front. Had they instituted some data obscuring on their in-studio text message screen (e.g. only displaying the last four digits of the mobile number in question), this whole fiasco would never have happened.
Also, it never ceases to amaze me how unaware some "Urban" (hate that term) entertainers are of how little acceptance they and their music actually have among the chattering classes. I'm not saying they should water-down what they do (those who aren't already plumbing new depths of dullness), but for goodness sake, they ought to be more aware that behaving in a certain manner (or getting caught doing it) has an effect that goes beyond themselves and can have such effects as media witch hunts and visa revocations. All it takes is one letter from Horrified of Tunbridge Wells to the Daily Mail.
For the love of God, so now whenever the BBC has a guest on, they have to employ someone to hover over their shoulder making sure they don't look at something they're not supposed to? Will they get an existing compliance drone to do it in between manning the Mock The Week Misogyny Alarm or will it be hiring time again?
And suppose they had their "extra precautions" in place and had noticed Dappy scribbling on his arm - are they actually going to stop interviews with (reasonably) major stars because they think the guest looked at a screen? "So Spiggy, what inspired you to write "My Tears Are Crying?" "Well, I've never told anyone this or ever will again, but my dad used to come home drunk and shove umbrellas up my..." "Sorry, we'll have to terminate this interview because our producer is doing online banking over there and I think you were watching her typing her PIN".
Why should it stop with the BBC? I quite often have people in my house who could easily flick through my address book while I wasn't looking. And they haven't been CRB and ISA-checked up the arse as Dappy, as an anti-bullying ambassador, undoubtedly is, so everything the BBC is guilty of, I've done worse.
In a situation like this, the BBC as an organisation is legally bound to protect its data and that of its staff and any members of the public in communication with any part of the corporation. The analogy with your home and personal address book is, I'm afraid, irrelevant. Your home is not a corporate premises, and as an individual citizen, you are not bound by Data Protection. At work, yes, you will be, but that is in the capacity as an employee of a company.
That the BBC allowed this to happen by not appropriately obscuring this woman's mobile number should force them and the developer of their text message system to fix the issue so it doesn't happen again.
When you sign a phone contract, you agree that you won't use the service to persecute others (or however it's phrased).
By doing so, you void your contract and the service can (and perhaps should) be withdrawn.
Ahh, poor old Dappy... it couldn't have happened to a nicer chap *snigger*
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022