Posting offensive images to a social media network could get you a jail sentence.

Hardly worthy of a gaol sentence, and usually they run concurrently for offences committed or admitted at the same time.
 
I'd have thought his lawyer should have appealed on the grounds of traumatic shock and questioned why he was in court within 72 hours? Most minor offences take weeks to go to court.
 
Funnily enough someone posted a pic of the logo on the B17 Memphis belle on a Facebook group I belong to yesterday ,on the near side of the bomber is the logo of sally B reclining naked ,it actually got flagged up as an offensive image .and started a huge debate about who did it ,turned out to be faceberks own self policing algorithm
 
"A corpse, wrapped in plastic, apparently dumped in the enclosed courtyard area outside his flat's front door."

I wonder if "dumped" is an appropriate word here.

As to the prison sentence, it may be excessive but I'd say that his actions did need some consequences.

I'd have thought his lawyer should have appealed on the grounds of traumatic shock and questioned why he was in court within 72 hours? Most minor offences take weeks to go to court.

I'd have expected that and I'd have thought it was a lie. He behaved very badly and he deserved some sort of sanction, IMO.
 
Whilst I don't agree with his actions re opening the bag, which I can concur is an offence, so without knowing the legal technicalities for him being found guilty, I don't see how 3months jail time is a suitable punishment. My own thoughts are what if a photo journalist did this, could a news photographer expect the same jail time? The article states that some of the charges relate to photos where he didn't touch the wrapping. If this was out in the open in public view I don't understand.
 
Last edited:
Man takes photos of a dead body in a body-bag at the scene of a major catastrophe then uploads them to his Facebook account for everyone to gloat over ... words fail ... that he then gets invited to talk about it and justify it on the BBC! :rolleyes:
 
But you get images of corpses in warzones plastered everywhere for people to gloat over,, photograpgers even win awards for them. Go figure.

It's a shame the photographer he talked to decided to grass him up. Probably annoyed that he didnt get the shots himself.
 
Last edited:
But you get images of corpses in warzones plastered everywhere for people to gloat over,, photograpgers even win awards for them. Go figure.

You don't see a difference?
 
I saw his interview on BBC and he said he thought he was wrong to do it. But he was obviously traumatised by the whole experience of the fire and then found an apparently abandoned body outside his front door loosely wrapped in plastic (not body bag) and posted to his FB account asking for identification. He later showed the photo to a journalist who dobbed him to the police. He comes across as a very decent thoughtful guy who was more or less in a daze at the time and my thought were that he should never have been arrested let alone charged or imprisoned. Sometimes the headlines are misleading.
 
But you get images of corpses in warzones plastered everywhere for people to gloat over,, photograpgers even win awards for them. Go figure.

It's a shame the photographer he talked to decided to grass him up. Probably annoyed that he didnt get the shots himself.

I do hate terms like this. It's just a way of scumbags making people doing the right thing to appear to be in the wrong.

If I was the informant and anyone called me a "grass" my reply would melt their ears.
 
I saw his interview on BBC and he said he thought he was wrong to do it. But he was obviously traumatised by the whole experience of the fire and then found an apparently abandoned body outside his front door loosely wrapped in plastic (not body bag) and posted to his FB account asking for identification. He later showed the photo to a journalist who dobbed him to the police. He comes across as a very decent thoughtful guy who was more or less in a daze at the time and my thought were that he should never have been arrested let alone charged or imprisoned. Sometimes the headlines are misleading.

Total and utter BS. IMO.

He was traumatised but managed to complete a series of intricate and technical tasks. Yeah, right.
 
Is this a reflection of modern society, requiring the need to get 'likes' on social media, to document every aspect without thought? That rush to be the first to get content out there, to compete and outdo your friends etc
He contacted the photographer, thinking he was a journalist, offering the images.
 
News media nowadays rely on the general public to supply them with images, we hear the stories of photographers being made redundant.
 
You don't see a difference?

Nope, a corpse is a corpse. Having bodies lying around unattended is worth reporting. He didn't run in take a snap and run out. He had plenty of time with the body on his own which means it was just left there. Any commercial photographer would of done the same, but sold it properly and made a story of it.

This guy's only mistake was in the marketing of what he had.

Get it in Time and you're up for an award. Stick it in Facebook and your doing time.
 
Nope, a corpse is a corpse. Having bodies lying around unattended is worth reporting. He didn't run in take a snap and run out. He had plenty of time with the body on his own which means it was just left there. Any commercial photographer would of done the same, but sold it properly and made a story of it.

This guy's only mistake was in the marketing of what he had.

Get it in Time and you're up for an award. Stick it in Facebook and your doing time.

This corpse was allegedly sealed in a body-bag, which he opened to take pictures and share ... just out of interest how would you feel if that had been you mums body flouted on Facebook?
 
Nope, a corpse is a corpse. Having bodies lying around unattended is worth reporting. He didn't run in take a snap and run out. He had plenty of time with the body on his own which means it was just left there. Any commercial photographer would of done the same, but sold it properly and made a story of it.

This guy's only mistake was in the marketing of what he had.

Get it in Time and you're up for an award. Stick it in Facebook and your doing time.
a commercial photographer, and frankly anyone with the slightest shred of decency, certainly would not have opened the body bag.

I could see how there could have been a shock defence here, but what this man did was sick
 
I could see how there could have been a shock defence here, but what this man did was sick

I'm no expert but I would have thought that 'shock' would have caused him to leave the body well alone ... it somehow seems to me that other emotions may have been at work here.
 
Tasks that come as second nature to most people these days.

BS. IMO.

I doubt most people when traumatised would have the presence of mind and coordination to unzip a body bad, take photographs, post them on social media etc.

I know this is the day of no one taking responsibility for anything and hiding behind diagnosis and claims of trauma but that doesn't mean we have to believe it all the time.

YMMV but I call it utter BS.
 
Last edited:
Nope, a corpse is a corpse. Having bodies lying around unattended is worth reporting. He didn't run in take a snap and run out. He had plenty of time with the body on his own which means it was just left there. Any commercial photographer would of done the same, but sold it properly and made a story of it.

This guy's only mistake was in the marketing of what he had.

Get it in Time and you're up for an award. Stick it in Facebook and your doing time.

The guys mistake was being a heartless tosser.

IMO of course :D
 
Last edited:
The guys mistake was being a heartless tosser.

IMO of course :D
They dont all get jailed though do they? His action (IMO) whilst incorrect regardless of shock etc should have resulted in no more than a caution for a first offence. I thought the prisons were full to bursting point which is why hardened criminals are being let out early (on licence?).
 
I suppose it pales into insignificance really!
The death toll from Grenfell Tower may fall because some of those missing have been invented by fraudsters, the police have revealed.
There are eight people who have either been charged or are under investigation for fraud in relation to the inferno which ripped through the west London fire block.
Whilst some of those claim to have lost their homes to "get benefit" others have claimed to have lost loved ones, police confirmed.
 
I'd have thought his lawyer should have appealed on the grounds of traumatic shock and questioned why he was in court within 72 hours? Most minor offences take weeks to go to court.

It's not very often people complain about the court system doing things efficiently.....
 
This corpse was allegedly sealed in a body-bag, which he opened to take pictures and share ... just out of interest how would you feel if that had been you mums body flouted on Facebook?
No, it was loosely wrapped in plastic according to his description. And remember that the police regularly appeal for people to take pictures.
 
No, it was loosely wrapped in plastic according to his description. And remember that the police regularly appeal for people to take pictures.
Not of this type they don't!
 
The subject matter seems to be only half of the story, he was jailed because he posted them to social media. The subject matter and the way he went about getting the picture may well be ethically questionable, but if he had offered them to a proper media/news outlet he would likely have seen no repercussions.
 
Not of this type they don't!
That’s not true, they don’t specify any type. If I found a body in a bag at my front door I would likely photograph it whether wrapped or not, before calling police, I wouldn’t disturb it for evidential reasons. It seems to me (judging by accounts given in interviews and on eg Crimewatch BBC) that most people don’t phone the police even when attacked but phone their family for help. I would guess they also post on their FB page because that is where they “live”.
 
They dont all get jailed though do they? His action (IMO) whilst incorrect regardless of shock etc should have resulted in no more than a caution for a first offence. I thought the prisons were full to bursting point which is why hardened criminals are being let out early (on licence?).

Whilst I don't like the idea that criminals are released early or not jailed at all I can't say I don't like the idea of this ghoul ending up in prison and if his lawyer had gone down the trauma or Asperger's route as an excuse when it wasn't justified I'd happily see him in the clink too.
 
While I don't agree with (or even like) the actions of Omega Mwaikambo; I find the criminal justice system and sentencing in this country is inexplicable - this case (IMO) required a caution, perhaps a community order or at most a suspended sentence. Instead thousands have been wasted - yes in my opinion wasted - in retribution on a man who was in a traumatic situation already. 3 months in prison (he would have spent 6 weeks inside) would have done nothing to allow him to "address his offending" - he will have just sat for 18-20 hours a day in a cell watching TV. I'm sure in terms of addressing what he did; a couple of counselling sessions would have been more effective in preventing a reoccurrence and helping him understand why what he did was wrong.

Yes I'm a wooly liberal ... but short prison sentences have no purpose and no nothing to try to avoid future offending.

As for...
I thought the prisons were full to bursting point which is why hardened criminals are being let out early (on licence?).
You have to remember that sentences are given on the basis that (for up to I think 4 year sentence) half will be spent in custody and half will be spent on licence (some may be let out earlier than half way on Home Detention Curfew). If the licence part was abolished, then the majority of sentences would be cut in half. So its not a case that (as Alan put it) "criminals are released early".

But that has nothing to do with the case being discussed ... Mr Mwaikambo's actions are hardly that of a hardened criminal.
 
Go to Google images and do a search for dead bodies! Seems there are plenty of photographers out there now and in the past that had no issues snapping away. This guys is no more a criminal than any news tog caught up in a war zone. Thinking abut the films taken during WWII which show some terrible atrocities being committed. You could say this is history and important to be recorded so we never repeat the same mistakes. But then is Grenfell not an atrocity.....never to be repeated !

AIMHO!
 
While I don't agree with (or even like) the actions of Omega Mwaikambo; I find the criminal justice system and sentencing in this country is inexplicable - this case (IMO) required a caution, perhaps a community order or at most a suspended sentence. Instead thousands have been wasted - yes in my opinion wasted - in retribution on a man who was in a traumatic situation already. 3 months in prison (he would have spent 6 weeks inside) would have done nothing to allow him to "address his offending" - he will have just sat for 18-20 hours a day in a cell watching TV. I'm sure in terms of addressing what he did; a couple of counselling sessions would have been more effective in preventing a reoccurrence and helping him understand why what he did was wrong.

Yes I'm a wooly liberal ... but short prison sentences have no purpose and no nothing to try to avoid future offending.

...
Also a woolly liberal, but a relative is a criminal justice lawyer (defence), and assures me that the vast majority of sentences are apt, despite the media spin.
we have to remember the way this works; the jury only get the choice of guilty or not, and rarely have any insight into the previous behaviour of the defendant. Whereas prior to sentencing, the judge has a lot more information about what might be appropriate,

In cases like this, I'm inclined to believe the judge knows things about this individual that we don't now, or are we likely to ever learn.
 
Go to Google images and do a search for dead bodies! Seems there are plenty of photographers out there now and in the past that had no issues snapping away.
Are the images from the UK or do you think UK laws apply in other parts of the world?
 
Are the images from the UK or do you think UK laws apply in other parts of the world?

Is there a UK law that states you can't view or own images of dead people? As has already been stated what this guy did wrong was post to facebook.
 
If you are sitting in the UK, how do you get to view the images from elsewhere?
Fair enough if you think you can prosecute people in other countries, it has been kind of done. The unfortunate or stupid person in this instance took the photo in the UK and published it from within the UK. The "Law and Order" forces could get him.

EDIT. As Gary Laird said it is not about viewing but about taking ... but I would suggest you don't go viewing some current controversial topics just in case ;-)
 
Last edited:
Fair enough if you think you can prosecute people in other countries, it has been kind of done. The unfortunate or stupid person in this instance took the photo in the UK and published it from within the UK.

R v Waddon, unreported, 6 April 2000, a case relating to the publication of obscene article, the Court of Appeal held that the content of American websites could come under British jurisdiction when downloaded in the United Kingdom: images published on a website abroad were further published when downloaded in the UK.

EDIT. As Gary Laird said it is not about viewing but about taking ... but I would suggest you don't go viewing some current controversial topics just in case ;-)

Actually, it's neither. It's about the communication (ie transmission or sending) of the image.
 
Back
Top