Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Silly McSilly Face]

I’m still making my way through the Hansard transcript as it’s pretty long and I’m out and about so only reading in short snippets at a time. But arrests are different to being imprisoned (and I’m not necessarily agreeing with all the circumstances under which people have been arrested). Are there stats on the number of offenders actually being imprisoned for saying “mean things”?

No reliable official data on imprisonment but below is official data on convictions (could be a non custodial sentence). Convictions are falling (but arrests are rising) which reflects that complaints about people's social media and online posts are increasing - as i articulated.

If you want anyone to spend a day in police custody just trawl through their socials, find something that could be offensive. Make a complaint to the police. The actus reas of the offence (that a communication has been made that has caused distress or anxiety) has already been made out. An interview under caution is the only way to establish/investigate intent and under "golden hour"principles if someone refuses an immediate interview they'll likely be arrested and checked into custody with the justification of arrest and detention easily established as the need to obtain an account of events under caution before memory fades.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Give the nations relance and obsession with social media and the population numbers those stats are hardly shocking. I see the words "n1gger" and "pak1" on twitter at least once a day if not more, so Its also difficult to know or think any of those in these stats are wrongful or even borderline without knowing the individual cases. Also given the defence of Lucy Connolly on here, I am not sure I trust the outrage either

 

[scaramanga]

Give the nations relance and obsession with social media and the population numbers those stats are hardly shocking. I see the words "n1gger" and "pak1" on twitter at least once a day if not more, so Its also difficult to know or think any of those in these stats are wrongful or even borderline without knowing the individual cases. Also given the defence of Lucy Connolly on here, I am not sure I trust the outrage either

Why shouldn't she have the right to say what she thinks?

We should be defending that right, no matter how offensive we find what she says and thinks.

 

[scaramanga]

Still, it's not all bad. Some things can still be said with impunity:

Access Restricted

 

[markysimmo]

Still, it's not all bad. Some things can still be said with impunity:

Access Restricted

What an amazing addition to this lump of brick country we now live in

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Still, it's not all bad. Some things can still be said with impunity:

Access Restricted

Another divisive voice not needed, added to the gaggle of cnuts we already have on these shores doing enough of it

 

[scaramanga]

She pleaded guilty to her crimes hombre

I wouldn't hold the police/govt/judiciary in any higher esteem had she managed to get herself found not guilty.

It doesn't matter what she plead or whether it was proven or not proven in court. She was locked up for an opinion. Absolutely everything is wrong with that.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I wouldn't hold the police/govt/judiciary in any higher esteem had she managed to get herself found not guilty.

It doesn't matter what she plead or whether it was proven or not proven in court. She was locked up for an opinion. Absolutely everything is wrong with that.

Is a call to arms so people should descend on a hotel and burn it down with those inside an opinion?

 

[scaramanga]

Another divisive voice not needed, added to the gaggle of cnuts we already have on these shores doing enough of it

You're right.

But if you say that kind of wrong thing, our govt will actively fight to get you out of prison. If you say ungood crimethinks, they'll fight to put you in.

 

[scaramanga]

Is a call to arms so people should descend on a hotel and burn it down with those inside an opinion?

It is when it's just some random mum on Twitter, yes.

If it's said by someone who is actively controlling a group of people then that would be different.

If it can be proven that people acted specifically on those instructions from her, then that's a crime. If not, then she's being arrested for expressing an opinion.

 

[scaramanga]

What an amazing addition to this lump of brick country we now live in

He'll be an MP in some Midlands brick hole by next Christmas.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

It is when it's just some random mum on Twitter, yes.

If it's said by someone who is actively controlling a group of people then that would be different.

If it can be proven that people acted specifically on those instructions from her, then that's a crime. If not, then she's being arrested for expressing an opinion.

Then she is a div regardless, I can't defend that and what she said, not sure why anyone would TBH.

 

[markysimmo]

He'll be an MP in some Midlands brick hole by next Christmas.

As long as its a Labour vote, Starmer and his cronies do not care what he does or says

 

[scaramanga]

Then she is a div regardless, I can't defend that and what she said, not sure why anyone would TBH.

She is a div and I would never defend what she said - it's abhorrent. But it's important that we defend her right to think and say it.

There are two very worrying trends at play here:

1) The govt thinks it's ok to arrest, prosecute and imprison people for things they think
2) Even worse, the govt are actively working to criminalise a set of opinions with which they disagree, whilst protecting those they agree with.

 

[markysimmo]

 

[Rafa87]

I think people should be free to think whatever they want, after all you can’t actually police thought. There’s a wider question here about some people’s thoughts actually leading to metal health issues but let’s swerve that for now.

However when it comes to saying it in a public forum, I think there’s lines that need drawing. This is why the misinformation thing is so important. People go along with and act on what others say, no matter who’s responsibility that then becomes is another matter but I absolutely do not believe you should be able to preach whatever you want and avoid responsibility. If I start going about saying all people who are left handed and called Steve should be killed, most would laugh it off, but I absolutely guarantee someone would act on it if my comment gained enough traction.

There’s “free” speech and there’s hate speech. I’m sorry I don’t see how you should be just allowed to say whatever you want no matter how harmful to someone and we all just shrug and say “meh, free speech”. This forum alone has threads where you can see how certain people are at risk of being targeted due to the way they think and feel and react, people are very easily suckered in be it their own fault or not.