hypochondriac

And he succeeded every time. Be honest, had you not heard that random journo interview you wouldn't have posted this.

I think this highlights a big reason for the mess we are in: ‘52.6% of all UK households are taking more in benefits/services than they contribute in all taxes. In 1977 it was 37%.’ Just insane.

Exactly — and that’s the whole point. The bar in the Public Order Act is deliberately set high: speech has to be threatening, abusive or insulting and intended or likely to stir up hatred. In most of the cases I've highlighted — Miller, Brady, Scottow — the police knew that threshold wasn’t met, yet still logged incidents or turned up at people’s homes. So I'm not arguing against the Act itself. The issue is the gap between the law and the way it’s been applied in practice, where lawful speech has been treated as if it were criminal. That’s why the courts rebuked both the police and the guidance behind it as I said. Edit: regarding your final paragraph that's not how the law works. The public order act doesn't criminalise all insulting or abusive language online. The Miller judgement even makes this explicit that lawful even deeply offensive speech is protected. The problem was that the police treated lawful yet what they deemed unpopular opinions expressed in possibly a rude way as if they were hate crimes. The line is much narrower than "pretty much any and all abusive language" because otherwise half of social media would be criminalised by default.

I say this as politely as possible but what the fuck are you talking about? Drawing multiple fouls is obviously a positive.

The comparison with loud music doesn’t work though — in those cases, there is a potential offence under noise legislation, and the police or council have clear powers to intervene. That’s very different from turning up at someone’s home or workplace over lawful online speech where no offence has taken place. Of course the police won’t get total accuracy — nobody expects that. The problem is that in some of these “hate incident” cases, the courts have already ruled the approach unlawful and disproportionate. When you’ve got people being logged, visited, or even arrested for posts that aren’t crimes, and the police end up paying compensation, that’s not just “a few mistakes.” It’s a pattern of overreach that needs to be called out. As I mentioned there's quite a large number of high profile cases.

That’s not really the same thing. If someone hears shouting, there’s a potential immediate risk to life or safety, so a welfare check makes sense. But in the Miller case and others, we’re talking about lawful speech online where the police already knew no crime had been committed due to the content of the tweets. Turning up at people’s homes or workplaces in those circumstances has been found by the courts in many cases to be disproportionate and unlawful. The issue isn’t that house calls “always” happen, it’s that they happen at all in cases where no crime has been committed — and that’s exactly what the courts have rebuked even if some posters think otherwise.

That’s exactly the point though — the courts don’t hand out “naughty step” punishments, they make findings on legality and in Miller’s case, both courts found overreach. The High Court in 2021 ruled Humberside Police acted unlawfully. The Court of Appeal in 2022 went further and ruled the national guidance itself unlawful because it chilled free speech. That’s not just “sorting out” a few wrinkles, it’s the judiciary saying both the conduct and the framework behind it crossed the line.

Come on, that’s a bit of a rewrite of history. The High Court didn’t just “clarify” things — they said Humberside Police acted unlawfully and warned against them becoming the thought police. That’s not process, that’s a slap on the wrist. Then the Court of Appeal went a step further and ruled the guidance itself unlawful because it chilled free speech. So no, it wasn’t just the law being gently “clarified” — both courts made it clear the police had overstepped, and the system backing them was broken. It's also still happening so the clarification wasn't particularly successful in any case which is why they are still asking for law changes. In additionx the policeman admits in the video above with the American lady that if she admitted the offence he would simply ask her to apologise so clearly he isn't there in that case because he thinks a crime has been committed.

Anything criminal no. You might consider what they wrote to be wrong but that's an irrelevance in the eyes of the law. And the high court rebuked the conduct of the police for how they applied the guidance and additionally they criticised the guidance itself. They said that Humberside Police acted unlawfully for how they dealt with Harry Miller And a year later at the court of appeal they ruled that the guidance was unlawful because of its chilling effect on free speech.

My argument is firstly that there are examples above where the police do not believe a hate crime has been committed and they visited the house to talk to people anyway. Secondly my argument is that house or visits to see people at work are not always necessary and have been criticised by the courts. The manner of so called "investigations" have also been criticised in some cases with many officers, heavy handed approaches etc leading to police having to pay out compensation.

In a number of these incidents it is a singular vexatious complainant. In a number of cases such as the Harry Miller case it was entirely obvious that the content of the tweets did not constitute a hate crime. If an investigation was required then it should have begun and ended by reviewing the contents of the tweets and concluding that no further action was required. The fact that they decided to plow on and visit his place of employment is what overstepped the mark and is why the police were harshly rebuke by the courts for their actions. It may be that current legislation is too subjective and means that some forces are going to speak to people when they shouldn't be doing so. That's why police chiefs are calling for a change in the law because they recognise that there is a problem here and it's why forces have lost multiple times in court when these things have been challenged.

The caution was expunged with a full apology given by the force and chief constable and he was awarded £20,000 because the police acted inappropriately.

I don't want to have to repeat myself again and I'm sure others don't want to read it but I couldn't be much clearer. Police do not have an obligation to visit the houses or workplaces of everyone who writes a tweet that someone may have reported because they were offended by it. In the case with the American woman he said he would have to return once she basically told him to eff off and do an interview with her. Why did that interview not happen?

That would be great but sadly not. Slough where the incident took place is sadly much higher than average for the majority of crimes: The overall crime rate in Slough city is 114.3 crimes per 1,000. Most crimes, 6.4k crimes were violent crimes which is 39.1% of all crimes committed in the area. Violent crime rate is at 127% of national crime rate. Drugs crime was the fastest growing crime and it increased by 25.9% over the last twelve months

What about Julian foulkes , the old man who was a retired special constable: He replied to someone who had been on a pro-Palestinian march. His post said, “One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals…” He intended it as a warning about what he saw as potential antisemitic escalation. So officers visited him at his home where he was handcuffed, arrested, his electronic devices seized and held in a cell for eight hours. During the search the police saw copies of the Spectator and a Douglas Murray book and said they were "very Brexity things". He accepted a caution which was later expunged with a full police apology. Was that a reasonable reaction or just investigating something?

The judge was pretty unequivocal about it. Also in the example I posted above about the American woman, it's clear that prior to going to the house the policeman didn't think there was a criminal case to answer because he said his only intention was to extract an apology from her.

It's probably why the police chiefs are calling for a lot more clarity. It's not right that the likes of Lynsay Watson can abuse the police system to force the police to act in accordance with what they want.

There's been a fair bit of research into that. I don't necessarily blame the individual officers who are just following orders but the guidance and training received from organisations such as Stonewall have pushed particular points of view that are incorrect and unsupported by law. The tweet I posted above about the American woman from the other day "something we believe you have posted on Facebook has upset someone" "you are not being arrested" "my plan was if you were admitting it was you is that you could just make an apology to the person." He's said himself that even in the event that she admits it was her who tweeted he was only going there to seek an apology from her so what crime is he investigating exactly? Additionally, the cynic would suggest that chats with people in their homes about tweets is a fair bit easier of a job to do than going out to tackle break ins or mugging etc. I'm sure there's a section of the police who would prefer that sort of easy win.

That's the key bit isn't it. There was never a case to answer in this and other cases. Needless investigations such as the one above where the police acted like the gestapo according to the judge is where the issue is. Some police chiefs clearly agree with this because they have called for clarifications in the law so that they don't feel obliged to go and police tweets where no offence has occurred. Which aspect of the Harry Miller tweets above show that it looked like there was a case to answer?

Indeed and it would help if the police in this country adhered to it too. So we have now established that police do visit people simply for tweets in this country and also that some police chiefs have spoken out because they don't believe that police forces should be policing tweets that are not crominal. Direct incitement to violence then sure go ahead but otherwise there's a heck of a lot of burglaries and muggings that need sorting before we get to turning up at people's houses requesting apologies.

Of course people can face abuse I never claimed otherwise. I haven't denied anyone's existence. No one ceases to exist unless they kill themselves.

He's criticising pat bondi for talking about hate speech laws which is obviously anathema to most Americans. He's not wrong that was a weird quote for an American official to come out with

Here's an extract from that right wing rag the Guardian: Police officers unlawfully interfered with a man’s right to freedom of expression by turning up at his place of work to speak to him about allegedly “transphobic” tweets, the high court has ruled. Harry Miller, a former police officer who founded the campaign group Fair Cop, said the actions of Humberside police had a “substantial chilling effect” on his right to free speech. In a strongly-worded judgement, Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the effect of police turning up at Miller’s place of work “because of his political opinions must not be underestimated”. He said: “In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society,” he said. Do you disagree with the judge? Which part of the story are you not getting?

I find the idea of going round someone's house because someone has used the so called "deadname" of someone on twitter or posted a limerick to take the mick out of someone to be humorous yes. I often look for a balanced view but in this it's pretty black and white. Striving for balance also doesn't mean never having a point of view that would be absurd. The police should not be visiting houses intimidating people or requesting interviews under threat of arrest for tweets that aren't criminal. The recent quote from the police chief confirms that view. For something to count as a hate crime, there has to be a recognised criminal offence committed. What is the recognised criminal offence here: “I was assigned Mammal at Birth, but my orientation is Fish. Don’t mis species me.” Miller also tweeted: “Transwomen are women. Anyone know where this new biological classification was first proposed and adopted?”. He later wrote that the statement was “bollocks”.

"lynsay Watson" is supposedly a trans person and an ex copper who was fired. Many of these investigations have been undertaken at the behest of "lynsay" who knows the system and threatens the police with judicial review if they don't do what they say. Absolutely bonkers of course but the police are scared of doing the wrong thing as you say and so end up going round the houses and upsetting people who have committed no crimes.