What is wrong with America

[hypochondriac]

19 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Is it not to investigate potential hate crime incidents though?

What evidence is there of a hate crime? In UK law for something to count as a hate crime, there has to be a recognised criminal offence. What is the recognised criminal offence in those cases ?

Edited Friday at 12:15 by hypochondriac

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I think it's quite clear what I was arguing because I wrote it in the post. It is not the job of the police to intimidate people by visiting their homes and seek apologies or check the thinking of individuals for non criminal tweets. I am also challenging the post from earlier who said that police don't visit people for a tweet because they do. After the linehan debacle it seems that those.i charge agree. Oh and lol at transphobic tweets .

Why do you find transphobic tweets funny?

It is not really clear what you are arguing. From what I gather you seem to think that people who are engaging in quite risky tweeting (and is an incredibly subjective matter) shouldn't be investigated by the police? Note the word "investigated" here.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

Why do you find transphobic tweets funny?

It is not really clear what you are arguing. From what I gather you seem to think that people who are engaging in quite risky tweeting (and is an incredibly subjective matter) shouldn't be investigated by the police? Note the word "investigated" here.

Because transphobia is ridiculous and not something I consider to be a real thing. Certainly not in law. I believe that the process in many cases is the punishment because the act of attending someone's home to seek an apology for something non criminal is intimidating, and courts have admonished the police for engaging in the practice. The police should not be going round people's houses to seek apologies because people have complained about tweets that are not criminal. They should be investigating actual crimes. Like I said, the latest info I saw from police chiefs is that they agree with me.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Because transphobia is ridiculous and not something I consider to be a real thing. Certainly not in law. I believe that the process in many cases is the punishment because the act of attending someone's home to seek an apology for something non criminal is intimidating, and courts have admonished the police for engaging in the practice. The police should not be going round people's houses to seek apologies because people have complained about tweets that are not criminal. They should be investigating actual crimes. Like I said, the latest info I saw from police chiefs is that they agree with me.

The police have lost bearing on what their job is - or at least their seniors have. The problem is society has become so sensitive about any form of comments (words are the equivalent of physical aggression BS) that people report any old shite to the police. The police, being scared of these overly sensitive people and not wanting to be labelled as racist or homophobes, etc then feel they have to “investigate” these matters. Get your phone stolen on the street though and that’s ok - your tweet with some obscure opinion is potentially more harmful to the snowflake than the thief that stole your phone.
 

Real and proper nasty stuff should be investigated but the threshold for investigating some of this rubbish needs to be raised as it’s a waste of police time. 
 

Edited Friday at 13:34 by Sir Ralph

[swannymere]

Again, we're not getting the whole story.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, swannymere said:

Again, we're not getting the whole story.

How so ? In every example I posted above ? Happy to provide further details if you like. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I think it's quite clear what I was arguing because I wrote it in the post. It is not the job of the police to intimidate people by visiting their homes and seek apologies or check the thinking of individuals for non criminal tweets. I am also challenging the post from earlier who said that police don't visit people for a tweet because they do. After the linehan debacle it seems that those.i charge agree. Oh and lol at transphobic tweets .

A swastika made of pride flags, and  Transphobic tweets are potential hate crimes. Alas, I'm not surprised that you can't see what's wrong with that, and find the latter funny. 

You seek to give the impression that you take a balanced view, but you really don't. 

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The police have lost bearing on what their job is - or at least their seniors have. The problem is society has become so sensitive about any form of comments (words are the equivalent of physical aggression BS) that people report any old shite to the police. The police, being scared of these overly sensitive people and not wanting to be labelled as racist or homophobes, etc then feel they have to “investigate” these matters. Get your phone stolen on the street though and that’s ok - your tweet with some obscure opinion is potentially more harmful to the snowflake than the thief that stole your phone.
 

Real and proper nasty stuff should be investigated but the threshold for investigating some of this rubbish needs to be raised as it’s a waste of police time. 
 

"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.

[hypochondriac]

25 minutes ago, egg said:

A swastika made of pride flags, and  Transphobic tweets are potential hate crimes. Alas, I'm not surprised that you can't see what's wrong with that, and find the latter funny. 

You seek to give the impression that you take a balanced view, but you really don't. 

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”.

Edited Friday at 14:16 by hypochondriac

[swannymere]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How so ? In every example I posted above ? Happy to provide further details if you like. 

Please do.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, swannymere said:

Please do.

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?

Edited Friday at 14:07 by hypochondriac

[badgerx16]

That extreme leftie Tucker Carlson has weighed in, saying the Administration is trampling over free speech;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tucker-carlson-trump-charlie-kirk-free-speech-b2829584.html

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

That extreme leftie Tucker Carlson has weighed in, saying the Administration is trampling over free speech;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tucker-carlson-trump-charlie-kirk-free-speech-b2829584.html

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 

[benjii]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

That extreme leftie Tucker Carlson has weighed in, saying the Administration is trampling over free speech;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tucker-carlson-trump-charlie-kirk-free-speech-b2829584.html

He's been radicalised by the FAR LEFT.

[rallyboy]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Because transphobia is ridiculous and not something I consider to be a real thing. 

Trans people exist, so abuse of them can exist, whether you agree with what they are doing or not.

But your Friday afternoon troll this week seems to be denying the existence of people who transition, which is bizarre.

 

Sentences I thought I'd never have to type...

[badgerx16]

Whilst the death of Charlie Kirk was abhorrent, let's not gloss over some of his views.

This is Kirk speaking about Democrat Texas Represetative Jasmine Crockett;

"The great replacement of white people is far more sinister than any redistricting project. That is at the core of the Democrat project, Jasmine Crockett is just some circus act in that entire operation, you shouldn’t take what she says seriously. It’s just a joke. What she represents is very serious, which is the continued attempt to eliminate the white population in this country.”

 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

Trans people exist, so abuse of them can exist, whether you agree with what they are doing or not.

But your Friday afternoon troll this week seems to be denying the existence of people who transition, which is bizarre.

 

Sentences I thought I'd never have to type...

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.

[egg]

29 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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?

The decision is not quite what you think. The decision was that these particular tweets were not beyond the line. Thus, transphobic tweets could be a hate crime although the judgement sets the bar quite high to be fair. The summary judgement is as below (I CBA to read the full 65 page judgement)

The decision "emphasises the vital importance of free speech in a democracy and provides a reminder that free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, and that the freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".

Donny could do with reading that. 

 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

The decision is not quite what you think. The decision was that these particular tweets were not beyond the line. Thus, transphobic tweets could be a hate crime although the judgement sets the bar quite high to be fair. The summary judgement is as below (I CBA to read the full 65 page judgement)

The decision "emphasises the vital importance of free speech in a democracy and provides a reminder that free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, and that the freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".

Donny could do with reading that. 

 

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.

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

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.

Disagree.

Where it looks like there's a case to answer, the police have a job to do. That's their function. The court's function where the law is untested is to determine and set where the boundaries lie, and then decide  who's on which side. 

That's our legal system. 

[Farmer Saint]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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.

What do you think the process is for the police investigating these things? I'm not saying I know, I would just be interested to know what you think it is.

So, how is it reported, what are the initial investigations etc, what initiates the call out to their house/place of work?

Edited Friday at 15:14 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

Disagree.

Where it looks like there's a case to answer, the police have a job to do. That's their function. The court's function where the law is untested is to determine and set where the boundaries lie, and then decide  who's on which side. 

That's our legal system. 

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?

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

Disagree.

Where it looks like there's a case to answer, the police have a job to do. That's their function. The court's function where the law is untested is to determine and set where the boundaries lie, and then decide  who's on which side. 

That's our legal system. 

The problem is that hate speech is subjective, so of course there are going to be situations where things are misinterpreted or certain people think that things are over the line whereas others don't.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

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?

But it's subjective, that's the issue. Some police may think there is a case to answer, whereas others don't.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What do you think the process is for the police investigating these things? I'm not saying I know, I would just be interested to know what you think it is.

So, how is it reported, what are the initial investigations etc, what initiates the call out to their house/place of work?

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.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

The problem is that hate speech is subjective, so of course there are going to be situations where things are misinterpreted or certain people think that things are over the line whereas others don't.

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.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's subjective, that's the issue. Some police may think there is a case to answer, whereas others don't.

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.

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's subjective, that's the issue. Some police may think there is a case to answer, whereas others don't.

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?

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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.

Well, crime has luckily gone down massively over the past, what, 15 to 20 years or so, so maybe at this point there wasn't much on it that area?

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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.

It's be like someone reporting murders over and over. But that is not on the police. The one time there is a crime they can battered for it. 

I still don't really get your point, and I've read nearly 2 pages of this. I'm assuming your point isn't as simple as "God, I hate it when police time is wasted as sometimes these aren't hate crimes".

If it is, then yeah, ok. Not exactly a groundbreaking opinion though is it?

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Well, crime has luckily gone down massively over the past, what, 15 to 20 years or so, so maybe at this point there wasn't much on it that area?

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

 

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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?

Wow, well if they thought that he was pro-Palestine that definitely seems like a threat of violence. I definitely think that needed to be investigated, and yeah, possibly a caution. 

Essentially they are saying that due to the Brexity stuff, and the tweet, he could be seen as anti-Semitic and a threat to Jewish people.

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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

 

But different police deal with different matters yeah? And who's to say it wasn't a quiet day?

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

It's be like someone reporting murders over and over. But that is not on the police. The one time there is a crime they can battered for it. 

I still don't really get your point, and I've read nearly 2 pages of this. I'm assuming your point isn't as simple as "God, I hate it when police time is wasted as sometimes these aren't hate crimes".

If it is, then yeah, ok. Not exactly a groundbreaking opinion though is it?

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? 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

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? 

I genuinely couldn't give a fuck about individual examples. As I said, some will be correct, some won't. My point is if a number of people report what they perceived as a crime, then the police should look at it and if they think there could be an issue, investigate it.

The amount of times that police get called out to bogus called, or domestic spats etc, but they still have to investigate them.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Wow, well if they thought that he was pro-Palestine that definitely seems like a threat of violence. I definitely think that needed to be investigated, and yeah, possibly a caution. 

Essentially they are saying that due to the Brexity stuff, and the tweet, he could be seen as anti-Semitic and a threat to Jewish people.

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. 

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

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. 

But that's acting without due process.

Sorry, I just am not getting your point - I think we'll have to leave it there unless you can succinctly write, in a sentence, what you are trying to argue.

My argument is that if the police believe a hate crime could have been committed, they should investigate it.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I genuinely couldn't give a fuck about individual examples. As I said, some will be correct, some won't. My point is if a number of people report what they perceived as a crime, then the police should look at it and if they think there could be an issue, investigate it.

The amount of times that police get called out to bogus called, or domestic spats etc, but they still have to investigate them.

Indeed, and especially re new and relatively untested law. 

 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

I genuinely couldn't give a fuck about individual examples. As I said, some will be correct, some won't. My point is if a number of people report what they perceived as a crime, then the police should look at it and if they think there could be an issue, investigate it.

The amount of times that police get called out to bogus called, or domestic spats etc, but they still have to investigate them.

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.

[egg]

The high court did not rebuke the police in the case you and I exchanged on. They clarified how the law should be interpreted. That's how it works. 

I think the point here is that you don't see that anything wrong has been done in the cases you've mentioned. 

 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But that's acting without due process.

Sorry, I just am not getting your point - I think we'll have to leave it there unless you can succinctly write, in a sentence, what you are trying to argue.

My argument is that if the police believe a hate crime could have been committed, they should investigate it.

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. 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

The high court did not rebuke the police in the case you and I exchanged on. They clarified how the law should be interpreted. That's how it works. 

I think the point here is that you don't see that anything wrong has been done in the cases you've mentioned. 

 

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.

Edited Friday at 16:05 by hypochondriac

[egg]

19 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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.

Therein lies your contradiction. 

The police believed, based on the complaints and the vagueness of the law, that there was something to be investigated. That the law was subsequently tested and found to have been wrongly applied is the process of the law being played out. That's given more clarity. 

You are interpreting a newspaper article re Miller as you wish to. The High Court clarified the law but, if you've read it all, you'll know that they got the law wrong in some respects. The COA addressed that. In doing so, they, as per the Hight Court to the police, did not rebuke the High Court, rather they further clarified a new and vague law. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Whilst the death of Charlie Kirk was abhorrent, let's not gloss over some of his views.

This is Kirk speaking about Democrat Texas Represetative Jasmine Crockett;

"The great replacement of white people is far more sinister than any redistricting project. That is at the core of the Democrat project, Jasmine Crockett is just some circus act in that entire operation, you shouldn’t take what she says seriously. It’s just a joke. What she represents is very serious, which is the continued attempt to eliminate the white population in this country.”

 

Then agan, Kirk also said "You should be allowed to say outrageous things. You should be allowed to say contrarian things".

Perhaps, on that basis, he would have opposed the Kimmel decision.

Edited Friday at 16:26 by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Therein lies your contradiction. 

The police believed, based on the complaints and the vagueness of the law, that there was something to be investigated. That the law was subsequently tested and found to have been wrongly applied is the process of the law being played out. That's given more clarity. 

You are interpreting a newspaper article re Miller as you wish to. The High Court clarified the law but, if you've read it all, you'll know that they got the law wrong in some respects. The COA addressed that. In doing so, they, as per the Hight Court to the police, did not rebuke the High Court, rather they further clarified a new and vague law. 

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.

[trousers]

33 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Kirk also said "You should be allowed to say contrarian things".

He'd have felt at home on Saintsweb then...

Edited Friday at 17:00 by trousers

[egg]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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.

You plainly don't understand how the law works.    

The police erred on the facts of that particular case. The High Court sorted it. They gave some clarity to the law, albeit got it wrong in 2 respects. The COA sorted it. 

Courts aren't naughty steps. 

[rallyboy]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't want to have to repeat myself again and I'm sure others don't want to read it 

I agree with you 100% on that and I suspect many others will do too.   😊

[hypochondriac]

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.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

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. 

Ok, so your first argument is similar to a policeman visiting a property because they've had a call as someone has heard a ton of shouting coming from next door. They don't believe a crime has been committed, but have visited to talk to. It's like a noise complaint.

Absolutely, house calls are not always needed, but do we have proof that house calls always take place in these situations?