What is wrong with America

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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?

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. 

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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. 

Loud music is another example. Police make house calls for that. No offence has taken place.

It's a bit odd that you are using a few examples of house calls being unnecessary to prove your point, as if you expect the police to be 100% correct. There were 150k hate crimes reported last year. To get 100% accuracy is impossible.

You're being unreasonable in my eyes.

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Loud music is another example. Police make house calls for that. No offence has taken place.

It's a bit odd that you are using a few examples of house calls being unnecessary to prove your point, as if you expect the police to be 100% correct. There were 150k hate crimes reported last year. To get 100% accuracy is impossible.

You're being unreasonable in my eyes.

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.
 

[egg]

Anyways, I'm not sure what this nonsense has to do with America. It feels more like what's wrong with Hypo. 

[Farmer Saint]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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.
 

For an offence to be committed under the Public Order Act 1986, the language must be "threatening, abusive or insulting" and "intended to or likely in all the circumstances to stir up hatred".

Pretty much any and all threatening, abusive and insulting language could be classed as stirring up hatred as that is what Social Media platforms are used for now.

Edited Friday at 18:05 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

19 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

For an offence to be committed under the Public Order Act 1986, the language must be "threatening, abusive or insulting" and "intended to or likely in all the circumstances to stir up hatred".

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.

Edited Friday at 18:23 by hypochondriac

[east-stand-nic]

20 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

Clueless as always 

No answer and unprepared to accept the truth as always. 

[east-stand-nic]

22 hours ago, egg said:

Genuine question, how many? Who? 

Regardless, you cannot address every issue by seeking to find an equivalence.

What else may have happened previously, doesn't alter the fact that what's happening is wrong.

So, answer my question. Was it wrong when Twitter and FB and Youtube were FORCED to do platform people based on not liking their opinions? Why is it you left loons cannot accept these facts?

 

PS. Google is your friend. Don't ask people and be lazy. Go find out for yourself how many were cancelled by lefties. Just accept it and stop being a child. Both sides get cancelled depending on who is in power, that is a 10000% FACT. grow up, accept it and your life becomes better.

Edited yesterday at 07:08 by east-stand-nic

[egg]

14 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

So, answer my question. Was it wrong when Twitter and FB and Youtube were FORCED to do platform people based on not liking their opinions? Why is it you left loons cannot accept these facts?

You said How many TV people were cancelled under the left loons of Biden and Co.

Me and others have asked you to say who. 

Who?

I'll ignore your second question as you're being offensive and I've got no idea what facts you mean. The 1st doesn't make sense.

[egg]

@east-stand-nic

An emoji isn't an answer.

Who? 

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, east-stand-nic said:

So, answer my question. Was it wrong when Twitter and FB and Youtube were FORCED to do platform people based on not liking their opinions? Why is it you left loons cannot accept these facts?

 

PS. Google is your friend. Don't ask people and be lazy. Go find out for yourself how many were cancelled by lefties. Just accept it and stop being a child. Both sides get cancelled depending on who is in power, that is a 10000% FACT. grow up, accept it and your life becomes better.

I can't find any on Google, so need you to tell us. Who?

[badgerx16]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

@east-stand-nic

An emoji isn't an answer.

To Nic it is;

"A picture paints a thousand words"

[badgerx16]

Ted Cruz, that well known denizen of the HARD LEFT, has said that Brendan Carr has acted "like a Mafioso, straight out of Goodfellas", and that the threats to ABC were "dangerous as hell".

Edited yesterday at 09:29 by badgerx16

[CB Fry]

You all know he's talking about Trump himself (after the riot/insurrection he started) Alex Jones for lying about Sandy Hook or whatever bollocks he says and all the fruitloops parroting anti Vaccine horseshit, that your "free thinkers" like Nic are going to lap up.

 

Nothing like the administration shutting down a talk show host of course. But whatabouters and going to whatabout.

[egg]

2 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

So, answer my question. Was it wrong when Twitter and FB and Youtube were FORCED to do platform people based on not liking their opinions? Why is it you left loons cannot accept these facts?

 

PS. Google is your friend. Don't ask people and be lazy. Go find out for yourself how many were cancelled by lefties. Just accept it and stop being a child. Both sides get cancelled depending on who is in power, that is a 10000% FACT. grow up, accept it and your life becomes better.

Jeez. 

Great contribution Nic. You make a statement. Get asked, politely, to clarify who you are referring to, refuse, get asked again, then respond with that drivel. 

I'm not googling stuff to answer your point. It doesn't work that way. 

I'll ask once more. Who? Please. With sugar and candy on. Thank you very much. 

[east-stand-nic]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Jeez. 

Great contribution Nic. You make a statement. Get asked, politely, to clarify who you are referring to, refuse, get asked again, then respond with that drivel. 

I'm not googling stuff to answer your point. It doesn't work that way. 

I'll ask once more. Who? Please. With sugar and candy on. Thank you very much. 

It seems to work that way when I ask all you lefty loons a question. So, I will do as you do, is that not OK? For example, yes you and many others on here loved it when Trump was de-platformed. Why? I got no answer to that as always, and please do not try denying it. I saw no outrage from any of your lefty loons when he and others were banned, cancelled etc. As ever, you only show outrage when it happens from the right against the left. It is just so bloody childlike. 

Honestly, your childlike ways are embarrassing. Are you like 17 years old or something? grow up FFS. 

Edited yesterday at 08:04 by east-stand-nic

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

45 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

You all know he's talking about Trump himself (after the riot/insurrection he started) Alex Jones for lying about Sandy Hook or whatever bollocks he says and all the fruitloops parroting anti Vaccine horseshit, that your "free thinkers" like Nic are going to lap up.

 

Nothing like the administration shutting down a talk show host of course. But whatabouters and going to whatabout.

You beat me to it. I was going to give some examples but was hesitant about being told off and having to do proper research!

I hope Mr Nic appreciates that other sources of information are available. I quite like using bing. 

Edited yesterday at 08:15 by JohnnyShearer2.0

[egg]

Just now, east-stand-nic said:

It seems to work that way when I ask all you lefty loons a question. So, I will do as you do, is that not OK? Honestly, your childlike ways are embarrassing. Are you like 17 years old or something? grow up FFS. 

I'll leave it there mate. You're just a bit of a rude/ignorant prick. If you can't back up your own point with names, don't try to make a point. 

[badgerx16]

Surely you all haven't got such short memories that you have already forgotten Biden's Twitter storms raging about the "HARD RIGHT" commentators and their "FAKE NEWS", their being "HORRIBLE PEOPLE" with "FAILING RATINGS, ALMOST ZERO", and his explicit threats to de-platform comedians who satirised him.

I distinctly remember John Stewart and others having to back down and apologise for making jokes in poor taste about Biden and his policies, and the FCC Commissioner's statement about the possible revocation of broadcast licences for outlets euch as FOX News.

 

Edited yesterday at 08:15 by badgerx16

[whelk]

1 hour ago, east-stand-nic said:

Are you like 17 years old or something?

Is that too old for you?

[whelk]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I'll leave it there mate. You're just a bit of a rude/ignorant prick. If you can't back up your own point with names, don't try to make a point. 

He has never answered a question here. Incredibly limited individual but a symptom of our times, thick as fuck yet genuinely thinks he understands things. I am so bored of his schtick now. 

Edited yesterday at 09:28 by whelk

[whelk]

1 hour ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

You beat me to it. I was going to give some examples but was hesitant about being told off and having to do proper research!

I hope Mr Nic appreciates that other sources of information are available. I quite like using bing. 

The twat runs out of posts quickly yet is obsessively on here with his emojis

Edited yesterday at 09:28 by whelk

[Gloucester Saint]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

He has never answered a question here. Incredibly limited individual but a symptom of our times, thick as fuck yet genuinely thinks he,understands things. I am so bored of his schtick now. 

Yep, he’s joined GM and Osvaldorama on ignore.

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Yep, he’s joined GM and Osvaldorama on ignore.

GM has already left the country (unless of course what he said was bs?) so might be one of Ralph’s unpatriotic mates keen not to contribute and hate their country

Edited yesterday at 09:36 by whelk

[sadoldgit]

The Land of the Free, built on mass immigration, picks on a law abiding granny who has raised a family in the US for the last 30 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgq63lgn7zo.amp

 

 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The Land of the Free, built on mass immigration, picks on a law abiding granny who has raised a family in the US for the last 30 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgq63lgn7zo.amp

 

 

As harsh as it seems, her removal was ordered 20 years ago, and she lost her final appeal 13 years ago. This feels like enforcement of something previously decided rather than her being targeted. 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

Reads as though the granny is fine to go but cant get the right documentation from the US / Indian governments?

And the issue is instead being detained.

 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

I'm starting to think Kash Patel was a DEI hire! 

[badgerx16]

6 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

No answer and unprepared to accept the truth as always. 

Is that your truth, or the real thing ?

Edited 23 hours ago by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Reads as though the granny is fine to go but cant get the right documentation from the US / Indian governments?

And the issue is instead being detained.

 

Indeed, "had her suitcase packed".

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

The Land of the Free, built on mass immigration, picks on a law abiding granny who has raised a family in the US for the last 30 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgq63lgn7zo.amp

 

 

Read the whole story, not the headline.

Edited 23 hours ago by badgerx16

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Indeed, "had her suitcase packed".

Whether that is the case who knows.

However the family do make the point of checking into ICE over the years. But now she gets detained. 

[badgerx16]

21 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Whether that is the case who knows.

However the family do make the point of checking into ICE over the years. But now she gets detained. 

It's what her DiL said.

As for her detention, it is obviously well OTT, but ICE seem to he deliberately going out of their way to generate this sort of headline. Probably trying to create a sense of fear in the non-white populace.

[egg]

23 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Whether that is the case who knows.

However the family do make the point of checking into ICE over the years. But now she gets detained. 

Sounds like she got it away with it until she didn't. As much as I detest Trump and his policies, people want us to enforce our immigration rules/laws, and that's all that's happening here. 

[badgerx16]

 

[tdmickey3]

6 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

It seems to work that way when I ask all you lefty loons a question. So, I will do as you do, is that not OK? For example, yes you and many others on here loved it when Trump was de-platformed. Why? I got no answer to that as always, and please do not try denying it. I saw no outrage from any of your lefty loons when he and others were banned, cancelled etc. As ever, you only show outrage when it happens from the right against the left. It is just so bloody childlike. 

Honestly, your childlike ways are embarrassing. Are you like 17 years old or something? grow up FFS. 

Oh dear nic the nut being shown up to be utterly stupid AGAIN 

Keep up the good work 😂

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

 

That is superb.

[Baird of the land]

17 hours ago, egg said:

Sounds like she got it away with it until she didn't. As much as I detest Trump and his policies, people want us to enforce our immigration rules/laws, and that's all that's happening here. 

The US seems to have pretended the illegal migration wasn’t there whilst letting them pay taxes. That was always going to lead support for someone like trump to crack down on it.

[sadoldgit]

21 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Read the whole story, not the headline.

I did thank you. What is your point? You think that her case is being dealt with well?

Perhaps respond to what I actually said, not what you thought I said.

Edited 1 hour ago by sadoldgit

[egg]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I did thank you. What is your point? You think that her case is being dealt with well?

Why shouldn't the US authorities be allowed to enforce a decision from it's own judicial system? Don't get me wrong, my heart says leave the old girl be and it must be heartbreaking for her family, but, due process has been followed.