• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

Emily's Cat said:
What about pro-choice advocates demonstrating outside of a church that is pro-life?
What about pro-palestine activists chanting on a campus with a high portion of jewish students?
What about a BLM march through a predominantly white neighborhood?

Where do you draw the line on what is acceptably provocative and what is not?
Click to expand...
Why this hang-up on where you get to speak freely? I don't get it. There are an awful lot of common sense restrictions on where you can exercise your rights, and I wonder why the "where" is so important? If you aim to influence public opinion, burning qurans outside a mosque on a Friday is not the best place, now is it? If your only aim is to provoke, though, it makes sense, as does chanting "jews shall not replace us" and wave swastikas outside a synagogue. Why is it so important that you are allowed to do that, while, at the same time, it is apparently beyond the pale to call fascists out for promoting fascistic ideas and calls to actions?
 
Emily's Cat said:
There is a bit of a difference though. In the US, the police cannot compel you to go to the station and talk to them, without some crime having been committed. You can be detained as a person of interest or a material witness to a crime, but even then you aren't obligated to actually speak to them at all - you have the right to remain silent, and you have the right to a lawyer being present during any interaction you have with the cops.

In the UK, you can be compelled to go to the station and talk to the police for a "non-crime incident". You've committed no crime, but you are still required to go to the station and interact with the police. If you fail to do so, then you can be arrested.
Click to expand...
There is no real difference, the UK "under caution" is the same as when USA police tell someone they are interviewing their "miranda" rights. It is meant to protect the rights of folk, so for example the right to silence, the right to have a legal representative present, the right to not incriminate yourself and so on. You can see hundreds of examples of such interviews in the USA on Youtube, and you will also see examples of the police arresting someone when they won't agree to a "voluntary" interview.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
In the USA, if there is no probable cause that you have committed a crime, police cannot detain you or arrest you or compel you to go anywhere.

That is how a country that believes in freedom actually behaves.
Click to expand...
That's the same as in the UK. And the good thing about England and Wales is that all such procedures are standardised (I excised England and Wales from the UK since NI & Scotland have different legislation however they are also all standardised) different police forces can't act in different ways as they do in the USA.
 
Emily's Cat said:
What about pro-choice advocates demonstrating outside of a church that is pro-life?
Click to expand...

Contentious, but it's the only one that is. ETA: However Pro-Choice groups do not have as a tenet "pro-life people are subhuman and should be killed". Nazis do say that Jews and various other ethnic groups are subhuman and should be killed, so even in your strongest argument it still fails utterly.
Emily's Cat said:
What about pro-palestine activists chanting on a campus with a high portion of jewish students?
Click to expand...
Pro-Palestine does not always equal anti-jewish. Even if one were to accept that it meant Anti-Israel (which I would argue it also very much does not but for the sake of argument) that is also very much not Anti-Jewish, unless you consider the marches done by Jews in protest of the actions of the Israeli government and IDF to be anti-Jewish as well.

Emily's Cat said:
What about a BLM march through a predominantly white neighborhood?
Click to expand...

BLM is not anti-White so this comparison is even worse than the Palestine one above.

Emily's Cat said:
Where do you draw the line on what is acceptably provocative and what is not?
Click to expand...
Well when your examples are as stupid as the second two it's pretty easy.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
In the UK, you can be compelled to go to the station and talk to the police for a "non-crime incident". You've committed no crime, but you are still required to go to the station and interact with the police. If you fail to do so, then you can be arrested.
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
www.gov.uk

Police powers of arrest: your rights

The police's power of arrest and your rights - procedures, identification, reasonable force
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
​
To arrest you the police need reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in a crime for which your arrest is necessary.​
The police have powers to arrest you anywhere and at any time, including on the street, at home or at work.​

Police cannot force you to go to the Station with them, unless they arrest you. However, all they have to do is say they suspect you of posting a hurty tweet that they consider breaks the law, then they can handcuff you, place you under arrest and force you to accompany them.
Even if it later turns out to have been a false arrest, and you end up suing them... it's too late. They have put you through the wringer of the arrest and detention process... remember, that process IS the punishment!
Click to expand...

catsmate said:
So not what was claimed then......
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion?

In the UK, all the cop has to do is suspect you of making a hurty post that breaks the law. He is already acting on a complaint from someone, and has already been told by his superiors up the chain of command that you HAVE committed a hate crime - this automatically fills the "reasonable grounds" requirement, so the cop can drag you off the the police station in handcuffs if you refuse to go voluntarily. Some of you need to stop getting your information about laws and police procedures from episodes of Midsomer Murders. What you see in shows like that is NOT what happens in real life.

Oh, and while we're at it, there have been plenty of claims that the series of links I posted in post #113 contained "right wing lies and misrepresentations", "not as presented: some are just plain inaccurate, some are skewed, and it is not clear that some happened at all."

So far, only @Carrot Flower King has addressed any of them, it was only one, and I think his interpretation is wrong. The man is clearly heard saying "We love bacon" and is clearly seen being immediately arrested and taken away. The video clearly shows this so there is no valid argument that this is somehow a lie or misrepresents the facts. It may be that it didn't happen where some people claim, or that police had extra powers on that day, but that does not make it any better (giving police extra powers to suppress free speech never makes anything better) and it does not make the facts go away. You can argue all you like that what the man said crosses some line (it doesn't in my opinion) but you can't rightly argue that his arrest wasn't a result of what he said.

This forum is supposed to be full of skeptics, but skepticism is severely lacking when people make claims that incidents are ""right wing lies and misrepresentations" but refuse to provide evidence to back up their claims.

There are far too many snowflakes and professional offense-takers out there gaming the system to get people silenced. UK hate speech laws need to be reviewed, the way Police investigate them needs to be changed, and the whole "Non-Crime Hate Incident" malarkey needs to be scrapped. The main parties in Parliament (Labour, the Tories, and the LibDems) want to maintain the status quo - and that unfortunately leaves the door open for Reform who have been winning local elections up and down the country, and getting defections from the Tories such as Sir Jake Berry, David Jones, Nadine Dorries, Maria Caulfield, Adam Holloway, Anne Marie Moss, Douglas Carswell, Andrea Jenkyns, Marco Longhi, Ross Thomson, Aidan Burley, Henry Smith, Alan Amos, Lee Anderson, Graham Simpson and Danny Kruger (a sitting MP) - that's 16 this year alone - its unprecedented. All this is happening on the back of huge public dissatisfaction with the way immigration, asylum, and free speech are being dealt with by successive governments.

The idea of an ultra-conservative Reform government under Nigel Farage is a very real and very scary prospect.
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
:rolleyes: Meanwhile,in the Real World....
www.theguardian.com

Police order world champ Terence Crawford out of car at gunpoint after hometown victory parade

Omaha police ordered boxing world champion Terence Crawford out of his vehicle at gunpoint during a traffic stop for reckless driving
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
www.theguardian.com

Revealed: US law enforcement claimed emojis could signal Tren de Aragua affiliation

Claims are ‘an unsophisticated, uneducated approach that demonstrates a lack of knowledge’, says one professor
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
And so on.....
Click to expand...
WHATABOUTISM-a-squirrel.jpg
 
Darat said:
Which isn't what you said and wasn't what I was replying to.

To your different question: I agree with the government stance in regard to Hamas and Hezbolah.
Click to expand...
What is the UK govt stance regarding waving Hamas or Hezbollah flags in public?
 
Planigale said:
Given the many war crimes committed by the IDF is it acceptable for people to carry the Israeli flag?

Nazi ideology was inherently racist, regarding certain people as being of lower value than others and a whole people as being worthy of destruction, similar views have been expressed by members of the Israeli government. A claim that Jews are somehow the chosen people and have greater rights than others. Islamist views are non-racist all races are viewed as equal. Claiming Hamas or Hezbollah ideology is equivalent to Nazi ideology is just lazy propaganda.
Click to expand...
Every country that has ever engaged in war has committed war crimes. By that criteria national flags should be banned. War crimes and genocide are quite different things.
 
arthwollipot said:
There's a difference between offensive/annoying and dehumanising/degrading.
Click to expand...
So we should criminalize speech based on the level of how bad it make somebody feel?

Honestly this is pretty stupid. . Maybe the people of Great Britain should grow thicker skin and stop trying to criminalize non-violent speech. Will make life there a lot easier.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom