• 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

smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't find it clear that yer man was arrested (let alone charged) for saying "we love bacon", rather than for other actions that day. That video makes clear what a lot of previous "reporting" of the incident doesn't, i.e. that he used that phrase, but not what else he might have done.

The context of his arrest has been discussed several times as have lies and misrepresentations about this particular event (much is in AAH and I'm not digging it out).

A couple of your other "examples" were opinion pieces from Spiked and, well, it's Spiked and does not give sources for claims, like the "30 people a day" being arrested or questioned.

The last time some numbers were claimed (I think all that ended up in AAH too as being OT for the thread) it turns out that those were not an accurate representation, but included folk arrested for stalking and the like.

Nessie has been pretty thorough on how legislation has been poorly framed (which most of us might agree with) and how police forces are dropped in the clarts, but some stories are just not as claimed.

ETA Many of those defecting Tories had been Farage-adjacent for years, have bailed after being voted out, were never taken very seriously (Dorries? Jenkyns? Anderson?), were clearly chancers (Anderson, who has somehow gone from Labour to Reform in recent years, while having a lucrative side hustle on GB News) and the like. The Tories have shifted way to the right and have no room for old skool Heathite, One Nation types - y'know, the ones who took us into the EEC, so it is no surprise that those who were already on the right of what was left jump a smidge more to the right.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, the freedom of speech loving Reform "Party" is getting some pushback for trying to limit the ability of local press to report on local politics -

www.bbc.co.uk

Nottingham Post launches legal challenge over Reform press ban

Council leader Mick Barton has not spoken to journalists from the Nottingham Post since August.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Nottingham County Council's Reform leader was trying institute a ban against the Nottingham Post and reporters linked to the BBC; legal action is being taken against the ban.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Meanwhile, the freedom of speech loving Reform "Party" is getting some pushback for trying to limit the ability of local press to report on local politics -

www.bbc.co.uk

Nottingham Post launches legal challenge over Reform press ban

Council leader Mick Barton has not spoken to journalists from the Nottingham Post since August.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Nottingham County Council's Reform leader was trying institute a ban against the Nottingham Post and reporters linked to the BBC; legal action is being taken against the ban.
Click to expand...
None of this changes the fact that Britain seems to have a real problem with respecting freedom of speech, and many British people seem to think freedom of speech should be censored if people are offended.
 
Hercules56 said:
None of this changes the fact that Britain seems to have a real problem with respecting freedom of speech, and many British people seem to think freedom of speech should be censored if people are offended.
Click to expand...

Awwwww, I thought you'd be happy that I provided an example supporting your thesis rather than arguing with it...
 
Andy_Ross said:
In the UK you can't be made to speak to the police.
You are entitled to independent legal representation.
Click to expand...
You have something in your reading of rights about "you can elect not to speak, but if you don't say something that you plan to use in your defense later, that ain't gonna go well for you", don't you? Which sounds coercive to me, because you might not know even what you are defending yourself against. You certainly wouldn't have a thoroughly reasoned defense prepared at that early time, so it sounds like threatening you to tell everything, in case you might need it in the future?
 
Thermal said:
You have something in your reading of rights about "you can elect not to speak, but if you don't say something that you plan to use in your defense later, that ain't gonna go well for you", don't you? Which sounds coercive to me, because you might not know even what you are defending yourself against. You certainly wouldn't have a thoroughly reasoned defense prepared at that early time, so it sounds like threatening you to tell everything, in case you might need it in the future?
Click to expand...
It's the same as the USA has for civil cases.
 
Darat said:
It's the same as the USA has for civil cases.
Click to expand...
Civil and criminal are different worlds, though. We have interrogatories for civil, but that's a list of questions provided by the adversary that you have to respond to (like, 'who was the pizza boy that delivered that day?' they often shorthand it to). You can not directly answer by saying 'the question is improper and presented for purposes of nuisance' and things along that line, but there is no requirement I am aware of that says you have to disclose your defense in full prior to hearing the prosecutions case? I have personally 'dropped bombs' on the stand when the adversary went fishing with me. It was admissible.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I was just letting you know how it is over here, that it's the same as a civil case in the USA were your silence and not answering can be brought up against you.

Over here most police interviews with arrested folk are "no comment" because their solicitor tells them to say that. One of the reasons the solicitor will tell them to say "no comment" to every question is if the case goes to court and the prosecution say "oh they didn't disclose X when interviewed" the defence can say "they were following legal advice from their solicitor", in essence it negates the prosecution point.
 
Darat said:
Yeah I was just letting you know how it is over here, that it's the same as a civil case in the USA were your silence and not answering can be brought up against you.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm asking- in our civil, or criminal, nothing gets brought up against you, unless something substantial was deliberately withheld during discovery.

Eta: a defendant generally doesn't have to say a word proving his innocence, much less disclose it in advance. It sounds like you are actually required to?

What happens if you have pretty ironclad proof of your innocence and don't mention it till trial? Here, nothing happens to you. It sounds like you are penalized there, or what you rely on has less admissibility?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Civil and criminal are different worlds, though. We have interrogatories for civil, but that's a list of questions provided by the adversary that you have to respond to (like, 'who was the pizza boy that delivered that day?' they often shorthand it to). You can not answer by saying 'the question is improper and presented for purposes of nuisance' and things along that line, but there is no requirement I am aware of that says you have to disclose your defense in full prior to hearing the prosecutions case? I have personally 'dropped bombs' on the stand when the adversary went fishing with me. It was admissible.
Click to expand...

Not a case of 'disclosing your defense in full' but the judge and jury can told and draw inference from your failure to disclose something that exonerates you, if there's a legitimate reason why it wasn't disclosed that can be explained by the defense but the jury gets to weigh it up.


The modern wording of the caution is "You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence"
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Not a case of 'disclosing your defense in full' but the judge and jury can told and draw inference from your failure to disclose something that exonerates you, if there's a legitimate reason why it wasn't disclosed that can be explained by the defense but the jury gets to weigh it up.


The modern wording of the caution is "You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence"
Click to expand...
That's the wording I'm questioning: 'It may harm your defense'. Does that mean 'the judge/jury might think you are opportunistically making ◊◊◊◊ up to CYA', or there is codified legal harm done to your case?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
That's the wording I'm questioning: 'It may harm your defense'. Does that mean 'the judge/jury might think you are opportunistically making ◊◊◊◊ up to CYA', or there is codified legal harm done to your case?
Click to expand...

No, it's purely that the judge and jury are allowed to consider your refusal to answer the question at the time, as Darat said a solicitor's advice is legitimate, an unconfirmable alibi that you don't disclose until after you've had a chance to contact the person might be considered suspicious by the jury although on it's own wouldn't constitute 'beyond reasonable doubt', it would just be another fact for them to include in their judgement.
 
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Or not. Perhaps most UKians don't want to live in a violent ◊◊◊◊ hole like USAia?
 
Carrot Flower King said:
I don't find it clear that yer man was arrested (let alone charged) for saying "we love bacon", rather than for other actions that day.
Click to expand...
He wasn't. We covered what happened in the previous click bait thread on the case.
Carrot Flower King said:
That video makes clear what a lot of previous "reporting" of the incident doesn't, i.e. that he used that phrase, but not what else he might have done.

The context of his arrest has been discussed several times as have lies and misrepresentations about this particular event (much is in AAH and I'm not digging it out).

A couple of your other "examples" were opinion pieces from Spiked and, well, it's Spiked and does not give sources for claims, like the "30 people a day" being arrested or questioned.

The last time some numbers were claimed (I think all that ended up in AAH too as being OT for the thread) it turns out that those were not an accurate representation, but included folk arrested for stalking and the like.

Nessie has been pretty thorough on how legislation has been poorly framed (which most of us might agree with) and how police forces are dropped in the clarts, but some stories are just not as claimed.

ETA Many of those defecting Tories had been Farage-adjacent for years, have bailed after being voted out, were never taken very seriously (Dorries? Jenkyns? Anderson?), were clearly chancers (Anderson, who has somehow gone from Labour to Reform in recent years, while having a lucrative side hustle on GB News) and the like. The Tories have shifted way to the right and have no room for old skool Heathite, One Nation types - y'know, the ones who took us into the EEC, so it is no surprise that those who were already on the right of what was left jump a smidge more to the right.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom