• 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:
UK Police pay out £20K to family falsely arrested over posts on WhatsApp

www.bbc.com

Hertfordshire Police admit WhatsApp arrest error with £20k payout

A couple unlawfully arrested over complaints about their child's school say police have paid them damages.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

It was a PRIVATE Whatsapp group.
Three Police cars and six cops to arrest people for some social media posts (you can't get one to come if you're burgled).
Both parents arrested in front of their three year old.
They are never told which posts triggered the arrests.
The police claim the arrests were signed off at "Inspector Level" so this is not rogue beat cops going off the reservation.
The worst post they can find is the Mum referring the the headmaster as a "control freak" (i.e. hurty words)
Both parents held in cells for 12 hours.

The process IS the punishment. £20K is not enough - should have been £200K for what they were put through!

I'll be interested to hear from those here who support the idea of the "Speech Police" arresting people for hurty words, to tell us all what their justifications are as to why these arrests were fair and reasonable.
And despite the fact the left here will not like TalkTV (because they think its a voice for radical, far-right thugs... apparently), here is an interview with the father in which he explains what happens. Does this man come across as a far-right thug?

Click to expand...
I'd like to see that as well, are those people in the forum with us now?

ETA: Being discussed over here : https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ehaviour-of-uk-police-officers.329377/page-39
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I'll be interested to hear from those here who support the idea of the "Speech Police" arresting people for hurty words, to tell us all what their justifications are as to why these arrests were fair and reasonable.
Click to expand...
WTF? It wasn't fair or reasonable. That's why they paid out 20kquid!

You're so insistent on infantilising the situation that you have to make ◊◊◊◊ up and lie about it. Just don't, okay?
 
arthwollipot said:
WTF? It wasn't fair or reasonable. That's why they paid out 20kquid!

You're so insistent on infantilising the situation that you have to make ◊◊◊◊ up and lie about it. Just don't, okay?
Click to expand...
And yet there have been posters on this very thread who seem perfectly comfortable with the idea that social media posts ought to be policed... Do you deny this?

When I have posted examples of social media posts being policed, for example this list (which is by no means full or extensive)...

- Alison Pearson (detained because she mistook a Pakistan flag for a Palestine flag in a Facebook post)
- Julian Foulkes (detained over a post warning of rising anti-Semitism)
- Robert Moss (arrested over negative posts about his bosses online)
- Caroline Farrow (detained for using wrong pronoun for a transgender identified male)
- Harry Miller (detained for misgendering his stalker)
- Helen Jones (visited by police after criticising Labour councillor online)
- Graham Linehan (arrested by armed police for a tweet explaining what women should do when accosted by a man in the toilets)

... the response here has pretty much amounted to...
- spurious claims of misrepresenting details,
- blowing up minutiae out of all proportion instead of addressing the salient and important facts of the cases,
- character assassination of the people involved,
- personal attacks against me (presumably for daring to post examples some of the lefties here find uncomfortable)
- wailing and whining about sources.

Well I'm here to tell you the sources DO NOT MATTER when the actual victims of this free-speech suppression and police harrassment are being interviewed and telling the audience what happened to them IN THEIR OWN WORDS!! When certain sources are so biased they won't even report stuff at all, it becomes difficult, if not impossible to find a source that will keep the lefties here happy, so I have to go wherever it gets reported. These things are not false just because lefties' preferred sources won't report them.

The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I'll be interested to hear from those here who support the idea of the "Speech Police" arresting people for hurty words, to tell us all what their justifications are as to why these arrests were fair and reasonable.
Click to expand...
100% agree with you. Arrested for "hurty words" is something that shouldn't happen.

Speaking of which, why do you support the arrest of people for "hurty words" such as "'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action'"

There really is no good justification for it.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
No goalposts were moved or harmed in the making of my post, so perhaps you could explain exactly which goalposts you imagine I moved.
I'll wait!
Click to expand...
I called you out for lying about what people in this thread and others have said about what is fair and reasonable and instead of walking it back and apologising, you deflected with a dump of different situations and different examples.

Par for the course, really.
 
arthwollipot said:
I called you out for lying about what people in this thread and others have said about what is fair and reasonable
Click to expand...
And I replied by showing you my experience has been with dealing with the loony lefties on this forum.

If that looks like goalpost moving to you, then I would not be choosing you as the team goal-kicker!

arthwollipot said:
and instead of walking it back and apologising, you deflected with a dump of different situations and different examples.
Click to expand...
NOT different situations, the SAME situation. This is precisely what I mean when I said "blowing up minutiae out of all proportion instead of addressing the salient and important facts" - in this case, each and every one of those was the policing of social media posts.

Therefore, there's nothing to walk back and/or apologize for.

arthwollipot said:
Par for the course, really.
Click to expand...
Right back at ya!!
 
smartcooky said:
Therefore, there's nothing to walk back and/or apologize for.
Click to expand...
You said:
smartcooky said:
I'll be interested to hear from those here who support the idea of the "Speech Police" arresting people for hurty words, to tell us all what their justifications are as to why these arrests were fair and reasonable.
Click to expand...
Despite the facts that nobody here has said that they think that these arrests are fair and reasonable, despite the fact that even the Hertfordshire police accepted that they were not fair and reasonable, to the tune of £20k and an apology. But you obviously think that the posters in this thread are children, because you're using the language of a 4-year old, and you are imagining them making "justifications" that do not exist. You are lying and you are making ◊◊◊◊ up. Stop it.
 
arthwollipot said:
You said:

Despite the facts that nobody here has said that they think that these arrests are fair and reasonable
Click to expand...
You are mischaracterizing what I posted. Here... read what I said again, and this time, trying doing so from a position OTHER than your prejudiced dislike for me (a dislike that you have already stated out loud).

This is what I said. READ IT CAREFULLY and then will explain it to you...

"I'll be interested to hear from those here who support the idea of the "Speech Police" arresting people for hurty words"

I was not referring not only to this case - I WAS REFERRING IN GENERAL TO ALL CASES WHERE PEOPLE ARE ARRESTED FOR SAYING HURTY WORDS ON SOCIAL MEDIA.... and if you had bothered playing the slightest bit of attention instead being so anxious to have a go at me that you went off half-cocked, you would have undertsood the obvious.

arthwollipot said:
...despite the fact that even the Hertfordshire police accepted that they were not fair and reasonable, to the tune of £20k and an apology. But you obviously think that the posters in this thread are children, because you're using the language of a 4-year old, and you are imagining them making "justifications" that do not exist. You are lying and you are making ◊◊◊◊ up. Stop it.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant blather since that was not what I was talking about, as I explained.

Its you who owes me an apology. You clearly did not understand what I was saying in the first place... I am still undecided whether you had a genuine failure to comprehend, or if you are doing this delibeately just for kicks and to earn internet points with your lefty mates. Your answer to this will impact that decison.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I WAS REFERRING IN GENERAL TO ALL CASES WHERE PEOPLE ARE ARRESTED FOR SAYING HURTY WORDS ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Click to expand...
Okay, ya got me. I specified your general infantilising and puerile statement. But YOU read carefully what I said:

arthwollipot said:
I called you out for lying about what people in this thread and others have said about what is fair and reasonable
Click to expand...
I WAS REFERRING TO YOUR GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT OTHERS IN THIS THREAD HAVE SAID

Anyway, the Hertfordshire case wasn't a case of someone being arrested for posts they made on social media, "hurty words" or otherwise, because they let them go without charge, apologised, and paid out £20k.

Finally, you edited your statement in your most recent re-quote:
smartcooky said:
I'll be interested to hear from those here who support the idea of the "Speech Police" arresting people for hurty words, to tell us all what their justifications are as to why these arrests were fair and reasonable.
Click to expand...
These arrests. You weren't speaking generally here. You were referring specifically to these arrests.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Okay, ya got me. I specified your general infantilising and puerile statement. But YOU read carefully what I said:


I WAS REFERRING TO YOUR GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT OTHERS IN THIS THREAD HAVE SAID

Anyway, the Hertfordshire case wasn't a case of someone being arrested for posts they made on social media, "hurty words" or otherwise, because they let them go without charge, apologised, and paid out £20k.

Finally, you edited your statement in your most recent re-quote:

These arrests. You weren't speaking generally here. You were referring specifically to these arrests.
Click to expand...
Spin, spin spin... you just cannot be honest about the mistake you made...

IMO, your comprehension failure is wilful

I give up!

headbang.gif
 
Last edited:
Helen said:
You made a distinction between people snd entities as opposed to government agencies in the first quote. (I would also argue that some individuals have consented to being "targets", if it comes with a position they have freely chosen.)
Click to expand...
In the US, the right to protest is specifically the right to protest the government.

I don't think it's acceptable to protest an individual - it makes them a target, and is essentially bullying. As far as entities go, it's just shorthand for companies, charities, sports organizations, etc - any group of people who aren't governmental. I'm sure you can find some exceptions that I'd agree with, but in general I don't think non-governments should be the targets of protests. Boycotts sure - everyone is allowed to withhold their support for an organization. Employee strikes, sure - they're withholding their labor from their employer.

Protests, by their nature, are an attempt to force the target of the protest to do what you want them to do. They are ultimately coercive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom