55-year-old Woman Arrested for Posting Inaccurate Information

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

What about all the people you have labelled scum lately, if any of them get done over are you going to feel morally responsible?

Labeled scum for a reason SprocketUK, i mean if it looks like a duck and quacks like one, its a duck.

If you mean Farage, he's afraid of milkshakes, i would not want to see that hit but covered, hitting it would be a liberty.

As to Tate and Robinson, if they get done over, i certainly would not lose any sleep, as their bread and butter are violence to begin with.

Pray tell all the same why should i feel morally responsible?

I did not make them say what they did or choose to spread hatred and falsehoods.

Nor did i make or encourage people to go out and destroy our towns and cities via mobbing and rioting.

That was there of volition i think you may find.

Well you obviously hold others responsible for their words in this regard, I just wondered if you had a blindspot and I wasnt necessarily talking about Farage and Tate and the like, but some of the idiots throwing bins at coppers and stuff.

originally posted by: bastion
Arresting her seems over the top but she has made a career out of spreading total bollocks on tiktok and GBNews.

rationalwiki.org...

Try it in America. Land of 400 million guns and minimal respect of authorities.

a reply to: SprocketUK

The "idiots" throwing bins at coppers and stuff were mobbing and rioting SprocketUK.

Essentially they were looking for a fight and to cause others harm.

To destroy other people's property that did not belong to them.

If that is not the very definition of scum I'm not quite sure what is.

Why should i not call those that choose to do that sort of thing scum?

What would you like me to call them instead?

Surely you are not condoning the actions of those sorts of people?

Dont you think they should be brought to justice and held to account for what they did?

They deserve all they have coming as far as i can see aside from some harsh words from me.

a reply to: BigDuckEnergy

I think you should test the premise of that nonsense and do just that if thats how you feel.

Because I'm not inciting a riot or saying anything that's not true.

Im allowed to not lose sleep over things you see, especially over things like those nasty articles.

Report me I dare you to.

Point of fact i double dare you.

Why wonder?

See it's not me that has to worry about a chap at the door because of what I've done or said.

Other people, maybe not so much.............

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

The "idiots" throwing bins at coppers and stuff were mobbing and rioting SprocketUK.

Essentially they were looking for a fight and to cause others harm.

To destroy other people's property that did not belong to them.

If that is not the very definition of scum I'm not quite sure what is.

Why should i not call those that choose to do that sort of thing scum?

What would you like me to call them instead?

Surely you are not condoning the actions of those sorts of people?

Dont you think they should be brought to justice and held to account for what they did?

They deserve all they have coming as far as i can see aside from some harsh words from me.

I'm not trying to tell you what words to use or to not use.

It was just my reaction to the idea that whatever the law did to people spreading rubbish they had it coming due to possible consequences of other people acting against those they libelled.

I wondered, if you felt that was true, would you then feel any responsibility to people you have labelled scum etc (In some cases justifiably)

a reply to: SprocketUK

Here's your problem there SprocketUK.

It was not the Police stations they smashed up or Westminster they attempted to destroy.

It was predominantly their own towns and streets.

Or other people's towns and streets.

Never mind hotels with people inside including staff they tried to destroy.

Would you have had the law do if not attempt to stop them?

Are you telling me those mobbing and rioting and attacking authorities were justified?

Because that's not peaceful protest and if it was your stuff the chose to destroy or your car they burned out, I think you would have wanted Police to intervene.

a reply to: andy06shake

Justified? Nah, not a chance.
Understandable though? Thats another issue, and I don't mean all of them, but lets face it, politicians never bloody listen when you are being reasonable, same as bosses never listen if they know you aint gonna go on strike.

For too long, the average joe and Jane on the street have told politicians that they cant cope but the politicians ooh and ahh and do nothing....This was partly about demanding they hear people rather than ignore them and, rather than try to seek some way of making life better for everyone so this sort of thing doesn't happen again, TPTB are just demonising everyone who was part of it, trying to stifle freedom of expression because some people lie.

a reply to: SprocketUK

politicians never bloody listen when you are being reasonable, same as bosses never listen if they know you aint gonna go on strike.

Same page mate but the fact is we did not decide to vent our steam via mobbing and rioting and destroying our own town and city streets.

Those that did choose to do so broke the law.

As to the rest of that i dont necessarily disagree but i will tell you one thing, they are going to jail, and in there they won't be heard and will indeed be ignored.

Upholding and enforcing the law is not trying to stifle freedom, because without those laws freedom the way you and i think of the concept simply does not exist.

Anarchy prevails and survival of the fittest becomes the colour of the day.

a reply to: andy06shake
I'm all for arresting rioters mate, its bystanders and people on twitter I don't want arrested.

How bloody stupid do they make our country look when they announce they might go after Elon Musk for owning twitter?

a reply to: SprocketUK

I'm all for arresting rioters mate, its bystanders and people on twitter I don't want arrested.

Pretty much the same page again, aside from if they are online insighting hatred or spending falsehoods to insight hate.

Because again words have power, and if repeated enough, well "“Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and eventually people will start to believe it".

How bloody stupid do they make our country look when they announce they might go after Elon Musk for owning Twitter?

I did have a chortle at that, but that just goes to show that to a certain extent money and power can shield the rich and privileged, which is another two-tier system if you think about it.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

I'm all for arresting rioters mate, its bystanders and people on twitter I don't want arrested.

Pretty much the same page again, aside from if they are online insighting hatred or spending falsehoods to insight hate.

Because again words have power, and if repeated enough, well "“Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and eventually people will start to believe it".

How bloody stupid do they make our country look when they announce they might go after Elon Musk for owning Twitter?

I did have a chortle at that, but that just goes to show that to a certain extent money and power can shield the rich and privileged, which is another two-tier system if you think about it.

Well, when you consider things like the crazy church folks who started up the Aryan Nation or the blokes who made sure 2nd world war nazi propaganda got re published and distributed in Europe. No one ever talked about extraditing them but some bloke whos a bit of an ar5e now and then....They are up for it.

(For the record, I dont think the others should have been extradited either, it was just an example of the disproportionality of it all)

a reply to: SprocketUK

The standards and etiquette people are held to today are different from the past.

Such is the bane of the information age in which we exist i suppose and social media in general.

Down to the way we communicate with one another worldwide in this day of age.

Days gone by an ar@ehole was just an ar@ehole, predominantly in his own postcode, not so now i suppose.

Other problems arise also when we try and hold the standards of today up to those of the past.

Its a safe bet the world is changing and maybe not for the better but it's inevitable, and painful by the looks of things.

a reply to: andy06shake

Good point. It just seems like we get less freedom rather than more.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Could be right SprocketUK.

Best not to give the bastards the tools to take away the freedom that does remain all the same.

Freedom is not free by my guess, never has been and never will be.

Nonetheless, its a desirable thing to possess, illusory or otherwise, same with security which is another illusory notion people dont like to live without.

originally posted by: andy06shake
The UK does have an extradition agreement with Romania.

Considering the lies and pictures Andrew Tate chose to post about the person responsible for the horrendous attack.

Being a 55-year-old Muslim just off the boats.

I would think the Police would be wanting a few words.

There's an active case against him in Romania so they wouldn't let him be taken to the UK to be tried there before they are finished with him.

Words have power certainly so.

Making hate illegal, outrageous. Hate is every single ounce as important as love. You can’t even have one without the other. No light without dark, no up without down, no love without hate.

Its internal and integral part of who we are as humans to deny your hate is to deny yourself. Thats not to say let yourself be consumed by hate no that’s just as stupid and dangerous as being consumed by love.

Hate exists in the mind for very valid and substantial reasons

Those who wholly deny themselves of their hate, are physiologically castrated in my opinion. It requires careful reflection and understanding of one’s self and why they feel that way however. Blind hated is very dangerous.


a reply to: andy06shake

a reply to: Athetos

Hate as an emotion or belief may not be illegal, but actions based on hate that harm others or infringe on their rights can be, and often are.

And according to the law Athetos things like hate speech is illegal, same as hate crimes, discrimination, harassment, and incitement to commit violence.

I dont see many people being charged with the likes of love crimes put it that way.

a reply to: gortex

I'd like to ask you a question? do you believe there should be no conquences for wrongly naming someone online?

The sharing of information you believe to be correct in a moving situation that turns out later to be false is a mistake , only in authoritarian dictatorships is it a criminal offence , mistakes happen.

You say 'mistakes happen' but we've had people burnt to death because they've been wrongly called a pedo' by a few nasty neighbours, thats a bit more than a mistake.
The same can be said for the supposed attacks on mosques since the stabbing and killing in Southport. In my opinion all the rioters have done is make themselves look like yobs and vandals, and devalued any worries about mass immagration to our beautiful country. Now if you want to talk about it, you're labeled a far-right yob.

a reply to: Athetos

That's a good point - hate isn't illegal in the UK as we have freedom of thought and belief however no rights or freedoms in the UK automatically supercede another so people can't do so in a way that threatens others life, liberty, privacy etc...

The internet has a lot more draconian laws than all other areas in the UK for dumb reasons (probably politicians not understanding the internet or social media). What is perfectly legal to say verbally or in writing offline can be a serious offence online under the Malicious Communications Act and the new Online Safety Bill this woman was arrested under.

I can't find any info on her being charged so hopefully authorities have seen sense and realised this was a massive waste of police resources amd she wasn't inciting any hatred or rioting as she used the qualifier 'if true things will kick off' not instructing people to riot or claiming the info was confirmed fact. If it ever made it to court it would be easy to avoid any conviction under human rights law.

The wife of a Tory councillor however was rightfully arrested and charged for inciting racial hatred as she posted “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it.” which is a direct call for mass murder, rioting, arson and is probably going to get a few months in jail.

If people are prohibited from having open, civil conversation about the issues of immigration, integration, cohesion etc... it generally pushes people into more extreme or hate filled views while honest dialogue generally makes people realise they have a lot more in common than not or, at worst, agree to disagree.

a reply to: bastion

Was that sentence, 'if true things will kick off', at the end of her post? How many people don't get past the click bait title to be incited?