55-year-old Woman Arrested for Posting Inaccurate Information

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: ColeYounger2

Our government hates us mate , anyone who has pride in their country , its history and traditions , and who fear for its future seem to be seen as an enemy of the state , our freedom of speech have been curtailed over the years but now under this brave new world government we are being corralled into a state of acceptance , walk their path and stay safe or deviate and face the draconian consequences.

Free no more.

I can’t help but notice that you’ve been sounding like those racist Trump supporters you’ve been hating on for years now.

originally posted by: quintessentone
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?

Yeah it was meant to be in her original tweet according to BBC etc...I don't have twitter so can't tell for sure. If she hadn't included that then it would be a very hard case to defend but because it's in there it's baffling why police even wasted time arresting her other than using her as an example to deter others (pretty sure thats illegal for police or courts to do but not certain).

Civil unrest spills over into violence not because of social media or the internet. People are not groomed or coerced quite as easily as that. Major contributory factor is over policing. Agitators placed in the crowds, uniformed riot squads all lined up, shouting senseless 'orders' and instructions, curbing freedom of movement and expression, direct threat. There are probably other ingredients in play (such as weaponised facial recognition technology) to cause mayhem that allows the establishment to continue criminalising dissent, belittle moral outrage and create a scapegoat for when and how the freedoms of the many are reduced to the right to choose your bog-roll brand.

The reason why armed groups of 'protestors' that are not white English have not become all out riot is because those protests are not over policed. The reason so few people even know this is happening is because the established news outlets are focusing on white working class rage and not publishing the blowback.

All those calling for draconian and armed response have no idea how, long term, this will not be confined to groups of angry white people's outpouring of enraged grief over the slaughter of the innocent.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: quintessentone
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?

Yeah it was meant to be in her original tweet according to BBC etc...I don't have twitter so can't tell for sure. If she hadn't included that then it would be a very hard case to defend but because it's in there it's baffling why police even wasted time arresting her other than using her as an example to deter others (pretty sure thats illegal for police or courts to do but not certain).

Yeah, I don't use twitter nor do I care to, so if she did use that wording, then she covered her arse, but, again, people who are attracted to that type of click bait incitement titles most likely won't get to far to read those words, or if they do, the bias will kick in and they won't acknowledge, nor remember it.

a reply to: quintessentone

Adding 'allegedly', 'if true', 'people say' etc isn't a get out of jail free card when making statements that would otherwise be illegal.

If it was people would be able to say whatever they want free of legal consequences. Cleary the law isn't structured that way.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
a reply to: quintessentone

Adding 'allegedly', 'if true', 'people say' etc isn't a get out of jail free card when making statements that would otherwise be illegal.

If it was people would be able to say whatever they want free of legal consequences. Cleary the law isn't structured that way.

What ever happened to ignorance is no excuse?

It looks like Cheshire Police arrested two more people who were stirring the hatred/incitement pot via publication.

www.cheshire.police.uk...

originally posted by: BedeveremTheWise
a reply to: quintessentone

Adding 'allegedly', 'if true', 'people say' etc isn't a get out of jail free card when making statements that would otherwise be illegal.

If it was people would be able to say whatever they wt free of legal consequences. Cleary the law isn't structured that way.

It's not get out of jail free but it does offer a lot of protection to journalists from defamation claims. Failing to use it when talking/writing about ongoing court cases would make the person guilty of Contempt of Court by predjudicing the jury; but it's strongly advisable for people unqualified/acreddited in UK Law, Journalism Law or can't afford good lawyers not to rely on it.

The main defamation legal teams in the UK, Carter Ruck and Shillings, operate on a Conditional Fee Arangement (no win, no fee) basis and charged £300 an hour and £500 a letter when I was working as a journo around 15 years ago. Unless you can confidently tell them to go # themselves the legal fees alone cost over £1m if you lose a case and they intentionally arrange court cases to be heard on Friday afternoons when only the junior/gullible judges are working.

I don't think she used it as a clause in this case as she didn't put it in italics or inverted commas which is the standard in UK journalism and failed to mention its presence in all but one interview with the press.

a reply to: gortex

So what's your point?
She posted false information to either intentionally or ignorantly spread racial hatred which ended up with dozens of protests by brain dead bigots up and down the country. And now she's facing up to the consequence of those actions.

Are you saying nothing should have been done about it?

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: BedeveremTheWise
a reply to: quintessentone

Adding 'allegedly', 'if true', 'people say' etc isn't a get out of jail free card when making statements that would otherwise be illegal.

If it was people would be able to say whatever they wt free of legal consequences. Cleary the law isn't structured that way.

It's not get out of jail free but it does offer a lot of protection to journalists from defamation claims. Failing to use it when talking/writing about ongoing court cases would make the person guilty of Contempt of Court by predjudicing the jury; but it's strongly advisable for people unqualified/acreddited in UK Law, Journalism Law or can't afford good lawyers not to rely on it.

The main defamation legal teams in the UK, Carter Ruck and Shillings, operate on a Conditional Fee Arangement (no win, no fee) basis and charged £300 an hour and £500 a letter when I was working as a journo around 15 years ago. Unless you can confidently tell them to go # themselves the legal fees alone cost over £1m if you lose a case and they intentionally arrange court cases to be heard on Friday afternoons when only the junior/gullible judges are working.

I don't think she used it as a clause in this case as she didn't put it in italics or inverted commas which is the standard in UK journalism and failed to mention its presence in all but one interview with the press.

There is a difference between using to describe something that has some basis in fact and using it to say what ever you want.

If you were arrested for lets say drink driving but not yet convicted.

I could confidently describe you as an alleged drunk driver.

If I was just randomly to call you an alledged drink driver however it would provide no barrier to you suing me.

In this case I assume it comes down to if she had any reasonable belief what we was saying was true.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Agreed with that; personally I reserved using it for when I had 99.99% proof but didn't have tripple sourced original document/video proof but did have a load of cast iron proof that would destroy the reputation and wealth of the company or person to be revealed in court if they were dumb enough to take it that far.

She did change her story of where she heard the info from a few times in statements to the press - she claimed she got the info from a person in Florida who tweeted it 38 minutes before her then a few seconds later says it was someone in Southport who first gave her the info.

Her claims of having investigated servers worldwide to prove she wasn't the origin of the claim within hours of having been identified seem doubtful at best and probably a cyber crime offence if true but she has made a media career out of making up bull#.

a reply to: Fdttaut

Are you saying nothing should have been done about it?

Yes.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

"Allegedly" is a Private Eye thing.

If I were to say ( which I wouldn't!)

"You are a paedophile baby murdering piece of scum. Allegedly."

That word would not be a defence to your law suit. Obviously 🙄 🤣

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

"Allegedly" is a Private Eye thing.

If I were to say ( which I wouldn't!)

"You are a paedophile baby murdering piece of scum. Allegedly."

That word would not be a defence to your law suit. Obviously 🙄 🤣

You will be hearing from my legal representative shortly.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise


May I respectfully point out that my response would be on all fours with the case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971)?

proftomcrick.com...

originally posted by: bastion
I think people would be incredibly naive to think any political party or lobbyists want to give us more rights and freedoms but decades of false info from the press and politicians have convinced a large chunk of the population to think we should give up protections from slavery, torture, unfair trials, false imprisonment, freedom of thought, expression, privacy and free elections.

I do actually think some people are incredibly naive and time and time again leap straight for the throat of whatever scapegoat has been selected for them to blame.

There is some gross misunderstanding that being born somewhere automatically entitles them to something or some special status. All it does is give you the right to access. You still have to get off your arse and push the door open yourself or indeed, bring your own chair to the table if you're not offered one (to paraphrase Shirley Chisholm).

Some people though prefer the put on the victim mantle, and claim that their "traditional values" are being eroded as an excuse to take out their frustrations on a weak target. What does that even mean? Traditional values? For starters, I have noticed, there seems to be some misguided belief from a certain contingent that "women" need let alone want "men" to protect them from "immigrants" - and I can tell them right now, categorically, that the vast majority of women strongly disagree with that premise and if that is an example of the "traditional values" that they are wanting to preserve, they can shove them where the sun don't shine.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Fdttaut

Are you saying nothing should have been done about it?

Yes.

Well perhaps it's you who has the problem then.

Damn right I've got a problem with British people being arrested and jailed for nothing other than posting information they believed to be true , I also have a problem with our Far Left government protecting the sensibilities of others while ignoring their responsibility to protect their indigenous population , we are now 2nd class citizens in our own country.
:

a reply to: gortex

By calling the current government "Far Left" you've proved yourself to be clueless and unworthy of debate.

a reply to: Fdttaut

That's fine with me , Comrade.