How can you defend yourself when the police will not tell you what you did?

a reply to: Freeborn

I do not like to talk or bring up the IRA but that is what I was talking about. It was quite an issue right?

a reply to: matafuchs

I agree that this isn't the time or place to discuss the IRA and The Troubles.....but that was a very small percentage of Irish Republican terrorists, hardly the same as the topic under discussion.

I'd gladly discuss The Troubles with you and others in a separate thread.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's more or less the same over here.

I've never heard of anyone being arrested and not be told the details of the alleged crime. Once arrested everyone is allowed legal representation. You may then be questioned under caution.

The police can ask someone to come in and be questioned whilst not under caution but that is voluntary and again a person can have legal representation.

I have never heard of anything remotely like a 'non-crime hate incident' - if its not a crime why are the police involved?

For anyone who like me had no idea what a 'non-crime hate indicent' is.

A non-crime incident is an event that is perceived to be motivated by prejudice or hostility, but does not constitute a crime. Examples of non-crime incidents include:
Hate incidents
An incident that is motivated by prejudice or hostility, such as someone shouting abuse at you from their car
Antisocial behavior
Incidents such as littering, graffiti, vandalism, or rowdy behavior in public
Online posts
An incident where someone is offended by an online post, such as a Christian person who is offended by an interpretation of the Bible that they believe undermines their faith
School incidents
An incident that occurs on school premises and is motivated by prejudice or hostility, such as refusing to work with another pupil because they are from a specific national background

The Non-Crime Hate Incidents Code of Practice provides guidance to the police on how to record non-crime hate incidents. The code of practice includes:
Clarifying that debate, humor, satire, and personally-held views are not grounds for recording an NCHI
Stating that an NCHI should not be recorded if the report is deemed trivial, irrational, or malicious
Providing information on how to take the right to freedom of expression into account when recording an NCHI

That is just shear #ing stupidity.

a reply to: Freeborn

Thanks for that.

Still a mystery as to why the cop[s are involved, seems a case for lawyers at most to me.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
Has she been charged with anything?

Has she even been arrested?

Sounds to me as though she may just have been served a notice that a complaint has been made against her.

One thing is clear, she hasn't actually read Kafka

originally posted by: chiefsmom
I am really concerned about what is going on over there, with free speech. You guys are going down hill very fast.

Oh you shouldn't worry yourself.

We don't have Freedom of Speech in the same way as you, only by benefit of the EHCR.

The laws that are currently being applied were set up by the preceding Conservative government, more specifically, they were one of Priti Patel's babies. They were intended to be used to silence climate activists and criticism of "Big Oil". The people who financially backed the Conservatives.

What Allison Pearson, with her cries of blah blah people who fought in the war blah blah didn't die for this blah blah, fails to mention is that her employer, the Telegraph and it's owner the Brother Barclay, were all in favour of these very same "Draconian Laws" when they were applied to young people protesting, silently and peacefully for the right to breathe clean air or not watch as peoples are displaced by climate change. I don't think their great-grandparents died so that they could be imprisoned for doing that either. And if you think that what we are seeing is a two-tier system just check out the sentences that those kids got compared to those handed out to violent and abusive rioters who also, I may add, disrupted traffic.

The Brother Barclay is currently taking bids for the Telegraph. No doubt Mrs Pearson is hoping to use this incident as leverage, and will milk it for all it is worth, in the hope it'll land some Koch for her to chug on.

These laws are indeed Draconian but Mrs Pearson and all those screaming injustice are a little late to the gate on this one, and perhaps shouldn't have thrown their support behind their introduction. Worms do turn.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

I suspect that in this instance you may be right.

Based on the limited information available it seems most likely to me that she was asked a few questions regarding a complaint that had made about a post she had made on social media.
That is something entirely different to being arrested.

What I am struggling with is the whole notion of a 'non-crime hate incident' - its ridiculous.
If it isn't a crime the police should not be wasting time and resource on such a petty and insignificant 'incident' just because someone's feelings have been hurt.

I'm pretty certain its illegal for police to refuse to indentify the alleged post if the person is under arrest but it's normal and part of their public duty to protect the identity of the victim/accuser.

Seems more like it was a chat to remind of the applicable law that wont go on any record. I had one years ago after calling Edwina Curry a c*nt and that the only think she did to kids when child minister was give Jimmy Saville the keys to rape kids as she was too busy shagging John Major to do her job.

They didn't identify the post and didn't seem to know what it was/knew it was a bull# complaint and waste of their time. All was true and I refused to retract the claim which they agreed with but offered to delete my twitter account as I didn't care about using it and that was the end of the issue.

a reply to: Freeborn

Given that we do not know the content that Pearson posted it is difficult to know whether it meets the criteria and we probably wouldn't know that unless it goes to court. Although, given that the post in question was removed, I don't know if by her or the platform, then it should be relatively easy for her to work that out. Unless she regrets what she says quite frequently.

The Police were given these powers and instructed to enforce them by Conservative governments, I suggest you take it up with them.

Douglas Hurd in response to the Miner's Strike and in anticipation of Privatisation.

Priti Patel, to silence climate activists.

Have at it

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

There was no such thing as social media during The Miners Strike so as much as I detested Thatcher and her cronies they can't be blamed for this.
There are very few policies of Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson or Sunak you'll find me defending.

It is a non-crime and as such there is far more real crime out there that the police should be spending their time and resource on.

Imagine what would happen if the police dealt with every single post or utterance when someone said/posted/wrote something that someone else was offended by?

Regardless of the administration this is stupidity.

Whilst I think the police may have been over zealous in their pursuit of this I recognise that due to current sensitivities they may have had no option but to pursue this once a complaint had been made but their handling of it seems incredibly poor.
And the guidelines do seem pretty clear.
At some point surely common sense - if only it were common - has to prevail.

However, I also have to question why Pearson has chosen to broadcast this in such a manner - obviously she has her own agenda here.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Kamala Harris once giggled that with a swipe of her pen, she could destroy someone's life. She could have them charged with a crime whether or not they were guilty. All sorts of bad things happen to you when you are accused whether or not if you are found not guilty or even get a chance to prove you are not guilty.

I think this probably falls under the umbrella of using the police to intimidate.

a reply to: SprocketUK

"Still a mystery as to why the cop[s are involved, seems a case for lawyers at most to me."

Leave us out of this, 🥺!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: SprocketUK

"Still a mystery as to why the cop[s are involved, seems a case for lawyers at most to me."

Leave us out of this, 🥺!

Youre either part of the solution or part of the problem mate

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

There was no such thing as social media during The Miners Strike so as much as I detested Thatcher and her cronies they can't be blamed for this.
There are very few policies of Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson or Sunak you'll find me defending.

It is a non-crime and as such there is far more real crime out there that the police should be spending their time and resource on.

Imagine what would happen if the police dealt with every single post or utterance when someone said/posted/wrote something that someone else was offended by?

Regardless of the administration this is stupidity.

Whilst I think the police may have been over zealous in their pursuit of this I recognise that due to current sensitivities they may have had no option but to pursue this once a complaint had been made but their handling of it seems incredibly poor.
And the guidelines do seem pretty clear.
At some point surely common sense - if only it were common - has to prevail.

However, I also have to question why Pearson has chosen to broadcast this in such a manner - obviously she has her own agenda here.

so should folks be digging through the social media accounts of all those in charge, just to make sure they are playing by the same rules they are governing? I bet someone out there posted something

a reply to: network dude

Yeah, most of the Laour Government front bench against Trump for starters!
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: SprocketUK

"Youre either part of the solution or part of the problem mate ".

Oh Noes!

I think I have just been the victim of a Non Crime Incident.

I'm telling on you....

a reply to: bastion

"Seems more like it was a chat to remind of the applicable law that wont go on any record. I had one years ago after calling Edwina Curry a c*nt and that the only think she did to kids when child minister was give Jimmy Saville the keys to rape kids as she was too busy shagging John Major to do her job."

Ah. Eggwina.

Fair comment I'd say.

For some reason got me wondering whatever happened to Hazel Blears.

No idea why.