Because The United Kingdom?

[DB]

Rowan Atkinson's point should be taken more generally than as a response to any single example that it may have been linked to, or that he used as an example. A variant on the "They came for the Jews" argument, if you will.

it's perfectly possible to "nickel and dime" any specific example of the abusive application of bad laws into meaninglessness: "Oh, that's Scottish Law, not English Law", for example. However, the effect of this and similar laws is felt everywhere, and every such poorly-considered and easily misused law should be challenged, preferably before it is enacted, simply because the negative effects of the misuse of laws of this type are unlimited.

[rmgill]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

What if they are a journalist, is it ok then?

What if they're Monty Haul? 

Were they police or Journalists? They were police. Stop the foolish dissembling. 

[Ssnake]

Both police and journalists have quite the destructive potential for an ordinary man's life. But at least defamation laws exist and there's some remedy against sociopathic journos, although I suppose Britain is still Murdoch Country.

Nevertheless, because the police represents the state with its inherent claim to rule over everyone within its borders it's more important to have a police guided by laws that are specific and which strike a good balance between majority opinion in a society and protection of minority interests. At the end of the day, everyone belongs to some minority, so one should be very careful when elevating "majority rulez" as the guiding principle for all matters.

A law that criminalizes every opinion that might offend someone, somewhere is the embodiment of unspecific regulation with the sole purpose of punishing public utterance of wrongthink. It encourages witless busybodies of poor judgment within the police, and activist judges. No doubt it's a constant source of prime comedy material, but as far as I'm concerned the price for society and selected individuals is way too high.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

What if they're Monty Haul? 

Were they police or Journalists? They were police. Stop the foolish dissembling. 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/08/reporter-faces-trial-black-lives-matter-coverage-andrea-sahouri

A journalist will face trial in Iowa on Monday on charges arising from her arrest while covering a Black Lives Matter protest last year, in a case condemned by Amnesty International and news organizations across the US as an assault on press freedom.

Andrea Sahouri, a public safety reporter for the Des Moines Register, is charged with “failure to disperse and interference with official acts, misdemeanors”. If convicted, she could face a fine and 30 days in jail. She has pleaded not guilty.

Sahouri was arrested at the protest in Des Moines on 31 May, six days after the killing of George Floyd by officers in Minneapolis, which touched off months of international protests against police brutality and for racial justice.

She says she identified herself as a member of the press several times. But police pepper-sprayed and zip-tied her and her then boyfriend. Both were taken to Polk county jail.

A Des Moines police officer, Luke Wilson, has said he believed Sahouri was a protester because she was not wearing press credentials. Because Wilson did not turn on his body camera as he was supposed to, there is no video footage of the incident.

And of course not forgetting this absolute gem.

And meanwhile in Myanmar,

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/viralnews/19137815.us-demands-myanmar-release-detained-journalists-protesters/

The Biden administration has stepped up its condemnation of the coup in Myanmar, demanding that military authorities stop their brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protesters and release demonstrators and journalists who have been detained.

The White House called the situation “troubling” and of “great concern”.

The US State Department said it is working with other countries to send a unified message to the military that its actions are unacceptable and will be met with consequences.

Sanctions have already been imposed by the US on Myanmar’s top military leaders since the February 1 coup, but stepped up pressure after security forces killed as many as 38 people on Wednesday.

 

You really dont get the message your country sends out with its more clueless actions do you? That other nations are watching you and copying you and taking notes of all the shit they can get away with because you did it first. And STILL you lecture others on what is freedom, and how far ahead in the freedom stakes you are over everyone else.

Oh God, the absolute Irony.

 

[Ssnake]

I can't but help to notice that you haven't addressed the issues at your own doorstep. Instead you're creating a Roman-worthy whataboutism based diversion.

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Both police and journalists have quite the destructive potential for an ordinary man's life. But at least defamation laws exist and there's some remedy against sociopathic journos, although I suppose Britain is still Murdoch Country.

Nevertheless, because the police represents the state with its inherent claim to rule over everyone within its borders it's more important to have a police guided by laws that are specific and which strike a good balance between majority opinion in a society and protection of minority interests. At the end of the day, everyone belongs to some minority, so one should be very careful when elevating "majority rulez" as the guiding principle for all matters.

A law that criminalizes every opinion that might offend someone, somewhere is the embodiment of unspecific regulation with the sole purpose of punishing public utterance of wrongthink. It encourages witless busybodies of poor judgment within the police, and activist judges. No doubt it's a constant source of prime comedy material, but as far as I'm concerned the price for society and selected individuals is way too high.

Nil's, have you ever known me to be shy of offering an opinion? So Im the Canary in the coal mine. So If I get arrested for my opinions, then you have a right to be concerned.

Yes,its a silly law Ill give you that, yes some over zealous policemen and judges have misapplied it. OTOH, I can point to someone near where i live whom was arrested for having a plastic HE Man sword on the back seat of their car (It looked real your honour) and another whom was arrested for having an England Flag displayed on the parcel shelf of his car (It was a bit racist your honour). The problem is less the laws, than the lack of intelligence of some of the people (Not all, some) of the police whom see it as an opportunity to get a few people banged to rights to look good in their yearly review.

We dont see lots of people being brought before the courts for this law unjustly. Im sure there has been lots more people jailed for good law wholly misapplied, but nobody is interested in that, only in the narrative that pushes their own personal hobby horse.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, Ssnake said:

I can't but help to notice that you haven't addressed the issues at your own doorstep. Instead you're creating a Roman-worthy whataboutism based diversion.

Actually I hope I just did.  And people say im too quick to post.

Im just tired of Ryan always jumping on this bandwagon, the UK isnt free like the US is! And of course he is completely right, thankfully.

[Ssnake]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The problem is less the laws, than the lack of intelligence of some of the people (Not all, some) of the police

The police does what the law allows them to do (and then some) in pursuit of the incentives set by police leadership (like, "we need more arrests" - and more arrests they will get). The problem is precisely that law (and other laws restricting weapons ownership to a ridiculous degree), not stupid coppers. Every country has stupid cops doing stupid cop things. That's normal. The key to a healthy society is to limit their latitude.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, Ssnake said:

The police does what the law allows them to do (and then some) in pursuit of the incentives set by police leadership (like, "we need more arrests" - and more arrests they will get). The problem is precisely that law (and other laws restricting weapons ownership to a ridiculous degree), not stupid coppers. Every country has stupid cops doing stupid cop things. That's normal. The key to a healthy society is to limit their latitude.

I used to read a few books about the police in the 1970's. One book by a policeman narrated that when they were under probation, when they were being evaluated to see whether they would be taken on full time, they were told to go out and get as many arrests as they could. And not surprisingly, it was a lot of chickenshit stuff that filled the books, and made them look zealous, and of course, completely loathed by the general public. But they proved how zealous they were and worthy of taking on full time. I would not be surprised if similar things happen now of course, particular in a time when police numbers were on the sharp decline.

Its overzealous coppers, its also stupid coppers. Its also coppers trying to make a name for themselves. The vast majority of course are none of these things, which is why it actually doesnt seem to happen very often. Quite why it ever gets past the judiciary I dont know, but that it seems to be knocked on the head when it reaches the supreme court proves the system works. No, its not ideal,  and its not a law I would endorse, but equally it doesnt mean the end of British free speech as so many of the hyperbolic on here insist it does. That we are capable here of saying how stupid a law is, shows how ridiculously off base criticism of this law is.

If you want an example that 'good' law can have unfortunate consequences, there was a stall holder here prosecuted because they violated an EU direction that they had to sell produce in a particular measurement. The EU expressed horror, said they never expected anyone to be prosecuted for it. Which just goes to show, its not just a British problem of introducing stupid law with unfortunate consequences. Everyone does it, but everyone fixates on Britain and feigns shock when a stupid law has stupid consequences. Well look at a mirror people, we all do it one way or another. German does it via the EU, America introduced many stupid laws during he war on terror and even in the last 4 years, but who dares point that out without invoking fury and brimstone?

[DB]

37 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I can't but help to notice that you haven't addressed the issues at your own doorstep. Instead you're creating a Roman-worthy whataboutism based diversion.

You're in a topic about the UK, where the primary urge of many who are in here is to pick holes in the UK's way of doing things based on an incomplete and often completely erroneous view of what is happening here and why, and who are completely impervious to any attempts to correct their misconceptions.

So, what were you saying again?

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, DB said:

You're in a topic about the UK, where the primary urge of many who are in here is to pick holes in the UK's way of doing things based on an incomplete and often completely erroneous view of what is happening here and why, and who are completely impervious to any attempts to correct their misconceptions.

So, what were you saying again?

You are incorrect, it's not that our conceptions are wrong, it's just that your reality has not yet adjusted to them.

[Rick]

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Both police and journalists have quite the destructive potential for an ordinary man's life. But at least defamation laws exist and there's some remedy against sociopathic journos, although I suppose Britain is still Murdoch Country.

Nevertheless, because the police represents the state with its inherent claim to rule over everyone within its borders it's more important to have a police guided by laws that are specific and which strike a good balance between majority opinion in a society and protection of minority interests. At the end of the day, everyone belongs to some minority, so one should be very careful when elevating "majority rulez" as the guiding principle for all matters.

A law that criminalizes every opinion that might offend someone, somewhere is the embodiment of unspecific regulation with the sole purpose of punishing public utterance of wrongthink. It encourages witless busybodies of poor judgment within the police, and activist judges. No doubt it's a constant source of prime comedy material, but as far as I'm concerned the price for society and selected individuals is way too high.

Very well said. Thank you for this post!

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, DB said:

impervious to any attempts to correct their misconceptions.

So, what were you saying again?

My arguments were all based on, what I believe, undisputed cases. Nobody from the UK said that the cases quoted here didn't happen or were factually incorrect. Prominent UK figures such as Rowan Atkinson are criticizing it. So maybe you want to argue the case rather than going after the dirty foreigners creating cognitive dissonance for you.

Point out where I got the facts wrong, and there's a basis for meaningful discussion. When the cases are what they appear to be, then maybe we differ about the interpretation of their implications for everyday life in Britain. I have been frequently assured by ex East Germans that it was a free country, as long as you towed the party line. So yes, you definitely have free speech in the UK, as long as you stay within the increasingly narrow boundaries decreed by your political correctness overlords.

 

Per my estimation, 30...50% of all Monty Python skits these days would be in violation of your silly law. Someone, somewhere, always might be offended. How is that not a grotesquely bad made law with already a, I'd estimate, five-digit number of Britons who experienced rather savage consequences?

An ankle collar for a teenager quoting rap song lyrics while mourning the death of a friend? How's that a proportionate response even if it gets tossed out months later on appeal? It's still months of a teenage life under a repressive measure, as if she was a criminal fugitive.

Section 127 of your Communications Act of 2003 declares it illegal intentionally to “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”. That was the basis for the "Count Dankula" case. First deflection, "oh, that was Scotland" as if Scotland wasn't a part of the UK (if there needs to be a reminder about this thread's title). You and Stuart do everything to avoid discussing whether it is the business of a liberal government to parse the humor value of intended jokes (hint: it isn't), and whether a police force and courts happily bringing the hammer down on people violating that law could still be considered "liberal". I at least would not.

In 2017, agents from “more than 29 forces” arrested more than 3,300 Britons for Internet trolling. According to The Times, about 50% of these cases resulted in prosecution. It's not isolated cases where some of the time an overly zealous copper went out of bounds. My impression is, they merrily execute the law exactly the way it is designed to work.

 

But, sure. Go after my ancestry and place of residence, just like you regularly dismiss anything that Ryan writes, on the same grounds. Just don't expect me to take anything that you write seriously.

[bojan]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

...Instead you're creating a Roman-worthy whataboutism based diversion.

Told you they are the same, just have different hills to die at.

[rmgill]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/08/reporter-faces-trial-black-lives-matter-coverage-andrea-sahouri

 

 

Bollocks!

Reporters in and among rioters or during response to a riot is not remotely the same as someone at their home being arrested for saying something offensive at their home. Not in the slightest. 

If I'm a (proclaimed) reporter, can I just walk into Buckingham palace and report where ever I like? I'm pretty sure no. Can a reporter walk out onto the highway and report from where ever they like? Can reportesr barge into your home and report from your bathroom? No, in all cases. 

Reporting when police are clearing EVERYONE due to a curfew and response to riots is the same sort of thing. 

Reporting doesn't absolve you or insulate you from other lawful issues that everyone else must comply with.  It doesn't make you a 1st class citizen with everyone else being 2nd or 3rd class citizens and beneath your station. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by rmgill

[BansheeOne]

Putting this here rather than the protests thread for now.

Quote

Sarah Everard vigil - latest: Cressida Dick under pressure to resign after ‘disturbing’ police response

Follow the latest updates as the Met Police Commissioner is pushed to “explain” officers’ response to Saturday’s vigil

Chantal Da Silva | 14 minutes ago

Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick is facing calls to resign over her department’s “disturbing” response to a vigil held last night for Sarah Everard.

Calling the scenes from last night “very upsetting,” Home Office minister Victoria Atkins said on Sunday that the Home Office has asked for a report from Met police on the violence. She also said police need to “explain” what led to scenes of women being pinned down by officers.

Hundreds of people had gathered peacefully in Clapham Common to pay their respects to Sarah and to demand an end to male violence against women when Met police officers began to crack down on the event.

Video livestreamed from the vigil showed police officers forcibly removing women from a bandstand in the park, while officers could also be seen pushing back demonstrators at the event.

Responding to the scenes from the event, Labour leader Keir Starmer called the crackdown “deeply disturbing”.

“Women came together to mourn Sarah Everard - they should have been able to do so peacefully,” he said.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has demanded a full report into the Met police’s response to the Clapham vigil.

Meanwhile London Mayor Sadiq Khan said the scenes were “unacceptable” said he was “urgently seeking an explanation” from the commissioner.

Met Police Assistant Commissioner says officers were faced with ‘very difficult decision’

Met Police Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball defended officers’ response to the vigil in Clapham Common yesterday, asserting that officers had been faced with a “very difficult decision”.

“I recognise that the decision by the organisers to cancel the Reclaim These Streets vigil in Clapham Common was deeply unwelcome news. Even so, given the ever present threat of Coronavirus, this was the right decision to make,” the assistant commissioner said in a statement on Saturday, referring to organisers cancelling a formal vigil after police vowed to crack down on the event and issue fines to organisers and attendees.

“Today, for over six hours hundreds of people came to lay flowers and pay their respects to Sarah in Clapham Common in a safe and lawful way,” Ms Ball said.

“Around 6pm, more people began to gather close to the bandstand within the Common. Some started to make speeches from the bandstand. These speeches then attracted more people to gather closer together,” she continued. “At this point, officers on the ground were faced with a very difficult decision. Hundreds of people were packed tightly together, posing a very real risk of easily transmitting Covid-19.”

“Police must act for people’s safety, this is the only responsible thing to do. The pandemic is not over and gatherings of people from right across London and beyond, are still not safe,” she said.

“Those who gathered were spoken to by officers on a number of occasions and over an extended period of time. We repeatedly encouraged those who were there to comply with the law and leave. Regrettably, a small minority of people began chanting at officers, pushing and throwing items,” Ms Ball said, adding: “After speaking with officers, the vast majority of people quickly left.”

The assistant commissioner said four arrests had been made for public order offences and for breaches of the Health Protection Regulations.

[...]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sarah-everard-vigil-news-protest-police-b1816930.html

Background:

Quote

Sarah Everard: Body found in woodland confirmed as that of missing woman

Published 1 day ago

A body found by police in woodland on Wednesday has been confirmed as that of Sarah Everard.

The 33-year-old marketing executive disappeared as she walked home in south London last week.

A serving Met Police officer remains in custody having been held on suspicion of Ms Everard's kidnap and murder.

In another development, organisers of a vigil for Ms Everard lost a legal challenge at the High Court against a police ban on the event.

Organisers claimed there had been an "about-face" by police, who told them that Saturday's Reclaim These Streets event in Clapham would not now be permitted due to the coronavirus lockdown, having previously said the gathering could go ahead.

[...]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-56371163

Edited March 14, 2021 by BansheeOne

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[DB]

On 3/9/2021 at 11:05 AM, Ssnake said:

My arguments were all based on, what I believe, undisputed cases. Nobody from the UK said that the cases quoted here didn't happen or were factually incorrect. Prominent UK figures such as Rowan Atkinson are criticizing it. So maybe you want to argue the case rather than going after the dirty foreigners creating cognitive dissonance for you.

But, sure. Go after my ancestry and place of residence, just like you regularly dismiss anything that Ryan writes, on the same grounds. Just don't expect me to take anything that you write seriously.

I attached my reply to your post for reasons I forget, but I wasn't really targeting you specifically.

I snipped a lot here, not because I am avoiding addressing your points - I don't have the keyboard on this phone or the time at work to follow up, nor do I necessarily disagree with what you've typed.

But I think you've missed my point somewhat.

My point was more along the lines of motes and logs. It's easier to criticise the UK and appear to believe that we're negligently allowing our freedoms to be eroded than it is to do any better wherever you may be.

Pointing out that you, wherever you are, need to sort out your own house isn't whattaboutism - the latter is "it's ok to do this because they do it too", and that's not what I said, or at least not what I intended.

It should be obvious enough from the perpetual disagreements between Stuart and myself that there is no internally consistent group think here in the UK, and even when we agree on certain issues, that doesn't mean we necessarily came to that agreement via similar routes.

I disagree with Ryan because he universally uses sources that are pandering to a US audience demographic into which he seems to fit. Sources which distort issues to appeal to that demographic - although I will concede that I inevitably am looking at their content through my own distorted lens, at least I'm not 3000 miles away and looking through a drinking straw.

In other news, our police state is cracking down on peaceful protests/vigils for a woman who appears to have been murdered by a police officer. Thus isn't doing anyone any favours, but it may get rid of the head of the Met, who in my opinion should never have had the job after the death of a Brazilian plumber.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, DB said:

I attached my reply to your post for reasons I forget, but I wasn't really targeting you specifically.

I snipped a lot here, not because I am avoiding addressing your points - I don't have the keyboard on this phone or the time at work to follow up, nor do I necessarily disagree with what you've typed.

But I think you've missed my point somewhat.

My point was more along the lines of motes and logs. It's easier to criticise the UK and appear to believe that we're negligently allowing our freedoms to be eroded than it is to do any better wherever you may be.

Pointing out that you, wherever you are, need to sort out your own house isn't whattaboutism - the latter is "it's ok to do this because they do it too", and that's not what I said, or at least not what I intended.

It should be obvious enough from the perpetual disagreements between Stuart and myself that there is no internally consistent group think here in the UK, and even when we agree on certain issues, that doesn't mean we necessarily came to that agreement via similar routes.

I disagree with Ryan because he universally uses sources that are pandering to a US audience demographic into which he seems to fit. Sources which distort issues to appeal to that demographic - although I will concede that I inevitably am looking at their content through my own distorted lens, at least I'm not 3000 miles away and looking through a drinking straw.

In other news, our police state is cracking down on peaceful protests/vigils for a woman who appears to have been murdered by a police officer. Thus isn't doing anyone any favours, but it may get rid of the head of the Met, who in my opinion should never have had the job after the death of a Brazilian plumber.

There you go agreeing with me again. You are going to have to stop doing this DB,you are ruining a perfect record.

Ive mixed feelings about the Sarah Everard vigil. Its of course perfectly right they should pay tribute, and of course the police were completely off base on this one. OTOH, you somehow know that if you went around that group of people  and told them they were significantly putting their taxes up to pay for extra police patrols to stop things like that happening (which remains the only realistic way, other than surveillance drones, to stop it happening) then quite a few of them would probably be complaining about that too.

Until people actually realise that you dont get well funded basic services in this country without paying for them, and reconcile to that fact, nothing is going to change.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[RETAC21]

4 hours ago, DB said:

In other news, our police state is cracking down on peaceful protests/vigils for a woman who appears to have been murdered by a police officer. Thus isn't doing anyone any favours, but it may get rid of the head of the Met, who in my opinion should never have had the job after the death of a Brazilian plumber.

I seem to be missing something here, what's the backgound and why?

[BansheeOne]

See five posts up. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

I seem to be missing something here, what's the backgound and why?

A young woman is alleged to have been murdered by a Policeman, or at least, that is what he is charged with. Lots of women ask the MET to hold a vigil in her memory and protest violence to women.Met refused because of Covid. Women do it anyway, police overreact.

[DB]

The failure is in the refusal. The disobedience was predictable and the consequences for pandemic management were obviously going to be worse. The lesser of two evils would have been to allow a limited vigil in the first place.

Cressida Dick was the officer in charge of the anti-terror operation that resulted in the death of a Brazilian who was guilty of nothing more than having outstayed a visa, IIRC. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/17/de-menezes-family-call-cressida-dick-barred-from-leading-met

[Stuart Galbraith]

Scarfolk has been alarmingly topical lately...

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ivanhoe]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Scarfolk has been alarmingly topical lately...

 

Go to work with a head cold, go to prison. Makes sense.