British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
The complaint wasn’t by a random individual, as I posted.
It isn't, obviously, it's silly and a waste of their time. If police ever come to your door with that sort of story, 'inviting' you for an interview on the basis of a subjective complaint by a random individual, just tell them to go away. They're engaged in intimidation. If they really want their pr
There's got to be a better way than the polcie turning up.
Maybe some message indictating a complaint is being investigated with a clearly voluntary opportunity to comment would be sufficient unless/until it's deemed serious enough for an interview under caution.
All we know is that the complainant was a 'member of the public' who viewed the tweet as a 'possible hate crime'.
Same advice applies if the police ever try it on like that.
Inciting racial hatred should be a crime.
The police should investigate accusations of that crime
Whether it amount to a crime under the statute I dont know but it must be close. I'd say the same a something equivilant aimed at jewish people.
I suspect her defense is that she thought they were protest
The main problem with hate speech laws, other than the horrendous generic problems with censorship, is that enforcement is variable and subjective.
No law should proscribe a behavior that cannot be defined objectively and independently from individual judgement.
Something must be clearly criminal for all observers with normal intelligence, or not, when written in the law.
It's a deep violation of rule of law principles to have laws that aren't objectively enforceable without individual subjective judgement.
So a law banning personal insults makes more sense than very vague attempts to define "hate".
Nothing you cannot define measurably and objectively should be a part of rule making in general.
There's got to be a better way than the polcie turning up.
Maybe some message indictating a complaint is being investigated with a clearly voluntary opportunity to comment would be sufficient unless/until it's deemed serious enough for an interview under caution.
Wtf! It's either a crime or not.
If it is you come and arrear and commenta are superflous.
If it isn't nothing happens.
There is no in between, the content made public is either criminal or not
Pretty much all our laws have a subjective element. All the better for it imo
Wtf! It's either a crime or not.
If it is you come and arrear and commenta are superflous.
If it isn't nothing happens.
There is no in between, the content made public is either criminal or not
That's not true. Not for most laws
This isn't lol 'merica where if I take something out of shop without paying then it's theft. It may be criminal it may not be. Decision comes after the investigation and process
All we know is that the complainant was a 'member of the public' who viewed the tweet as a 'possible hate crime'.
Same advice applies if the police ever try it on like that.
Most people are "members of the public". So what?
In this case they are a former public servant with training in criminal law. They wish to stay anonymous, fearing reprisals, especially from far-right elements, but told the Guardian the post by Pearson was “racist and inflammatory” – which she denies.
They added: “Pearson tweeted something that had nothing to do with Palestine or the London protests: she tweeted a picture of two persons of colour holding a flag of a Pakistani political party standing next to some GMP officers … Her description of the two people of colour as Jew haters is racist and inflammatory.
“Each time an influential person makes negative comments about people of colour I, as a person of colour, see an uptick in racist abuse towards me and the days after that tweet are no different.”
What's the subjective element in robbery? Rape? Kidnapping?
If some specific things that every observer of all elements can confirm happened are there it's a crime, otherwise it isn't.
How do you observe intent? Most crimes include a componant of intent.
Rape - I wish it wasn't an example that so proundly contradicts you.
Seeing a photo of some brown skinned people holding a flag in a demo and assuming they're protesting for Palestine is classic othering racism.
How do you observe intent? Most crimes include a componant of intent.
Rape - I wish it wasn't an example that so proundly contradicts you.
Most crimes don't require intent to be crimes, and yes intent is a big red flag and should be used as sparingly as possible when writing laws.
Rape doesn't require you to prove intent
The demonstrators in the Manchester picture that Pearson didn't like were demonstrating in favour of Imran Khan rather than against Israel. Pearson was simply mistaken about what the picture showed.
https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/2024/1...
Random uninvolved person claiming they're upset doesn't make it a crime, and that is the whole problem with the subjective Macpherson standard. (And Macpherson was wrong about the Lawrence case anyway, the real problem there being police corruption in favour of one of the suspects, as the inquiry heard over and over again.) It's even dodgier when the complainant is not a party to anything that happened or, as in this case, didn't happen.
Now, if the police had waded into pro-Palestine demos and arrested everyone who chanted 'From the river to the sea,' which is an exterminationist slogan overtly inciting racial hatred and ethnic cleansing, with repercussions for the security of British Jews, that would be idiotic -- and of course the police don't do it because it would be too much bother and it's easier to pick on a lone middle-class journalist who tweeted something daft -- but it would have the merit of consistency. As it is, I doubt they had any lawful cause to turn up and use the PACE-dodging 'voluntary interview' scam on Pearson, and I'll be somewhat surprised if they ever get a warrant.
As regards the complainant's anonymity, everyone accused of a crime is normally entitled to know who is accusing them. Anonymity is an exceptional privilege in exceptional cases, otherwise it's going to be a mask for false or vexatious allegations. I doubt the bar has been met here.
Unfortunately, it's not an isolated incident. Julie Bindel also had a police visit where she was accused of a "non-crime", where in Kafkaesque fashion she was not told what she did wrong, which law it broke or who the victim was.
We'll that's full Kafka innit
I have had this for a road accident, my insurance company says there's video evidence to show what I said happened didn't happen, but I am not allowed to see it. I gave up in the end and took the lumps.
We'll that's full Kafka innit
I have had this for a road accident, my insurance company says there's video evidence to show what I said happened didn't happen, but I am not allowed to see it. I gave up in the end and took the lumps.
And if you go to court you get to see it. And an insurance company is not the state, so there is absolutely no comparison to be drawn. The state shouldn't be allowed to harass you without telling you which law you broke, when, where, and the like, except in national emergencies when the parliament suspends those rights.
But you like the idea of police harassing people who have political opinions different from yours.
Ok, now it is clear why Labour went ham on those protesting in relation to Southport. Starmer should be done
A wild conspiracy theory is circulating on twitter.
Is it true that the current prime minister as a lawyer defended the father of the rwandan assassin of little girls, a person who was supposed to be deported from the UK because he was allegedly a war criminal?
And Starmer suceeded in not having that person deported, who then had a son who became british, and who killed those poor girls?
