Parody Alcove:
The counter suggestion that the "Jew-hater's tweet" wasn't being treated as a "non-crime hate incident" -- simply because the officers never mentioned it as such or precisely framed it that way -- doesn't seem to hold water. Why in the world would you visit an individual's house on Remembrance Day and superficially bully them (provoke an air of apprehension) if the cause of concern was trivial? The backlash may have been instrumental in the investigation being dropped -- but how many people who are not as publicly prominent as Allison Pearson get to enjoy that degree of external aid?
VIDEO EXCERPT (from video at bottom): "
Britain's police aren't a crime fighting force anymore. They're an opinion enforcement squad ensuring that no British citizens criticize State mandated ideologies around gender. race, mass immigration, Islam, or any of the other areas of contention in the UK. Right now, hundreds of thousands of these non-crime hate instants have been issued to tyrannize British citizens into silence... "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What exactly is a non-crime hate incident? (10 days ago): The police are investigating The Telegraph’s Allison Pearson for a social media post, despite everyday crime going largely unsolved. Essex Police chose the morning of Remembrance Sunday to visit Pearson and inform her they were investigating a year-old social media post under Section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to material “likely or intended to cause racial hatred”. Kamal and Tim Stanley ask why our police forces seem perfectly capable of following up on remarks made in an online environment, whilst everyday crimes like burglaries and sexual offences go largely unsolved.
Essex Police taking no further action against Allison Pearson (4 days ago): Essex Police says it is not taking any further action against journalist Allison Pearson after an investigation into a social media post by the Daily Telegraph columnist.
The investigation has been closed, but there will be an independent review of the force’s handling of the matter, a police statement said. The force previously defended its actions after Pearson said she was left "dumbstruck" by a visit to her home on Remembrance Sunday.
The visit was to arrange a time to do an interview as part of an investigation into alleged incitement to racial hatred, following a complaint from a member of the public, the force said. Essex Police said in a statement that the force "has reviewed this case, having sought advice from the Crown Prosecution Service. They have advised that no charges should be brought. We have concluded therefore that there will be no further action."
The force said Chief Constable BJ Harrington asked the National Police Chiefs' Council's Hate Crime Lead Chief Constable Mark Hobrough "to conduct an independent review of the force’s handling of this matter and he has agreed".
Roger Hirst, Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex, said it was "important the public have confidence in their police service. This investigation has caused significant distress for Ms Pearson and a large amount of public concern," he said. "It has raised a number of important questions that need to be addressed so all of us can be confident the police are acting properly."
An Essex Police spokesperson said the force "investigate crimes reported to us without fear or favour". "We’re sometimes faced with allegations of crime where people have strong opposing views. That’s why we work so hard to remain impartial and to investigate allegations, regardless of where they might lead."
Pearson publicised the visit from police after she penned an article in which she claimed she was told by the police who came to her home it was over a “non-crime hate incident”, but was not told which post it was about.
The force said body cam footage of the incident showed that “at no stage” did its officers tell her the report being investigated was being treated as a “non-crime hate incident". A non-crime hate incident is where no criminal offence has been committed but the person reporting it believes the incident to be motivated by hostility...
(1 day ago)
Non-crime hate incidents" & UK police's slide into opinion enforcement squads ...
https://youtu.be/yZB9RfDiVDc
What puzzles me is "Britain's" slide into communism". Seen from a republic like North America where everyone is born equal it might look like .. well does it look like communism? Maybe I just don't understand the term.
What doesn't puzzle me is the 10% (ish) detection rate (over a rolling 12 months) of reported crime. You might think, in the digital age, you could type out your report and sign it as a true and accurate record. In 2024 we have to wait around for hours or days until someone is free to take a statement .. like write it out in hand-writing .. you just know nobody will ever read it. Given that fingerprints, DNA and all the stuff you see on the telly are far too expensive to waste on prole crimes .. a prole criminal has to be very unlucky or very stupid to be caught. The reality is actually worse than that but I see no need to stress the point further.
And then there's 'crime' that is already typed out and signed. Huge resources .. computer equipment confiscated .. days watching porn .. this is what crime-fighting is all about.
Communism, as in KGB intimidation tactics over what should be free speech.
I can see 'free speech' working up to the age of about 3, after that, if a child says "I hate you mama" they should (perhaps) learn that there may be consequences.
(Nov 25, 2024 11:49 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]What puzzles me is "Britain's" slide into communism". Seen from a republic like North America where everyone is born equal it might look like .. well does it look like communism? Maybe I just don't understand the term. [...]
It also stems from tit-for-tat vocal abuse. It's unclear which side started it first[1], but repeatedly calling the conservative section of the political spectrum "fascist" reciprocally entails repeatedly generalizing the progressive section of the political spectrum as "communist".
- - - footnote - - -
[1] Since fascism proper did not arrive until the early 20th-century, Marx and his precursors were unable to direct that label at the bourgeoisie, capitalists, etc -- having to resort to traditional vulgarities and promises of things to come: "
We have no compassion, and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."
Similarly, in that era, collectivism had also not yet scored the 20th-century highlights of Soviet, Maoist, Pol Pot etc regimes -- which made "communism" itself into a fine insult. Which is not to say that the left did receive disapproval and outrage in the prior era, but likewise it probably consisted of vile epithets of time-honored convention.
Apparently the Brits have been so cowed that they think a scolding from your parents is equivalent to police knocking on your door.
Maybe they're right. Maybe UK police have no more teeth than a scolding. Or maybe they view the government as their parents.
When you can get arrested for the thought-crime of praying in public, I'm sure you have no conception of what free speech is or what it could be good for.
They raising your taxes again?
(Nov 26, 2024 04:34 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently the Brits have been so cowed that they think a scolding from your parents is equivalent to police knocking on your door.
Maybe they're right. Maybe UK police have no more teeth than a scolding. Or maybe they view the government as their parents.
When you can get arrested for the thought-crime of praying in public, I'm sure you have no conception of what free speech is or what it could be good for.
They raising your taxes again?
Some people might have the belief structure of being "Nudists", now thats all well if they have a specific sanctuary to practice their nudism, however you wouldn't want them suddenly turning up outside of a secondary/middle school/academy and practicing their religion in public.
The point is that
Free speech doesn't imply
Free action!
In the UK we speak of a 'moral compass' which generally aligns with Christian principles but without the supernatural stuff. So, for example, stealing isn't 'wrong' because you can be sent to prison for it - it is 'wrong' because it falls outside the principles our civilisation holds dear.
In the UK we don't have anything like the French have ..
"Liberté, égalité, fraternité "
Or North America..
"Land of the free".
In the UK we have a more modest "Try not to be a total shit". It may not seem like much but it turns out to be too high a standard for some .. and if they get a knock on the door from folks saying .. "We know what you are" .. I'm not entirely against it.
No one said free speech implies free action, but it does sound like the KGB to arrest people over their thoughts, e.g. praying in public (or is that action not free?).
Maybe the UK police could "try not to be a total shit"... or at least not fascists. No surprise you're not entirely against fascists.