The thought police come knocking...

[bloodiedathame]

I agree that something needs to change. The amount that police have to deal with is beyond stupid, and all this 'easy' stuff gets done first (to get it done), leaving no time for anything else.

The police need to stop getting involved in digital conversations unless there is a serious and obvious risk to life.

 

[UTmaniac]

you're ai created image is a fail. check the spelling before posting

Grammar police will be knocking on your door later!

 

[aVdub]

Grammar police will be knocking on your door later!

I'm really not that anal, but failed with all Capitals

 

[Richie]

You take things too literally.

Oh, ok.... Noted for future @GGizmo posts

 

[Thekwango]

Grammar police will be knocking on your door later!

They’ll get the same treatment as Jehovah Witnesses in that case

 

[jpaul]

Am wondering whether this women makes these social media post on her employers time, but, if the police are being diligent about possible
catalysts of hate crime against MP's can't be a bad thing ... at least the Times article doesn't say how she worded her resignation demand.
[heard a r4 interview with Mima smallman last week - albeit a more serious situation she was more vocal about her indignation on the police whatsapps, and seemed rather less concerned
about situation leading to daughters deaths]

 

[Fubsy]

IF the police have a duty to inform this granny that someone complained about her, knowing no crime was committed, what is the purpose?

The information is useless. It serves no purpose.

The guidelines need changing.

The purpose?

Intimidation.

 

[SpellowHouse]

I agree that something needs to change. The amount that police have to deal with is beyond stupid, and all this 'easy' stuff gets done first (to get it done), leaving no time for anything else.

The police need to stop getting involved in digital conversations unless there is a serious and obvious risk to life.

There are a number of problems in situations like this.

Firstly, the laws are usually badly thought out.

Secondly, there is a reporting culture on the internet.

Thirdly, the police are judged by the number of arrests the make, not by whether it is reasonable to make those arrests.

And finally, by the media picking isolated cases and presenting them as if it's the sign that the UK is collapsing.

Honestly, I am sick and tired of people complaining that the UK is dying. It's not.

And this report in the Mail is absolute ********. It is not a move against free speech at all. It is a clampdown on threats. There have ALWAYS been consequences for what people say.

I mean, honestly, right-wing rubbish. Yeah, sure, it's fine to threaten anyone. I mean, if I did that on this forum, I absolute guarantee you that I would be kicked out! And rightly so.

 

[Thekwango]

It is a clampdown on threats.

did the lady in the story make a threat of any kind?

 

[JonRGV250]

Stuff

Saying someone should resign isn’t a threat.
Have you even read the article?

 

[SpellowHouse]

Saying someone should resign isn’t a threat.
Have you even read the article?

I don't really believe the Mail on this one. I don't believe that's all she said.

Even if it is true, then Police got it wrong. So?

But this goes back to what I said that one or two blunders by the police doesn't mean that we have suddenly become an authoritarian state. That's just an absolutely ridiculous statement.

People may not agree with Starmers politics but he is not an authoritarian. And, I might add, most of the new rules and regs for the internet were introduced by the Conservatives. I suppose they are leftie lunatics too?

 

[Freakbro]

Saying someone should resign isn’t a threat.

But, if you followed the person down the street everywhere they went shouting at them they should resign, then it would be harassment. Context matters.

Same issue online, details matter and we don't have all of them, since we know she posted multiple times, was it 5, 10, 50, 500? There's probably more to this story than we know and we're only getting the womens side of it from the articles and the guy obviously felt harassed enough by her specifically to report it to the police <shrug>

 

[Moothead2]

I'm confused by the whole 'the police have time for this angle'.

Would you not want to be informed if someone is literally reporting you to the police? I know I'd like to know if I had a looney neighbour calling the police on me.

 

[JonRGV250]

I don't really believe the Mail on this one. I don't believe that's all she said.

Ok

Even if it is true, then Police got it wrong. So?

They could, you know, try not getting it wrong, especially as they knew there was zero charge.

But this goes back to what I said that one or two blunders by the police doesn't mean that we have suddenly become an authoritarian state. That's just an absolutely ridiculous statement.

Ok, fairly sure I’ve not said that, but cool.

People may not agree with Starmers politics but he is not an authoritarian.

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

Anyway, let’s not get into politics or this thread will be nuked.

 

[GGizmo]

It amazes me that there are people on the thread trying every angle to excuse police intimidation.

It's either because they can't accept the reality of the situation, or it's purely because it's originally a daily mail story.

 

[JonRGV250]

But, if you followed the person down the street everywhere they went shouting at them they should resign, then it would be harassment. Context matters.

She didn’t though, as well you know.

Same issue online, details matter and we don't have all of them, since we know she posted multiple times, was it 5, 10, 50, 500? There's probably more to this story than we know and we're only getting the womens side of it from the articles and the guy obviously felt harassed enough by her specifically to report it to the police <shrug>

Even if there was more to it, it still wasn’t (obviously) serious enough for the police to charge her with anything, otherwise they would have done.
Surely the police have all the details?

 

[JonRGV250]

It amazes me that there are people on the thread trying every angle to excuse police intimidation.

It's either because they can't accept the reality of the situation, or it's purely because it's originally a daily mail story.

My money would be on because it’s the DM, now if the article was from the Guardian..

 

[Moothead2]

My money would be on because it’s the DM, now if the article was from the Guardian..

Oh wow, shocking that people are taking a rag dedicated to rage baiting right wing geratrics with false or misleading information with a pinch of salt.

 

[Werewolf]

They did take action by visiting the lady.

There is a very definite legal meaning to "no further action"/"no action taken", it means no legal action, not that they just ignored the allegation and didn't bother to look at it. I can imagine most of the same people complaining about the police looking into this complaint would be up in arms if the police completely ignored a complaint they made.

 

[JonRGV250]

Oh wow, shocking that people are taking a rag dedicated to rage baiting right wing geratrics with false or misleading information with a pinch of salt.

Remind me what the geriatric lady was charged with?