This is why people are losing respect for the police...

[hurfdurf]

More cope... you're being lazy here, you could click on it and see the local news story too but not... too quick to respond with some excuse.

He was charged with Malicious Communications, something you would know if you had read your own article. Stop spreading lies.

You’ve just proven my point. Your posts and sources aren’t worth taking seriously, the sources themselves are flawed and then you intentionally misrepresent and lie about what events have occurred in them. Disgusting posting behaviour.

 

[Dis86]

"Ms Pocknell said the posts had a “profound effect” on Mr Ballard and were aggravated because they were considered hate crimes."

 

[Angilion]

The police have been at it again re: people saying the wrong things on social media... seem pretty ridiculous that they keep on doing this despite apparently being underresourced:
[..]
If the GC side calling their opponents "groomers" is a hate crime will we see the same applied to the other side, TRAs calling older feminist women "nazis"?

This guy seems to have been charged and prosecuted on the basis of his views/social media posts rather than any physical violence something that appears to have happened not because this is normally what the police do but rather because he's on the "wrong" side of the culture war and so different standards have been applied.

According to the screenshot in the twitter link you posted, he was charged, prosecuted and convicted on the basis that he publicly accused people of specific serious crimes without having evidence of their guilt. I don't object to that. I think doing that should be illegal.

I think you're right about the extreme double standards being applied. I think you're right about the increasing problem of thoughtcrime, a dystopian nightmare I never thought I'd see in reality. But I think you're wrong about this particular case.

 

[dowie]

According to the screenshot in the twitter link you posted, he was charged, prosecuted and convicted on the basis that he publicly accused people of specific serious crimes without having evidence of their guilt. I don't object to that. I think doing that should be illegal.

What "specific serious crimes" has he accused people of?

Saying check these people's hard drives isn't an accusation of a specific crime nor is simply calling someone a groomer.

He probably didn't help himself by apparently defending himself rather than relying on a solicitor but that he was charged still seems ridiculous.

He was charged with Malicious Communications, something you would know if you had read your own article. Stop spreading lies.

What lies? I'm well aware he was charged that's the issue being highlighted in the first place? You're not being very coherent here, first, you're in denial over it because you've sperging out re: the source and now you've been able to confirm it is true you're coming up with some accusation of lies without, seemingly, being able to point out what lie was told?

 

[Angilion]

The wheels of progress turn slowly.

To begin with, perhaps. But they turn very quickly once the authoritarian bigots get enough power to push their "progress". Then they "progress" society very quickly indeed. We already have forced "re-education" facilities, thoughtcrime, maximum harm being used as the standard first response to the slightest disobedience and the beginning of the killing. We're not as far from the goal as you make out. We may both see the lynchings, the pogroms and the camps. We may both see the genocide. This sort of thing has happened before and it ramps up very quickly. Your side already have the foundation in place and the beginnings of the structure.

 

[Angilion]

What "specific serious crimes" has he accused people of?

Grooming and possession of child pornography.According to the screenshot in the twitter post you linked to. Which might or might not be true.

 

[dowie]

Grooming and possession of child pornography.According to the screenshot in the twitter post you linked to. Which might or might not be true.

Saying someone should have their devices checked isn't an accusation of a specific crime, you've added something to specific to it there.

Likewise calling someone a "groomer" isn't either, while grooming is a criminal offense he wasn't specific there either and that term is used in reference to people indoctrinating kids in LGBT ideology too.

You've had to make additional assumptions there because he wasn't, as you claimed, specific.

 

[Angilion]

Saying someone should have their devices checked isn't an accusation of a specific crime, you've added something to specific to it there.

In the context of material involving children, I think it's specific enough.

Likewise calling someone a "groomer" isn't either, while grooming is a criminal offense he wasn't specific there either and that term is used in reference to people indoctrinating kids in LGBT ideology too.

Given the social status of the crime, I think that accusing someone of grooming children is specific enough unless it's explicitly stated that it's not referring to the usual meaning, i.e. sexually. And I think that any meaning other than the usual meaning should be avoided anyway because the word is too strongly associated with the usual meaning. You've used a much better word yourself - indoctrination.

You've had to make additional assumptions there because he wasn't, as you claimed, specific.

I disagree, for the reasons I give above.

I also think that many "progressives" should be charged with the same offences. And worse, because they're guilty of worse.

 

[StriderX]

To begin with, perhaps. But they turn very quickly once the authoritarian bigots get enough power to push their "progress". Then they "progress" society very quickly indeed. We already have forced "re-education" facilities, thoughtcrime, maximum harm being used as the standard first response to the slightest disobedience and the beginning of the killing. We're not as far from the goal as you make out. We may both see the lynchings, the pogroms and the camps. We may both see the genocide. This sort of thing has happened before and it ramps up very quickly. Your side already have the foundation in place and the beginnings of the structure.

Hmm whose in power for the last decade, right-wingers.

 

[dowie]

Given the social status of the crime, I think that accusing someone of grooming children is specific enough unless it's explicitly stated that it's not referring to the usual meaning, i.e. sexually.

No, grooming can mean things other than that crime and it is used in that context frequently on social media re: LGBTQ ideological indoctrination, you're perhaps just unaware of that.

Besides that implying someone has committed a crime isn't in itself necessarily a crime so your justification here is shaky, he was charged with malicious communications because the messages were deemed to be grossly offensive. The same act used here was also used to charge and subsequently fine the YouTuber who, for a joke video, turned his girlfriend's Pug into a "Nazi"... as that was deemed to be offensive too.

Re: your accusing someone of a crime angle, think about it, say there are some shifty-looking guys always parked on your road, playing music etc. you post on a local FB group having a rant about them, saying the police should search their vehicles... Have you accused them of a specific crime? Nope, you could be implying drugs, weapons etc. and indeed doing so isn't a criminal offense. You're just saying they're suspicious and the police should check.

Likewise, re: saying some parents should have their phones checked, he could be implying a few things there (you added one but he didn't say that)... but again that's also moot as suggesting someone is suspicious or worthy of investigation isn't in itself a crime anyway. (There are civil remedies for slander and defamation if necessary.)

The crime here was causing offense and that's highly dubious w.r.t freedom of speech.

 

[hurfdurf]

The crime here was causing offense and that's highly dubious w.r.t freedom of speech.

Maybe find what he posted before you start assuming he just called someone a “groomer”. A decent source will help you with that.

 

[dowie]

Maybe find what he posted before you start assuming he just called someone a “groomer”. A decent source will help you with that.

If you've got an argument then just present it instead of just moaning.

 

[hurfdurf]

Your side already have the foundation in place and the beginnings of the structure.

I see you are scared. Very telling. You better be careful if what you say is true!

 

[hurfdurf]

If you've got an argument then just present it instead of just moaning.

I would with someone who posted with credibility and talent. Alas, you do not, so are not worth the effort. Far more entertaining to watch you squeal away with effort posts that still result in low quality content.

 

[dowie]

I would with someone who posted with credibility and talent. Alas, you do not, so are not worth the effort. Far more entertaining to watch you squeal away with effort posts that still result in low quality content.

Just more cope... you complain about the source but if you hadn't been sol lazy you could have clicked through to the local news article and seen for yourself that it's true.

Then you make some vague claim that lies have been told... but you can't seem to point out where. And now you're just posturing, if you had an argument here you could just present it.

 

[Angilion]

I see you are scared. Very telling. You better be careful if what you say is true!

Of course I'm scared. Being scared of the growing power of an ideology of authoritarianism and irrational prejudices is sensible. I would have been scared of the growing power of Stalin, for example, had I lived in Russia at that time.

You should be scared too. You're in with the ideology now, but will you always be? Remember Trotsky.

 

[Angilion]

Hmm whose in power for the last decade, right-wingers.

No. You're confusing political office with power. They're not at all the same.

 

[Deep]

As a person who has actually frequented the White Hart a fair few times, it's always been a **** hole and the biggest dregs in Grays go there, Theobalds Arms across the road is infinitely better.
The police shouldn't have taken this many officers to remove the dolls, fair play to remove them but not with that many.

I will say in all the times I've been there I don't think I've ever seen a black fella there or Theos, I'm Indian and never had issues in either pub, or any pub in Grays tbh

 

[hurfdurf]

You should be scared too. You're in with the ideology now, but will you always be? Remember Trotsky.

US conservatives love to warn of creeping fascism. Do they understand what it is? | Marilynne Robinson

Trump, a shrewd opportunist, has understood tendencies in American culture that most of us would prefer to ignore or deny

www.theguardian.com

Fortunately I am both not a coward nor do I agree with your assertations. Your fear is apparent though, and that's OK, stay on the right side of things and I will look after you.

 

[Angilion]

Fortunately I am both not a coward nor do I agree with your assertations. Your fear is apparent though, and that's OK, stay on the right side of things and I will look after you.

Trotsky wasn't a coward either. That didn't stop him being murdered when he fell out of favour. The same is true of many other people who were once part of an authoritarian ideology but then fell out of favour.

Your egotism is silly. You may well think you can be the Stalin of the new world order you envisage, but you won't be. I wouldn't make a good pet for you and you wouldn't make a good protector for me. You'd denounce me to the Party in an instant if you thought it would benefit you.