Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Just catching up with news today - the rioters seem to be flying out of the dock into prison sentences.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
58 years old! FCOL! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the case above. His defense told the court that he wasnn't a clever man and actually didn't know what far left and right actually meant!!! He just went with the flow.
58 years old! FCOL!"Ah the sorry I'm a fuckwit defence.. Nope, not buying it..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the case above. His defense told the court that he wasnn't a clever man and actually didn't know what far left and right actually meant!!! He just went with the flow.
58 years old! FCOL!"The vast majority here don't know what far left and far right means either  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the case above. His defense told the court that he wasnn't a clever man and actually didn't know what far left and right actually meant!!! He just went with the flow.
58 years old! FCOL!
The vast majority here don't know what far left and far right means either "Possibly but they're also not likely to want to try to put a police officer in hospital either.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the case above. His defense told the court that he wasnn't a clever man and actually didn't know what far left and right actually meant!!! He just went with the flow.
58 years old! FCOL!
The vast majority here don't know what far left and far right means either "Yeah it is a bit awkward when buying cinema tickets  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rioter told police he was 'a fool' as he was arrested The fast-tracked sentencing of three men involved in riots in the past week has begun at Liverpool Crown Court. **Name Removed**, 58, pleaded guilty to violent disorder and assault of an emergency worker. The court has been shown footage showing **Name Removed** assaulting an officer and heard he has 14 previous convictions for 19 offences ranging from 1988 to the mid-2000s. The prosecution says these offences show a "history of violence". The court hears that when **Name Removed** was arrested, he told police he "was a fool and was holding his hands up". He told officers he was "deeply sorry to the people he has let down" and that he believed his behaviour was "appalling". BREAKING 52m ago 11:15 SKYNEWS. (I removed the name - not sure if it is allowed to print it here) The Judge doesn't seem to have said that he must serve the whole sentence? " His guilty plea and show of remorse (even if not genuine) would have helped him in regards to the sentence received as far as I understand it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm " It's a more complex investigation? More witnesses etc, who knows.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm " Because he was fast tracked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm It's a more complex investigation? More witnesses etc, who knows.. " I'll buy the 'more complex' argument but it doesn't answer why people were held on remand and these guys were bailed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm It's a more complex investigation? More witnesses etc, who knows.. I'll buy the 'more complex' argument but it doesn't answer why people were held on remand and these guys were bailed. " No it doesn't.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm Because he was fast tracked." But the Manchester airport pair have apparently not even been charged. While the police officer has been suspended | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the case above. His defense told the court that he wasnn't a clever man and actually didn't know what far left and right actually meant!!! He just went with the flow.
58 years old! FCOL!
The vast majority here don't know what far left and far right means either "Dirty words  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm " News bias due to where it's posted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm News bias due to where it's posted. " ^forgot the question mark. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm It's a more complex investigation? More witnesses etc, who knows.. I'll buy the 'more complex' argument but it doesn't answer why people were held on remand and these guys were bailed. " In response to wider civil unrest, governments take less citizen-friendly approaches. This is because the imperative to prevent escalation becomes much greater. There is little threat to wider society from a personal grievance/isolated incident at the airport. Growing riots threaten to escalate into something uncontrollable. That's why sentencing becomes harsher and faster - it's about urgently sending a message to prevent that further escalation. You may or may not agree with it, but it is an explanation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm News bias due to where it's posted. " The content is factually accurate, why have they not been charged. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm It's a more complex investigation? More witnesses etc, who knows.. I'll buy the 'more complex' argument but it doesn't answer why people were held on remand and these guys were bailed. In response to wider civil unrest, governments take less citizen-friendly approaches. This is because the imperative to prevent escalation becomes much greater. There is little threat to wider society from a personal grievance/isolated incident at the airport. Growing riots threaten to escalate into something uncontrollable. That's why sentencing becomes harsher and faster - it's about urgently sending a message to prevent that further escalation. You may or may not agree with it, but it is an explanation." Absolutely, as reported tonight peaceful protests, only one arrest in Blackpool atm. But does not answer why the two men who attacked police officers and broke a WPC nose have not even been charged. It over two weeks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm Because he was fast tracked. But the Manchester airport pair have apparently not even been charged. While the police officer has been suspended " I think that it would be a senseless exercise to compare the cases, really. One example doesn't always turn out to be the same in another example. Lawyers will no doubt argue reams of legalese of just how different they are. My understanding of fastrack is that it can be expedited because it is in the public interest to do so - defendants can always appeal a sentence afterwards, of course. Those who were fastracked arrived in courts with 48 hours of being charged, and at least one that got the 3 years pleaded guilty straight away. If the Manchester Airport pair have not been charged - it does make you wonder why. Both from a civil point of view and a criminal point of view. Do remember they both claiming they are not guilty too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Absolutely, as reported tonight peaceful protests, only one arrest in Blackpool atm. But does not answer why the two men who attacked police officers and broke a WPC nose have not even been charged. It over two weeks " That is a perfectly valid question, just not really in the context of riot management. Someone will need to answer it before Farage&Tate do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They're certainly opening the doors for the appeals courts that's for sure." Yup. And they will never see the irony that they can claim that democratic right to do so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did we ever hear any more about the guy who got hit by the brick on the head and groin.." Yeah people are referring to him as a dickhead | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 29m ago 12:37 SkyNews. Couple went to bingo then joined riot A couple who joined in riots in Hartlepool after an afternoon bingo session have been jailed. **Name Removed**, 54, and his partner **Name Removed**, 29, both pleaded guilty to violent disorder after 200 people gathered in the city on 31 July. Jailing them for two years and two months each, the judge said the pair were "at the very forefront of the mob" and tried to push through a police cordon. **Name Removed**, a former postmaster and school governor, was described as "one of the main instigators" of the large-scale disturbance. **Name Removed**, formerly a McDonald's worker, was bitten on the hip by a police dog during the incident. Bingo? Get ready for a Full-House! "You can’t blame the dog, the person probably still smelt like a Big Mac! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 29m ago 12:37 SkyNews. Couple went to bingo then joined riot A couple who joined in riots in Hartlepool after an afternoon bingo session have been jailed. **Name Removed**, 54, and his partner **Name Removed**, 29, both pleaded guilty to violent disorder after 200 people gathered in the city on 31 July. Jailing them for two years and two months each, the judge said the pair were "at the very forefront of the mob" and tried to push through a police cordon. **Name Removed**, a former postmaster and school governor, was described as "one of the main instigators" of the large-scale disturbance. **Name Removed**, formerly a McDonald's worker, was bitten on the hip by a police dog during the incident. Bingo? Get ready for a Full-House!
You can’t blame the dog, the person probably still smelt like a Big Mac!"Then am surprised all the policemen didn't start biting him.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 29m ago 12:37 SkyNews. Couple went to bingo then joined riot A couple who joined in riots in Hartlepool after an afternoon bingo session have been jailed. **Name Removed**, 54, and his partner **Name Removed**, 29, both pleaded guilty to violent disorder after 200 people gathered in the city on 31 July. Jailing them for two years and two months each, the judge said the pair were "at the very forefront of the mob" and tried to push through a police cordon. **Name Removed**, a former postmaster and school governor, was described as "one of the main instigators" of the large-scale disturbance. **Name Removed**, formerly a McDonald's worker, was bitten on the hip by a police dog during the incident. Bingo? Get ready for a Full-House!
You can’t blame the dog, the person probably still smelt like a Big Mac!
Then am surprised all the policemen didn't start biting him.."Didn’t you know, two tier policing is proof that all coppers are now tofu eating veggie woke warriors attacking far right freedom fighters! They wouldn’t dream of having any meat in their mouth | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 29m ago 12:37 SkyNews. Couple went to bingo then joined riot A couple who joined in riots in Hartlepool after an afternoon bingo session have been jailed. **Name Removed**, 54, and his partner **Name Removed**, 29, both pleaded guilty to violent disorder after 200 people gathered in the city on 31 July. Jailing them for two years and two months each, the judge said the pair were "at the very forefront of the mob" and tried to push through a police cordon. **Name Removed**, a former postmaster and school governor, was described as "one of the main instigators" of the large-scale disturbance. **Name Removed**, formerly a McDonald's worker, was bitten on the hip by a police dog during the incident. Bingo? Get ready for a Full-House!
You can’t blame the dog, the person probably still smelt like a Big Mac!
Then am surprised all the policemen didn't start biting him..
Didn’t you know, two tier policing is proof that all coppers are now tofu eating veggie woke warriors attacking far right freedom fighters! They wouldn’t dream of having any meat in their mouth "I always see their cars in McDonald's drive thu's. They must be getting the veggie burgers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did we ever hear any more about the guy who got hit by the brick on the head and groin.." Yes, he's dazed, confused and can barely string a sentence together .... so completely back to normal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 29m ago 12:37 SkyNews. Couple went to bingo then joined riot A couple who joined in riots in Hartlepool after an afternoon bingo session have been jailed. **Name Removed**, 54, and his partner **Name Removed**, 29, both pleaded guilty to violent disorder after 200 people gathered in the city on 31 July. Jailing them for two years and two months each, the judge said the pair were "at the very forefront of the mob" and tried to push through a police cordon. **Name Removed**, a former postmaster and school governor, was described as "one of the main instigators" of the large-scale disturbance. **Name Removed**, formerly a McDonald's worker, was bitten on the hip by a police dog during the incident. Bingo? Get ready for a Full-House!
You can’t blame the dog, the person probably still smelt like a Big Mac!
Then am surprised all the policemen didn't start biting him..
Didn’t you know, two tier policing is proof that all coppers are now tofu eating veggie woke warriors attacking far right freedom fighters! They wouldn’t dream of having any meat in their mouth
I always see their cars in McDonald's drive thu's. They must be getting the veggie burgers."Yeah and when they are policing far left rioting they are veggie buggers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm News bias due to where it's posted. The content is factually accurate, why have they not been charged. " ------------------------- Worry not, they will be, their day in court isn't going away. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did we ever hear any more about the guy who got hit by the brick on the head and groin.." The brick once cleaned has a role in society.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I realise most of the piss taking of the police on here is in jest ( I hope ) but surely the lack of respect they seem to have from some people has contributed to the two incidents mentioned above. Anyone caught pushing a policeman, let alone punching from behind ,should be locked up immediately . As for anyone launching a house brick! I'd say attempted murder. It wasn't an attempt at causing a bruise. Setting fire to a building with people in it.same again. The courts are too soft. Don't give reduced sentences for the guilty saying " sorry " . Add time on if they don't. " post of the day spot on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watched a clip of the Manchester Airport family with their lawyer giving a statement. They have pleaded not guilty and it would appear there is much more cctv evidence to go through and there is a lot more to this than what the public know. I am guessing that it will take a while before this goes to trial and we find out everything " Would that be the clip showing resisting arrest, a policewoman being punched, an arresting officer punched from behind ? Then that individual ending up being the one kicked whilst on the floor ? If you're being arrested, take it on the chin. Argue your case later. This isn't Russia, you won't dissappear forever . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Waddingtons are bringing out Starmer Monopoly for Christmas. If you land on any square you Go to Jail." Must get that to go with tory monopoly. I get all the properties on the board apart from the old Kent Road and I get control of the bank. If you lose its your own fault as you didn't work hard enough | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations." No way going against the 1st ammendment would be unconstitutional! Shit sorry wrong country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations." We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A judge in Belfast says any protestors who are 'watching from the sidelines' will be held on remand. That'll please a few no doubt "That's a bit harsh! Times were hard growing up in East Belfast so watching a riot was the only entertainment we got | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Waddingtons are bringing out Starmer Monopoly for Christmas. If you land on any square you Go to Jail. Must get that to go with tory monopoly. I get all the properties on the board apart from the old Kent Road and I get control of the bank. If you lose its your own fault as you didn't work hard enough " Indeed. They could be called the Putin and Thatcher versions to tell them apart. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations. We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago." And I remember saying to the people who were cheering on the additional restrictions that were being placed on protesting. 'What happens when it's something you believe in. Instead of protests being about taking action about climate science or about inequality. What happens if you want to protest about the government not blaming immigrants enough'. And here we see exactly that. Ignoring the restrictions put on by the right wing government. And blaming "the left". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations. We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago." Yes, they did. I am expecting more bills around what you can post in social media. Like the authoritarian 2003 communications act that Blair passed. Both Tories and Labour have terrible track record when it comes to free speech. That's because they are all politicians at the end of the day and politicians love controlling what people can speak. The Tories kept screaming about "woke policing" and how they were wasting time arresting people for mean tweets. Yet they never touched the 2003 communications act. Labour will not touch the anti-protest laws passed by Tories either. This is why I keep repeating myself that the first amendment in the US constitution is the best political policy ever made. They knew that politicians will always look for opportunities to control speech. They drew a clear line at direct call for violence and made it difficult for any government to move that line. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. " If this trend continues, I expect UK and quite a few European countries to become very similar to China in this aspect. Only the path we take would be different. At least the Chinese politicians have been honest about it from the beginning. Over here, Left wing politicians will pass bills "for the greater good" while right wing politicians will pass bills "for your own safety and security" which keep reducing your freedom of speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. " I think it's probably about time people realised there are actual consequences to what they say if they cross the line.. No one is being prosecuted for saying there are too many illegal immigrants or the asylum system is a complete fuck up.. No one is being prosecuted for saying I don't like gingers, or white people or people who are Asian or whatever.. It's hate speech and incitement to attack others and to burn them inside of where they are and no one should be able to say that without being held to account.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. I think it's probably about time people realised there are actual consequences to what they say if they cross the line.. No one is being prosecuted for saying there are too many illegal immigrants or the asylum system is a complete fuck up.. No one is being prosecuted for saying I don't like gingers, or white people or people who are Asian or whatever.. It's hate speech and incitement to attack others and to burn them inside of where they are and no one should be able to say that without being held to account.. " The problem is with where you draw the line and if that line is clear. I agree that direct calls for violence is punishable. It's a clearly defined line. In case you haven't noticed, the 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything that's "grossly offensive". Who decides what is grossly offensive? These kind of laws are intentionally vague and up to interpretation just so that they can use it to take action against people whenever they want | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. " 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. I think it's probably about time people realised there are actual consequences to what they say if they cross the line.. No one is being prosecuted for saying there are too many illegal immigrants or the asylum system is a complete fuck up.. No one is being prosecuted for saying I don't like gingers, or white people or people who are Asian or whatever.. It's hate speech and incitement to attack others and to burn them inside of where they are and no one should be able to say that without being held to account.. " I have acknowledged that, it is the extended reach and speed it has been used to create social obedience. I have had an eye on Canada for while now, mainly because of the way it managed protestors opposed to the vaccine mandate, courts were given authority to freeze the bank accounts of anyone in the protests. Canada is also a very liberal country that is a few steps ahead of where we are in the UK at the moment, it is interesting to see the same direction of travel and the outcomes we can expect, which are not great. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm " What is the point of a post like this. This is the type of thing that contributes to the level of hatred we have seen recently. You post something like this and do not think of the impact it has on non white people and you clearly don't care. Please stop. People like you are making this Country feel unsafe for people like myself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting." Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posted on X “A violent white man has been jailed for 3 years for punching a police officer in the face during the riots. Meanwhile, the two violent Muslim thugs who brutally attacked 3 armed police officers at Manchester Airport have not even been charged”. Don’t know what to make of this atm Because he was fast tracked. But the Manchester airport pair have apparently not even been charged. While the police officer has been suspended " AND!!!! Your point being?!!! You don't know what happened but are making it seem it has to do with colour. FFS!! It's because he's a police officer - they do have rules and codes of conduct!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Manchester Airport incident is a much more complex investigation and I'm sure we will find out much more in due course when the trial comes up. If people start speculating on social media then we will have learned nothing from the previous week!" FACTS!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests" The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations. We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago. Yes, they did. I am expecting more bills around what you can post in social media. Like the authoritarian 2003 communications act that Blair passed. Both Tories and Labour have terrible track record when it comes to free speech. That's because they are all politicians at the end of the day and politicians love controlling what people can speak. The Tories kept screaming about "woke policing" and how they were wasting time arresting people for mean tweets. Yet they never touched the 2003 communications act. Labour will not touch the anti-protest laws passed by Tories either. This is why I keep repeating myself that the first amendment in the US constitution is the best political policy ever made. They knew that politicians will always look for opportunities to control speech. They drew a clear line at direct call for violence and made it difficult for any government to move that line." I don't think the US is a good example of anything. This idea that people should be able to say whatever they want, has caused harm and destruction. It's extremely easy for those who are less likely to be on the negative side of such speech to be so concerned about protecting speech. Something needs to be done. People should be held to account. Social media is powerful and unless you are someone who checks and understands that not everything said online is true, then something needs to be done to stop things from escalating. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations. We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago. Yes, they did. I am expecting more bills around what you can post in social media. Like the authoritarian 2003 communications act that Blair passed. Both Tories and Labour have terrible track record when it comes to free speech. That's because they are all politicians at the end of the day and politicians love controlling what people can speak. The Tories kept screaming about "woke policing" and how they were wasting time arresting people for mean tweets. Yet they never touched the 2003 communications act. Labour will not touch the anti-protest laws passed by Tories either. This is why I keep repeating myself that the first amendment in the US constitution is the best political policy ever made. They knew that politicians will always look for opportunities to control speech. They drew a clear line at direct call for violence and made it difficult for any government to move that line. I don't think the US is a good example of anything. This idea that people should be able to say whatever they want, has caused harm and destruction. It's extremely easy for those who are less likely to be on the negative side of such speech to be so concerned about protecting speech. Something needs to be done. People should be held to account. Social media is powerful and unless you are someone who checks and understands that not everything said online is true, then something needs to be done to stop things from escalating." If you think governments controlling what you can speak is a good idea, imagine what it will look like if reform wins the election and uses the same provision to control what you can speak. You will of course enjoy government control of free speech as long as the party you like is in power and you watch other people getting arrested for speaking things you don't like. But remember politics go around in circles. It won't be long before you are at the receiving end of it. This is what makes free speech so important in a democracy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? " If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. " I agree we do not want any miscarriages of justice. Does the speed of the cases and sentencing increase the likelihood of an injustice? " Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. " Those other examples, the vast majority of people were peaceful. But the racist riots didn't seem to have many people acting in a peaceful manner. As you mentioned they were marches, not riots. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. I think it's probably about time people realised there are actual consequences to what they say if they cross the line.. No one is being prosecuted for saying there are too many illegal immigrants or the asylum system is a complete fuck up.. No one is being prosecuted for saying I don't like gingers, or white people or people who are Asian or whatever.. It's hate speech and incitement to attack others and to burn them inside of where they are and no one should be able to say that without being held to account.. The problem is with where you draw the line and if that line is clear. I agree that direct calls for violence is punishable. It's a clearly defined line. In case you haven't noticed, the 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything that's "grossly offensive". Who decides what is grossly offensive? These kind of laws are intentionally vague and up to interpretation just so that they can use it to take action against people whenever they want " I haven't mentioned grossly offensive, I don't agree with people being prosecuted for grossly offensive views.. If you incite violence then you take what's coming.. It's not rocket science.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. I agree we do not want any miscarriages of justice. Does the speed of the cases and sentencing increase the likelihood of an injustice? Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. Those other examples, the vast majority of people were peaceful. But the racist riots didn't seem to have many people acting in a peaceful manner. As you mentioned they were marches, not riots. " There was plenty of law breaking going on in the marches, and taking it one step further, you will not need to be on a march or protest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. I think it's probably about time people realised there are actual consequences to what they say if they cross the line.. No one is being prosecuted for saying there are too many illegal immigrants or the asylum system is a complete fuck up.. No one is being prosecuted for saying I don't like gingers, or white people or people who are Asian or whatever.. It's hate speech and incitement to attack others and to burn them inside of where they are and no one should be able to say that without being held to account.. The problem is with where you draw the line and if that line is clear. I agree that direct calls for violence is punishable. It's a clearly defined line. In case you haven't noticed, the 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything that's "grossly offensive". Who decides what is grossly offensive? These kind of laws are intentionally vague and up to interpretation just so that they can use it to take action against people whenever they want I haven't mentioned grossly offensive, I don't agree with people being prosecuted for grossly offensive views.. If you incite violence then you take what's coming.. It's not rocket science.." Pretty sure most people agree that direct calls for violence is wrong. But the complain here is about how politicians use these situations to pass bills that gives them even more power. I gave the 2003 communications act as an example of how it is already the case. We already have an authoritarian law that goes against free speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. " Pretty much all so far have admitted guilt when presented with the evidence.. Literally they are bang to rights, they know what the did and are putting their hands up to get a sentence reduction.. There's been no rounding up groups who are close to a wrong doer.. It's been specific and applied according to the acts committed .. There's been convictions on other protests where applicable.. This is about the now.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. I think it's probably about time people realised there are actual consequences to what they say if they cross the line.. No one is being prosecuted for saying there are too many illegal immigrants or the asylum system is a complete fuck up.. No one is being prosecuted for saying I don't like gingers, or white people or people who are Asian or whatever.. It's hate speech and incitement to attack others and to burn them inside of where they are and no one should be able to say that without being held to account.. The problem is with where you draw the line and if that line is clear. I agree that direct calls for violence is punishable. It's a clearly defined line. In case you haven't noticed, the 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything that's "grossly offensive". Who decides what is grossly offensive? These kind of laws are intentionally vague and up to interpretation just so that they can use it to take action against people whenever they want I haven't mentioned grossly offensive, I don't agree with people being prosecuted for grossly offensive views.. If you incite violence then you take what's coming.. It's not rocket science.. Pretty sure most people agree that direct calls for violence is wrong. But the complain here is about how politicians use these situations to pass bills that gives them even more power. I gave the 2003 communications act as an example of how it is already the case. We already have an authoritarian law that goes against free speech." Then that's a different argument or debate we can have in society but for now and yes they are setting new benchmarks with using new and existing legislation clearly with a view to setting examples to deter further incitement at this time but it will have a deterrent affect going forward.. Most people do agree that direct calls to violence and arson are rightly wrong ..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. Pretty much all so far have admitted guilt when presented with the evidence.. Literally they are bang to rights, they know what the did and are putting their hands up to get a sentence reduction.. There's been no rounding up groups who are close to a wrong doer.. It's been specific and applied according to the acts committed .. There's been convictions on other protests where applicable.. This is about the now.." We have seen someone remanded for being a 'curious observer'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations. We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago. And I remember saying to the people who were cheering on the additional restrictions that were being placed on protesting. 'What happens when it's something you believe in. Instead of protests being about taking action about climate science or about inequality. What happens if you want to protest about the government not blaming immigrants enough'. And here we see exactly that. Ignoring the restrictions put on by the right wing government. And blaming "the left"." yes you did you’ve called this a long time back tbh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. Pretty much all so far have admitted guilt when presented with the evidence.. Literally they are bang to rights, they know what the did and are putting their hands up to get a sentence reduction.. There's been no rounding up groups who are close to a wrong doer.. It's been specific and applied according to the acts committed .. There's been convictions on other protests where applicable.. This is about the now.." they pleaded guilty and threw themselves into this without due diligence on either side, in my opinion. If this continues it will expand to other areas. You know that poem the socialists love to roll out, First they came, well that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations. We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago. Yes, they did. I am expecting more bills around what you can post in social media. Like the authoritarian 2003 communications act that Blair passed. Both Tories and Labour have terrible track record when it comes to free speech. That's because they are all politicians at the end of the day and politicians love controlling what people can speak. The Tories kept screaming about "woke policing" and how they were wasting time arresting people for mean tweets. Yet they never touched the 2003 communications act. Labour will not touch the anti-protest laws passed by Tories either. This is why I keep repeating myself that the first amendment in the US constitution is the best political policy ever made. They knew that politicians will always look for opportunities to control speech. They drew a clear line at direct call for violence and made it difficult for any government to move that line. I don't think the US is a good example of anything. This idea that people should be able to say whatever they want, has caused harm and destruction. It's extremely easy for those who are less likely to be on the negative side of such speech to be so concerned about protecting speech. Something needs to be done. People should be held to account. Social media is powerful and unless you are someone who checks and understands that not everything said online is true, then something needs to be done to stop things from escalating. If you think governments controlling what you can speak is a good idea, imagine what it will look like if reform wins the election and uses the same provision to control what you can speak. You will of course enjoy government control of free speech as long as the party you like is in power and you watch other people getting arrested for speaking things you don't like. But remember politics go around in circles. It won't be long before you are at the receiving end of it. This is what makes free speech so important in a democracy " That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that something needs to be done because of the harm it causes. Not just with social media but with the media, the misinformation that has been spread over the last few years has contributed in the rise of hate crimes. Why shouldn't that be dealt with? Do you know what this feels like? There is this BS narrative about 2 tier policing - which doesn't exist. But what does exists, is how certain groups are treated when it comes to voicing hate. Islamaphobia is beyond high in this country and that is what led to the riots. Based on a post that was INCORRECT!! The abuse and violence that has been reaped on to that community is not ok. That's an example as to why I'm saying that something should be done. If people said whatever as no one got hurt, then fine. But that is not the world we live in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. Pretty much all so far have admitted guilt when presented with the evidence.. Literally they are bang to rights, they know what the did and are putting their hands up to get a sentence reduction.. There's been no rounding up groups who are close to a wrong doer.. It's been specific and applied according to the acts committed .. There's been convictions on other protests where applicable.. This is about the now.. they pleaded guilty and threw themselves into this without due diligence on either side, in my opinion. If this continues it will expand to other areas. You know that poem the socialists love to roll out, First they came, well that. " Which other side? I don't really think its appropriate or it applies tbh, this isn't in my opinion some sort of state oppression in how the legislation has been applied at a time of social unrest with the potential consequences of it not being stopped. The legislation has been there and it was raised by those who see it as an unnecessary restriction on civil liberties in some areas but tbh many on here were fine with it but now it's an issue? First they came for the arsonists, then they came for those attacking others places of worship, then they came for the rabble rousers inviting violence .. Not sure I disagree with that slant on it.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. Pretty much all so far have admitted guilt when presented with the evidence.. Literally they are bang to rights, they know what the did and are putting their hands up to get a sentence reduction.. There's been no rounding up groups who are close to a wrong doer.. It's been specific and applied according to the acts committed .. There's been convictions on other protests where applicable.. This is about the now.. they pleaded guilty and threw themselves into this without due diligence on either side, in my opinion. If this continues it will expand to other areas. You know that poem the socialists love to roll out, First they came, well that. Which other side? I don't really think its appropriate or it applies tbh, this isn't in my opinion some sort of state oppression in how the legislation has been applied at a time of social unrest with the potential consequences of it not being stopped. The legislation has been there and it was raised by those who see it as an unnecessary restriction on civil liberties in some areas but tbh many on here were fine with it but now it's an issue? First they came for the arsonists, then they came for those attacking others places of worship, then they came for the rabble rousers inviting violence .. Not sure I disagree with that slant on it.." Ah okay, I'm not really arguing about the person who is on video pushing a smouldering wheelie bin at police then falling over right into the police line and into the back of a van. I'm talking about people who have used social media, they are being rounded up and jailed in exactly the same way. I'm not comfortable with this, it is too quick, to far reaching and it has no ceiling | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. Pretty much all so far have admitted guilt when presented with the evidence.. Literally they are bang to rights, they know what the did and are putting their hands up to get a sentence reduction.. There's been no rounding up groups who are close to a wrong doer.. It's been specific and applied according to the acts committed .. There's been convictions on other protests where applicable.. This is about the now.. they pleaded guilty and threw themselves into this without due diligence on either side, in my opinion. If this continues it will expand to other areas. You know that poem the socialists love to roll out, First they came, well that. Which other side? I don't really think its appropriate or it applies tbh, this isn't in my opinion some sort of state oppression in how the legislation has been applied at a time of social unrest with the potential consequences of it not being stopped. The legislation has been there and it was raised by those who see it as an unnecessary restriction on civil liberties in some areas but tbh many on here were fine with it but now it's an issue? First they came for the arsonists, then they came for those attacking others places of worship, then they came for the rabble rousers inviting violence .. Not sure I disagree with that slant on it.. Ah okay, I'm not really arguing about the person who is on video pushing a smouldering wheelie bin at police then falling over right into the police line and into the back of a van. I'm talking about people who have used social media, they are being rounded up and jailed in exactly the same way. I'm not comfortable with this, it is too quick, to far reaching and it has no ceiling " You said about both sides, do you mean the state etc? I can see how it might cause concerns but I can also see how its been long overdue that those who think they can post incitement and watch the chaos unfold can't just shrug their shoulders because they didn't personally carry out the act.. You know my background, I've seen the reality of it when it was a rumour maliciously spread which led to a near fatal incident.. We often hear about personal responsibility on here and this is another aspect of that.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm saying that something needs to be done because of the harm it causes. Not just with social media but with the media, the misinformation that has been spread over the last few years has contributed in the rise of hate crimes. Why shouldn't that be dealt with? Do you know what this feels like? There is this BS narrative about 2 tier policing - which doesn't exist. But what does exists, is how certain groups are treated when it comes to voicing hate. Islamaphobia is beyond high in this country and that is what led to the riots. Based on a post that was INCORRECT!! The abuse and violence that has been reaped on to that community is not ok. That's an example as to why I'm saying that something should be done. If people said whatever as no one got hurt, then fine. But that is not the world we live in. " But the US already has provisions for harms. Making direct calls for violence is illegal even in the US. Libel is illegal too. On the other hand, if someone gets emotionally hurt because I said something, it's not for the government to control it. As for "misinformation", do you really believe that letting the government decide what is truth and what is not is a good idea? In case you don't know, the Chinese government is already doing it for their people. That turned out to be so good, didn't it? Again, whatever power you want to give the power over free speech, imagine Reform or Tories having same power and deciding what is truth and what's not. Would you be fine with it or would you change your tunes and be a free speech lover when that happens? Btw two-tier policing is real. There have been numerous instances it has been pointed out already in other threads. The report about how grooming gangs were handled itself is clear evidence for it. Police did not investigate the problem in spite of numerous complaints purely because of the religion of the people involved. It's a well documented fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm saying that something needs to be done because of the harm it causes. Not just with social media but with the media, the misinformation that has been spread over the last few years has contributed in the rise of hate crimes. Why shouldn't that be dealt with? Do you know what this feels like? There is this BS narrative about 2 tier policing - which doesn't exist. But what does exists, is how certain groups are treated when it comes to voicing hate. Islamaphobia is beyond high in this country and that is what led to the riots. Based on a post that was INCORRECT!! The abuse and violence that has been reaped on to that community is not ok. That's an example as to why I'm saying that something should be done. If people said whatever as no one got hurt, then fine. But that is not the world we live in. But the US already has provisions for harms. Making direct calls for violence is illegal even in the US. Libel is illegal too. On the other hand, if someone gets emotionally hurt because I said something, it's not for the government to control it. As for "misinformation", do you really believe that letting the government decide what is truth and what is not is a good idea? In case you don't know, the Chinese government is already doing it for their people. That turned out to be so good, didn't it? Again, whatever power you want to give the power over free speech, imagine Reform or Tories having same power and deciding what is truth and what's not. Would you be fine with it or would you change your tunes and be a free speech lover when that happens? Btw two-tier policing is real. There have been numerous instances it has been pointed out already in other threads. The report about how grooming gangs were handled itself is clear evidence for it. Police did not investigate the problem in spite of numerous complaints purely because of the religion of the people involved. It's a well documented fact. " When was the last time public interest charities or groups or individuals took the Chinese government through the courts system..? And won.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. Pretty much all so far have admitted guilt when presented with the evidence.. Literally they are bang to rights, they know what the did and are putting their hands up to get a sentence reduction.. There's been no rounding up groups who are close to a wrong doer.. It's been specific and applied according to the acts committed .. There's been convictions on other protests where applicable.. This is about the now.. they pleaded guilty and threw themselves into this without due diligence on either side, in my opinion. If this continues it will expand to other areas. You know that poem the socialists love to roll out, First they came, well that. Which other side? I don't really think its appropriate or it applies tbh, this isn't in my opinion some sort of state oppression in how the legislation has been applied at a time of social unrest with the potential consequences of it not being stopped. The legislation has been there and it was raised by those who see it as an unnecessary restriction on civil liberties in some areas but tbh many on here were fine with it but now it's an issue? First they came for the arsonists, then they came for those attacking others places of worship, then they came for the rabble rousers inviting violence .. Not sure I disagree with that slant on it.. Ah okay, I'm not really arguing about the person who is on video pushing a smouldering wheelie bin at police then falling over right into the police line and into the back of a van. I'm talking about people who have used social media, they are being rounded up and jailed in exactly the same way. I'm not comfortable with this, it is too quick, to far reaching and it has no ceiling You said about both sides, do you mean the state etc? I can see how it might cause concerns but I can also see how its been long overdue that those who think they can post incitement and watch the chaos unfold can't just shrug their shoulders because they didn't personally carry out the act.. You know my background, I've seen the reality of it when it was a rumour maliciously spread which led to a near fatal incident.. We often hear about personal responsibility on here and this is another aspect of that.." I did mean the state, they have moved far to quickly leaving the door open for future criticisms that will be apparent. I’m still not convinced at the speed at which those on social media have been dealt with. I feel there is a some anger at Musk too, and this is all part of the flex. It has set a precedent, time will show whether I was worrying about nothing.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When was the last time public interest charities or groups or individuals took the Chinese government through the courts system..? And won.. " They haven't. If you let the government take away more and more of individual rights, that's exactly the state UK will be in too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. Pretty much all so far have admitted guilt when presented with the evidence.. Literally they are bang to rights, they know what the did and are putting their hands up to get a sentence reduction.. There's been no rounding up groups who are close to a wrong doer.. It's been specific and applied according to the acts committed .. There's been convictions on other protests where applicable.. This is about the now.. they pleaded guilty and threw themselves into this without due diligence on either side, in my opinion. If this continues it will expand to other areas. You know that poem the socialists love to roll out, First they came, well that. Which other side? I don't really think its appropriate or it applies tbh, this isn't in my opinion some sort of state oppression in how the legislation has been applied at a time of social unrest with the potential consequences of it not being stopped. The legislation has been there and it was raised by those who see it as an unnecessary restriction on civil liberties in some areas but tbh many on here were fine with it but now it's an issue? First they came for the arsonists, then they came for those attacking others places of worship, then they came for the rabble rousers inviting violence .. Not sure I disagree with that slant on it.. Ah okay, I'm not really arguing about the person who is on video pushing a smouldering wheelie bin at police then falling over right into the police line and into the back of a van. I'm talking about people who have used social media, they are being rounded up and jailed in exactly the same way. I'm not comfortable with this, it is too quick, to far reaching and it has no ceiling You said about both sides, do you mean the state etc? I can see how it might cause concerns but I can also see how its been long overdue that those who think they can post incitement and watch the chaos unfold can't just shrug their shoulders because they didn't personally carry out the act.. You know my background, I've seen the reality of it when it was a rumour maliciously spread which led to a near fatal incident.. We often hear about personal responsibility on here and this is another aspect of that.. I did mean the state, they have moved far to quickly leaving the door open for future criticisms that will be apparent. I’m still not convinced at the speed at which those on social media have been dealt with. I feel there is a some anger at Musk too, and this is all part of the flex. It has set a precedent, time will show whether I was worrying about nothing.. " There's definitely the focus on deterrence both with those physically breaking the law and online etc but that's to be expected at such a time.. If the bar is moved lower then yes.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm saying that something needs to be done because of the harm it causes. Not just with social media but with the media, the misinformation that has been spread over the last few years has contributed in the rise of hate crimes. Why shouldn't that be dealt with? Do you know what this feels like? There is this BS narrative about 2 tier policing - which doesn't exist. But what does exists, is how certain groups are treated when it comes to voicing hate. Islamaphobia is beyond high in this country and that is what led to the riots. Based on a post that was INCORRECT!! The abuse and violence that has been reaped on to that community is not ok. That's an example as to why I'm saying that something should be done. If people said whatever as no one got hurt, then fine. But that is not the world we live in. But the US already has provisions for harms. Making direct calls for violence is illegal even in the US. Libel is illegal too. On the other hand, if someone gets emotionally hurt because I said something, it's not for the government to control it. As for "misinformation", do you really believe that letting the government decide what is truth and what is not is a good idea? In case you don't know, the Chinese government is already doing it for their people. That turned out to be so good, didn't it? Again, whatever power you want to give the power over free speech, imagine Reform or Tories having same power and deciding what is truth and what's not. Would you be fine with it or would you change your tunes and be a free speech lover when that happens? Btw two-tier policing is real. There have been numerous instances it has been pointed out already in other threads. The report about how grooming gangs were handled itself is clear evidence for it. Police did not investigate the problem in spite of numerous complaints purely because of the religion of the people involved. It's a well documented fact. " Regarding Rotherham, that was because of the officials that failed. That was system which is/was corrupt. That's very different to what's happening on the streets. People compare the awful racist riots to the protests against genocide. When they can't be compared. As far as the US goes. Trump has said numerous heinous things and has never been charged. The US may have laws but actually because of now who gets to implement them, people are getting away with worse and worse each day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Regarding Rotherham, that was because of the officials that failed. That was system which is/was corrupt. " No, it's a clearly documented case that some police did not act because they were scared of being called racists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When was the last time public interest charities or groups or individuals took the Chinese government through the courts system..? And won.. They haven't. If you let the government take away more and more of individual rights, that's exactly the state UK will be in too." There was no appetite under Boris's majority to pander to those that are desperate to see us leave international conventions on human rights etc.. The types of people on either side of the fringes who might want such state control are clearly in a minority.. We both don't ever want to see that I fully agree, I won't in my life time nor will you see us anywhere like that.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Regarding Rotherham, that was because of the officials that failed. That was system which is/was corrupt. No, it's a clearly documented case that some police did not act because they were scared of being called racists." That was a part of it. But not all. It was also a class thing too. Either way, if we want to talk about those that abuse children, I would like to see the same applies to those who are in the majority when it comes to those that SA children. I'm certain you're aware of that statistic. Funny it's not shouted out about though. Sadly with the children in Rotherham, it's a reflection of how child abuse victims are unfortunately treated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Regarding Rotherham, that was because of the officials that failed. That was system which is/was corrupt. No, it's a clearly documented case that some police did not act because they were scared of being called racists. That was a part of it. But not all. It was also a class thing too. Either way, if we want to talk about those that abuse children, I would like to see the same applies to those who are in the majority when it comes to those that SA children. I'm certain you're aware of that statistic. Funny it's not shouted out about though. Sadly with the children in Rotherham, it's a reflection of how child abuse victims are unfortunately treated." We were talking about two tier policing and I gave you a documented example of it. While I agree that child abuse victims were treated poorly in general, it doesn't absolve the fact that two-tier policing was also a problem in these cases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When was the last time public interest charities or groups or individuals took the Chinese government through the courts system..? And won.. They haven't. If you let the government take away more and more of individual rights, that's exactly the state UK will be in too. There was no appetite under Boris's majority to pander to those that are desperate to see us leave international conventions on human rights etc.. The types of people on either side of the fringes who might want such state control are clearly in a minority.. We both don't ever want to see that I fully agree, I won't in my life time nor will you see us anywhere like that.. " Because politicians know that doing it overnight would be a big political mistake. So they do in small steps. The 2003 communications act is an example of it. My point is that we already have laws which covers direct calls for violence. These laws already crossed the line and makes it illegal to post anything that's "grossly offensive". What new legislations do you want? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When was the last time public interest charities or groups or individuals took the Chinese government through the courts system..? And won.. They haven't. If you let the government take away more and more of individual rights, that's exactly the state UK will be in too. There was no appetite under Boris's majority to pander to those that are desperate to see us leave international conventions on human rights etc.. The types of people on either side of the fringes who might want such state control are clearly in a minority.. We both don't ever want to see that I fully agree, I won't in my life time nor will you see us anywhere like that.. Because politicians know that doing it overnight would be a big political mistake. So they do in small steps. The 2003 communications act is an example of it. My point is that we already have laws which covers direct calls for violence. These laws already crossed the line and makes it illegal to post anything that's "grossly offensive". What new legislations do you want?" I want some laws torn up, those that Thatcher brought in against the trades unions for a starter but I know Blair kept them in.. Have had full on rows with MPs at that time in the strangers bar about it.. No doubt they will ever be changed now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Regarding Rotherham, that was because of the officials that failed. That was system which is/was corrupt. No, it's a clearly documented case that some police did not act because they were scared of being called racists. That was a part of it. But not all. It was also a class thing too. Either way, if we want to talk about those that abuse children, I would like to see the same applies to those who are in the majority when it comes to those that SA children. I'm certain you're aware of that statistic. Funny it's not shouted out about though. Sadly with the children in Rotherham, it's a reflection of how child abuse victims are unfortunately treated. We were talking about two tier policing and I gave you a documented example of it. While I agree that child abuse victims were treated poorly in general, it doesn't absolve the fact that two-tier policing was also a problem in these cases." It doesn't sit right with me to have the two brought together. What happened in Rotherham and what's happened with the riots and how they are policed can't be compared. I can't say it was two tier policing. I can say it was bad and they didn't do their job. Yes, you have me an example and I expanded it. Full pictures are not given and when using Rotherham, it makes it seem as though the crimes are only rife within certain communities. In case someone is reading this who has limited knowledge about either. At least it gives them more information, instead of it being possibly portrayed as only one group being seen to get away with things. Which is rubbish. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When was the last time public interest charities or groups or individuals took the Chinese government through the courts system..? And won.. They haven't. If you let the government take away more and more of individual rights, that's exactly the state UK will be in too. There was no appetite under Boris's majority to pander to those that are desperate to see us leave international conventions on human rights etc.. The types of people on either side of the fringes who might want such state control are clearly in a minority.. We both don't ever want to see that I fully agree, I won't in my life time nor will you see us anywhere like that.. Because politicians know that doing it overnight would be a big political mistake. So they do in small steps. The 2003 communications act is an example of it. My point is that we already have laws which covers direct calls for violence. These laws already crossed the line and makes it illegal to post anything that's "grossly offensive". What new legislations do you want? I want some laws torn up, those that Thatcher brought in against the trades unions for a starter but I know Blair kept them in.. Have had full on rows with MPs at that time in the strangers bar about it.. No doubt they will ever be changed now" What laws? It's hard to see the merit of going back to the days when the Unions had the country by the balls with strike after strike. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When was the last time public interest charities or groups or individuals took the Chinese government through the courts system..? And won.. They haven't. If you let the government take away more and more of individual rights, that's exactly the state UK will be in too. There was no appetite under Boris's majority to pander to those that are desperate to see us leave international conventions on human rights etc.. The types of people on either side of the fringes who might want such state control are clearly in a minority.. We both don't ever want to see that I fully agree, I won't in my life time nor will you see us anywhere like that.. Because politicians know that doing it overnight would be a big political mistake. So they do in small steps. The 2003 communications act is an example of it. My point is that we already have laws which covers direct calls for violence. These laws already crossed the line and makes it illegal to post anything that's "grossly offensive". What new legislations do you want? I want some laws torn up, those that Thatcher brought in against the trades unions for a starter but I know Blair kept them in.. Have had full on rows with MPs at that time in the strangers bar about it.. No doubt they will ever be changed now What laws? It's hard to see the merit of going back to the days when the Unions had the country by the balls with strike after strike." Yeah ‘cos no one strikes these days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When was the last time public interest charities or groups or individuals took the Chinese government through the courts system..? And won.. They haven't. If you let the government take away more and more of individual rights, that's exactly the state UK will be in too. There was no appetite under Boris's majority to pander to those that are desperate to see us leave international conventions on human rights etc.. The types of people on either side of the fringes who might want such state control are clearly in a minority.. We both don't ever want to see that I fully agree, I won't in my life time nor will you see us anywhere like that.. Because politicians know that doing it overnight would be a big political mistake. So they do in small steps. The 2003 communications act is an example of it. My point is that we already have laws which covers direct calls for violence. These laws already crossed the line and makes it illegal to post anything that's "grossly offensive". What new legislations do you want? I want some laws torn up, those that Thatcher brought in against the trades unions for a starter but I know Blair kept them in.. Have had full on rows with MPs at that time in the strangers bar about it.. No doubt they will ever be changed now What laws? It's hard to see the merit of going back to the days when the Unions had the country by the balls with strike after strike." I literally haven't the time to list them all here, they are freely available to read online.. I'm not in favour of how it was in the 70s whereby walk outs occured which were as much to do with the ego of the shop steward as anything .. Personally Scargills decision to not ballot nationally was a mistake in my opinion too.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 horizon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can’t be the only one concerned about the expanding reach of the police and government over individuals. While I don’t agree with the content of the social media posts that have led to arrests and detentions, what worries me is the speed at which these actions are being taken and the clear intention to make examples out of people. Social media has been a lawless space for years, so what’s next retroactive sentencing, social scoring, and people being too afraid to express themselves? To be clear, I am not condoning hate. My concern lies in the potential consequences of these heavy handed measures, aimed at enforcing social obedience. 180 from your opinions a year or two ago. Interesting. Not really, you are linking my support of laws that stop repetitive disruption by protestors, to this which is enhanced speed, tactics and sentencing of people who show disobedience to law. If this goes unchecked, you really will see a closing down of protests The first instance is about restrictions on how you can protest. The second is on the speed of sentencing (and tactics, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to). So worried the speed of sentencing those who have broken the law, is going be more effective at closing down the right to protest, than actually restricting what you can do while protesting? If we become a nation that imprisons someone within a few days or hours of an offence, we will see plenty of miscarriages of justice and fear will creep in. I agree we do not want any miscarriages of justice. Does the speed of the cases and sentencing increase the likelihood of an injustice? Today, it is being accepted because of the riots, now place the same outcomes on JSO or Palestine marches, those marches would have disappeared as quickly as they started, if not we will have demonstrable evidence of 2 tier policing that will drive further problems. Those other examples, the vast majority of people were peaceful. But the racist riots didn't seem to have many people acting in a peaceful manner. As you mentioned they were marches, not riots. There was plenty of law breaking going on in the marches, and taking it one step further, you will not need to be on a march or protest. " Yeah but you understand the difference, one had the vast majority of people acting in a peaceful manner, with the violent element being a small minority. And the other was the complete opposite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"****Stronger trade unions and collective bargaining will be key to tackling problems of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay.**** Labours Manifesto Promise. Which probably means more strikes in the long run. ***Also. Labour are committed to repeal the minimum services legislation too. Which means that strikes can bring industries and services to a total standstill. *** Some of those *wonderful* things that we can all look forward to. On that horizon."I suppose the way we can ensure fewer strikes is for employers to consider their employees to be as important as their shareholders. That way everyone gets to share in the profits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"****Stronger trade unions and collective bargaining will be key to tackling problems of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay.**** Labours Manifesto Promise. Which probably means more strikes in the long run. ***Also. Labour are committed to repeal the minimum services legislation too. Which means that strikes can bring industries and services to a total standstill. *** Some of those *wonderful* things that we can all look forward to. On that horizon.
I suppose the way we can ensure fewer strikes is for employers to consider their employees to be as important as their shareholders. That way everyone gets to share in the profits."Radical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"****Stronger trade unions and collective bargaining will be key to tackling problems of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay.**** Labours Manifesto Promise. Which probably means more strikes in the long run. ***Also. Labour are committed to repeal the minimum services legislation too. Which means that strikes can bring industries and services to a total standstill. *** Some of those *wonderful* things that we can all look forward to. On that horizon.
I suppose the way we can ensure fewer strikes is for employers to consider their employees to be as important as their shareholders. That way everyone gets to share in the profits."I'm sure that many do - but shareholders invest in a company and provide much needed capital, a return on investment is reasonable. Returns go up and down as profits go up and down, it's all risk based. Wage cycles can't do the same thing - they only ever go up - when profit is down that means lose employees or pay wages that are comensurate with profitability. Too many people like to think that business owners are just a big ripoff of employees. Businesses pay VAT and for employees mortgages, holidays, maternity pay, pensions, sick pay, NIC, training etc etc. and at the end of the year corporation taxes too. ****In 2023/24, £277 billion was raised from income tax, £180 billion from NICs and £170 billion from VAT. Corporation tax was the fourth largest tax, raising £103 billion, including £3 billion through the Energy Profits Levy.**** Without business everyone is FU'd | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"****Stronger trade unions and collective bargaining will be key to tackling problems of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay.**** Labours Manifesto Promise. Which probably means more strikes in the long run. ***Also. Labour are committed to repeal the minimum services legislation too. Which means that strikes can bring industries and services to a total standstill. *** Some of those *wonderful* things that we can all look forward to. On that horizon.
I suppose the way we can ensure fewer strikes is for employers to consider their employees to be as important as their shareholders. That way everyone gets to share in the profits.
I'm sure that many do - but shareholders invest in a company and provide much needed capital, a return on investment is reasonable. Returns go up and down as profits go up and down, it's all risk based. Wage cycles can't do the same thing - they only ever go up - when profit is down that means lose employees or pay wages that are comensurate with profitability.
Too many people like to think that business owners are just a big ripoff of employees. Businesses pay VAT and for employees mortgages, holidays, maternity pay, pensions, sick pay, NIC, training etc etc. and at the end of the year corporation taxes too.
****In 2023/24, £277 billion was raised from income tax, £180 billion from NICs and £170 billion from VAT. Corporation tax was the fourth largest tax, raising £103 billion, including £3 billion through the Energy Profits Levy.****
Without business everyone is FU'd
"I certainly don’t think all business owners are ripping off employees, but plenty are. Yes businesses need investment but they also need workers. It’s well evidenced that workers who feel valued and happy are far more productive. We also know that staff turnover is expensive, so prioritising employee satisfaction is a good long term investment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations. We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago. And I remember saying to the people who were cheering on the additional restrictions that were being placed on protesting. 'What happens when it's something you believe in. Instead of protests being about taking action about climate science or about inequality. What happens if you want to protest about the government not blaming immigrants enough'. And here we see exactly that. Ignoring the restrictions put on by the right wing government. And blaming "the left"." This thread is HILARIOUS. Johnny what you say is completely true. We cannot name posters/profiles but a few who are still posting were totally supporting the Tories restricting protesting and others were up in arms about it and now we are seeing a complete 180!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations. We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago. And I remember saying to the people who were cheering on the additional restrictions that were being placed on protesting. 'What happens when it's something you believe in. Instead of protests being about taking action about climate science or about inequality. What happens if you want to protest about the government not blaming immigrants enough'. And here we see exactly that. Ignoring the restrictions put on by the right wing government. And blaming "the left". This thread is HILARIOUS. Johnny what you say is completely true. We cannot name posters/profiles but a few who are still posting were totally supporting the Tories restricting protesting and others were up in arms about it and now we are seeing a complete 180! "It is a good job the tories restricted all those protests isn't it. Which ones didn't go ahead, it seems to have slipped my mind, oh I know 0. This is not the same as putting measures in place to deal with JSO type protestors who were restricting people's free movement regularly. This is the first pass at controlling what you can and can't write / say in the public domain and imprisonment seems to be the only outcome for breaking this instruction. What is coming next social scores, prison as soon as you write something driven by emotion. I'm all for law and order, but this is a step beyond that, this is government control. I posted earlier that I have been watching Canada with interest ever since they allowed courts to freeze protestors bank accounts, they are ultra liberal and we are on the same path. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"****Stronger trade unions and collective bargaining will be key to tackling problems of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay.**** Labours Manifesto Promise. Which probably means more strikes in the long run. ***Also. Labour are committed to repeal the minimum services legislation too. Which means that strikes can bring industries and services to a total standstill. *** Some of those *wonderful* things that we can all look forward to. On that horizon."You are probably overestimating Labour's ability to stick to their promises. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Then deal with those companies that treat their employees badly (whoever they are? There is enough legislation that protects those employees right now, with employment rights and minimum wage.) Using a broad brush for 'all or most' employers really doesn't help anything. I haven't heard of any employer in this last few years that has been held up as a 'bad' employer? Much less any that have been prosecuted for being so?" Well there was P&O who did the fire and rehire thing a couple of years, sacking 800 staff and replacing them with cheaper foreign labour. I think it’s healthy to have a balance in the power between capital and labour, it keeps business owners on their toes and ensures that they know it’s in their best interests to look after their staff. After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Then deal with those companies that treat their employees badly (whoever they are? There is enough legislation that protects those employees right now, with employment rights and minimum wage.) Using a broad brush for 'all or most' employers really doesn't help anything. I haven't heard of any employer in this last few years that has been held up as a 'bad' employer? Much less any that have been prosecuted for being so? Well there was P&O who did the fire and rehire thing a couple of years, sacking 800 staff and replacing them with cheaper foreign labour. I think it’s healthy to have a balance in the power between capital and labour, it keeps business owners on their toes and ensures that they know it’s in their best interests to look after their staff. After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. " Yet the government of the day did nothing using existing law and it is arguable from both sides that PO actually acted illegaly too (plenty of reading out there to show that). ***Siddique concludes that the main area where Brexit might make a difference is legally. Previously, if a case had gone to the Supreme Court it could be appealed to the European Court of Justice if a case came within its purview. In the event that the P&O redundancy tribunals remained a simple affair of breaches of the UK's own employment law, then the cases were unlikely to even get to the Supreme Court, making an appeal to the Court of Justice moot. **** As I have already Law is out there to protect workers already - The government did nothing to enact that protection. Why? And it also doesn't make such practice (PO) 'indicative' of employers in general. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. " Actually. Yes. Its does. There is no god given right to pay more, and why should there be? Every business has the duty to survive as a business, if paying above the minimum wages threatens that survival the company is in breach of its own right to exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations. We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago. And I remember saying to the people who were cheering on the additional restrictions that were being placed on protesting. 'What happens when it's something you believe in. Instead of protests being about taking action about climate science or about inequality. What happens if you want to protest about the government not blaming immigrants enough'. And here we see exactly that. Ignoring the restrictions put on by the right wing government. And blaming "the left". This thread is HILARIOUS. Johnny what you say is completely true. We cannot name posters/profiles but a few who are still posting were totally supporting the Tories restricting protesting and others were up in arms about it and now we are seeing a complete 180!
It is a good job the tories restricted all those protests isn't it.
"No, even racists should be allowed to protest peacefully. " Which ones didn't go ahead, it seems to have slipped my mind, oh I know 0. " Lots didn't go ahead. On Wednesday. " This is not the same as putting measures in place to deal with JSO type protestors who were restricting people's free movement regularly. " Didn't the rioting racists also restrict people's free movement, road closures, and those families in the hotel that they set fire to. " This is the first pass at controlling what you can and can't write / say in the public domain and imprisonment seems to be the only outcome for breaking this instruction. What is coming next social scores, prison as soon as you write something driven by emotion. I'm all for law and order, but this is a step beyond that, this is government control. I posted earlier that I have been watching Canada with interest ever since they allowed courts to freeze protestors bank accounts, they are ultra liberal and we are on the same path. " The Canadian Liberal party is centre/centre left. Not "ultra liberal". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure Labour will use this as an opportunity to pass bills that will cut down on free speech even further. Left wing politicians love these situations. We already have laws around protesting, the Tories beefed them up about 2 years ago. And I remember saying to the people who were cheering on the additional restrictions that were being placed on protesting. 'What happens when it's something you believe in. Instead of protests being about taking action about climate science or about inequality. What happens if you want to protest about the government not blaming immigrants enough'. And here we see exactly that. Ignoring the restrictions put on by the right wing government. And blaming "the left". This thread is HILARIOUS. Johnny what you say is completely true. We cannot name posters/profiles but a few who are still posting were totally supporting the Tories restricting protesting and others were up in arms about it and now we are seeing a complete 180!
It is a good job the tories restricted all those protests isn't it.
No, even racists should be allowed to protest peacefully.
Which ones didn't go ahead, it seems to have slipped my mind, oh I know 0.
Lots didn't go ahead. On Wednesday.
This is not the same as putting measures in place to deal with JSO type protestors who were restricting people's free movement regularly.
Didn't the rioting racists also restrict people's free movement, road closures, and those families in the hotel that they set fire to.
This is the first pass at controlling what you can and can't write / say in the public domain and imprisonment seems to be the only outcome for breaking this instruction. What is coming next social scores, prison as soon as you write something driven by emotion. I'm all for law and order, but this is a step beyond that, this is government control.
I posted earlier that I have been watching Canada with interest ever since they allowed courts to freeze protestors bank accounts, they are ultra liberal and we are on the same path.
The Canadian Liberal party is centre/centre left. Not "ultra liberal". "You win | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. Actually. Yes. Its does. There is no god given right to pay more, and why should there be? Every business has the duty to survive as a business, if paying above the minimum wages threatens that survival the company is in breach of its own right to exist. " I’m not talking about a business risking going bust to give pay rises, I’m talking about them investing in their staff rather than prioritising shareholder value. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government did nothing to enact that protection. Why?" The government at the time were Tories, they are, as a party, on the side of capital, not labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The government did nothing to enact that protection. Why? The government at the time were Tories, they are, as a party, on the side of capital, not labour." So. You are saying that there was/is no employment law enacted under the Conservatives? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. Actually. Yes. Its does. There is no god given right to pay more, and why should there be? Every business has the duty to survive as a business, if paying above the minimum wages threatens that survival the company is in breach of its own right to exist. I’m not talking about a business risking going bust to give pay rises, I’m talking about them investing in their staff rather than prioritising shareholder value." Shareholders own the business. So why do you think business would stop prioritising shareholder value? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. Actually. Yes. Its does. There is no god given right to pay more, and why should there be? Every business has the duty to survive as a business, if paying above the minimum wages threatens that survival the company is in breach of its own right to exist. I’m not talking about a business risking going bust to give pay rises, I’m talking about them investing in their staff rather than prioritising shareholder value. Shareholders own the business. So why do you think business would stop prioritising shareholder value?" I said that where? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. Actually. Yes. Its does. There is no god given right to pay more, and why should there be? Every business has the duty to survive as a business, if paying above the minimum wages threatens that survival the company is in breach of its own right to exist. I’m not talking about a business risking going bust to give pay rises, I’m talking about them investing in their staff rather than prioritising shareholder value. Shareholders own the business. So why do you think business would stop prioritising shareholder value? I said that where?" I wasn't replying to you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. Actually. Yes. Its does. There is no god given right to pay more, and why should there be? Every business has the duty to survive as a business, if paying above the minimum wages threatens that survival the company is in breach of its own right to exist. I’m not talking about a business risking going bust to give pay rises, I’m talking about them investing in their staff rather than prioritising shareholder value. Shareholders own the business. So why do you think business would stop prioritising shareholder value? I said that where? I wasn't replying to you " I'd still like to hear your answer though? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. Actually. Yes. Its does. There is no god given right to pay more, and why should there be? Every business has the duty to survive as a business, if paying above the minimum wages threatens that survival the company is in breach of its own right to exist. I’m not talking about a business risking going bust to give pay rises, I’m talking about them investing in their staff rather than prioritising shareholder value. Shareholders own the business. So why do you think business would stop prioritising shareholder value? I said that where? I wasn't replying to you I'd still like to hear your answer though?" Answer to which question? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. Actually. Yes. Its does. There is no god given right to pay more, and why should there be? Every business has the duty to survive as a business, if paying above the minimum wages threatens that survival the company is in breach of its own right to exist. I’m not talking about a business risking going bust to give pay rises, I’m talking about them investing in their staff rather than prioritising shareholder value. Shareholders own the business. So why do you think business would stop prioritising shareholder value? I said that where? I wasn't replying to you I'd still like to hear your answer though? Answer to which question? " The one you asked that I answered that you said wasn't aimed at me - simples! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" After all the minimum wage should be just that, the minimum, it should not be used as an excuse for business owners not to pay more. Actually. Yes. Its does. There is no god given right to pay more, and why should there be? Every business has the duty to survive as a business, if paying above the minimum wages threatens that survival the company is in breach of its own right to exist. I’m not talking about a business risking going bust to give pay rises, I’m talking about them investing in their staff rather than prioritising shareholder value. Shareholders own the business. So why do you think business would stop prioritising shareholder value? I said that where? I wasn't replying to you I'd still like to hear your answer though? Answer to which question? The one you asked that I answered that you said wasn't aimed at me - simples!" My question was rhetoric. I meant businesses are owned by shareholders and hence will obviously be trying to maximise profits for shareholders. People tend to shit on shareholders because they believe that shareholders are getting money for doing nothing. But they fail to look at the fact that owning a business fully or partly is a high risk high reward endeavour. For every business that succeeds, there are numerous businesses which fail. If we take away the high reward, what remains is only high risk and no one will even start a business after that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/minister-unable-to-guarantee-that-rioters-wont-be-released-from-jail-early-13195354 ******Minister unable to 'guarantee' rioters won't be released from jail early Jonathan Reynolds says he "understands" rioters won't be removed from prison early under a controversial scheme Labour brought in to reduce overcrowding.******" I'm not sure how this would play out if challenged, especially as a person in prison for manslaughter is going to be released in September under the early release scheme, he was jailed in March this year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
