A worrying aspect to the Allison Pearson case is that her tweet was aimed at the police and two tier policing, something the police are under a lot of pressure on. So this raises the possibility that this was an attempt by the police to bite back and took the opportunity of a complaint made a year after the event to use against her. There is clearly no logic in taking action to something said a year a go, particularly when the tweet was only visible for a few hours. This smacks very much of an attempt to punish and silence a journalist. In my experience organisations are very aware of the optics around their actions. So did the police forces concerned have no sense that this would not look good, or do they simple not care and being encouraged by Yvette Cooper they are actually engaged in clamping down on free speech?
Taking the Pearson issue as an example, if the long term outcome is that the police are perceived as a threat to law abiding citizens then the founding concept of policing by consent has been seriously eroded if not completely devalued. The ball is in their court to restore public confidence.
Far left woke yobs (Labour) happened. Yes, I know this also happened under the Tories. They are stupid as well, but a Labour government led by a tyrant has emboldened the woke loonies in society.
I'm very glad to see that Toby Young (Free Speech Union) has found such a competent-sounding lawyer to assist with these matters. Well done Toby. Very informative video, so thank you. Interesting to hear that some of the hate speech cases arising from the period of the recent riots are now about to come to trial and that some of these will take place before a jury. As Luke mentions, these are accused persons who pleaded not guilty to the charges laid before them. Some others, including the more immediately sensational cases (at the moment!), pleaded guilty to charges presented straightaway and were imprisoned immediately, much to the surprise of the general public. There are, of course, degrees of severity and each case depends upon its own facts. While recognising this, had I been speaking to Luke, one of my questions for him would have been whether bail was being "weaponised" in some of these cases? Were some people inclined to plead guilty because they were unlikely to be granted bail and had the unwelcome prospect of languishing on remand in custody until trial? The thinking at this point might have been, well, I may as well get it over with and I shall also get a reduction in the length of my sentence for pleading guilty. Was any of this happening? As I recall, Toby seemed to hint at this when he was interviewed on the New Culture Forum. Still, the cops may be confused, but let's give thanks to the Red Tories who helped kick all of this off... Well done. Starmer was head of the CPS from 2008 and 2013 and plainly did some serious damage, along with Labour who gifted us the Equality Act at the end of their previous administration. Still, the Red Tories had 14 years to unravel all this rubbish and did nothing. Rather, they managed to make it worse. After all, this new Online Safety rubbish is their baby. PS: As I've introduced a colour (red) and it's 2024, I ought to mention the book "Red Tory: How Left and Right have Broken Britain and How we can Fix It" (2010) by Phillip Blond. Blond was an advisor to David Cameron and was referred to as his "philosopher king," philosopher kings (and queens) being, in Plato's Republic, those truly remarkable few who must rule in the ideal or best city if it is indeed to be the best. You be the judge...............!
The police aren't behaving like this just overnight. My own personal observation is that since "2 weeks to flatten the curve ".....it appears that they have been taken off any leash there may have been. And that must have been approved at the very highest levels of command but probably higher. Deliberately. Police "auditors"...shine a glaring light on some appalling behaviour by police.
End the confusion felt by the individual officers. All they have to do is refuse to investigate most of this stuff, and concentrate on real crime detection.
A few years ago someone broke into my car and stole £1000 worth of goods and caused expensive damage. I got a crime number from the police for my insurance. Where was the duty of the police then to investigate.
George Orwell's sarcasm 'all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others' is literally embodied in the Equality Act, which affords some people greater protection under the law than others.
NCHIs are currently anonymously denunciations. A solution would be to have an online public record of NCHIs. And charge a £50 recording fee. And provide a graduated 'hate" table to record the perceived level of "hate" plus evidence based on a causal model.
It's easy, the one who reported her and whoever in the police decided to take this further need to be jailed as an example against the abuse of the law.
HATE is a natural human emotion and should not be classified as a crime. This is why you get stupid incidents where schoolchildren get a visit from police for NAME CALLING ! The only time HATE should cause an issue is when someone threatens to physically harm another person. Also offending someone is just a fact of life and should not attract police attention. Isn't about time police concentrated on actual REAL CRIMES that people are concerned about. VIOLENT ASSAULTS, MUGGINGS, KNIFE CRIME, EPIDEMIC OF GANG RELATED SHOPLIFTING, BURGLARIES ETC. Weak Government & Police colleges are responsible these ridiculous NCHIs which were invented to tackle HATE PREACHERS not average Brits commentating on social media.
Offending another is also not a crime, people are really lacking knowledge about this topic and silencing themselves with fear, must admit I stop and think most times, as most comments I do are in anger about what's happened to country.
I really do not envy police officers in the current environment. How can any officer trust their superiors or colleagues not to accuse them of a "crime" anonymously. Given the clear evidence that this situation is being orchestrated by some group...or groups of people, the old saying "the person you trust....is one of us" has a startling relevance!
The bottom line is that these 'crimes' should never be on the statute book in the first place and we the people have not been paying sufficient attention to what the idiots in parliament are doing. As he says there are crimes now that would never have been before and it is creeping government overreach and authoritarianism. How on earth can crime be perpetrated solely on the perception of the so called victim. This practice is very obviously ridiculous.
Do not voluntarily talk to the police in this country. They are not your friends. If they come to your door, say as little as possible, record the exchange and upload it to social media, and call a lawyer.
Is it not time for the management, the taught curriculum and its delivery of all courses delivered by the College of Policing to be subject to public scrutiny?
They have a duty to investigate hate crime, which might end up not being a hate crime, and go nowhere...but they don't investigate most real crime, they give out crime numbers to fleece insurers and shut people up....when in fact a real crime is committed and should be investigated with a real result...hate crimes should be back of the queue if they have time.
The police (staz...) targeted a high profile individual, with a high profile support system around her. The rest of us poor schleps, 'the great unwashed', are not so fortunate, so must fall in line with the intimidation tactics, emanating from No 10.
"Non crime hate incident' is too complicated. The police should be instructed to use concise communications by referring to this in the following manner, "Good morning we are here to investigate an allegation that you posted hurty words"
PRECISELY. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE JOB OR STAUS IS OF THE PERSON, PERHAPS IT WAS JUST A SLIP OF THE TONGUE OR THE FACT THAT JOURNALISTS TEND TO BE TARGETS IN OPPRESSIVE REGIMES
Is it not time for the management, the taught curriculum and its delivery of all courses delivered by the College of Policing to be subject to public scrutiny?
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
A worrying aspect to the Allison Pearson case is that her tweet was aimed at the police and two tier policing, something the police are under a lot of pressure on. So this raises the possibility that this was an attempt by the police to bite back and took the opportunity of a complaint made a year after the event to use against her. There is clearly no logic in taking action to something said a year a go, particularly when the tweet was only visible for a few hours. This smacks very much of an attempt to punish and silence a journalist. In my experience organisations are very aware of the optics around their actions. So did the police forces concerned have no sense that this would not look good, or do they simple not care and being encouraged by Yvette Cooper they are actually engaged in clamping down on free speech?
Taking the Pearson issue as an example, if the long term outcome is that the police are perceived as a threat to law abiding citizens then the founding concept of policing by consent has been seriously eroded if not completely devalued.
The ball is in their court to restore public confidence.
Good to hear a measured account from Mr Gittos.
Apart from the ethical, waste of time/money, etc. issues, it's the sheer silliness. What's happened to the UK?
Far left woke yobs (Labour) happened. Yes, I know this also happened under the Tories. They are stupid as well, but a Labour government led by a tyrant has emboldened the woke loonies in society.
I'm very glad to see that Toby Young (Free Speech Union) has found such a competent-sounding lawyer to assist with these matters. Well done Toby.
Very informative video, so thank you. Interesting to hear that some of the hate speech cases arising from the period of the recent riots are now about to come to trial and that some of these will take place before a jury. As Luke mentions, these are accused persons who pleaded not guilty to the charges laid before them. Some others, including the more immediately sensational cases (at the moment!), pleaded guilty to charges presented straightaway and were imprisoned immediately, much to the surprise of the general public. There are, of course, degrees of severity and each case depends upon its own facts. While recognising this, had I been speaking to Luke, one of my questions for him would have been whether bail was being "weaponised" in some of these cases? Were some people inclined to plead guilty because they were unlikely to be granted bail and had the unwelcome prospect of languishing on remand in custody until trial? The thinking at this point might have been, well, I may as well get it over with and I shall also get a reduction in the length of my sentence for pleading guilty. Was any of this happening? As I recall, Toby seemed to hint at this when he was interviewed on the New Culture Forum.
Still, the cops may be confused, but let's give thanks to the Red Tories who helped kick all of this off... Well done. Starmer was head of the CPS from 2008 and 2013 and plainly did some serious damage, along with Labour who gifted us the Equality Act at the end of their previous administration. Still, the Red Tories had 14 years to unravel all this rubbish and did nothing. Rather, they managed to make it worse. After all, this new Online Safety rubbish is their baby.
PS: As I've introduced a colour (red) and it's 2024, I ought to mention the book "Red Tory: How Left and Right have Broken Britain and How we can Fix It" (2010) by Phillip Blond. Blond was an advisor to David Cameron and was referred to as his "philosopher king," philosopher kings (and queens) being, in Plato's Republic, those truly remarkable few who must rule in the ideal or best city if it is indeed to be the best. You be the judge...............!
Pure Kafka. Thank goodness it had a better outcome than The Trial.
I’m speechless.
Which is a good thing, Comrade.
If the police are so well trained in DEI why are they so confused?
The police aren't behaving like this just overnight. My own personal observation is that since "2 weeks to flatten the curve ".....it appears that they have been taken off any leash there may have been. And that must have been approved at the very highest levels of command but probably higher. Deliberately. Police "auditors"...shine a glaring light on some appalling behaviour by police.
End the confusion felt by the individual officers. All they have to do is refuse to investigate most of this stuff, and concentrate on real crime detection.
They’d have got away with it if it hadn’t been for those meddling journos.
PERHAPS WE NEED TO BUILD UP A BODY OF CASE LAW IN THIS AREA
A few years ago someone broke into my car and stole £1000 worth of goods and caused expensive damage. I got a crime number from the police for my insurance. Where was the duty of the police then to investigate.
And chanting from the river to the sea is apparently also ok in the UK
We need to know the names of the "police" officers who authorised, initiated and carried out this disgraceful panto.
Who told the police to act?
George Orwell's sarcasm 'all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others' is literally embodied in the Equality Act, which affords some people greater protection under the law than others.
NCHIs are currently anonymously denunciations. A solution would be to have an online public record of NCHIs. And charge a £50 recording fee. And provide a graduated 'hate" table to record the perceived level of "hate" plus evidence based on a causal model.
It's easy, the one who reported her and whoever in the police decided to take this further need to be jailed as an example against the abuse of the law.
Crimes that are prevented don’t need to be solved.
HATE is a natural human emotion and should not be classified as a crime. This is why you get stupid incidents where schoolchildren get a visit from police for NAME CALLING !
The only time HATE should cause an issue is when someone threatens to physically harm another person. Also offending someone is just a fact of life and should not attract police attention.
Isn't about time police concentrated on actual REAL CRIMES that people are concerned about. VIOLENT ASSAULTS, MUGGINGS, KNIFE CRIME, EPIDEMIC OF GANG RELATED SHOPLIFTING,
BURGLARIES ETC. Weak Government & Police colleges are responsible these ridiculous NCHIs which were invented to tackle HATE PREACHERS not average Brits commentating on social media.
Offending another is also not a crime, people are really lacking knowledge about this topic and silencing themselves with fear, must admit I stop and think most times, as most comments I do are in anger about what's happened to country.
Coming Soon ~ ~ Thought Crimes ~ ~ Thinking about Thought Crimes ~ ~ Thinking about Thinking about Thought Crimes !
I really do not envy police officers in the current environment. How can any officer trust their superiors or colleagues not to accuse them of a "crime" anonymously. Given the clear evidence that this situation is being orchestrated by some group...or groups of people, the old saying "the person you trust....is one of us" has a startling relevance!
The bottom line is that these 'crimes' should never be on the statute book in the first place and we the people have not been paying sufficient attention to what the idiots in parliament are doing. As he says there are crimes now that would never have been before and it is creeping government overreach and authoritarianism. How on earth can crime be perpetrated solely on the perception of the so called victim. This practice is very obviously ridiculous.
UK under the thumb of Keir Kafker.
This was also happening under the tories too. 250000 nchi since 2014
Who decides what is hate & how? Isn’t it subjective?
Do not voluntarily talk to the police in this country. They are not your friends. If they come to your door, say as little as possible, record the exchange and upload it to social media, and call a lawyer.
Is it not time for the management, the taught curriculum and its delivery of all courses delivered by the College of Policing to be subject to public scrutiny?
THIS IS PURE GEORGE ORWELL'S 1984
It would have ben nice to know what she was doing about it if anything? Thought there was a second person with the same name mentioned too
They have a duty to investigate hate crime, which might end up not being a hate crime, and go nowhere...but they don't investigate most real crime, they give out crime numbers to fleece insurers and shut people up....when in fact a real crime is committed and should be investigated with a real result...hate crimes should be back of the queue if they have time.
Policing tweets. WTAF 🤦🏻♀️
If your home has been broken into they do nothing!😊
The police (staz...) targeted a high profile individual, with a high profile support system around her. The rest of us poor schleps, 'the great unwashed', are not so fortunate, so must fall in line with the intimidation tactics, emanating from No 10.
Who is the arbiter of real offence? when to offend is not a crime?
At a journalist's door ... How about anyone's door? Crazy discrimination 😭
"Non crime hate incident' is too complicated. The police should be instructed to use concise communications by referring to this in the following manner, "Good morning we are here to investigate an allegation that you posted hurty words"
Elon Musk's intervention helps too.
Guys! Please get better cameras/microphones and do not blur backgrounds. It makes for a difficult 2004 type experience. There is no excuse.
Surely it's about Content, not presentation,??
😊
Stalin tactics
Surely he means 'you can't arrive at anyone's door' not 'you can't arrive at a journalist's door'
PRECISELY. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE JOB OR STAUS IS OF THE PERSON, PERHAPS IT WAS JUST A SLIP OF THE TONGUE OR THE FACT THAT JOURNALISTS TEND TO BE TARGETS IN OPPRESSIVE REGIMES
Is it not time for the management, the taught curriculum and its delivery of all courses delivered by the College of Policing to be subject to public scrutiny?