6 ms·

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-62352502 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-62352502 > Hampshire Constabulary said, after initiall

by davb 4y ago

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-62352502 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-62352502 > Hampshire Constabulary said, after initially visiting the property, officers agreed to return on Thursday. > When they returned they were prevented from entering so arrested the 51-year-old suspect so they could interview him about the alleged offence. > He has since been released and will face no further action.

_-david-_ 4y ago
While it is good he was released, the police never should have been there in the first place. There was no reason to question a person over a tweet like that.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  Its an offense under the Mal Comms laws (which are daft). If there's a report, they have a duty to go interview the person, and usually its closed as NFA. In this case, he arranged for a voluntary interview (which would have leas to NFA), then reneged, which creates the conditions under PACE that necessitate an arrest so interview can be done quickly. All of which would have been explained to him. He wanted to get arrested, or had a room temperature IQ. Or both.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    Are you suggesting that the police have an obligation to interview every person accused of hate speech? If that is the case can I report a person of hate speech every day they speak or make a post and the police would be required to interview them every time? As for him wanting to be arrested. So what? He was trying to prove a point that the trans ideology is authoritarian and the police obliged.
    - dmix 4y ago
      Sounds like a great way to harass someone legally.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    clearly it wasn't an offense as they aren't charging him with anything.
    - nathanaldensr 4y ago
      In this thread, we engineer from first principles why "innocent until proven guilty" is a thing--at least in the United States.
      - nibbleshifter 4y ago
        There's a lot of people applying US legal principles to a country that is not the US in this thread. The way UK law works can be a bit funny. Not in a good way.
guipsp 4y ago
I just love how this mirror article is fanning the flames of a culture war.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Is it really fanning if it's true? Would you rather it go unnoticed so the police make even more of a habit of arresting innocent people?
- xdennis 4y ago
  Arresting people for retweets is fanning the flames.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
That's a somewhat rosy depiction that minimizes what the police did, which even the local PCC has criticised.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Yep now he has an arrest record which will preclude you from like 90% of the jobs out there.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    It's possible to petition to be "dearrested", which purges the record. Seeing as most people, including the force's PCC, agree that he should not have been arrested at all, he may have a good shot at it.
grapeskin 4y ago
Imagine a man being visited by the police for eating a ham sandwich, which his neighbors found morally questionable. Being released is better than what it could’ve been. The fact he was visited at all is terrifying.
- cm2187 4y ago
  The fact that he was arrested over a ham sandwich is even worse. It's funny because on one side the UK is the birthplace of most of how democracies work today, and the oldest continuously running democratic parliament. So it has fairly good credentials. But on the other hand this system is so dangerous, there is only really one chamber (the other one has no power), no counterpower, no constitution (the precendents thing is a joke, given that they are free to make up their own precedents on the fly), it is free to basically vote whatever it wants with a 50% and 1 vote majority, and that includes wiping out any civil liberty they feel like. Again hard to call "unstable" a system that has shown to be so stable for so long, but it feels that it is not stable by design.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Canada's legal system is heavily inspired by the British one (at least outside of Quebec) and even they wouldn't touch this sort of thing with a ten-foot pole. This sort of policing of offensive content on social media among democracies is basically just the UK + the middle east. I can't think of any other non-despotic countries dumb enough to do this?
- mbrameld 4y ago
  A more accurate comparison would be a man being visited by the police for possessing ham that may have been illegally imported, or was stolen, or that he was prohibited by law from possessing for one reason or another. The police were there to investigate a potential violation of the law. The fact that some people find the behavior the law prohibits to be morally questionable doesn't seem relevant.
  - xdennis 4y ago
nibbleshifter 4y ago
So they wanted him for an interview (which would end up being NFA'd). They went over by arrangement with him for a voluntary interview, the guy decided to be an arse about it, which created the conditions under PACE (Policing and Crime Act) that necessitate arrest. Arrest occurs, mans fucking shocked. Play stupid games... Now I will say, the Mal Comms laws are a disaster. But Jesus Christ the Mirror misrepresents this by a mile.
- ziddoap 4y ago
  >They went over by arrangement with him for a voluntary interview, the guy decided to be an arse about it, Voluntary interview doesn't seem so voluntary if you can't refuse it (or, rescind the voluntary acceptance of interview) without the refusal becoming a condition for a non-voluntary interview.
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    Voluntary interview in the UK is basically an interview under caution where they aren't arresting you first. They could arrest you to interview, but its agreed they won't. If you decide to not bother doing the voluntary interview, arrest becomes necessary, and you get arrested. Arrests can show up on enhanced DBS checks, and are a real pain in the hole to explain to employers down the line. Hence there being a non arrest option.
    - ziddoap 4y ago
      Makes sense, in a way. What doesn't make sense is calling that "voluntary", because it clearly isn't voluntary when the other option is be arrested.
      - nibbleshifter 4y ago
        There are some cases where you can be invited for a voluntary interview where they haven't established enough for arrest if you refuse. Its a somewhat confusing term, but that's what they call it. Usually its made clear to you at the time which of those cases its going to be. "Look, you can come in for an interview at a time that suits both of us, or we will have to go and get you at a time that suits us. Either way, you will be interviewed."

by davb 4y ago

_-david-_ 4y ago

While it is good he was released, the police never should have been there in the first place. There was no reason to question a person over a tweet like that.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
Its an offense under the Mal Comms laws (which are daft). If there's a report, they have a duty to go interview the person, and usually its closed as NFA. In this case, he arranged for a voluntary interview (which would have leas to NFA), then reneged, which creates the conditions under PACE that necessitate an arrest so interview can be done quickly. All of which would have been explained to him. He wanted to get arrested, or had a room temperature IQ. Or both.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  Are you suggesting that the police have an obligation to interview every person accused of hate speech? If that is the case can I report a person of hate speech every day they speak or make a post and the police would be required to interview them every time? As for him wanting to be arrested. So what? He was trying to prove a point that the trans ideology is authoritarian and the police obliged.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Sounds like a great way to harass someone legally.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  clearly it wasn't an offense as they aren't charging him with anything.
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    In this thread, we engineer from first principles why "innocent until proven guilty" is a thing--at least in the United States.
    - nibbleshifter 4y ago
      There's a lot of people applying US legal principles to a country that is not the US in this thread. The way UK law works can be a bit funny. Not in a good way.

guipsp 4y ago

I just love how this mirror article is fanning the flames of a culture war.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
Is it really fanning if it's true? Would you rather it go unnoticed so the police make even more of a habit of arresting innocent people?
xdennis 4y ago
Arresting people for retweets is fanning the flames.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

That's a somewhat rosy depiction that minimizes what the police did, which even the local PCC has criticised.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
Yep now he has an arrest record which will preclude you from like 90% of the jobs out there.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  It's possible to petition to be "dearrested", which purges the record. Seeing as most people, including the force's PCC, agree that he should not have been arrested at all, he may have a good shot at it.

grapeskin 4y ago

Imagine a man being visited by the police for eating a ham sandwich, which his neighbors found morally questionable. Being released is better than what it could’ve been. The fact he was visited at all is terrifying.

cm2187 4y ago
The fact that he was arrested over a ham sandwich is even worse. It's funny because on one side the UK is the birthplace of most of how democracies work today, and the oldest continuously running democratic parliament. So it has fairly good credentials. But on the other hand this system is so dangerous, there is only really one chamber (the other one has no power), no counterpower, no constitution (the precendents thing is a joke, given that they are free to make up their own precedents on the fly), it is free to basically vote whatever it wants with a 50% and 1 vote majority, and that includes wiping out any civil liberty they feel like. Again hard to call "unstable" a system that has shown to be so stable for so long, but it feels that it is not stable by design.
- dmix 4y ago
  Canada's legal system is heavily inspired by the British one (at least outside of Quebec) and even they wouldn't touch this sort of thing with a ten-foot pole. This sort of policing of offensive content on social media among democracies is basically just the UK + the middle east. I can't think of any other non-despotic countries dumb enough to do this?
mbrameld 4y ago
A more accurate comparison would be a man being visited by the police for possessing ham that may have been illegally imported, or was stolen, or that he was prohibited by law from possessing for one reason or another. The police were there to investigate a potential violation of the law. The fact that some people find the behavior the law prohibits to be morally questionable doesn't seem relevant.
- xdennis 4y ago

nibbleshifter 4y ago

So they wanted him for an interview (which would end up being NFA'd). They went over by arrangement with him for a voluntary interview, the guy decided to be an arse about it, which created the conditions under PACE (Policing and Crime Act) that necessitate arrest. Arrest occurs, mans fucking shocked. Play stupid games... Now I will say, the Mal Comms laws are a disaster. But Jesus Christ the Mirror misrepresents this by a mile.

ziddoap 4y ago
>They went over by arrangement with him for a voluntary interview, the guy decided to be an arse about it, Voluntary interview doesn't seem so voluntary if you can't refuse it (or, rescind the voluntary acceptance of interview) without the refusal becoming a condition for a non-voluntary interview.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  Voluntary interview in the UK is basically an interview under caution where they aren't arresting you first. They could arrest you to interview, but its agreed they won't. If you decide to not bother doing the voluntary interview, arrest becomes necessary, and you get arrested. Arrests can show up on enhanced DBS checks, and are a real pain in the hole to explain to employers down the line. Hence there being a non arrest option.
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    Makes sense, in a way. What doesn't make sense is calling that "voluntary", because it clearly isn't voluntary when the other option is be arrested.
    - nibbleshifter 4y ago
      There are some cases where you can be invited for a voluntary interview where they haven't established enough for arrest if you refuse. Its a somewhat confusing term, but that's what they call it. Usually its made clear to you at the time which of those cases its going to be. "Look, you can come in for an interview at a time that suits both of us, or we will have to go and get you at a time that suits us. Either way, you will be interviewed."