4 ms·

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 a

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."
      - dmix 4y ago
        He's being brought away in handcuffs, mandatory interview would definitely seems like a better way to communicate the seriousness.
    - stjohnswarts 4y ago
      Involuntary interview would have been a better name, but doesn't read as well in newspapers.
  - itsoktocry 4y ago
    >They could arrest you to interview, but its agreed they won't. So you're fine that they "could arrest him, but won't" for a retweet of a stupid meme? Who cares by what laws or twisted logic they justify it.
    - nibbleshifter 4y ago
      He committed an offense under the Malicious Communications act. I disagree with that law itself for a number of reasons (its fucking daft), but the correct procedure was followed here.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        He didn't commit an offense though? If he had would he have been released? He was suspected of having broken the law.
        ziddoap 4y ago
        I'm pretty confident that nibbleshifter meant/was implying "potentially committed an offense", which under the law necessitated the investigation, and thus means that the correct procedure was followed (separate from whether or not the law or procedure is just).
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        Surely they could have looked at the tweet instead of interviewing him? Once they viewed the tweet they would have discovered that it is not grossly offensive or indecent and they could have avoided this whole thing. If interviewing is required then what is to stop somebody from reporting somebody everyday and requiring the police to go out consistently?
        ziddoap 4y ago
        Those sound like excellent questions for the people who enacted the law and the people who enforce the law, or perhaps a lawyer. I'm none of the above (thank god).
  - openfuture 4y ago
    For me this is just as ridiculous as everything else being discussed.. why can anyone ever find out about an arrest that leads nowhere? Why all this dancing around? Because not even the police databases are secure! No one has trustworthy computers or communication technology and it is causing waaay too much drama.
    - nibbleshifter 4y ago
      > why can anyone ever find out about an arrest that leads nowhere? The police hand it over, is why. Not just anyone can request a DBS check, but many jobs require one.
  - abnry 4y ago
    War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I think that overall process is reasonable from a policing standpoint, but calling it "voluntary"... well, I don't think that word means what the police thinks it means. If you are required to do something, or else you will get arrested, that thing is not voluntary.
    - nibbleshifter 4y ago
      The wording of it is a bit problematic, for sure. A "voluntary interview" may or may not come with the alternative of arrest. In this particular case, it did. In some cases, it doesn't. A voluntary interview may also lead to arrest (eg: if you admit to a crime, they usually arrest you to charge you).
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    shouldn't it be called involuntary interview to reflect the truth of the matter? Government sure does have a way of naming things like it's opposite day everyday.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
drc500free 4y ago
I don't know if "misrepresentation" is the word, when the whole scenario was engineered by a pro-hate-speech activist specifically to be reported on by outlets like The Mirror. Laws on controversial topics often have awkward corner cases, and one strategy to fight them is to force those corner cases to the surface in a way that wouldn't have happened naturally, so that they can be highlighted for discussion in sympathetic media circles. Edit: Tangentially related, from Lawrence v Texas with another somewhat manufactured situation: "The gay rights advocates from Lambda Legal litigating the case convinced Lawrence and Garner not to contest the charges and to plead no contest instead.[29] On November 20, Lawrence and Garner pleaded no contest to the charges and waived their right to a trial. Justice of the Peace Mike Parrott found them guilty and imposed a $100 fine and court costs of $41.25 on each defendant. When the defense attorneys realized that the fine was below the minimum required to permit them to appeal the convictions, they asked the judge to impose a higher penalty. Parrott, well aware that the attorneys intended to use the case to raise a constitutional challenge, increased it to $125 with the agreement of the prosecutor.[30]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
switch007 4y ago
Are you a copper/ex copper by any chance? Saying the guy was being an "arse" and quoting PACE are giving those vibes. Just curious.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  Nope, far from it, my experience with the police has been them arresting me. So I got a bit familiar with how the whole lot works.

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."
    - dmix 4y ago
      He's being brought away in handcuffs, mandatory interview would definitely seems like a better way to communicate the seriousness.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    Involuntary interview would have been a better name, but doesn't read as well in newspapers.
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  >They could arrest you to interview, but its agreed they won't. So you're fine that they "could arrest him, but won't" for a retweet of a stupid meme? Who cares by what laws or twisted logic they justify it.
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    He committed an offense under the Malicious Communications act. I disagree with that law itself for a number of reasons (its fucking daft), but the correct procedure was followed here.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      He didn't commit an offense though? If he had would he have been released? He was suspected of having broken the law.
      - ziddoap 4y ago
        I'm pretty confident that nibbleshifter meant/was implying "potentially committed an offense", which under the law necessitated the investigation, and thus means that the correct procedure was followed (separate from whether or not the law or procedure is just).
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        Surely they could have looked at the tweet instead of interviewing him? Once they viewed the tweet they would have discovered that it is not grossly offensive or indecent and they could have avoided this whole thing. If interviewing is required then what is to stop somebody from reporting somebody everyday and requiring the police to go out consistently?
        ziddoap 4y ago
        Those sound like excellent questions for the people who enacted the law and the people who enforce the law, or perhaps a lawyer. I'm none of the above (thank god).
- openfuture 4y ago
  For me this is just as ridiculous as everything else being discussed.. why can anyone ever find out about an arrest that leads nowhere? Why all this dancing around? Because not even the police databases are secure! No one has trustworthy computers or communication technology and it is causing waaay too much drama.
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    > why can anyone ever find out about an arrest that leads nowhere? The police hand it over, is why. Not just anyone can request a DBS check, but many jobs require one.
- abnry 4y ago
  War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I think that overall process is reasonable from a policing standpoint, but calling it "voluntary"... well, I don't think that word means what the police thinks it means. If you are required to do something, or else you will get arrested, that thing is not voluntary.
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    The wording of it is a bit problematic, for sure. A "voluntary interview" may or may not come with the alternative of arrest. In this particular case, it did. In some cases, it doesn't. A voluntary interview may also lead to arrest (eg: if you admit to a crime, they usually arrest you to charge you).
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  shouldn't it be called involuntary interview to reflect the truth of the matter? Government sure does have a way of naming things like it's opposite day everyday.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

drc500free 4y ago

I don't know if "misrepresentation" is the word, when the whole scenario was engineered by a pro-hate-speech activist specifically to be reported on by outlets like The Mirror. Laws on controversial topics often have awkward corner cases, and one strategy to fight them is to force those corner cases to the surface in a way that wouldn't have happened naturally, so that they can be highlighted for discussion in sympathetic media circles. Edit: Tangentially related, from Lawrence v Texas with another somewhat manufactured situation: "The gay rights advocates from Lambda Legal litigating the case convinced Lawrence and Garner not to contest the charges and to plead no contest instead.[29] On November 20, Lawrence and Garner pleaded no contest to the charges and waived their right to a trial. Justice of the Peace Mike Parrott found them guilty and imposed a $100 fine and court costs of $41.25 on each defendant. When the defense attorneys realized that the fine was below the minimum required to permit them to appeal the convictions, they asked the judge to impose a higher penalty. Parrott, well aware that the attorneys intended to use the case to raise a constitutional challenge, increased it to $125 with the agreement of the prosecutor.[30]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

switch007 4y ago

Are you a copper/ex copper by any chance? Saying the guy was being an "arse" and quoting PACE are giving those vibes. Just curious.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
Nope, far from it, my experience with the police has been them arresting me. So I got a bit familiar with how the whole lot works.