3 ms·
>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 car
by 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 agoHe 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 agoHe didn't commit an offense though? If he had would he have been released? He was suspected of having broken the law.
- ziddoap 4y agoI'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 agoSurely 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 agoThose 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).