5 ms·

> people getting longer jail sentences for Facebook posts about immigration than for violent crimes or child porn Do you have a link for that? I read UK news

> people getting longer jail sentences for Facebook posts about immigration than for violent crimes or child porn Do you have a link for that? I read UK news pretty regularly and I've missed that one somewhere. > due to the weird way they won the election this one didn't What weird way? They got more votes than the Tories and a clear democratic mandate.

mike_hearn 2y ago
There are lots of such cases and they are famous, this is where the "two tier kier" nickname comes from. For example, Hamoud Al Soaimi who took part in the group rape of a 15 year old girl and also a 12 year old girl, was sentenced to 180 hours of community service: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855 versus Daniel Kingsley, a plasterer, who was sentenced to 21 months in prison for posting on Facebook: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c703e03w243o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c703e03w243o Or compare Shaun Tuck, jailed for 15 weeks for posting comments online, versus Victoria Bowen who assaulted an MP (Farage) by throwing a milkshake at him, who wasn't jailed at all. There have been an endless parade of such cases. If you aren't aware of them it's because you get your news from sources who don't want you to know. > What weird way? They didn't take votes from the opposition. The right chose to withhold their votes in order to try and force a reset on the Conservatives, in some places abstention by those voters reached 50%. For a party to win because the opposing party destroys its own base isn't normal. Normally the bases are stable and swing voters decide an election. This one was very different. That's why Labour were able to win despite getting fewer votes than they did under Corbyn.
- zimpenfish 2y ago
  > Hamoud Al Soaimi [...] was sentenced to 180 hours of community service You're ignoring the other 3 men charged at the same time who got considerably longer sentences there but also ignoring that he was sentenced to two years suspended -with- 180 hours of community service. Two years is longer than 21 months. > Daniel Kingsley [...] for posting on Facebook Cute minimisation when he actually "admitted to stirring up racial hatred" which is somewhat more than just "posting on Facebook". > Shaun Tuck, jailed for 15 weeks for posting comments online Again, you're minimising with "posting comments online" when he was charged with malicious communication after he "posted racist abuse". > Victoria Bowen who assaulted an MP (Farage) She wasn't jailed, no, but she was "given a 13-week jail sentence, suspended for 12 months, must pay the MP £150 compensation, complete 120 hours of unpaid work and pay £450 in court costs." Also Farage wasn't an MP at the time but that is just splitting hairs. > you get your news from sources who don't want you to know The BBC but I guess I just don't place as much importance on the punishments for posting racial aggravation as you do. > The right chose to withhold their votes in order to try and force a reset on the Conservatives That's not a "weird way", though. "weird way" suggests coercion or cheating or some other shenanigans, not "the Tories weren't far-right enough for the lunatics who had a big sulk".
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    A suspended sentence doesn't take effect unless you commit further crimes, so that's irrelevant: my point is that people who post to Facebook are regularly spending more time in prison than people who commit violent crimes, and that point is correct. I specifically didn't say what was being posted on Facebook, because that is - again - irrelevant to the point! When you argue with this and call it a "cute minimization", what you're saying is that you believe it's right and just that words are punished more severely than rape, when you personally disagree with the politics of the speaker. Putting aside the morality of that, whether you agree with the policy just isn't relevant to whether it exists. > "weird way" suggests coercion or cheating That's not a definition you'll find in any dictionary. The top definition of weird in Mirriam Webster is "of strange or extraordinary character", which is a reasonable description of an election in which supporters of the oldest political party in the world collectively decide it should be destroyed and the winner gets a landslide on fewer votes than the previous election, which they lost. > you get your news from sources who don't want you to know ... The BBC Exactly. The stories I linked to are on the BBC, because I suspected you wouldn't read them if I linked to alternative sources. But these stories aren't highlighted and the general trend of two-tier justice isn't discussed. The top result on the BBC site for the phrase is headlined "Two-tier policing claims are 'nonsense', MPs told" and which simply lets the police deny it all without any pushback. They want to keep you in the dark, confused and mystified about why other people act the way they do, and it works: you were completely unaware of any of this. You won't be able to understand international or even domestic events if you get your news exclusively from the BBC. And this stuff matters. It's not about me, or you. These stories have had a huge impact on Trump, Musk and the American right in general. They hold them up as examples of what would have happened to America if the Democrats had won, and of course America isn't averse to wielding American power against countries that they think are or are becoming totalitarian. These judicial rulings are therefore a major influence on the stance of the UK's most important ally (or maybe now, unfortunately, "ally"). To write it off as a mere difference in personal news preferences is to show how badly the BBC's selective reporting is distorting people's world views.
    - zimpenfish 2y ago
      > I suspected you wouldn't read them if I linked to alternative sources Happy to read any alternative source that's got a reputation for decent journalism. > what was being posted on Facebook [is] irrelevant to the point! It isn't, though. You can't minimise "aggravating racial hatred in the middle of race riots" to "posting on Facebook" as if they're posting innocuous stuff about cats or their lunch. There are laws against it and if you break them, you'll get done. > what you're saying is that you believe it's right and just that words are punished more severely than rape, when you personally disagree with the politics of the speaker. Nope, haven't said that. All I pointed out was that you minimised one side and maximised the other. That's not arguing in good faith. > you were completely unaware of any of this No, I just don't believe that they're good examples of "two-tier policing". I do believe "two-tier policing" exists, though, just not in the "victimisation of white males posting on Facebook" genre. > These judicial rulings are therefore a major influence on the stance of the UK's most important ally I don't think they are, personally. The crazed ravings of Musk aside, obviously.

mike_hearn 2y ago

There are lots of such cases and they are famous, this is where the "two tier kier" nickname comes from. For example, Hamoud Al Soaimi who took part in the group rape of a 15 year old girl and also a 12 year old girl, was sentenced to 180 hours of community service: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855 versus Daniel Kingsley, a plasterer, who was sentenced to 21 months in prison for posting on Facebook: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c703e03w243o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c703e03w243o Or compare Shaun Tuck, jailed for 15 weeks for posting comments online, versus Victoria Bowen who assaulted an MP (Farage) by throwing a milkshake at him, who wasn't jailed at all. There have been an endless parade of such cases. If you aren't aware of them it's because you get your news from sources who don't want you to know. > What weird way? They didn't take votes from the opposition. The right chose to withhold their votes in order to try and force a reset on the Conservatives, in some places abstention by those voters reached 50%. For a party to win because the opposing party destroys its own base isn't normal. Normally the bases are stable and swing voters decide an election. This one was very different. That's why Labour were able to win despite getting fewer votes than they did under Corbyn.

zimpenfish 2y ago
> Hamoud Al Soaimi [...] was sentenced to 180 hours of community service You're ignoring the other 3 men charged at the same time who got considerably longer sentences there but also ignoring that he was sentenced to two years suspended -with- 180 hours of community service. Two years is longer than 21 months. > Daniel Kingsley [...] for posting on Facebook Cute minimisation when he actually "admitted to stirring up racial hatred" which is somewhat more than just "posting on Facebook". > Shaun Tuck, jailed for 15 weeks for posting comments online Again, you're minimising with "posting comments online" when he was charged with malicious communication after he "posted racist abuse". > Victoria Bowen who assaulted an MP (Farage) She wasn't jailed, no, but she was "given a 13-week jail sentence, suspended for 12 months, must pay the MP £150 compensation, complete 120 hours of unpaid work and pay £450 in court costs." Also Farage wasn't an MP at the time but that is just splitting hairs. > you get your news from sources who don't want you to know The BBC but I guess I just don't place as much importance on the punishments for posting racial aggravation as you do. > The right chose to withhold their votes in order to try and force a reset on the Conservatives That's not a "weird way", though. "weird way" suggests coercion or cheating or some other shenanigans, not "the Tories weren't far-right enough for the lunatics who had a big sulk".
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  A suspended sentence doesn't take effect unless you commit further crimes, so that's irrelevant: my point is that people who post to Facebook are regularly spending more time in prison than people who commit violent crimes, and that point is correct. I specifically didn't say what was being posted on Facebook, because that is - again - irrelevant to the point! When you argue with this and call it a "cute minimization", what you're saying is that you believe it's right and just that words are punished more severely than rape, when you personally disagree with the politics of the speaker. Putting aside the morality of that, whether you agree with the policy just isn't relevant to whether it exists. > "weird way" suggests coercion or cheating That's not a definition you'll find in any dictionary. The top definition of weird in Mirriam Webster is "of strange or extraordinary character", which is a reasonable description of an election in which supporters of the oldest political party in the world collectively decide it should be destroyed and the winner gets a landslide on fewer votes than the previous election, which they lost. > you get your news from sources who don't want you to know ... The BBC Exactly. The stories I linked to are on the BBC, because I suspected you wouldn't read them if I linked to alternative sources. But these stories aren't highlighted and the general trend of two-tier justice isn't discussed. The top result on the BBC site for the phrase is headlined "Two-tier policing claims are 'nonsense', MPs told" and which simply lets the police deny it all without any pushback. They want to keep you in the dark, confused and mystified about why other people act the way they do, and it works: you were completely unaware of any of this. You won't be able to understand international or even domestic events if you get your news exclusively from the BBC. And this stuff matters. It's not about me, or you. These stories have had a huge impact on Trump, Musk and the American right in general. They hold them up as examples of what would have happened to America if the Democrats had won, and of course America isn't averse to wielding American power against countries that they think are or are becoming totalitarian. These judicial rulings are therefore a major influence on the stance of the UK's most important ally (or maybe now, unfortunately, "ally"). To write it off as a mere difference in personal news preferences is to show how badly the BBC's selective reporting is distorting people's world views.
  - zimpenfish 2y ago
    > I suspected you wouldn't read them if I linked to alternative sources Happy to read any alternative source that's got a reputation for decent journalism. > what was being posted on Facebook [is] irrelevant to the point! It isn't, though. You can't minimise "aggravating racial hatred in the middle of race riots" to "posting on Facebook" as if they're posting innocuous stuff about cats or their lunch. There are laws against it and if you break them, you'll get done. > what you're saying is that you believe it's right and just that words are punished more severely than rape, when you personally disagree with the politics of the speaker. Nope, haven't said that. All I pointed out was that you minimised one side and maximised the other. That's not arguing in good faith. > you were completely unaware of any of this No, I just don't believe that they're good examples of "two-tier policing". I do believe "two-tier policing" exists, though, just not in the "victimisation of white males posting on Facebook" genre. > These judicial rulings are therefore a major influence on the stance of the UK's most important ally I don't think they are, personally. The crazed ravings of Musk aside, obviously.