4 ms·

> The other commenter has cited evidence that’s backed up their claims and you’re consistently responding with rhetoric. Not the way I see it. I'm not willing

> The other commenter has cited evidence that’s backed up their claims and you’re consistently responding with rhetoric. Not the way I see it. I'm not willing to cite every single instance of a trend so a commenter can pick apart each one to try and dismiss it, when the problem is the trend itself, and not specific instances. That user also wants to try and pretend that the issue magically stopped after the local police were apparently counseled on the matter, and yet, hark!- another instance less than 4 months old![0] > This is a constant theme when people argue about freedom of speech being worse in the UK. I think the bigger issue is tribalism and feeling the need to defend country (and thus tribe) instead of acknowledging hey, maybe there really is a problem? > They cherry pick a couple of headlines from hugely unreliable sources like Twitter (the land of vocal twits) and the Daily Mail (which most people here have nicknamed The Daily Fail because it’s so often wrong) and I'm well aware of the reliability of the DM, but when they are just posting basically an interview with someone, it's sufficient as a source. Unless you want to dispute anything factual in the DM article that was linked? > overlook what’s actually happening in their own countries too. I think this is mostly a whataboutism. > But if it makes you feel better that your own country isn’t also going to hell in a hand-basket because you’re too busy doomscrolling the UK news, then keep at it. ;) I'm deeply concerned with what is happening in many countries, but that doesn't mean I can't be more concerned and critical of a country that is doing more wrong in some contexts than others. [0]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/16/tweets-free-speech-gender-ideology-transphobia-police/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/16/tweets-free-spee...

foldr 2y ago
That’s a 2024 article about an incident that happened in 2019. You can see the date mentioned in this non-paywalled write up: https://freespeechunion.org/i-too-had-visit-from-police-over-tweet-says-writer/ https://freespeechunion.org/i-too-had-visit-from-police-over... This is why it’s important to show sources so that (understandable) mistakes like this can be pointed out. If you keep posting sources that have been misinterpreted or that lack important context (which again is understandable - I don’t expect people outside the UK to obsessively follow UK news) then we can’t really take your word for it that you’ve Googled and found lots of better examples.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  > That’s a 2024 article about an incident that happened in 2019. That page isn't rendering at all for me in Firefox for some reason, but I can read the text and it appears the Bindel incident was in 2024, and the Pearson incident which is referenced was in 2019. So, no, the 2024 incident happened in 2024. I'll also note that in the Telegraph article I linked, the prominent author also describes the experience as Orwellian, so the view is hardly as niche or exaggerated as you want it to be. > then we can’t really take your word for it that you’ve Googled and found lots of better examples. Maybe, but at this point it seems your looking to dismiss incidents without reading them properly yourself. Have some more links to incidents that happened after 2019 though, feel free to put each one under a microscope and find reasons to dismiss them, while continuing to ignore a trend and not see the forest for the trees: - https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-is-the-met-police-investigating-me-for-a-tweet-about-a-trans-doctor/ https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-is-the-met-police-investigat... - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233691/Scots-Torys-police-row-hate-tweet-claim.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233691/Scots-Tory... - https://freespeechunion.org/police-log-hate-incident-for-refusal-to-shake-hands-in-gender-row/ https://freespeechunion.org/police-log-hate-incident-for-ref... And in case you want to continue to insist that the issue was resolved due to that one case in 2019, I'll leave you with this excerpt from an article on this very issue[0]: ---- Is the new Code better? It sets a higher threshold, stating that NCHIs should only be recorded against individuals if there is "a real risk of significant harm" or crime. But problems remain: the police inspectorate HMICFRS found that 25% of recent NCHIs and hate crimes were wrongly recorded. Police reported being confused by attempts to train them in the Code; many still struggle to distinguish between a crime and an NCHI. This confusion is clear in the most famous recent case. The Daily Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson said that Essex Police visited her in November, wishing to record an NCHI against her (because on X/ Twitter she had mistakenly described two protesters as "Jew haters"). Essex Police denied it was an NCHI case, saying Pearson had been investigated for a public order offence. Either way, the case was dropped after an outcry. [0]https://theweek.com/crime/nchis-the-controversy-over-non-crime-hate-incidents https://theweek.com/crime/nchis-the-controversy-over-non-cri...
  - foldr 2y ago
hnlmorg 2y ago
> Not the way I see it. I'm not willing to cite every single instance of a trend so a commenter can pick apart each one to try and dismiss it, when the problem is the trend itself, and not specific instances. And here lies the problem. You have formed an opinion and are unable to accept counter evidence. > I think the bigger issue is tribalism and feeling the need to defend country (and thus tribe) instead of acknowledging hey, maybe there really is a problem? That’s an idiotic comment given I’ve listed plenty of issues with the UK already. My opening comment even stated how I’m loathed to defend the uk government. I’ve also talked about how I’ve had literal arguments with MP over stupid policies regarding information technology. The literal one point I’m defending is that the police don’t arrest you for thought crimes / posting memes online. And the reason I’m defending the government on that one point is because it’s flat out wrong and those who claim otherwise are spouting ignorant horseshit. > I think this is mostly a whataboutism. Bullshit. You’re the one making comparisons and claiming the UK is the worst offender. Then when evidence is shared about how the UK isn’t you ignore it. Are you sure it’s not yourself who’s suffering from tribalism?
- kennysoona 2y ago
  > And here lies the problem. You have formed an opinion and are unable to accept counter evidence. Pot, kettle. Upon discussing things further, the evidence I found completely supports my point. > That’s an idiotic comment given I’ve listed plenty of issues with the UK already. Wow, resorting to insults. Nice. I should probably point out that's against the HN guidelines. The issues you listed are different types of issues. You're going out of your way to deny the issue we are discussing is an issue. > The literal one point I’m defending is that the police don’t arrest you for thought crimes / posting memes online. Not arrested, but they show up to intimidate which itself is the problem. > And the reason I’m defending the government on that one point is because it’s flat out wrong and those who claim otherwise are spouting ignorant horseshit. Seems your defending against a strawman and not the actual issue being discussed. > Bullshit. You’re the one making comparisons and claiming the UK is the worst offender. Then when evidence is shared about how the UK isn’t you ignore it. It's not bullshit, and subsequent discussion and investigation has only strengthened my point. I don't ignore anything, it's just that the evidence presented doesn't support your position. Thought crime policing is still going on as of 2024, and 25% of the roughly 13,000 "non hate crime incidents", many of which are thought crimes, were incorrectly reported. [0] Jesus, they recorded an issue as a hate incident because someone didn't want to shake hands. Ignoring and excusing that is akin to burying your head in the sand IMO. > Are you sure it’s not yourself who’s suffering from tribalism? Reasonably, since I'm not resorting to insults and strawmen. [0] https://theweek.com/crime/nchis-the-controversy-over-non-crime-hate-incidents https://theweek.com/crime/nchis-the-controversy-over-non-cri...

foldr 2y ago

That’s a 2024 article about an incident that happened in 2019. You can see the date mentioned in this non-paywalled write up: https://freespeechunion.org/i-too-had-visit-from-police-over-tweet-says-writer/ https://freespeechunion.org/i-too-had-visit-from-police-over... This is why it’s important to show sources so that (understandable) mistakes like this can be pointed out. If you keep posting sources that have been misinterpreted or that lack important context (which again is understandable - I don’t expect people outside the UK to obsessively follow UK news) then we can’t really take your word for it that you’ve Googled and found lots of better examples.

kennysoona 2y ago
> That’s a 2024 article about an incident that happened in 2019. That page isn't rendering at all for me in Firefox for some reason, but I can read the text and it appears the Bindel incident was in 2024, and the Pearson incident which is referenced was in 2019. So, no, the 2024 incident happened in 2024. I'll also note that in the Telegraph article I linked, the prominent author also describes the experience as Orwellian, so the view is hardly as niche or exaggerated as you want it to be. > then we can’t really take your word for it that you’ve Googled and found lots of better examples. Maybe, but at this point it seems your looking to dismiss incidents without reading them properly yourself. Have some more links to incidents that happened after 2019 though, feel free to put each one under a microscope and find reasons to dismiss them, while continuing to ignore a trend and not see the forest for the trees: - https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-is-the-met-police-investigating-me-for-a-tweet-about-a-trans-doctor/ https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-is-the-met-police-investigat... - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233691/Scots-Torys-police-row-hate-tweet-claim.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233691/Scots-Tory... - https://freespeechunion.org/police-log-hate-incident-for-refusal-to-shake-hands-in-gender-row/ https://freespeechunion.org/police-log-hate-incident-for-ref... And in case you want to continue to insist that the issue was resolved due to that one case in 2019, I'll leave you with this excerpt from an article on this very issue[0]: ---- Is the new Code better? It sets a higher threshold, stating that NCHIs should only be recorded against individuals if there is "a real risk of significant harm" or crime. But problems remain: the police inspectorate HMICFRS found that 25% of recent NCHIs and hate crimes were wrongly recorded. Police reported being confused by attempts to train them in the Code; many still struggle to distinguish between a crime and an NCHI. This confusion is clear in the most famous recent case. The Daily Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson said that Essex Police visited her in November, wishing to record an NCHI against her (because on X/ Twitter she had mistakenly described two protesters as "Jew haters"). Essex Police denied it was an NCHI case, saying Pearson had been investigated for a public order offence. Either way, the case was dropped after an outcry. [0]https://theweek.com/crime/nchis-the-controversy-over-non-crime-hate-incidents https://theweek.com/crime/nchis-the-controversy-over-non-cri...
- foldr 2y ago

hnlmorg 2y ago

> Not the way I see it. I'm not willing to cite every single instance of a trend so a commenter can pick apart each one to try and dismiss it, when the problem is the trend itself, and not specific instances. And here lies the problem. You have formed an opinion and are unable to accept counter evidence. > I think the bigger issue is tribalism and feeling the need to defend country (and thus tribe) instead of acknowledging hey, maybe there really is a problem? That’s an idiotic comment given I’ve listed plenty of issues with the UK already. My opening comment even stated how I’m loathed to defend the uk government. I’ve also talked about how I’ve had literal arguments with MP over stupid policies regarding information technology. The literal one point I’m defending is that the police don’t arrest you for thought crimes / posting memes online. And the reason I’m defending the government on that one point is because it’s flat out wrong and those who claim otherwise are spouting ignorant horseshit. > I think this is mostly a whataboutism. Bullshit. You’re the one making comparisons and claiming the UK is the worst offender. Then when evidence is shared about how the UK isn’t you ignore it. Are you sure it’s not yourself who’s suffering from tribalism?

kennysoona 2y ago
> And here lies the problem. You have formed an opinion and are unable to accept counter evidence. Pot, kettle. Upon discussing things further, the evidence I found completely supports my point. > That’s an idiotic comment given I’ve listed plenty of issues with the UK already. Wow, resorting to insults. Nice. I should probably point out that's against the HN guidelines. The issues you listed are different types of issues. You're going out of your way to deny the issue we are discussing is an issue. > The literal one point I’m defending is that the police don’t arrest you for thought crimes / posting memes online. Not arrested, but they show up to intimidate which itself is the problem. > And the reason I’m defending the government on that one point is because it’s flat out wrong and those who claim otherwise are spouting ignorant horseshit. Seems your defending against a strawman and not the actual issue being discussed. > Bullshit. You’re the one making comparisons and claiming the UK is the worst offender. Then when evidence is shared about how the UK isn’t you ignore it. It's not bullshit, and subsequent discussion and investigation has only strengthened my point. I don't ignore anything, it's just that the evidence presented doesn't support your position. Thought crime policing is still going on as of 2024, and 25% of the roughly 13,000 "non hate crime incidents", many of which are thought crimes, were incorrectly reported. [0] Jesus, they recorded an issue as a hate incident because someone didn't want to shake hands. Ignoring and excusing that is akin to burying your head in the sand IMO. > Are you sure it’s not yourself who’s suffering from tribalism? Reasonably, since I'm not resorting to insults and strawmen. [0] https://theweek.com/crime/nchis-the-controversy-over-non-crime-hate-incidents https://theweek.com/crime/nchis-the-controversy-over-non-cri...