33 ms·

So often when media report on these speech crimes, they will allege that the messages were threatening or harassing or hateful, but rarely show them. Policing s

So often when media report on these speech crimes, they will allege that the messages were threatening or harassing or hateful, but rarely show them. Policing speech is a very delicate matter, so at the very minimum, the public should know exactly how the law is being applied, and not just take the police & court's word for it. To that end - does the UK police keep or publish a database of messages/speech that triggered police action or conviction?

mytailorisrich 2y ago
For legal reasons the media are worried about republishing material that is being deemed offensive, libelous, or criminal.
defrost 2y ago
> To that end - does the UK police keep or publish a database of messages/speech that triggered police action or conviction? The UK police keep records of all police actions that result in arrest or warnings. Any evidence gathered at the time or later is attached to the file per action ID#. The article here is drawn from the results of an FOI request to the UK police database. The UK court system keeps a database of all actions advanced to prosecution before the courts. The numbers that enter the system, the numbers pleaded out, mediated out, dropped, brought before a judge, trial results be they dismissal, guilty, innocent. As per the article, of the some 12,000 arrests or warning per recent years, only some 1,100 resulted in a sentence.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  That information is rather buried, isn't it? The average UK voter won't actually know how the law is being applied, beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something, unless they, what, file a FOI request for every action ID#?
  - defrost 2y ago
    Is it? Many countries only publicly release coarse totals, eg: in the UK the 12,000 annual police actions specific to this law are bundled in with ~465,000 other public order offences publicly released and totalled in: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/policeforceareadatatables https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand... > beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something Multiple individuals, media outlets, stats nerds, etc make these requests and publish or blog if discrepencies are seen. For example, this FOI request was made by The Times .. not the BBC.
    - spwa4 2y ago
      The whole point was to know WHAT these actions were in response to. Was it threatening individuals? Groups? Was it lying about government actions? Was it dick picks? WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. And the law is not much help: they're punished for "causing offence", not even specified to whom (mayors seem to be overrepresented, although there seem to also be majors on the receiving end)
      - defrost 2y ago
        > WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. It's the same for robberies, petty fraud, assaults, etc. Just the totals in broad categories are published. There is a reason for that, privacy, personal details of victims and the actually innocent although accused. These are things that take time, money, resources to scrub from the public record and so are not publicly published. The reporting done on robberies is done by reporters who understand the privacy laws and apply for access, by people that attend courts or pull transcripts and sign off on the privacy aspects. Researchers get full unfettered access to entire databases on the same basis. If you want to know more then take action to allocate funds to drill into the data, write to a newspaper and lobby for them to do the drudge work, approach universities that study crime stats. Crime reporters, and interested general public, look at the Court dailies and attend hearings on subjects of interest. That's how the public hears about details of a spicy robbery, fraud, or assault. That or parties involved alerting reporters.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  > As per the article, of the some 12,000 arrests or warning per recent years, only some 1,100 resulted in a sentence. That's actually a troubling statistic. It implies that the police are throwing their weight around on flimsy legal grounds -- as an intimidation tactic -- or are coercing "settlements" outside the court system.
  - bigfatkitten 2y ago
    There are an infinite number of reasons why a charge might not get up. Complainant decides not to proceed, prosecutors decline to run it due to insufficient evidence, or the police screw up and let the statute of limitations lapse.
    - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
      In each individual case, sure. But when literally >90% of arrests don't lead to convictions, that's indicative of an overall trend which says something about the nature and utility of those arrests.
    - mytailorisrich 2y ago
      There is no such thing as "pressing charges" in the UK. Especially in cases of online comments the evidence is basically available online so once it is reported it is for the police to decide on arrests then for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to charge. My feeling is that the police has become quick to arrest.
  - watwut 2y ago
    No, it suggests courts are doing their thing. There is no reason for warnings to turn into sentences. The whole point of warning is to avoid sentence. The super high convincing rates America has are because accused have no real lawful protection.
    - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
      >No, it suggests courts are doing their thing. How so? The courts are not even involved in most of these cases. Arresting people, knowing they will never get charged is not an appropriate form of warning in my view. It's intimidation.
benmmurphy 2y ago
Some of it looks like 'small town' style intimidation where the group in control of the governing bodies will use law enforcement to intimidate anyone that might bring them embarrassment or threaten their power. The article even mentions a case where this happened: > Maxie Allen, 50, and Rosalind Levine, 46, were questioned on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property. After a five-week investigation, the police concluded that there should be no further action. > A police officer also said that elected officials could be treated as harassment suspects if they continued advocating for the couple. > Andy Prophet, chief constable of Hertfordshire, defended the arrests, saying that the force had given warnings and they were lawful, although he conceded that “with the benefit of hindsight we could have achieved the same ends in a different way”.
ghusto 2y ago
If you don't know what got others in trouble, you'll be overly careful with your own words. Most worrying is the fact that causing other "distress" with words is a crime. If I point out something you do that I find morally bankrupt, it _should_ cause you distress.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

For legal reasons the media are worried about republishing material that is being deemed offensive, libelous, or criminal.

defrost 2y ago

> To that end - does the UK police keep or publish a database of messages/speech that triggered police action or conviction? The UK police keep records of all police actions that result in arrest or warnings. Any evidence gathered at the time or later is attached to the file per action ID#. The article here is drawn from the results of an FOI request to the UK police database. The UK court system keeps a database of all actions advanced to prosecution before the courts. The numbers that enter the system, the numbers pleaded out, mediated out, dropped, brought before a judge, trial results be they dismissal, guilty, innocent. As per the article, of the some 12,000 arrests or warning per recent years, only some 1,100 resulted in a sentence.

like_any_other 2y ago
That information is rather buried, isn't it? The average UK voter won't actually know how the law is being applied, beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something, unless they, what, file a FOI request for every action ID#?
- defrost 2y ago
  Is it? Many countries only publicly release coarse totals, eg: in the UK the 12,000 annual police actions specific to this law are bundled in with ~465,000 other public order offences publicly released and totalled in: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/policeforceareadatatables https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand... > beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something Multiple individuals, media outlets, stats nerds, etc make these requests and publish or blog if discrepencies are seen. For example, this FOI request was made by The Times .. not the BBC.
  - spwa4 2y ago
    The whole point was to know WHAT these actions were in response to. Was it threatening individuals? Groups? Was it lying about government actions? Was it dick picks? WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. And the law is not much help: they're punished for "causing offence", not even specified to whom (mayors seem to be overrepresented, although there seem to also be majors on the receiving end)
    - defrost 2y ago
      > WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. It's the same for robberies, petty fraud, assaults, etc. Just the totals in broad categories are published. There is a reason for that, privacy, personal details of victims and the actually innocent although accused. These are things that take time, money, resources to scrub from the public record and so are not publicly published. The reporting done on robberies is done by reporters who understand the privacy laws and apply for access, by people that attend courts or pull transcripts and sign off on the privacy aspects. Researchers get full unfettered access to entire databases on the same basis. If you want to know more then take action to allocate funds to drill into the data, write to a newspaper and lobby for them to do the drudge work, approach universities that study crime stats. Crime reporters, and interested general public, look at the Court dailies and attend hearings on subjects of interest. That's how the public hears about details of a spicy robbery, fraud, or assault. That or parties involved alerting reporters.
A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
> As per the article, of the some 12,000 arrests or warning per recent years, only some 1,100 resulted in a sentence. That's actually a troubling statistic. It implies that the police are throwing their weight around on flimsy legal grounds -- as an intimidation tactic -- or are coercing "settlements" outside the court system.
- bigfatkitten 2y ago
  There are an infinite number of reasons why a charge might not get up. Complainant decides not to proceed, prosecutors decline to run it due to insufficient evidence, or the police screw up and let the statute of limitations lapse.
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    In each individual case, sure. But when literally >90% of arrests don't lead to convictions, that's indicative of an overall trend which says something about the nature and utility of those arrests.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    There is no such thing as "pressing charges" in the UK. Especially in cases of online comments the evidence is basically available online so once it is reported it is for the police to decide on arrests then for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to charge. My feeling is that the police has become quick to arrest.
- watwut 2y ago
  No, it suggests courts are doing their thing. There is no reason for warnings to turn into sentences. The whole point of warning is to avoid sentence. The super high convincing rates America has are because accused have no real lawful protection.
  - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
    >No, it suggests courts are doing their thing. How so? The courts are not even involved in most of these cases. Arresting people, knowing they will never get charged is not an appropriate form of warning in my view. It's intimidation.

benmmurphy 2y ago

Some of it looks like 'small town' style intimidation where the group in control of the governing bodies will use law enforcement to intimidate anyone that might bring them embarrassment or threaten their power. The article even mentions a case where this happened: > Maxie Allen, 50, and Rosalind Levine, 46, were questioned on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property. After a five-week investigation, the police concluded that there should be no further action. > A police officer also said that elected officials could be treated as harassment suspects if they continued advocating for the couple. > Andy Prophet, chief constable of Hertfordshire, defended the arrests, saying that the force had given warnings and they were lawful, although he conceded that “with the benefit of hindsight we could have achieved the same ends in a different way”.

ghusto 2y ago

If you don't know what got others in trouble, you'll be overly careful with your own words. Most worrying is the fact that causing other "distress" with words is a crime. If I point out something you do that I find morally bankrupt, it _should_ cause you distress.