3 ms·

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 p

by 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.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  > It's the same for robberies The difference is robbery is much more clear cut than "causing offense", "hate", or other speech crimes.
  - defrost 2y ago
    A difference insufficient to magic resources from thin air for additional sub category processing to create sanitised public records. Again, if you or others are interested then by all means either do the work of a reporter and researcher or sponser it, or lobby to have the work done on the public purse. I'm guessing that as a UK citizen (?) you have no wish to spend your taxes on complete scrubbing and processing of every last category and sub category of record within the ever growing government archives? Perhaps subscribe to or make a solid donation to The Times and write and ask them to do further work on the FOI returns they've already sourced and to expand their document base.

by spwa4 2y ago

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.

like_any_other 2y ago
> It's the same for robberies The difference is robbery is much more clear cut than "causing offense", "hate", or other speech crimes.
- defrost 2y ago
  A difference insufficient to magic resources from thin air for additional sub category processing to create sanitised public records. Again, if you or others are interested then by all means either do the work of a reporter and researcher or sponser it, or lobby to have the work done on the public purse. I'm guessing that as a UK citizen (?) you have no wish to spend your taxes on complete scrubbing and processing of every last category and sub category of record within the ever growing government archives? Perhaps subscribe to or make a solid donation to The Times and write and ask them to do further work on the FOI returns they've already sourced and to expand their document base.