4 ms·

Pretty sure the police aren't enacting the laws they are obligated to enforce, the government is the ones doing that.

by account-5 1y ago

handedness 1y ago
The article addresses that.
- account-5 1y ago
  Then the title is misleading and clickbaity then. "Government is restricting speech in worrying ways" is the actual story. Or old laws not fit for purpose in modern contexts. But during the police in the title means more clicks because everyone hates the police.
  - ChocolateGod 1y ago
    West Yorkshire Police tried to arrest an autistic child for saying a female police officer looked like her lesbian nana on private property. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895 No muddling of the law here, just pure police overreach.
    - account-5 1y ago
      Police didn't arrest J.K. Rowling for her tweets about transwomen after the new Scottish law came into force, even when she asked them to. No muddling of the new law just police... Underreach? Or not doing their job? Depends who you ask. Either way tit for tat examples help nothing. Fact is, police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Plus it's good to just blame them for things they aren't in control of.
      - ChocolateGod 1y ago
        JK Rowling can afford a good lawyer.
        account-5 1y ago
        Yes I'm sure she can. But that is surely besides the point?
        aaaja 1y ago
        It was central to the point she was making. If the police arrested her for saying a man is a man, it would make headlines across the world, and if it went to court her lawyers, who are very good at what they do, would have a field day challenging this law. Most other people do not have anywhere near this level of access to legal support or media coverage. But as they chose not to arrest her, this shields every other woman who might want to say similar. The argument being: if JKR can say a man is a man with impunity, then why can't anyone else? So her making these statements of truth was a win either way. But being able to mount a solid defence in court, if needed, was essential to this strategy working. https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1775187763995824350 https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1775187763995824350
        account-5 1y ago
        I agree but my point was not that my point was you can find tit for tat examples all over the place. It doesn't move the original conversation on. Point in fact, this morning in the news, a MET employee was reinstated after getting sacked for gross misconduct over comments apparently made whilst dealing with calls to the police. This time they're critised for the opposite of doing what they've been critised in the OP article for. Lose, lose for the police. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ke41yg18o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ke41yg18o
        ChocolateGod 1y ago
        > But that is surely besides the point? The people who wanted JK Rowling arrested knew her views and comments are legal. If the police arrested her and she won in court, that would set a precedent and invalidate any attempt to use that legislation to prosecute people with similar views, which activists were hoping to use it for. But also, her not getting arrested does the same. So she was in a win-win position.
      - AStonesThrow 1y ago
        Perhaps because the police aren't arresting people over mere Tweets, or their speech alone. Perhaps, just perhaps, conduct or actions or monetary support are also involved, but the headlines can only trumpet the reason for arrest, or the stated charges. JK Rowling, CH OBE FRSL is an author whose corpus of speech is mainly her novel-writing. Now how did nine letters come to be placed after her name, even as she shortened her first two initials? Because her writing (speech) has been in exemplary service and support of the Crown and the British Empire. So why would police arrest JK Rowling for pushing back against one wedge-issue in the culture war? The 70-year-old Guy being arrested outside the abortion clinic for holding a rosary and praying, is that the singular offence he committed? Possession of a phoenix feather? Did he rescue Tom Marvolo Riddle's mother? I don't know. Neither do you.
sherr 1y ago
Yes, bad laws that are open to interpretation, perhaps as designed. But the police have a lot of discretion and it's much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet or supposed offense than it is to go after real crimes. We always hear "lessons will be learned" after the fact, again and again, but they don't seem to be.
- account-5 1y ago
  The two laws that the article mentions are pretty well explained in it, fairly clear cut in was can be a criminal act under them. Now whether they are fit for purpose in modern contexts or whether they are too broad is another matter, and not one the police can do anything about. Their job is to enforce what's on the book.
- chairmansteve 1y ago
  "it's much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet". That is a very good point. The evidence is right there literally in black and white. And they can easily get there conviction rates up, which probably matters.
- dzhiurgis 1y ago
  > much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet How far do they go? Will they subpeona twitter if you have pseudonym and track down your ip address? How about tor and vpn, will they actually go thru four letter agencies to track you down?
argomo 1y ago
First: "Muddled laws give them wide discretion" Second: You are responsible for your actions, even if you're just following orders.
- account-5 1y ago
  Muddled laws are a government issue. And the second goes for the people affected by the muddled laws too, who have way more discretion than the police.
  - JadeNB 1y ago
    > And the second goes for the people affected by the muddled laws too, who have way more discretion than the police. Are you arguing that the fault for being on the wrong side of the powerful lies with the people who could have just decided not to be on the wrong side of the powerful? We're discussing here laws where someone, whether the police or some other authority figure, is going to be deciding whether you're subject to them based not on plain and objective facts, but on subjective criteria - which inevitably, and unaccountably, will include your other activities. They're designed to offer a fig leaf so that you can be prosecuted for something whose punishment is comparatively palatable, without having to acknowledge the actual cause for offense. Of course one can argue whether any particular law falls in this category, but I think it's difficult to argue that the designed consequences of such laws are the fault of the person subject to them.
    - account-5 1y ago
      > Are you arguing that the fault for being on the wrong side of the powerful lies with the people who could have just decided not to be on the wrong side of the powerful? No. I saying that people are responsible for their actions. In western society (democratic) laws are implemented by people put in a position of authority by the very people those laws apply to. I'm not really sure I understand the rest of what you're talking about, so I do t want to assume anything, but it sounds like you're after perfects laws no one can misinterprete? I don't think that's possible. Bug free software will likely come first. Either way the conversation about power and who has it and who doesn't doesn't strike me as helpful.
Spooky23 1y ago
Totally. When you give police anywhere discretion, they run with it.
gotoeleven 1y ago
Enforcing laws consistently would be great but of course one great tactic of tyrannical governments is to have a lot of laws, but only enforce them against disfavored groups. One San Francisco flavor of this to get charged for bribing officials to do their jobs. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/three-construction-planning-firm-executives-charged-bribing-san-francisco-dept https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/three-construction-plan...
landl0rd 1y ago
Police have broad discretion over what they enforce and when. In America Castle Rock v. Gonzales affirmed this strongly (although it also had other questionable implications). I believe things are similar in Britain. Over here we've seen this with various jurisdictions decriminalizing marijuana and other drugs by simply not policing it.
- account-5 1y ago
  It's different in Britain. If something is reported it has to be looked into. The article covers this. More reporting more investigations.

Pretty sure the police aren't enacting the laws they are obligated to enforce, the government is the ones doing that.

handedness 1y ago

The article addresses that.

account-5 1y ago
Then the title is misleading and clickbaity then. "Government is restricting speech in worrying ways" is the actual story. Or old laws not fit for purpose in modern contexts. But during the police in the title means more clicks because everyone hates the police.
- ChocolateGod 1y ago
  West Yorkshire Police tried to arrest an autistic child for saying a female police officer looked like her lesbian nana on private property. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895 No muddling of the law here, just pure police overreach.
  - account-5 1y ago
    Police didn't arrest J.K. Rowling for her tweets about transwomen after the new Scottish law came into force, even when she asked them to. No muddling of the new law just police... Underreach? Or not doing their job? Depends who you ask. Either way tit for tat examples help nothing. Fact is, police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Plus it's good to just blame them for things they aren't in control of.
    - ChocolateGod 1y ago
      JK Rowling can afford a good lawyer.
      - account-5 1y ago
        Yes I'm sure she can. But that is surely besides the point?
        aaaja 1y ago
        It was central to the point she was making. If the police arrested her for saying a man is a man, it would make headlines across the world, and if it went to court her lawyers, who are very good at what they do, would have a field day challenging this law. Most other people do not have anywhere near this level of access to legal support or media coverage. But as they chose not to arrest her, this shields every other woman who might want to say similar. The argument being: if JKR can say a man is a man with impunity, then why can't anyone else? So her making these statements of truth was a win either way. But being able to mount a solid defence in court, if needed, was essential to this strategy working. https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1775187763995824350 https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1775187763995824350
        account-5 1y ago
        I agree but my point was not that my point was you can find tit for tat examples all over the place. It doesn't move the original conversation on. Point in fact, this morning in the news, a MET employee was reinstated after getting sacked for gross misconduct over comments apparently made whilst dealing with calls to the police. This time they're critised for the opposite of doing what they've been critised in the OP article for. Lose, lose for the police. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ke41yg18o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ke41yg18o
        ChocolateGod 1y ago
        > But that is surely besides the point? The people who wanted JK Rowling arrested knew her views and comments are legal. If the police arrested her and she won in court, that would set a precedent and invalidate any attempt to use that legislation to prosecute people with similar views, which activists were hoping to use it for. But also, her not getting arrested does the same. So she was in a win-win position.
    - AStonesThrow 1y ago
      Perhaps because the police aren't arresting people over mere Tweets, or their speech alone. Perhaps, just perhaps, conduct or actions or monetary support are also involved, but the headlines can only trumpet the reason for arrest, or the stated charges. JK Rowling, CH OBE FRSL is an author whose corpus of speech is mainly her novel-writing. Now how did nine letters come to be placed after her name, even as she shortened her first two initials? Because her writing (speech) has been in exemplary service and support of the Crown and the British Empire. So why would police arrest JK Rowling for pushing back against one wedge-issue in the culture war? The 70-year-old Guy being arrested outside the abortion clinic for holding a rosary and praying, is that the singular offence he committed? Possession of a phoenix feather? Did he rescue Tom Marvolo Riddle's mother? I don't know. Neither do you.

sherr 1y ago

Yes, bad laws that are open to interpretation, perhaps as designed. But the police have a lot of discretion and it's much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet or supposed offense than it is to go after real crimes. We always hear "lessons will be learned" after the fact, again and again, but they don't seem to be.

account-5 1y ago
The two laws that the article mentions are pretty well explained in it, fairly clear cut in was can be a criminal act under them. Now whether they are fit for purpose in modern contexts or whether they are too broad is another matter, and not one the police can do anything about. Their job is to enforce what's on the book.
chairmansteve 1y ago
"it's much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet". That is a very good point. The evidence is right there literally in black and white. And they can easily get there conviction rates up, which probably matters.
dzhiurgis 1y ago
> much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet How far do they go? Will they subpeona twitter if you have pseudonym and track down your ip address? How about tor and vpn, will they actually go thru four letter agencies to track you down?

argomo 1y ago

First: "Muddled laws give them wide discretion" Second: You are responsible for your actions, even if you're just following orders.

account-5 1y ago
Muddled laws are a government issue. And the second goes for the people affected by the muddled laws too, who have way more discretion than the police.
- JadeNB 1y ago
  > And the second goes for the people affected by the muddled laws too, who have way more discretion than the police. Are you arguing that the fault for being on the wrong side of the powerful lies with the people who could have just decided not to be on the wrong side of the powerful? We're discussing here laws where someone, whether the police or some other authority figure, is going to be deciding whether you're subject to them based not on plain and objective facts, but on subjective criteria - which inevitably, and unaccountably, will include your other activities. They're designed to offer a fig leaf so that you can be prosecuted for something whose punishment is comparatively palatable, without having to acknowledge the actual cause for offense. Of course one can argue whether any particular law falls in this category, but I think it's difficult to argue that the designed consequences of such laws are the fault of the person subject to them.
  - account-5 1y ago
    > Are you arguing that the fault for being on the wrong side of the powerful lies with the people who could have just decided not to be on the wrong side of the powerful? No. I saying that people are responsible for their actions. In western society (democratic) laws are implemented by people put in a position of authority by the very people those laws apply to. I'm not really sure I understand the rest of what you're talking about, so I do t want to assume anything, but it sounds like you're after perfects laws no one can misinterprete? I don't think that's possible. Bug free software will likely come first. Either way the conversation about power and who has it and who doesn't doesn't strike me as helpful.

Spooky23 1y ago

Totally. When you give police anywhere discretion, they run with it.

gotoeleven 1y ago

Enforcing laws consistently would be great but of course one great tactic of tyrannical governments is to have a lot of laws, but only enforce them against disfavored groups. One San Francisco flavor of this to get charged for bribing officials to do their jobs. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/three-construction-planning-firm-executives-charged-bribing-san-francisco-dept https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/three-construction-plan...

landl0rd 1y ago

Police have broad discretion over what they enforce and when. In America Castle Rock v. Gonzales affirmed this strongly (although it also had other questionable implications). I believe things are similar in Britain. Over here we've seen this with various jurisdictions decriminalizing marijuana and other drugs by simply not policing it.

account-5 1y ago
It's different in Britain. If something is reported it has to be looked into. The article covers this. More reporting more investigations.