3 ms·

Absolutely not the case. This is just what overly online people think.

by nindalf 9mo ago

bmn__ 9mo ago
It is the case in reality. We are talking about an objectively measurable outcome, and delusional thinking from the propaganda victims does not change it.
toyg 9mo ago
Tbf, it's not the case that they are more worried about wrongthink because they're just not worried at all by petty theft - or almost any other instance of micro-criminality.
- amiga386 9mo ago
  Would you believe me if I said the police aren't worried about it because even if they put in the effort and catch thieves, they won't be prosecuted very hard. Since 2014, "low-value shoplifting" (under £200) in England and Wales can only be tried in the Magistrate's court and have a maximum sentence of 6 months (now ~1 year since 2024), no matter how many summary offenses you're convicted of. So if you steal under £200 of stuff, hundreds of times over, it's the same outcome. You'll be back on the street very soon. The government is currently seeking to amend that: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policing-bill-2025-factsheets/crime-and-policing-bill-retail-crime-factsheet https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policin... > The bill will remove the perceived immunity granted to shop theft of goods to the value of £200 or less, by repealing Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and the legislation that inserted it (section 176 of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014). > This will ensure that all offences are tried as ‘general theft’ (an either way offence with a maximum custodial sentence of seven years), instead of summarily in the magistrates’ court, unless the defendant elects for jury trial "Either-way" here means that the offence can be tried either as a summary or indictable offence; an indictable offence can carry much more serious penalties. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/176 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/176 > 22A (1) Low-value shoplifting is triable only summarily.
  - toyg 9mo ago
    I don't disagree, and I would add that the court system is so clogged up that one might not even end up behind bars at all - because by the time the hearing is finally scheduled, the perp might well be on another continent. Still, the public would appreciate some effort - if anything to actually get some of their stuff back, if not to inconvenience thieves.
sejje 9mo ago
There's a recent video of a woman getting arrested, not for the first time, for admitting that she might be praying to herself inside her head, silently. Here's an article I searched up about it: https://adfinternational.org/news/uk-christian-woman-criminally-charged-for-standing-silently-praying https://adfinternational.org/news/uk-christian-woman-crimina...
- ikawe 9mo ago
  (outside an abortion facility)
  - sejje 9mo ago
    Yes, the place she thought needed her prayers. How is that important?
    - lostlogin 9mo ago
      What are your views on abortion? I believe in free access. I also believe those going to get an abortion shouldn’t be impeded by protesters in the immediate vicinity when getting their healthcare.
      - axus 9mo ago
        Do you believe God was listening to the prayers and influencing the people at the abortion clinic? From what I read the lady was standing there and not blocking free access. The law says you may not influence.
        lostlogin 9mo ago
        > Do you believe God was listening to the prayers and influencing the people at the abortion clinic? No, the woman was there tying to influence other women’s healthcare, something she had no right to get involved in. Edit: The police did screw this up - the clinic was closed. She also received a payout. Framing this as ‘thought police’ is wrong, the issue was her presence. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gze361j7xo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gze361j7xo

Absolutely not the case. This is just what overly online people think.

by nindalf 9mo ago

Absolutely not the case. This is just what overly online people think.

bmn__ 9mo ago

It is the case in reality. We are talking about an objectively measurable outcome, and delusional thinking from the propaganda victims does not change it.

toyg 9mo ago

Tbf, it's not the case that they are more worried about wrongthink because they're just not worried at all by petty theft - or almost any other instance of micro-criminality.

amiga386 9mo ago
Would you believe me if I said the police aren't worried about it because even if they put in the effort and catch thieves, they won't be prosecuted very hard. Since 2014, "low-value shoplifting" (under £200) in England and Wales can only be tried in the Magistrate's court and have a maximum sentence of 6 months (now ~1 year since 2024), no matter how many summary offenses you're convicted of. So if you steal under £200 of stuff, hundreds of times over, it's the same outcome. You'll be back on the street very soon. The government is currently seeking to amend that: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policing-bill-2025-factsheets/crime-and-policing-bill-retail-crime-factsheet https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policin... > The bill will remove the perceived immunity granted to shop theft of goods to the value of £200 or less, by repealing Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and the legislation that inserted it (section 176 of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014). > This will ensure that all offences are tried as ‘general theft’ (an either way offence with a maximum custodial sentence of seven years), instead of summarily in the magistrates’ court, unless the defendant elects for jury trial "Either-way" here means that the offence can be tried either as a summary or indictable offence; an indictable offence can carry much more serious penalties. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/176 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/176 > 22A (1) Low-value shoplifting is triable only summarily.
- toyg 9mo ago
  I don't disagree, and I would add that the court system is so clogged up that one might not even end up behind bars at all - because by the time the hearing is finally scheduled, the perp might well be on another continent. Still, the public would appreciate some effort - if anything to actually get some of their stuff back, if not to inconvenience thieves.

sejje 9mo ago

There's a recent video of a woman getting arrested, not for the first time, for admitting that she might be praying to herself inside her head, silently. Here's an article I searched up about it: https://adfinternational.org/news/uk-christian-woman-criminally-charged-for-standing-silently-praying https://adfinternational.org/news/uk-christian-woman-crimina...

ikawe 9mo ago
(outside an abortion facility)
- sejje 9mo ago
  Yes, the place she thought needed her prayers. How is that important?
  - lostlogin 9mo ago
    What are your views on abortion? I believe in free access. I also believe those going to get an abortion shouldn’t be impeded by protesters in the immediate vicinity when getting their healthcare.
    - axus 9mo ago
      Do you believe God was listening to the prayers and influencing the people at the abortion clinic? From what I read the lady was standing there and not blocking free access. The law says you may not influence.
      - lostlogin 9mo ago
        > Do you believe God was listening to the prayers and influencing the people at the abortion clinic? No, the woman was there tying to influence other women’s healthcare, something she had no right to get involved in. Edit: The police did screw this up - the clinic was closed. She also received a payout. Framing this as ‘thought police’ is wrong, the issue was her presence. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gze361j7xo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gze361j7xo