"Currants Bw..."

[Letters]

Serious question for you losers, do you seriously not find this concerning?

https://x.com/stillgray/status/1858803173848182941

This is what that Tweet says:

This judge threw a 20 month sentence at someone for posting on social media that they didn’t want to see illegal aliens being given free stuff with their tax dollars.

And this is the reality:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2593990.html

Jordan Parlour, 28, admitted to publishing posts on Facebook last week which encouraged violence at a hotel in Leeds where 200 asylum seekers and refugees.

He was sentenced with 20 months behind bars in Leeds Crown Court this afternoon, after he wrote on Facebook: “Every man and their dog should be smashing f*** out Britannia Hotel.”

The Tweet dishonestly implies the dude was just expressing legitimate concerns and was thrown in to jail for it. My question is are you being dishonest too or do you just blindly believe anything like this which panders to your prejudices? If the latter then there’s a certain irony to this, given that you’re the sort of person who uses the word “sheeple”. And here you are blindly following anyone on Twitter who tells you what you want to believe. Embarrassing.

To answer the question a bit more seriously, there are some legitimate concerns here, but people who encourage people to smash up hotels where innocent families including children are being housed can go fuck themselves

[Mac76]

This is what that Tweet says:



And this is the reality:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2593990.html



The Tweet dishonestly implies the dude was just expressing legitimate concerns and was thrown in to jail for it. My question is are you being dishonest too or do you just blindly believe anything like this which panders to your prejudices? If the latter then there’s a certain irony to this, given that you’re the sort of person who uses the word “sheeple”. And here you are blindly following anyone on Twitter who tells you what you want to believe. Embarrassing.

To answer the question a bit more seriously, there are some legitimate concerns here, but people who encourage people to smash up hotels where innocent families including children are being housed can go fuck themselves

Well and truly knocked out of the park

Letters

[HCZ_Reborn]

The question you have to ask yourself is does that warrant a prison sentence or indeed should the law be involved at all

The police at the moment are investigating Allison Pearson, idiotic hack that she is. For a tweet which actually she took down before being arrested.

The same police force where a friend of mine, her friend and her children had to seek refuge with her for a week because even though there was video and text evidence of her ex partner threatening her….they were dragging their feet over arresting him, even when he came to the kids school and threatened the teachers if they did not bring the kids out to see him.

I don’t believe we have a two tier justice system, but I can totally understand why people do. People who post idiotic nonsense on social media are low hanging fruit, the police work and resources involved are minimal. Now I don’t believe for a second that what the guy did should be considered a criminal offence, the charge of incitement needs to have a higher bar. And when so much rubbish gets posted by so many people, it becomes completely arbitrary as to whether someone is arrested or not. And at a time where we are at near capacity in the prison estate, it creates the wrong impression as to priorities.

The longer this continues, the more fuel we provide for people who want to dishonestly push their own narrative

[Letters]

The question you have to ask yourself is does that warrant a prison sentence or indeed should the law be involved at all

It's a good question and as I said there are genuine concerns about the idea someone can be locked up for just saying some stuff online.
But free speech and freedom more generally don't exist in the way NQ defines in the context of living in a society. Like with all things he believes that this is a black and white issue, you're either free or you're not. In reality there are many shades of grey and degrees of freedom. In a society freedom has to be constrained because our words and actions affect other people.

Context is key here. I suspect most of the time the bloke wouldn't have been locked up or even arrested for saying what he said. But in the context of the stabbings, the subsequent lies about them and the unrest that stirred up anyone involved or actively egging people on was endangering lives. I have no issue with that being dealt with.

[HCZ_Reborn]

It's a good question and as I said there are genuine concerns about the idea someone can be locked up for just saying some stuff online.
But free speech and freedom more generally don't exist in the way NQ defines in the context of living in a society. Like with all things he believes that this is a black and white issue, you're either free or you're not. In reality there are many shades of grey and degrees of freedom. In a society freedom has to be constrained because our words and actions affect other people.

Context is key here. I suspect most of the time the bloke wouldn't have been locked up or even arrested for saying what he said. But in the context of the stabbings, the subsequent lies about them and the unrest that stirred up anyone involved or actively egging people on was endangering lives. I have no issue with that being dealt with.

The problem with setting limits to freedom of speech is who defines where those limits are. The reason this guy was arrested was because of the danger they thought his speech could pose. I posted on Facebook the other day that people who play music on carriages should be shaved, sterilised and destroyed…what if an officious police officer decided that this amounted to inciting violence?.

In an ideal world people would be more responsible with the things they say definitely during a period of unrest but we do not want idiots being turned into martyrs. It makes the false assumption that people wouldn’t attack hotels without people like that posting on social media.

[Letters]

The problem with setting limits to freedom of speech is who defines where those limits are.

The government do. They define all the laws which restrict our freedoms. To NQ that's an abomination, to me it's a reasonable consequence and necessity of living in a society.

The reason this guy was arrested was because of the danger they thought his speech could pose. I posted on Facebook the other day that people who play music on carriages should be shaved, sterilised and destroyed…what if an officious police officer decided that this amounted to inciting violence?

I don't disagree there are potential dangers here, but in general I think any reasonable person would understand that you were joking about that. So if an officious police officer did take an interest then I honestly don't believe it would get very far. This dude wasn't joking, he was actively inciting and encourage violence in the context of actual riots which were taking place and endangering lives.

In an ideal world people would be more responsible with the things they say definitely during a period of unrest but we do not want idiots being turned into martyrs. It makes the false assumption that people wouldn’t attack hotels without people like that posting on social media.

I agree that's a false assumption, but I also think that people actively encouraging the behaviour adds fuel the fire and makes it worse. I don't have an issue with that being dealt with. Whether it deserves a custodial sentence...well, I agree that's debatable.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I regard myself as a free speech absolutist, but the problem is a lot of people don’t understand what free speech is. That if you don’t want someone prosecuted for what they say you must agree with what they’ve said. Or conversely that even if you criticise what someone has said, or say that what they’ve said is stupid or disgusting you’re attacking their free speech (no you’re just exercising yours).
Also neither a public or private platform has to publish your opinions, and if an employer considers what you’ve posted to do harm to their business reputation they are well within their rights to dismiss you.

What there shouldn’t be (in my view) is any criminal consequences for what is spoken…incitement to violence has to be a direct and unambiguous thing and can often be taken care of by other criminal laws

[Letters]

incitement to violence has to be a direct and unambiguous thing

Isn't

“Every man and their dog should be smashing f*** out Britannia Hotel.”

Pretty direct an unambiguous? And again, one could make the same argument about what you said (which I agree with by the way). The difference is yours was a clear joke (as is my agreement with it, although they definitely need a poke in the eye).

[HCZ_Reborn]

The government do. They define all the laws which restrict our freedoms. To NQ that's an abomination, to me it's a reasonable consequence and necessity of living in a society.


I don't disagree there are potential dangers here, but in general I think any reasonable person would understand that you were joking about that. So if an officious police officer did take an interest then I honestly don't believe it would get very far. This dude wasn't joking, he was actively inciting and encourage violence in the context of actual riots which were taking place and endangering lives.


I agree that's a false assumption, but I also think that people actively encouraging the behaviour adds fuel the fire and makes it worse. I don't have an issue with that being dealt with. Whether it deserves a custodial sentence...well, I agree that's debatable.

You realise that asking who sets the limits was a rhetorical question. The point being that no individual has a truly objective and unbiased view of where the limit lies, and things like hate crime laws are often subject to interpretation (as they must be).
A reasonable person might also deduce that the guy who has 20 months inside was merely speaking in the heat of the moment and actually spoke about resentments that a lot of people feel, about how services are cut in these communities yet resources can be found to house people who have never lived here or paid into the system. I think it’s an incredibly simplistic point of view, but I can understand why people feel that way.
People say a lot of things when they are angry, often stupid things….if no tangible crime has been committed, it’s really no different from someone who has had a few too many to drink down the pub mouthing off.

A lot of these messages get found by police when they are trying to find the organisers of the riots, who are a bit too intelligent to publicly announce their intentions.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Isn't



Pretty direct an unambiguous? And again, one could make the same argument about what you said (which I agree with by the way). The difference is yours was a clear joke (as is my agreement with it, although they definitely need a poke in the eye).

Firstly it’s not direct and unambiguous. Direct and unambiguous would be “I am calling for all like minded citizens to go to this hotel on this day at this time and carry out x offence”. Secondly, the message was sent after the incident had occurred so there’s no direct causal link between the actual crime and the message.