Thought Police in Britain?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by rayheno

I don't think that part was meant to be taken literally. What I found sensible was to ask the complainant what the offense was and on discovery that it isn't actually a crime, then case closed. Why the need to contact the excop?

Well a reasonable reason to do it would be to prevent a crime being committed in future by the ex-cop who may be unaware that what he was doing was going in that direction?

In this case it seems like the CCO who made the call (and I am not sure if they are even technically police officers to be honest) was a bit enthusiastic because he had been on a course and thought he could educate the ex-cop a bit.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Except that it wasn't just one tweet. There were at least 29 others, presumably in a similar vein.

You mean 29 other perfectly legal tweets? This guy needs reigning in before his opinions explode into criminality!

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Except that it wasn't just one tweet. There were at least 29 others, presumably in a similar vein.

There is no indication that the other tweets were actionable and it seems off that a search was made for any other tweets by the ex-cop.

Originally Posted by rayheno

I don't think that part was meant to be taken literally. What I found sensible was to ask the complainant what the offense was and on discovery that it isn't actually a crime, then case closed. Why the need to contact the excop?

It should have been done as a courtesy call: "Hello Mr Excop, we have received a complaint about a tweet that you retweeted. We don't see anything in that tweet that you should be charged with but you should be aware that others are monitoring your tweets".

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by baron

The issue is not the police doing their bit for the community (we'll come to that), it's the fact that a hate incident is also recorded against the alleged perpetrator, essentially giving him or her a police record for something that is not a crime.

Do you really believe the police act the way you describe?

A hate incident recorded on the VPD would just mean the perpetrator is also on the VPD. I know exactly how it works, I used to use the system regularly.

Quote:

I could list from now til Doomsday incidences of people and families who have been subjected to criminal attacks and intimidation on a daily basis, sometimes resulting in their suicide (or indeed murder), and the police do absolutely nothing to help.

In what way do you think the police can help vulnerable people more? By investigating when that person is burgled, when they are physically attacked, when their property is smashed, when their car is stolen, when they are sexually assaulted... or when they see a naughty limerick posted on Twitter?

Again, can I point out I agree with you, the police priorities are wrong and they often do ignore what should not be ignored.

A complaint about a naughty limerick on twitter would not even get onto the VPD system.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by psionl0

There is no indication that the other tweets were actionable and it seems off that a search was made for any other tweets by the ex-cop.

That's rather disingenuous. The police were concerned about the limerick/poem and 29 other tweets. Are you seriously suggesting that the 29 included him tweeting what he was having for dinner?

[baron]

Pathetic how many on this forum are so ready to embrace fascism.

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by baron

Pathetic how many on this forum are so ready to embrace fascism.

Fascism isn't the only political system where citizens are monitored for 'undesirable' conduct. East Germany was famous for it, for instance.

And police and intelligence services in democratic countries keep tabs on people too, so jumping straight to 'Orwellian nightmare' when someone gets a call is a bit much...

That being said, was what the police did reasonable in this case? Without further evidence I'd say no.
Does anyone know what the contents of the limerick was, or the other tweets?

I mean, a silly rhyme about surprise dick wouldn't be as damning as 'trannies only have themselves to blame if they're killed', as far as I'm concerned...

[baron]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

Fascism isn't the only political system where citizens are monitored for 'undesirable' conduct. East Germany was famous for it, for instance.

And police and intelligence services in democratic countries keep tabs on people too, so jumping straight to 'Orwellian nightmare' when someone gets a call is a bit much...

Two points. First, it has to start somewhere and the trend is very evident. If this story was a one-off I would laugh about it, it would be funny, but it's a tiny example of a determined drive to monitor, limit and criminalise free speech, the cornerstone of civilised society.

Second, the post you quoted is a criticism of the reaction to this story. We have people on this forum - people who laughably call themselves liberals - stating openly that they are happy to have their everyday interactions monitored and probed by the police because it's for their own good, and they would much rather have this than be arrested if they 'go too far' and 'say the wrong thing'. Is it any wonder fascism can take hold when people exhibit such pathetic weak-mindedness?

[lionking]

Sigh......agreeing with baron again......

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by baron

Two points. First, it has to start somewhere and the trend is very evident. If this story was a one-off I would laugh about it, it would be funny, but it's a tiny example of a determined drive to monitor, limit and criminalise free speech, the cornerstone of civilised society.

Second, the post you quoted is a criticism of the reaction to this story. We have people on this forum - people who laughably call themselves liberals - stating openly that they are happy to have their everyday interactions monitored and probed by the police because it's for their own good, and they would much rather have this than be arrested if they 'go too far' and 'say the wrong thing'. Is it any wonder fascism can take hold when people exhibit such pathetic weak-mindedness?

Oh, I wasn't saying it isn't wrong, just that it's not necessarily fascist.
I don't imagine fascists with their ideas of purity and violence and masculinity would stick up for trans folks being harrassed...
But of course a different kind of totalitarianism isn't any better...

I'm of two minds about this... On the one hand police should look into complaints. And monitoring social media has provided leads on radicalized Muslims who were planning attacks.

On the other hand, police monitoring everything we say and do makes me very uncomfortable.
And keeping a file on someone who hasn't broken any law, just for having an unpopular opinion (a file that apparently can be passed on to prospective employers) and then calling the man to inform him of that fact intimidate him is not something I want to see in a so-called free country.

[baron]

Originally Posted by lionking

Sigh......agreeing with baron again......

Any more of this agreement and I'll report you...

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

Oh, I wasn't saying it isn't wrong, just that it's not necessarily fascist.
I don't imagine fascists with their ideas of purity and violence and masculinity would stick up for trans folks being harrassed...
But of course a different kind of totalitarianism isn't any better...

I'm of two minds about this... On the one hand police should look into complaints. And monitoring social media has provided leads on radicalized Muslims who were planning attacks.

On the other hand, police monitoring everything we say and do makes me very uncomfortable.
And keeping a file on someone who hasn't broken any law, just for having an unpopular opinion (a file that apparently can be passed on to prospective employers) and then calling the man to inform him of that fact intimidate him is not something I want to see in a so-called free country.

Well exactly. I think most people accept there has to be a degree of monitoring, in that if you post or say something publicly you can't really complain if it's read by the police, but UK hate crime laws and the mandate for their application are increasingly meaning that police are assuming the role of Big Brother, moderating legal, everyday discourse using criminal legislation.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

That's rather disingenuous. The police were concerned about the limerick/poem and 29 other tweets. Are you seriously suggesting that the 29 included him tweeting what he was having for dinner?

Only one tweet was the subject of a complaint. The only reason the police would have had to search for the other 29 tweets was that the tweet that was the subject of a complaint wasn't damning enough.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Only one tweet was the subject of a complaint. The only reason the police would have had to search for the other 29 tweets was that the tweet that was the subject of a complaint wasn't damning enough.

So the likely sequence of events was:

1. Someone complains to police about one tweet,
2. Police check out Twitter feel, and find 29 other contentious tweets,
3. Someone decides, "we should probably have a word with this guy."

What's your problem with this?

[baron]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

So the likely sequence of events was:

1. Someone complains to police about one tweet,
2. Police check out Twitter feel, and find 29 other contentious tweets,
3. Someone decides, "we should probably have a word with this guy."

What's your problem with this?

That would be No. 3

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

3. Someone decides, "we should probably have a word with this guy."

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

So the likely sequence of events was:

1. Someone complains to police about one tweet,
2. Police check out Twitter feel, and find 29 other contentious tweets,
3. Someone decides, "we should probably have a word with this guy."

What's your problem with this?

A complaint is made, the police do some basic enquiries, including speaking to the author of the tweets. No action is taken by the police against the author of the tweets, who then decides to generate some publicity for himself by going to the press.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by lionking

Police acting on each and every report is a fantasy in my opinion.

Let's match my anecdote with yours.

Some kids pounded on my front door in the middle of the night, I reported it in case it was an escalating pattern of behaviour, or one of a series of events.

I specifically said: "No need to follow this up, unless you need more information from me."

Two days later I received a call asking if I needed anyone to come visit me to look at home security, or if I needed any kind of victim of crime support.

[baron]

Originally Posted by novaphile

Let's match my anecdote with yours.

Some kids pounded on my front door in the middle of the night, I reported it in case it was an escalating pattern of behaviour, or one of a series of events.

I specifically said: "No need to follow this up, unless you need more information from me."

Two days later I received a call asking if I needed anyone to come visit me to look at home security, or if I needed any kind of victim of crime support.

In which case I hope you replied, "No, I don't need ******* home security, I need you to do your job and deal with these kids who invade my property at midnight and scare my family by banging on the door, and I suggest you use the ample legislation available to you under the blanket heading of 'anti-social behaviour' to do this."

If you're comparing apples with apples you would be loitering on street corners, eavesdropping on kids' conversations until you heard something offensive, then running to the police who would question the culprits, takes their names, probe into their 'thinking' and their backgrounds and warn them that although they had done nothing wrong their details would be recorded on the police computer and if they didn't change their ways they ran the risk of being arrested and prosecuted for hate crime.

[Scorpion]

Professor David Canter said on a tv interview, "The (British) police are lumping everyone together under the one label of psychopath". I tweeted him about this and he answered me saying Psychopathology is very little understood even among professionals.

I know the bastards are doing this because they did it to me in 1988 and then tried to give me a mental breakdown by dirty psychological tricks. I gave up trying to prove it after years of harassing my last employers, who I knew had participated in the effort.
I have no witnesses, and its too late now to get compensation.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Darat

How dare the police investigate a complaint!

Unless it was against a Remain advocate, 'liberal' or "leftist' of course. Then it'd be fine.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by baron

You are wrong, then you are wrong again. A full disclosure, necessary for many jobs, will include the record of this incident. Perhaps even a basic check, but certainly a full disclosure. This will be made available to the potential employer.

Oh good grief.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by baron

Yes. What is pretty much what I said.

Ah "pretty much"; what Pratchett would call 'wallpaper words'.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Nessie

A complaint is made, the police do some basic enquiries, including speaking to the author of the tweets. No action is taken by the police against the author of the tweets, who then decides to generate some publicity for himself by going to the press.

That, as well.

[baron]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Unless it was against a Remain advocate, 'liberal' or "leftist' of course. Then it'd be fine.

Originally Posted by catsmate

Oh good grief.

Originally Posted by catsmate

Ah "pretty much"; what Pratchett would call 'wallpaper words'.

What a great contribution to the thread, you should be proud.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Oh good grief.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...cks-dbs-checks

"An enhanced DBS check .... may also contain non-conviction information supplied by a Chief Officer, if they feel it is relevant and ought to be contained in the certificate."

If the Chief Constable thought it was relevant that the police had spoken to a person about their twitter activity, it could be disclosed.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Nessie

https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...cks-dbs-checks

"An enhanced DBS check .... may also contain non-conviction information supplied by a Chief Officer, if they feel it is relevant and ought to be contained in the certificate."

If the Chief Constable thought it was relevant that the police had spoken to a person about their twitter activity, it could be disclosed.

That's right, and in this case I would say if the person applied for a job working with children then the information is very likely to be disclosed, as a perceived bias against any aspect of trans 'culture' would be deemed relevant.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by baron

That's right, and in this case I would say if the person applied for a job working with children then the information is very likely to be disclosed, as a perceived bias against any aspect of trans 'culture' would be deemed relevant.

A lot would depend on what police system the incident was recorded on, how it was recorded and if disclosure would check that system.

You cannot say with any definitive certainty if the police would;

a - find the incident in a disclosure check
b - actually disclose it.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

So the likely sequence of events was:

1. Someone complains to police about one tweet,
2. Police check out Twitter feel, and find 29 other contentious tweets,
3. Someone decides, "we should probably have a word with this guy."

What's your problem with this?

That would be No. 2.

Why would the police seek to build a case against the guy if the tweet that was complained about was not deemed an offence?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That would be No. 2.

Why would the police seek to build a case against the guy if the tweet that was complained about was not deemed an offence?

One tweet is more likely a hate incident than a hate crime. Some 29 tweets could constitute harassment, which is a crime.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That would be No. 2.

Why would the police seek to build a case against the guy if the tweet that was complained about was not deemed an offence?

Did they seek to build a case against him? A telephone call hardly seems like an investigation.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Did they seek to build a case against him? A telephone call hardly seems like an investigation.

It's not the telephone call. It is searching for past tweets (that were not complained about) in the hopes of finding something to charge him with.

[Nessie]

It smacks of a quick, cover the bases investigation so as to tick boxes, at a time of huge pressure on the police to investigate when large cuts to resources are being made.

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by psionl0

It's not the telephone call. It is searching for past tweets (that were not complained about) in the hopes of finding something to charge him with.

To me it seems like they consulted his past texts or twits or whatever it was to see if there was a pattern of behaviour that might cause concern. I assume if someone is accused of assault or theft or other crimes the police would also look into past behaviour that was relevant. And they didn't find a history on which to act so all they did was warn the guy that someone had taken offence at a tweet without taking any action against said tweeter. I really am not sure why anyone is getting so upset about this.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by psionl0

It's not the telephone call. It is searching for past tweets (that were not complained about) in the hopes of finding something to charge him with.

I seems to me that the police would have been remiss for not conducting such a search, which would have taken all of, what, five minutes? It probably took as much time as it will have to have checked his personnel file.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Parsman

To me it seems like they consulted his past texts or twits or whatever it was to see if there was a pattern of behaviour that might cause concern. I assume if someone is accused of assault or theft or other crimes the police would also look into past behaviour that was relevant. And they didn't find a history on which to act so all they did was warn the guy that someone had taken offence at a tweet without taking any action against said tweeter. I really am not sure why anyone is getting so upset about this.

As I have explained, he was accused of no crime yet he was still investigated and the episode was formally recorded on police databases as as a hate incident.

I'll alter your quote to demonstrate:

Originally Posted by Parsman

I assume if someone is accused of walking down the street or having a conversation or some other perfectly legal activity assault or theft or other crimes the police would also look into past behaviour that was relevant.

We can see now it's incorrect.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

I seems to me that the police would have been remiss for not conducting such a search, which would have taken all of, what, five minutes? It probably took as much time as it will have to have checked his personnel file.

Checked his file for what? Indulging in other perfectly legal activities? My god, maybe the week before he had mowed the lawn or played ball in the park!

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

I seems to me that the police would have been remiss for not conducting such a search, which would have taken all of, what, five minutes? It probably took as much time as it will have to have checked his personnel file.

Would the police exercise such "diligence" if they were breaking up a neighbourhood fight for example?

I seriously doubt it. If assault (especially assault occasioning bodily harm) wasn't an issue then they would simply warn the neighbours to cool it and leave (or arrest one if they didn't cool it). They wouldn't search either of the protagonist's for past arrests or driving records or anything like that if they had no intention of charging either of them with anything.

This extra mile seems limited to expressions of thought.

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by baron

As I have explained, he was accused of no crime yet he was still investigated and the episode was formally recorded on police databases as as a hate incident.

I'll alter your quote to demonstrate:



We can see now it's incorrect.

No. Strawman fallacy. It is an offense to send malicious, racist, libellous or messages intended to promote violent or other anti-social behaviour. Someone felt concerned enough about a tweet by this man to raise the matter with the police. The police investigated and did not find this message to be bad enough for a criminal case. However they did feel concerned enough to warn the man sending the messages. No one can tell the man making the messages how to think, but they can warn him that some speech can be criminal. Even in America, home of free speech, it is not advisable to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. I have said it here before, in the West you are free to say anything you like but that doesn't free you from the outcomes of such speech.

[baron]

Originally Posted by Parsman

No. Strawman fallacy. It is an offense to send malicious, racist, libellous or messages intended to promote violent or other anti-social behaviour. Someone felt concerned enough about a tweet by this man to raise the matter with the police. The police investigated and did not find this message to be bad enough for a criminal case.

It shouldn't even have got that far. Bearing in mind that the police are allegedly so under-resourced in the UK that they ignore up to 20% of reported crimes such as sex offences, assault, burglary and criminal damage, do you really think it's appropriate to leap into action when some loon reports that someone on Twitter 'liked' a limerick that she found offensive? Nobody in their right mind thinks this is a good idea.

Originally Posted by Parsman

However they did feel concerned enough to warn the man sending the messages. No one can tell the man making the messages how to think, but they can warn him that some speech can be criminal.

So what I wrote wasn't a straw man, then. Why do you think it's a good idea for the police to monitor your perfectly legal speech, then ring up and lecture you that if you had said something differently it might constitute a crime? And not only that, but record your details against a 'hate incident' in their police database?

Originally Posted by Parsman

I have said it here before, in the West you are free to say anything you like but that doesn't free you from the outcomes of such speech.

If you've said that even one you should be ashamed. It's nonsense and goes against the very premise of free speech. Of course you're free from the outcomes of such speech, that's what it means! No wonder you advocate Big Brother if you don't understand what's at stake here.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Would the police exercise such "diligence" if they were breaking up a neighbourhood fight for example?

I seriously doubt it. If assault (especially assault occasioning bodily harm) wasn't an issue then they would simply warn the neighbours to cool it and leave (or arrest one if they didn't cool it). They wouldn't search either of the protagonist's for past arrests or driving records or anything like that if they had no intention of charging either of them with anything.

This extra mile seems limited to expressions of thought.

That sounds desperately naïve of you. I would expect the police to at least PNC check the individuals involved. If it came to light that the fight was a result of comments made by any party online, I would expect them to investigate that. Why wouldn't they?

[baron]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

That sounds desperately naïve of you. I would expect the police to at least PNC check the individuals involved. If it came to light that the fight was a result of comments made by any party online, I would expect them to investigate that. Why wouldn't they?

Why would they? Nobody gives a damn who said what to whom and when.