At last, some clarity on free speech.

[Workingman]

A case has gone to court after a man was spoken to by police after a (one) complaint about his tweets. They told him it would be recorded as a non-crime "hate incident", and that he might be prosecuted if he continued to tweet, so he took the police to court over their threatening behaviour.

The judge, Mr Justice Julian Knowles, said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated". He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."

He went on: "The claimants' tweets were lawful and there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet. I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant's place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant's right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect."

Than you Mr Justice Julian Knowles.

[Suff]

Perhaps we should make it a crime for the Police to record a "hate incident" when no crime has been committed???

See how they like it.

[Workingman]

I guarantee that I am not alone in not even knowing there is such a thing as a "hate incident" never mind it being a non-crime; and it does worry me that such things as "non-crimes" can be recorded by the police Why?

What other legal or non-crime things can get officially recorded, and by whom? How long are those records kept? Do the people being recorded know that they have a record? Who can access these records and for what purpose?

A single complaint by a social justice warrior about an innocuous tweet has opened up a huge can of worms.

[Kaz]

Scary stuff!

[medsec222]

Common sense prevails. We live in a democracy and we should all place a high value on free speech.

[Suff]

As it stands at the moment, the police have to interview you, at the very least, before adding you to a list of this kind.

That is, at the moment.

Now if they thought you were a terrorist it is an entirely different ballgame.

[TheOstrich]

I guarantee that I am not alone in not even knowing there is such a thing as a "hate incident" never mind it being a non-crime; and it does worry me that such things as "non-crimes" can be recorded by the police Why?

I believe it's a statistical thing, ultimately. So that we can be told that the figures prove we're a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. society, and nead to be re-educated.

I'm glad the ruling went the way it did (never a certainty in this day and age). There must be a balance which can be struck between what is a hate crime and what is not. I would think that anything that involves a "threat" is the former; anything involving a "commentary / opinion" is the latter. You can say "X is daft", but not "X should be shot". Common sense really, but common sense disappeared from this country a long time ago.

[cromwell]

This case came about because a man called Harry Miller was phoned up by the police re a "Transphobic" tweet. They had previously visited his place of work but he hadn't been in. The story is here.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/08/1 ... ng-manual/

During the course of the phone conversation a police officer told Mr Miller (himself an ex-police officer) "I need to check your thinking".
So there you go; we really do have the thought police.

The police are under direct political control. The Humberside Police and Crime Commissioner is an ex local councillor; as is ours in West Yorkshire.
So it's no wonder that the police are concentrating on things that concern the political class and downgrading things that concern the ordinary person.

[Workingman]

The police are under direct political control. The Humberside Police and Crime Commissioner is an ex local councillor; as is ours in West Yorkshire. So it's no wonder that the police are concentrating on things that concern the political class and downgrading things that concern the ordinary person.

A good enough reason why PACCs should be done away with.

In the old USSR all ships, squadrons and army units, as well as councils, factories and farms had a party official reporting back to HQ. We are almost there with PACCs and other NGOs. Give it time...! Face recognition cameras anyone?