Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

From movies to your mother-in-law, put it here and try not to hurt each other
Pubbie
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 647
Joined: September 18th 2017, 5:35am
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by Pubbie » February 14th 2020, 11:17am

In this, the first of a series of short essays about the disgusting things that happen in Britain today, we examine the new “Pre-Crime” unit of the Humberside Police Service, which now uses thoughts to establish police and criminal records.

Amongst its detractors, Britain is known for doing many bad things to the world. Britain has gone to war with virtually every other country, which is of course reprehensible irrespective of whether or not it was just, or even merely in self-defence. Yet the same detractors are the ones now intimidating voters outside polling booths; crushing freedom of expression by enforcing singular opinions; subverting its democracy and financial systems; and now scoring a victory in the suppression of free speech, the first of its kind in over 300 years.

The reputable links below describes the background and outcome.

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/ne ... incidents/

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... dgment.pdf

Whilst the Humberside Police was found to have a “chilling” effect on the freedom of speech, the judge did not criticise the College of Police guidelines that gave rise to the involvement of the police force in something that was not actually a crime. In other words, police forces around the country are at liberty to use exactly the same techniques until an opinion is found to be criminal.

This is the particularly chilling exchange between Police Constable Gul, the arresting officer, and Harry Miller, who "liked" and "re-tweeted" someone else's joke about self-identification:

“I informed PC Gul that I was not the author of the verse and that it was simply expressing in verse the sense of imbalance of power between the sexes in the context of transgenderism. He said by Liking and Retweeting it on Twitter, I was promoting Hate. I again asked for, and received, confirmation that neither the verse, nor any of the other alleged 30 tweets, were criminal.

I then asked PC Gul why he was wasting my time. PC Gul said ‘I need to check your thinking’.

I replied: ‘So, let me get this straight, I’ve committed no crime. You’re a police officer. And you need to check my thinking ?’ PC Gul answered: ‘Yes’.

I said, ‘Have you any idea what that makes you ? ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ is a dystopian novel, not a police training manual.”

I need to check your thinking.

As we consider the ramifications, the sleep-walking (much less “woke”!) zombies who make up 99% of the British population will not care one whit. As long as they have Apple products and rent a new car every three years on credit, not a single, solitary fuck will be found in order for them to give it. But it has produced one certainty; if I die in England, it will only be after SCO19 has drilled me following a sustained, all-out assault on the outsourced thoughtCrimes (tm) unit of the Metropolitan Police Service, whose existence is now pretty much assured, following a thought I had that did not pass muster with the Common Purpose. The preferable option is of course that I die overseas, peacefully, following emigration to a proper country, whose policemen don't try to "check my thinking".

In next week’s op-ed: Britain. Good God, y’all, what is it good for?
User avatar
gerdson (Online)
Master of Time
Posts: 2445
Joined: January 7th 2013, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Just north of Northern Krautland
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by gerdson » February 15th 2020, 4:42am

Thanks for posting this, pubbie, I enjoyed reading it and also going through the pdf in the second link. The whole topic behind it appears to be a minefield of course. I like this quote from "the Claimant" (in the sense of it being interesting and worth contemplating):
My understanding is that gender is a social construct, that sex is a biological classification, that conflation between sex and gender is dangerously wrong.
I do tend to agree that (after reading most of the pdf), there is no crime, and whatever he has been tweeting should fall under the "right of free speech". That is not because I agree with him, but because I do agree it does not categorize as "hate speech" (or whatever You may call it). There are far worse examples for that.

That being said, I also believe that mankind would be better off without twitter. But of course we can't turn back time.
Ardnut since 1989

In twenty years or so, the German language will be one, massively long compound word.
-- conjurer
User avatar
gerdson (Online)
Master of Time
Posts: 2445
Joined: January 7th 2013, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Just north of Northern Krautland
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by gerdson » February 15th 2020, 4:58am

Btw - I do still believe in Britain ;-)
When a judge can come to the conclusion as stated here, in such eloquent ways, and which ends with this:
...the police’s treatment of the Claimant thereafter disproportionately interfered with his right of freedom of expression, which is an essential component of democracy for all of the reasons I explained at the beginning of this judgment.
Then I do believe You are still far away from "1984".
Ardnut since 1989

In twenty years or so, the German language will be one, massively long compound word.
-- conjurer
User avatar
gerdson (Online)
Master of Time
Posts: 2445
Joined: January 7th 2013, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Just north of Northern Krautland
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by gerdson » February 15th 2020, 9:32am

So, reading on in the judgement, I finally found this:
[38] Finally, PC xxx offered his final words of advice, words that I will never forget as I was so stunned by them.

He said,
‘You have to understand, sometimes in the womb, a female brain gets confused and pushes out the wrong body parts, and that is what transgender is.

I replied,
‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Wrong body parts ? You have to know that is absolute bullshit. Is this really the official police line ?’

PC Gul said,
‘Yes, I have been on a course.’

I ended the call shortly after this. The call lasted 34 minutes.”
I do here agree with the Claimant, this is complete rubbish. But I also kind of doubt that being a literal citation of what has been lectured in the training course.

Pubbie, seriously - I don't know where You want to take this, but to me this is not a case of "Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation", but a case of a maybe not so smart police officer with a challenge to express himself properly, in particular here in a very invidious manner. Rather than an actual general "policy" of the Humberside police. And out of this, the "Claimant" has then made a big case (which is his good right, but maybe it was still a bit overdone, and obviously also going back to the fact that he appears to be a bit of a self-important prick).
Ardnut since 1989

In twenty years or so, the German language will be one, massively long compound word.
-- conjurer
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 9717
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by Hawk » February 15th 2020, 10:46am

On the bright side common sense and a level-headed reading of the statutes dodged the dystopian bullet but the fact that it happened at all tends to reinforce my tribe's vehement, some might say "obsessive" opposition to "hate speech" laws. It is ludicrous to assume that any policy allowing for freedom of expression is intended to protect only such forms of expression as need no protection. Protections are only needed in the case of speech that offends someone.

Hate speech laws when combined with freedom of expression laws are strange bedfellows as logically they're mutually exclusive. Some form of cognitive dissonance or schizophrenia will inevitably manifest in enforcement. Freedom of expression laws only apply to state actors - private individuals or groups are not constrained from enforcing whatever group-think they endorse so perceived hate speech or wrong-think still has consequences but those consequences lying well outside state interference is a big difference.

Insofar as I occasionally enjoy pissing off the greatest number of people possible simultaneously the ACLU is a favorite group. Denounced as godless commies by the right and pilloried for defending hate speech by the left I find them most gratifying and believe any nation without such a group is poorer for it.

The "politically correct woke" rules are promulgated and enforced by private groups and individuals so I have no issue with them - they are safely ignored without incurring the wrath of the state. Such rules are also highly situational which is perhaps part of why I so enjoy Women's Professional Billiards. It's refreshing to be able to shout "nice rack" with gusto and complete impunity.
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
User avatar
gerdson (Online)
Master of Time
Posts: 2445
Joined: January 7th 2013, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Just north of Northern Krautland
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by gerdson » February 15th 2020, 11:52am

I do hear You, Hawk. Last year, in Germany, a politician was murdered, shot by some far-right arseholes. Prior to that, in various social media, there was a lot of agitation against him, again from far-right arseholes, all qualifying as "hate speech" (and also afterwards, with the same low-lifes applauding to crime and hailing the murders). We need to take into account a force of momentum in certain"uneducated masses", and people who take other's rants and idiotic utterance for granted and think they need to follow them word by word. Because of that I do see a sense in pre-emptive action in case of an alleged "hate incident".
Ardnut since 1989

In twenty years or so, the German language will be one, massively long compound word.
-- conjurer
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 9717
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by Hawk » February 15th 2020, 12:45pm

gerdson wrote:
February 15th 2020, 11:52am
I do hear You, Hawk. Last year, in Germany, a politician was murdered, shot by some far-right arseholes. Prior to that, in various social media, there was a lot of agitation against him, again from far-right arseholes, all qualifying as "hate speech" (and also afterwards, with the same low-lifes applauding to crime and hailing the murders). We need to take into account a force of momentum in certain"uneducated masses", and people who take other's rants and idiotic utterance for granted and think they need to follow them word by word. Because of that I do see a sense in pre-emptive action in case of an alleged "hate incident".
I should note that protection of "hate speech" isn't absolute. We do have laws against incitement to violence which includes threats of physical violence. Threats of "economic sanction" isn't illegal and, at least over here, routinely deployed by those thinking "hate speech" laws are a good idea. We're also cooking up some interesting legal precedents on culpability in the case of inciting someone else to suicide.

Typically to qualify as incitement the speaker must directly advocate a crime. Denigrating a social group is insufficient. The speaker must advocate an offense such as assault or murder. Government authorities cannot suppress speech in a way that is content-based and bans only one viewpoint. A statute cannot prohibit only racist speech, or anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Incitement is pretty clear. "Hate speech" is distressingly broad and grows broader the more easily people find themselves "hated" - or "triggered" in the case Pubbie has offered us. Applauding a crime is execrable but it's not something to be addressed by government. It's the "your time in the barrel arguement" - prevail upon the state to stop such post-fact talk and you risk the state taking umbrage over celebrating lung cancer should the dude with the cancer be a favorite of someone high up in the state apparatus - trust me, our liberals don't want to take that chance. Nor do those on our right. I think celebrating someone's painful imminent death is in poor taste but that's all it is. I wouldn't complain as I can shovel poor taste with the best of 'em.

I would chafe if forced to live in a country with "hate speech" laws even though I don't engage in it. The degree of chafing would be dependent on the extent to which such laws were used to enforce group-think or to purge distressing but non-violent speech. But I suspect my discomfort with living in a country that, say, barred Milo YippyVonwhatever from entry would be fully matched by their discomfort with my presence so it's fair. The proper way of expressing one's displeasure is simply to not attend the event and not recite it verbatim to fisk it - ignoring it deprives it of oxygen and that should be good enough.

The culpability in your example resides completely in the individual committing the crime. You've got a law against murder - let's not get confused over who's actually responsible.
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 9717
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by Hawk » February 15th 2020, 2:50pm

bbattle wrote:
February 15th 2020, 2:19pm
Can't we restrict our "hate speech" to Invicta and pathetic StartKicker watches?
That would work right up until Invicta controls what is to be considered "hate speech". The obvious problem with hate speech laws is that they're enacted with the assumption that our tribe will decide what's hateful. This will bite Europe in the ass really, really hard if the hard right nationalists get voted into a position where they define what's hateful.

Here's me quoting a Democrat:
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
Lyndon B. Johnson


I'd wager that those amenable to hate speech laws seldom ponder how such laws would be administered should their sworn enemies gain political power. A badly crafted law provides a boot and it doesn't care whose throat is being stepped on.
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
User avatar
3Flushes
ASSHAT & Master of Time
Posts: 7667
Joined: November 25th 2012, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by 3Flushes » February 15th 2020, 3:27pm

Pubbie wrote:
February 14th 2020, 11:17am
>>> I need to check your thinking...
This is what happens when the police try to be preventative.

An inarticulate, dullard of a copper completely bumbles a subjects' objection to his presence and gets into a whole line of B.S. about his training and so on and so forth instead of plain ass telling the subject that he is there because the subjects' tweeting raised concerns that they may be planning violence or whatnot against trans' persons. "So then, Mr. Smith, if that is indeed your real name, given your potentially hateful speech, tell me just how the fuck you feel about trans persons and if you are planning any violence against trans persons and so forth, and I'll be off, then".

You may object to the above scenario on general principle regardless of how poorly the interview was executed. What if the tweeted language was darker, "bordered" on threatening or was outright threatening.

We have the same situation in the U.S. but more of the public is screaming for proactivity on the part of law enforcement in the face of an oppressive epidemic of violence. The postmortem on a violent offender's social media accounts oftentimes reveals clear signs that said offender was a ticking time bomb. Public outcry routinely follows as to why the police, who may have been aware of the offenders' speech, or not, did nothing.

Because the police are a mop-up operation, that's why.

In many countries, as they are in the US, the police are precluded from acting until they have justification to believe that a crime has been committed. And in such places, when the police start engaging in the prevention business, there is great unease in a large segment of the population who are constantly grinding against the growing for God's sake do something crowd.

The thought police become the boogeymen of the most extreme logical extension of the practice when such status checks are implemented, and such anxieties are not without merit; authoritarian, especially commie, regimes frequently employ such tactics to quash free will and resistance, so free countries like the US and UK have nothing to worry about. :lol:
Copyright ©️ 2019 3flushes Media.

The past is never dead. It isn't even past.- Faulkner
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 9717
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by Hawk » February 16th 2020, 9:43am

3Flushes wrote:
February 15th 2020, 3:27pm
Pubbie wrote:
February 14th 2020, 11:17am
>>> I need to check your thinking...
This is what happens when the police try to be preventative.



Because the police are a mop-up operation, that's why.

In many countries, as they are in the US, the police are precluded from acting until they have justification to believe that a crime has been committed. And in such places, when the police start engaging in the prevention business, there is great unease in a large segment of the population who are constantly grinding against the growing for God's sake do something crowd.

The thought police become the boogeymen of the most extreme logical extension of the practice when such status checks are implemented, and such anxieties are not without merit; authoritarian, especially commie, regimes frequently employ such tactics to quash free will and resistance, so free countries like the US and UK have nothing to worry about. :lol:
Quite so and I believe I can empathize with the wish for preventative measures - like a school going on high alert when a student posts something threatening on FB.

I believe (without much in the way of evidence) that we've seen more whackjobs moved by the likes of Infowars, Stormer or their more gussied up family-friendly version Breitbart than by individual posts on social media. If memory serves it was Infowars that was indirectly responsible for shooting up a DC Pizza Restaurant, unh, international child-sex slavery and cannibalism nexus.

Since we don't have hate speech laws I'm not sure if they can be deployed against online or print publications. If they can then my nightmares would continue apace as Infowars and Stormer could find themselves replaced by Mother Jones and MSNBC depending solely on who is determining what's "hateful". The current executive already gave me a transitory case of TDS by referring to the MSM as "the enemy of the people". My concerns over a "slippery slope" include the slope itself changing its inclination in a manner that our current crop of first amendment naysayers would find most distressing. While some might applaud Oz blocking Milo YapWhatever those same sorts would be distressed if Oz blocked, say, Greta Thunberg or Michael Moore. The unstated assumption is that the PC-correct crowd will always be in charge of assessing what is and is not "hateful" and I question the validity of that assumption.

So I'm a cheerleader for stout protections that aim to keep such tools out of everybody's reach. Invoking them in Gerdson's example I would find amenable - it's merely the "my turn in the barrel" thing that causes opposition to such moves.
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
Pubbie
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 647
Joined: September 18th 2017, 5:35am
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by Pubbie » February 17th 2020, 6:52am

gerdson wrote:
February 15th 2020, 9:32am
Pubbie, seriously - I don't know where You want to take this, but to me this is not a case of "Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation", but a case of a maybe not so smart police officer with a challenge to express himself properly, in particular here in a very invidious manner. Rather than an actual general "policy" of the Humberside police. And out of this, the "Claimant" has then made a big case (which is his good right, but maybe it was still a bit overdone, and obviously also going back to the fact that he appears to be a bit of a self-important prick).
The danger is that the College of Police guidelines were upheld, requiring police to record a non-crime hate incident against the defendant, giving him a de facto criminal record (an enhanced background check will show up this non-crime "hate" incident). This will be on his record, forever. The guidance needs to change, to stop police forces persecuting people exercising their right to expression who do not commit any crime in the process of using barbed humour to criticise dogmatic thinking. I was disappointed that the judge did not at least order a review; his words in summing up otherwise were pretty strong:

“The effect of the police turning up at [the Claimant’s] place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. 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.”

The left, meanwhile, is having one of its many apoplexies as it accuses the MSM of whipping up fear over the curtailment of free speech. Nothing to see here, they say, it's all a figment of of your right-wing imagination. But the threat is real, and the effects are already being felt.

By the by, why was his case "overdone"? Do you think freedom of thought - much less speech - is not that big a deal? Whether he's a self-important prick or not is irrelevant; do you think it is? Should only people you don't like be restricted in this manner? What if someone who doesn't like you tries to do the same thing to you? Who will fight for you then?
Pubbie
Senior Member & WIS
Posts: 647
Joined: September 18th 2017, 5:35am
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by Pubbie » February 17th 2020, 6:59am

conjurer wrote:
February 15th 2020, 8:04pm
I wonder how many years I'd get if Johnny Law was able to see inside my brain.
Yup. I'd love to see a British police force give me a crack. There's a lot of stuff in there that isn't too woke, fellas! Who knows what I'll do with it...

I mean you know, it'll be nothing. Since it's only opinions about things, and I understand I live in a world (certainly a country) that isn't obligated to please me personally, and that I won't always agree with. But the idea that someone has decided my thoughts are enough to decide what I'll do about it - now that pisses the fuck outta me.
User avatar
koimaster
Administrator/Founder
Posts: 39200
Joined: December 16th 2009, 11:00pm
Location: Oregon, Thanks for visiting! Now go back home!
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by koimaster » February 17th 2020, 8:39am

Pubbie wrote:
February 17th 2020, 6:59am
conjurer wrote:
February 15th 2020, 8:04pm
I wonder how many years I'd get if Johnny Law was able to see inside my brain.
Yup. I'd love to see a British police force give me a crack. There's a lot of stuff in there that isn't too woke, fellas! Who knows what I'll do with it...

I mean you know, it'll be nothing. Since it's only opinions about things, and I understand I live in a world (certainly a country) that isn't obligated to please me personally, and that I won't always agree with. But the idea that someone has decided my thoughts are enough to decide what I'll do about it - now that pisses the fuck outta me.
England has always been more thought control then the us
Image

1946-2006

“Your heart was warm and happy

With the lilt of Irish laughter

Every day and in every way

Now forever and ever after."
User avatar
gerdson (Online)
Master of Time
Posts: 2445
Joined: January 7th 2013, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Just north of Northern Krautland
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by gerdson » February 18th 2020, 5:31am

Pubbie wrote:
February 17th 2020, 6:52am
gerdson wrote:
February 15th 2020, 9:32am
Pubbie, seriously - I don't know where You want to take this, but to me this is not a case of "Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation", but a case of a maybe not so smart police officer with a challenge to express himself properly, in particular here in a very invidious manner. Rather than an actual general "policy" of the Humberside police. And out of this, the "Claimant" has then made a big case (which is his good right, but maybe it was still a bit overdone, and obviously also going back to the fact that he appears to be a bit of a self-important prick).
The danger is that the College of Police guidelines were upheld, requiring police to record a non-crime hate incident against the defendant, giving him a de facto criminal record (an enhanced background check will show up this non-crime "hate" incident). This will be on his record, forever. The guidance needs to change, to stop police forces persecuting people exercising their right to expression who do not commit any crime in the process of using barbed humour to criticise dogmatic thinking. I was disappointed that the judge did not at least order a review; his words in summing up otherwise were pretty strong:

“The effect of the police turning up at [the Claimant’s] place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. 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.”

The left, meanwhile, is having one of its many apoplexies as it accuses the MSM of whipping up fear over the curtailment of free speech. Nothing to see here, they say, it's all a figment of of your right-wing imagination. But the threat is real, and the effects are already being felt.

By the by, why was his case "overdone"? Do you think freedom of thought - much less speech - is not that big a deal? Whether he's a self-important prick or not is irrelevant; do you think it is? Should only people you don't like be restricted in this manner? What if someone who doesn't like you tries to do the same thing to you? Who will fight for you then?
Thank You. First of all, I am obviously not aware of someone in Britain having a "de-facto" criminal record following an event as described. Obviously - once found that "there was no crime", any evidence of the investigation should be cleared from the records. I do also believe that in this particular case, the police officer should have just closed the thing after reviewing the tweets. And latest his superiors should have closed it, AND apologized, before this even went to court.

Second, the policy or guidance is problematic - but I don't think You will get out of that dilemma by then simply accepting "any opinion, expressed in public, short of explicit call for murder".

When You are clever enough to just avoid certain words and expressions, and to remain just about "inexplicit" enough, you can get away with a lot of things. And have dumber people start the actual fire. We are seeing enough of that in Germany, from the Neo-Nazi movement and their "political arms", currently still in disguise of the "Alternative fuer Deutschland" party. I - based on the historic past of Germany - do indeed believe that guys like him here:
Image
should not be granted freedom of speech. And all of that while I still claim for myself, that I will actually call for murder (or act myself) if need be, in order to continue to celebrate the 20th of July rather than the 20th of April again in Germany. Our world has really taken a wrong turn, that one even has to discuss these topics :-(.
Ardnut since 1989

In twenty years or so, the German language will be one, massively long compound word.
-- conjurer
User avatar
gerdson (Online)
Master of Time
Posts: 2445
Joined: January 7th 2013, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Just north of Northern Krautland
Contact:

Re: Thoughts in Britain now justify police investigation

Post by gerdson » February 18th 2020, 6:04am

(In addition to that - I don't see that the freedom of thought is in any ways touched by what happened - and that is where it seems overdone. The police officer should have said - and I do believe that is part of any police investigation and would latest be taken into account at court - "I want to understand the rationale behind Your tweets", rather than "I need to check Your thinking". But I may be less sensitive than a native speaker with regards to the exact wording or otherwise misinterprete something!) The rants and remarks of the "self-important prick", btw., I found quite amusing, and I do by no means compare or put him into relation with the above shown arsehole or any Neo-Nazi movement.
Ardnut since 1989

In twenty years or so, the German language will be one, massively long compound word.
-- conjurer
Post Reply

Return to “Anything and Everything Else”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest