Police investigate UK man for his thinking Watch

This discussion is closed.
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Rs5644)
You see you say attack but that's not what happened.The guy didn't attack anyone.He didn't verbally abuse anyone.He clicked a button on a screen.
Maybe you should actually go and read some of his tweets.

(Original post by Rs5644)
The sensible approach to that would either be to ignore it or simply turn off the screen.Calling the police is a massive overreaction and them actually coming out is ridiculous.No crime was committed so it's not a police matter at all.You don't even have to agree with him to realise that.If you can now get investigated for liking things online it suggests the police have nothing better to do.Its the kind of thing that would happen in China.
I've already said that I don't think this ought to have been a police matter, it would've been better handled by social workers but Tory cuts have made that impossible. So it falls to the police to deal with minor matters like this because there are no other support networks left.

BTW, the police officer didn't visit him in person, he talked over the phone.
1
stoyfan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by paul514)
Sorry but that’s only half true, yes it’s come down from Parliament the police should do this but the police then HAVE to choose how to prioritise reports to follow up.

So this force has chosen to give this a priority instead of all the other multitudes of crimes that are on the back burner or just given a crime reference number.
I doubt that this incident wasted anyone's time since this isn't much of an investigation. Not only that but the officer who dealt with this incident is a coummunity and cohesion officer who wouldn't otherwise be investigating more serious crimes. Giving priority means that the police force has dropped other investigations in order to investigate this incident, this obviously hasn't happened.

All that happened was a phone call and nothing else, the police didn't even take it further.

People think that the police waste their time on these incidents when in reality they only deal with a handfull of these cases every few months
Last edited by stoyfan; 3 weeks ago
0
stoyfan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#63
Report 3 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by Dandaman1)
People are literally arrested every day over the things they say on Twitter
Do you have evidence showing that this is the case.
1
ap.ferro
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#64
Report 3 weeks ago
#64
Can't the police do some real work?
0
Cast Iron
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#65
Report 3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by Dez)
If somebody is posting increasingly hateful rhetoric online, how long before they decide enough's enough and go out and physically attack/abuse someone?
I don't think it's hateful. He has issues with trans people but I'm not seeing anything where he incites violence or anything like that.

(Original post by Dez)
Clearly the guy in the article has already intimidated at least one person enough for them to feel the need to get the police involved. Prevention of crime is more important than hurting somebody's feelings by calling out their BS bigotry, even if that person is entirely innocent.
But what crime can you categorically state has been prevented? You are grasping at straws trying to defend the police and their massive overreaction here. Whether you like or don't like what this man says he does have a right to say it. If people get hassled and intimidated by the police every time they express an unpopular opinion then we're in danger of people feeling they just aren't allowed to express those opinions. You might not care because it's this man and you think that his opinions are disrespectful, but that shouldn't mean he should ever feel intimidated. How would you like it if you posted pro trans stuff and got visited by police for it? It might make you reluctant to do so in future, and that would be a blow to democracy.
1
Acsel
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#66
Report 3 weeks ago
#66
Do people need to be held accountable for things they say online? Yes.

Does that mean we need to start literally policing the Internet? No.

If anything, what this actually shows is how little grasp the police really have on dealing with digital incidents. I also find it concerning that someone's thinking should be checked because they liked or retweeted something online. I'm not saying hate crimes are alright, but "we need to check your thinking"? I mean come on
0
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 3 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by Cast Iron)
I don't think it's hateful. He has issues with trans people but I'm not seeing anything where he incites violence or anything like that.
No, he hasn't been inciting any violence, but to me it's pretty clear this guy has a lot of hatred for trans people.

(Original post by Cast Iron)
But what crime can you categorically state has been prevented? You are grasping at straws trying to defend the police and their massive overreaction here.
Obviously it's impossible to say what might have happened had the police not done anything. I don't think a single, short phone call really counts as a "massive overreaction".

(Original post by Cast Iron)
Whether you like or don't like what this man says he does have a right to say it.
True.

(Original post by Cast Iron)
If people get hassled and intimidated by the police every time they express an unpopular opinion then we're in danger of people feeling they just aren't allowed to express those opinions.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Just as he is free to speak his mind, others are free to call him out on being a nonce.

(Original post by Cast Iron)
You might not care because it's this man and you think that his opinions are disrespectful, but that shouldn't mean he should ever feel intimidated. How would you like it if you posted pro trans stuff and got visited by police for it? It might make you reluctant to do so in future, and that would be a blow to democracy.
As I've now said several times in this thread already, I don't think the police should have had to get involved for this.
0
username4350740
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by Dez)
Maybe you should actually go and read some of his tweets.



I've already said that I don't think this ought to have been a police matter, it would've been better handled by social workers but Tory cuts have made that impossible. So it falls to the police to deal with minor matters like this because there are no other support networks left.

BTW, the police officer didn't visit him in person, he talked over the phone.
It doesn't matter what he tweeted.Its a tweet.People say lots of stupid stuff on the internet.I don't see why it was necessary to even get anyone involved even if it didnt involve a visit.He didn't do anything illegal.It shouldn't even be a matter for social workers.

If it's not a crime then why is the state getting involved? If you are holding out for 100% equality between all groups then you will be waiting until the end of time.There will always be that 5% of stupid people who think that gays are wrong or that black and white people shouldn't marry.They're entitled to those opinions.Its not the government or polices job to correct them.Thats called free speech.People have the right to say what they want without fear of being arrested.Or at least they should have.Thats one thing America got right which we got wrong.An authoritarian government with the ability to spy on everyone is a lot more worrying than some loser on the internet.
1
Cast Iron
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#69
Report 3 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by Dez)
No, he hasn't been inciting any violence, but to me it's pretty clear this guy has a lot of hatred for trans people.
So what? He's allowed to hate people. Lots of people have been posting hateful comments towards him and none of them are being visited by police and told to check their thinking.

(Original post by Dez)
Obviously it's impossible to say what might have happened had the police not done anything. I don't think a single, short phone call really counts as a "massive overreaction".
It's the power imbalance. The police lock people up, they arrest them, and if they start contacting you for expressing an opinion, it's probably going to concern you a bit, and make you feel that expressing your opinion has legal consequences. That shouldn't happen in a democracy.
0
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#70
Report 3 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by stoyfan)
Do you have evidence showing that this is the case.
See that search bar at the top of your screen? It's useful for looking up stuff up when people say things. I mean, you can reply to comments and wait hours, maybe days for people to respond with easily found article like this one:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d

Or you can type something like: "people arrested each day UK twitter" in the search bar, click 'enter' and have it in seconds!

I'm sorry I'm being such a nob, but you really could have just Googled it, bud.
0
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#71
He is a company director, the allegation by the member of the public is that he may not offer a safe environment to transgender people if he employs them.
Last edited by username1738683; 3 weeks ago
0
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#72
Report 3 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by Dez)
No, he hasn't been inciting any violence, but to me it's pretty clear this guy has a lot of hatred for trans people.

Well that is debateable, but even if he has, so what?

Obviously it's impossible to say what might have happened had the police not done anything. I don't think a single, short phone call really counts as a "massive overreaction".

The police have too few resources to investigate two out of every three burglaries, yet they are supposed to devote time to somone liking a politically incorrect limerick?? They are in charge of the nation's law enforcement, not the paramilitary wing of the Guardian.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/94...gate-London-UK


Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Just as he is free to speak his mind, others are free to call him out on being a nonce.

It means the freedom to speak your mind without the involvement of the State except in the most extreme circumstances. Liking a limerick does not qualify, does not meet this bar. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.
As for your earlier absurd suggestion that social workers get involved with this, give me strength.
0
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#73
Report 3 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by Rs5644)
It doesn't matter what he tweeted.Its a tweet.People say lots of stupid stuff on the internet.I don't see why it was necessary to even get anyone involved even if it didnt involve a visit.He didn't do anything illegal.It shouldn't even be a matter for social workers.
So basically we shouldn't ever bother trying to make a more cohesive and safe society because it's not illegal to be abrasive. Okay.

(Original post by Rs5644)
If it's not a crime then why is the state getting involved? If you are holding out for 100% equality between all groups then you will be waiting until the end of time.There will always be that 5% of stupid people who think that gays are wrong or that black and white people shouldn't marry.They're entitled to those opinions.Its not the government or polices job to correct them.Thats called free speech.People have the right to say what they want without fear of being arrested.Or at least they should have.Thats one thing America got right which we got wrong.An authoritarian government with the ability to spy on everyone is a lot more worrying than some loser on the internet.
Being told your opinions are loony is not a violation of your free speech.

(Original post by Cast Iron)
So what? He's allowed to hate people. Lots of people have been posting hateful comments towards him and none of them are being visited by police and told to check their thinking.
He is allowed to hate people and other people are also allowed to talk to him about why he's being a pillock.

(Original post by Cast Iron)
It's the power imbalance. The police lock people up, they arrest them, and if they start contacting you for expressing an opinion, it's probably going to concern you a bit, and make you feel that expressing your opinion has legal consequences. That shouldn't happen in a democracy.
I've lost count of the number of times I've said the police shouldn't have been involved in this. Talk about a broken record. Why are you trying to debate a point I've already said I agree with you on?

(Original post by generallee)
Well that is debateable, but even if he has, so what?
So he shouldn't be surprised when people call him out for being hateful.

(Original post by generallee)
The police have too few resources to investigate two out of every three burglaries, yet they are supposed to devote time to somone liking a politically incorrect limerick?? They are in charge of the nation's law enforcement, not the paramilitary wing of the Guardian.
Yes, I agree that the police should not have been involved in this. Again. :rolleyes:

(Original post by generallee)
It means the freedom to speak your mind without the involvement of the State except in the most extreme circumstances.
Don't be so ridiculous, that's not what freedom of speech means. The state need to involve themselves with a lot of things people say or express. Just one example, if you sign a contract (or agree to a verbal one) to say you'll perform a specific task, then decide not to do it, the state will get involved when you get sued for that.

(Original post by generallee)
Liking a limerick does not qualify, does not meet this bar. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.
…okay? You seem to be getting quite emotional about this. All that happened was that a bloke got a phone call because he'd been posting a long series of tweets online which made people he knew feel intimidated and may have had an impact on his place of work.

(Original post by generallee)
As for your earlier absurd suggestion that social workers get involved with this, give me strength.
Maybe you could use some of that strength to actually debate things rather than just make useless comments like this. Why even come into this forum if you're not actually going to present an argument?
0
Cast Iron
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#74
Report 3 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by Dez)
So basically we shouldn't ever bother trying to make a more cohesive and safe society because it's not illegal to be abrasive. Okay.
We should but that extends to making that person feel safe to express his opinion, even if that opinion is anti trans. Do you think he feels safe to express his opinions at the moment, as he was called by the police and told to check his thinking the last time he did it? Put it this way if they had phoned up someone who posted pro LGBT stuff and said the same to them, do you think that person would feel safe?


(Original post by Dez)
I've lost count of the number of times I've said the police shouldn't have been involved in this. Talk about a broken record. Why are you trying to debate a point I've already said I agree with you on?
Because you are fundamentally missing the point. He's free to express his own opinions and others are free to criticize those opinions. The involvement of the police means it's not just a case of him being called out on his views. The police have talked to him with the implied threat of legal action purely because of his views.


(Original post by Dez)
…okay? You seem to be getting quite emotional about this. All that happened was that a bloke got a phone call because he'd been posting a long series of tweets online which made people he knew feel intimidated and may have had an impact on his place of work.
What tweet made anyone feel intimidated? We can all see he's anti trans but unless he's made specific threats nobody has any business claiming they are intimidated. Having anti LGBT views is not the same thing as actively intimidating them. Lots of people post pro LGBT stuff, you don't see them getting called by police and told to check their thinking because their opinions are "intimidating" those who don't agree.
0
Acsel
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 3 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Dez)
So basically we shouldn't ever bother trying to make a more cohesive and safe society because it's not illegal to be abrasive. Okay.
Let's be real though, is sending the police out actually going to make a difference? There's a whole range of things in between "doing nothing" and "sending the police out to address every abrasive tweet". What really needs to be addressed is why the person thought this way to begin with and what caused them to lash out on social media.

Of course then the problem is that we have a fairly narrow view of what are acceptable lines of thinking, and anything outside that requires intervention. Which basically roles back around to policing how people think.

It's an unrealistic expectation, but rather than reactive responses to people thinking "wrongly" it should be addressed proactively to prevent people having these thoughts to begin with. But at some point you just have to accept that it's human nature. Unless we start interfering with human nature on a much deeper level, we'll never have a truly safe society.



(Original post by Dandaman1)
See that search bar at the top of your screen? It's useful for looking up stuff up when people say things.

I'm sorry I'm being such a nob, but you really could have just Googled it, bud.

I think the issue here is that if you make a point, it's generally expected that you're also the one to back it up. I don't disagree, Googling will get a faster answer. But if you make a point or claim, it's not up to the person who disagrees with you to justify that claim for you. It's also not unreasonable to think different people will get different search results, which can lead to misinterpretation of a point.

Actually providing the evidence in the initial claim is what sets it apart from a baseless comment. It also moves the discussion along, preventing pointless back and forths asking where the proof is.

IMO you're not being a nob
1
Cast Iron
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#76
Report 3 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by Acsel)
Let's be real though, is sending the police out actually going to make a difference? There's a whole range of things in between "doing nothing" and "sending the police out to address every abrasive tweet". What really needs to be addressed is why the person thought this way to begin with and what caused them to lash out on social media.
Yes, but ultimately they are allowed to feel they way they do and if they are anti trans they are allowed to express that opinion. Do you want to have a society that fully supports LGBT rights because it's illegal to say anything else, or a society where most people support it because we know it's right, and a minority still don't but nevertheless are allowed to express that?

(Original post by Acsel)
Of course then the problem is that we have a fairly narrow view of what are acceptable lines of thinking, and anything outside that requires intervention. Which basically roles back around to policing how people think.
But not so long ago it was outside acceptable lines of thinking to consider the idea of gay rights or LGBT equality. If the police had got involved because someone expressing those opinions, would we be where we are today?
0
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#77
Report 3 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by Dez)
1. Don't be so ridiculous, that's not what freedom of speech means. The state need to involve themselves with a lot of things people say or express. Just one example, if you sign a contract (or agree to a verbal one) to say you'll perform a specific task, then decide not to do it, the state will get involved when you get sued for that.


2. …okay? You seem to be getting quite emotional about this. All that happened was that a bloke got a phone call because he'd been posting a long series of tweets online which made people he knew feel intimidated and may have had an impact on his place of work.


3. Maybe you could use some of that strength to actually debate things rather than just make useless comments like this. Why even come into this forum if you're not actually going to present an argument?
1. The freedom to cause offence (in a non defamatory way) without the involvement of the state is exactly what freedom of speech means. If not, how do you define it, whilst excluding that part of its definition?

2. I was not emotional, I raised my voice because you appeared to be hard of hearing. Or were being obtuse.

3. I understand that you don't like it to be pointed out that to get Humberside County Council to send in its Social Workers over a retweeted limerick is utterly risible. Laughable. Beyond ridicule (let alone serious debate). But in that case you shouldn't make the suggestion.
0
Acsel
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#78
Report 3 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by Cast Iron)
Yes, but ultimately they are allowed to feel they way they do and if they are anti trans they are allowed to express that opinion. Do you want to have a society that fully supports LGBT rights because it's illegal to say anything else, or a society where most people support it because we know it's right, and a minority still don't but nevertheless are allowed to express that?
I'm not implying we should have one or the other. But those are not funadementally the only options.

I'm not saying we need to stop people thinking certain things. As you say, people are free to think what they want. But if we are trying to address problems with people's thinking (because there are morally acceptable right and wrong) then you don't do it by sending police.

My point was not that people should or should not be forced to think in a certain way. It's that in a scenario like this, if you don't agree with someone, sending the police doesn't change that. We're all basically in agreement that the police being sent was stupid as is anyway.


(Original post by Cast Iron)
But not so long ago it was outside acceptable lines of thinking to consider the idea of gay rights or LGBT equality. If the police had got involved because someone expressing those opinions, would we be where we are today?
The police never have and never should be responsible for how people think. There are various psychological viewpoints, such as upbringing, environment, learned responses and biology that would explain why many people used to (and some still do) think gay rights or LGBT equality were wrong. Whatever you consider the reason, that's what needs addressing.

Faulty thinking comes in many forms. I don't think anyone has ever fixed it by telling the individual that they think weird. I can pretty much guarantee that the individual mentioned in this story has not changed their opinion as a result of the police getting involved.
0
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#79
Report 3 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by Dez)
I suppose at the end of the day it's the police's job to keep the peace. Perhaps a slightly misjudged action though, and clearly not one that's actually had the desired impact.

A shame that after being told what a total pillock he's being, he's decided to double down on it rather than actually listen to anybody except himself. Now he seems to be bleating on about suppression of free speech (on Twitter and in the media, ironically). It's all rather pitiable to be honest, imagine wasting your life on all that hatred. What a pathetic individual.
Right. Who made you the moral apostle?

He was told by a police officer abusing his power (remember, no crime was committed) that some people don't like his factually correct opinion.

If I told you that you are being a pillock, what would you do?
0
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 3 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by Dez)
If the police wish to use their time to give me advice I'd be happy to listen. But from the sounds of it the police didn't make any actual threats per se, they just mentioned that his transphobia could end up costing him his job if he doesn't wind his neck in. Sounds like fairly solid advice to me but I guess he felt threatened by it somehow. Who'd have thought it eh? A thin-skinned bigot...
You mean the police intimidating someone for an opinion is fine according to you? Of course only dressed as "they were looking out for him".

Stasi, Gestapo, China, just some things that come to mind in response to your viewpoint.

The modern left is fascist af.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (42)
11.9%
Yes - a food allergy (39)
11.05%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (11)
3.12%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
2.55%
No (252)
71.39%

Watched Threads

View All