This journalist was investigated by police for 'misgendering' someone... Watch

yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 weeks ago
#81
It is not my fantasy. You are the one denying that the logical conclusion to your "the police should investigate everything" is that they should react with guns blazing to such a supposed threat. You do realize that you think 'investigating' tweets is not simply reading them and realizing no actual crime was committed, but rather that they spend time and money as well as inconveniencing - in the case I linked above even dragging a mother to the police station in front of her children - an innocent person. That is your acceptable idea of 'investigating'. This implies your acceptable idea of reacting to a threat of a gun, would be the US way, with guns blazing. That is the according reaction in this different scenario. I find your doublethink hilarious.
(Original post by 999tigger)
Btw she wasnt being investigated over libel.
No complaint over the US offence of swatting has been made either. Another one of yudothis fantasies.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 weeks ago
#82
The only person being ridiculous is the one who thinks that reading tweets that are no crime is not enough, but one needs to drag people of to the police station. This disproportionate response is the logical equivalent to going guns blazing when phoned about a gunman.

Your doublethink is as hilarious as it is pathetic.

(Original post by 999tigger)
You continue to be ridiculous.
Its up to the police to do a threat assessment and decide on the risk level. If needed they can dispatch armed officers with supporting armed response vehicles. Thats what they do its their job.

Is there a point to this , because there never seems to be any point to your posts.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#83
Report 4 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by yudothis)
It is not my fantasy. You are the one denying that the logical conclusion to your "the police should investigate everything" is that they should react with guns blazing to such a supposed threat. You do realize that you think 'investigating' tweets is not simply reading them and realizing no actual crime was committed, but rather that they spend time and money as well as inconveniencing - in the case I linked above even dragging a mother to the police station in front of her children - an innocent person. That is your acceptable idea of 'investigating'. This implies your acceptable idea of reacting to a threat of a gun, would be the US way, with guns blazing. That is the according reaction in this different scenario. I find your doublethink hilarious.
You are the one being an idiot. Ibe already quoted you the police position, which is

"We have a duty of care to fully investigate all allegations which are reported to us. Once this investigation has been completed, a decision is made on the most appropriate course of action to take."

They investigated and they took an appropriate course of action. If you bother to read then you will see what happened. But you dont do that.


Again on your other point about their being a gun threat, you dont bother to read what i write, but instead invent it and out in things I have not said. Anyone reading this cam see what I wrote in post #80.

If someone is reported as having a gun, then the police assess whether that is a threat by doing a threat assessment and then make an appropriate decision based on that information by following operational protocols. Sending an armed response unit is wholly appropriate if there is an armed civilian with unknown intentions. I never said waving around thats just your fabrication.
It would be prudent to have armed backup though because that person could be a threat to the life of others.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 weeks ago
#84
You are hiding behind semantics. You think that the police decision to investigate beyond reading tweets that are clearly no crime is acceptable.

The equivalent overreaction to a report of a gunman is to go in guns blazing.

You are so intent on not admitting something on the internet, it's truly pathetic.
(Original post by 999tigger)
You are the one being an idiot. Ibe already quoted you the police position, which is

"We have a duty of care to fully investigate all allegations which are reported to us. Once this investigation has been completed, a decision is made on the most appropriate course of action to take."

They investigated and they took an appropriate course of action. If you bother to read then you will see what happened. But you dont do that.


Again on your other point about their being a gun threat, you dont bother to read what i write, but instead invent it and out in things I have not said. Anyone reading this cam see what I wrote in post #80.

If someone is reported as having a gun, then the police assess whether that is a threat by doing a threat assessment and then make an appropriate decision based on that information by following operational protocols. Sending an armed response unit is wholly appropriate if there is an armed civilian with unknown intentions. I never said waving around thats just your fabrication.
It would be prudent to have armed backup though because that person could be a threat to the life of others.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#85
Report 4 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by yudothis)
You are hiding behind semantics. You think that the police decision to investigate beyond reading tweets that are clearly no crime is acceptable.

The equivalent overreaction to a report of a gunman is to go in guns blazing.

You are so intent on not admitting something on the internet, it's truly pathetic.
You are hilarious. Im telling you very patiently what the police protocols are.
Not hiding behind anything, not my fault if you are incapable of understanding police protocols and the law , even in very simple terms.
She made a complaint and they looked into it.
She withdrew the complaint and it was closed.

Tweets can be a crime under the The Malicious Communications Act 1988.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

You are the one that keeps saying guns blazing, which is a complete fabrication by you and nothing I have ever suggested, but you need to lie to try and prove you have a point . You do not.
Attached files
Last edited by 999tigger; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by yudothis)
You are hiding behind semantics. You think that the police decision to investigate beyond reading tweets that are clearly no crime is acceptable.

The equivalent overreaction to a report of a gunman is to go in guns blazing.

You are so intent on not admitting something on the internet, it's truly pathetic.
Exactly. Police are supposed to look at what's reported, use their discretion, and then decide whether or not it warrants a proper investigation. A police officer would have looked at the Tweets reported to them, thought "Hmm yes, could be a crime here" and then started a criminal investigation.

In a sane world, a police officer would have been like "Uhuh..." on the phone, looked at the Tweets, rolled their eyes, and told this lady to stop wasting their time because defamation isn't a crime and she should talk to a solicitor.
1
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#87
Report 4 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Exactly. Police are supposed to look at what's reported, use their discretion, and then decide whether or not it warrants a proper investigation. A police officer would have looked at the Tweets reported to them, thought "Hmm yes, could be a crime here" and then started a criminal investigation.

In a sane world, a police officer would have been like "Uhuh..." on the phone, looked at the Tweets, rolled their eyes, and told this lady to stop wasting their time because defamation isn't a crime and she should talk to a solicitor.
Except it wasnt defamation she was claiming. See above.
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 weeks ago
#88
(Original post by 999tigger)
Except it wasnt defamation she was claiming. See above.
Ah, yes, that wonderful piece of legislation.

Regardless, in a sane world, their reaction should have been as I described.

"Somebody on the internet wrote those Tweets and upset you? I'm sorry, Ma'am, but that's not our problem." *click*
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#89
Report 4 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Ah, yes, that wonderful piece of legislation.

Regardless, in a sane world, their reaction should have been as I described.

"Somebody on the internet wrote those Tweets and upset you? I'm sorry, Ma'am, but that's not our problem." *click*
They have a job to do just because its over the internet is no different from other forms of communication. They have to enforce the law. thats part of the law. They have a duy to investigate which they did an then it was dropped.
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by 999tigger)
They have a job to do just because its over the internet is no different from other forms of communication. They have to enforce the law. thats part of the law.
A stupid law which they are enforcing way too diligently.

If somebody takes your pencil without asking, that could count as petty theft, but it takes a special type of loser to report that and a police officer with a strange sense of proportion and way too much time on their hands to actually make a criminal investigation out of it.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#91
Report 4 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by Dandaman1)
A stupid law which they are enforcing way too diligently.

If somebody takes your pencil without asking, that could count as petty theft, but it takes a special type of loser to report that and a police officer with a strange sense of proportion and way too much time on their hands to actually make a criminal investigation out of it.
This isnt about a pencil though.

Someone on another thread has been reported for taking 2 cans of pop. She is now likely to be kicked out of university for stealing.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 weeks ago
#92
Yes, they can be - but it should be obvious from just reading them that they are not. There is not even a need to want to interview her over tweets that are not a crime. Do you not want to understand this?

I do not need to lie. I have now on multiple occasions said that that is the logical conclusion to your stance, not that that was what you actually said. So the fact that you need to pretend that I am putting words in your mouth just so that you can call me a liar, is pretty insane.
(Original post by 999tigger)
You are hilarious. Im telling you very patiently what the police protocols are.
Not hiding behind anything, not my fault if you are incapable of understanding police protocols and the law , even in very simple terms.
She made a complaint and they looked into it.
She withdrew the complaint and it was closed.

Tweets can be a crime under the The Malicious Communications Act 1988.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

You are the one that keeps saying guns blazing, which is a complete fabrication by you and nothing I have ever suggested, but you need to lie to try and prove you have a point . You do not.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#93
Report 4 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by yudothis)
Yes, they can be - but it should be obvious from just reading them that they are not. There is not even a need to want to interview her over tweets that are not a crime. Do you not want to understand this?

I do not need to lie. I have now on multiple occasions said that that is the logical conclusion to your stance, not that that was what you actually said. So the fact that you need to pretend that I am putting words in your mouth just so that you can call me a liar, is pretty insane.
Theres no logic because you keep saying things that I have never said.
You dont read, but clearly tweets can be a crime and you cam be prosecuted for them. Ive even linked you the legislation. How dense do you have to be?
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 weeks ago
#94
(Original post by 999tigger)
This isnt about a pencil though.

Someone on another thread has been reported for taking 2 cans of pop. She is now likely to be kicked out of university for stealing.
It might as well be the equivalent of a pencil.

If someone steals from your store it can be sensible to call the cops (although I wouldn't over something less than a quid or two). Theft of merchandise can be a big problem for a business, which is why it is often so strictly enforced, but there is still an element of sensible discretion involved.

An upsetting Tweet, however, can be deleted, ignored, its author blocked... It's not a threat to you. So to have police investigate something like that is such an overreaction and a waste of resources. It shouldn't be a crime to begin with. And looking at the Tweets, even based on the law as it currently stands, a criminal investigation is a bit of an overreaction.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#95
Report 4 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by Dandaman1)
It might as well be the equivalent of a pencil.

If someone steals from your store it can be sensible to call the cops (although I wouldn't over something less than a quid or two). Theft of merchandise can be a big problem for a business, which is why it is often so strictly enforced, but there is still an element of sensible discretion involved.

An upsetting Tweet, however, can be deleted, ignored, its author blocked... It's not a threat to you. So to have police investigate something like that is such an overreaction and a waste of resources. It shouldn't be a crime to begin with. And looking at the Tweets, even based on the law as it currently stands, a criminal investigation is a bit of an overreaction.
Thats up to the police though if you actually read what happened then I dont see they did anything wrong they just investigated a complaint as they are required to do.
Can tweets be a crime? I believe so and I dont believe anyone has the right to stalk or harass someone else.
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 weeks ago
#96
(Original post by 999tigger)
Thats up to the police though if you actually read what happened then I dont see they did anything wrong they just investigated a complaint as they are required to do.
Can tweets be a crime? I believe so and I dont believe anyone has the right to stalk or harass someone else.
I've read the Tweets, and I'd hardly call a handful of critical yet potentially defamatory things said on a public web forum "harassment" (although what constitutes such seems to have ballooned these days).

Once more, police are still expected to use sensible discretion. The investigation should have ended more-or-less where it began - with the report.

Police are expected to prioritise. Despite what they say, they don't have the time to fully investigate every petty report they get. I've known people to call police over trivial nonsense, and they were told to jog on or given the old "We'll look into it" only to never hear back, which is honestly what should have happened in this instance.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#97
Report 4 weeks ago
#97
(Original post by Dandaman1)
I've read the Tweets, and I'd hardly call a handful of critical yet potentially defamatory things said on a public web forum "harassment" (although what constitutes such seems to have ballooned these days).

Once more, police are still expected to use sensible discretion. The investigation should have ended more-or-less where it began - with the report.

Police are expected to prioritise. Despite what they say, they don't have the time to fully investigate every petty report they get. I've known people to call police over trivial nonsense, and they were told to jog on or given the old "We'll look into it" only to never hear back, which is honestly what should have happened in this instance.
She claimed it wasnt just the tweets. In any event its up to the police it investigate and find out if there were any merits to the claim. If they would have ended it with just the report then they wouldnt have been doing their job because they wouldnt have verified anything. I cant see how you can do that if you are investigating malicious communication without interviewing the person who made the tweets.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 weeks ago
#98
You are purposefully playing dumb? I literally just said that I never said that you said it, but that your logic is equivalent to it. You are a very special kind of special.
(Original post by 999tigger)
Theres no logic because you keep saying things that I have never said.
You dont read, but clearly tweets can be a crime and you cam be prosecuted for them. Ive even linked you the legislation. How dense do you have to be?
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 weeks ago
#99
(Original post by yudothis)
That is not libellous, that is the truth.
:rolleyes:

(Original post by yudothis)
Yes, a child, a child should make the decision about a life-altering, physically unnecessary operation. A child, when just now new evidence has come out that people still develop their brain into their 30s.

I disagree. You are implicitly assuming that a child can not consent truly to selling sex, but can truly consent to such a life-altering operation, one that may not even be necessary in the future for the child. That is a baseless assumption.
My basis for that statement is the law. In the UK, 16 year olds are considered old enough to consent to their own medical procedures. They do not need consent from their parents/guardians, aside from a few exceptional circumstances.

(Original post by yudothis)
So basically you accuse me of not being factual, and yet proceed to replying in a non-factual manner to me.
Just because you disagree with the facts doesn't mean they're wrong.
0
reply
Tenya Iida
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 weeks ago
#100
(Original post by yudothis)
I pity you.
youve already said in the other thread, considering you still assume i 'think' im trans bc im autistic. /i/ got sh!t from tsr about replying to that comment with a harmless insult that paled in comparison to what you had just said, btw.

just shut up uwu!!!!!!!!
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (452)
37.95%
No - but I will (89)
7.47%
No - I don't want to (83)
6.97%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (567)
47.61%

Watched Threads

View All