Labour councillor inciting violence.

[carmanmemoranda]

It's how it can all interlink that people are either oblivious to or are aware of, which is even more chilling.

For example, person A might post online 'they can all die as far as I'm concerned!' but person A might have zero intention of actually doing anything physical. Whereas if enough persons A post this sort of stuff, it can be read by persons B who are intent on doing something physical. So the B's become more enraged and emboldened by the A's if that makes sense. But the A's say 'eh, but all I did was post a slightly dodgy message online?!?'

As is usually the case in life, the minority spoil things for the majority. I expect further (possibly restrictive) controls on social media and perhaps wider Internet use will follow, all thanks to those who abuse it.

Exactly.

Provocation. Poor old mbk cannot see any hate though.

I don't have any problem with free speech. But it comes with responsibility

Civilised people in civilised societies don't encourage violence of any sort , either in public or on meedja.

 

[Vinty]

Exactly the sort of people who have to live amongst the dross that the comfortably off liberal classes inflict on them, but would be horrified if migrants came to devalue their own houses in tree-lined avenues by living there. Liberal vermin like the idea of "refugees welcome/open borders" as long as someone else lives with the consequences. It won't be their kids getting stabbed or groomed. They're alright Jack!

Its a form of social apartheid.
That is the direction of travel, gated communities with private security and private health care.
They need a pool of cheap labour to cut the grass, brush up the leaves and all the other menial jobs that need doing.

 

[Mottie]

Slightly OT but related to all these threads, it'll be interesting to see if the authorities and government keep the forward momentum going re social media and folk not being able to hide behind it when doing anything illegal, in these cases inciting racial hatred etc.

I’ve always said, it should be a legal requirement, just like opening a bank account, for I.D. To be produced to join up to a forum. Would cut out 99.999% of incitement, scammers and trolls at a stroke. Just imagine those that would have to drop out of this forum!

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

I’ve always said, it should be a legal requirement, just like opening a bank account, for I.D. To be produced to join up to a forum. Would cut out 99.999% of incitement, scammers and trolls at a stroke. Just imagine those that would have to drop out of this forum!

Just imagine those that would be arrested for their race hate comments, and the self-confessed criminals.
And maybe some would never find work again.
In addition, there might be some better behaviour when the libel lawsuits start flowing.

Yes I'd be all for that.

 

[motorbiking]

alleged that on 29 July, the day of the Southport knife killings, she posted on X saying: "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bas***** for all I care..


Yep, no hate in there

Exactly.

Provocation. Poor old mbk cannot see any hate though.

I don't have any problem with free speech. But it comes with responsibility

Civilised people in civilised societies don't encourage violence of any sort , either in public or on meedja.

I just encouraged you to read up on what is required to establish hate.

 

[motorbiking]

Just imagine those that would be arrested for their race hate comments, and the self-confessed criminals.
And maybe some would never find work again.
In addition, there might be some better behaviour when the libel lawsuits start flowing.

Yes I'd be all for that.

Nobody can assume anonymity. Especially those who publish their name.

It wouldn’t take much effort for plod to obtain the necessary authority to demand disclosure.

Of course confessions of crimes that are alleged to have been committed but without any evidence of an actual crime, aren’t much use.

Whereas those who constantly post hatred, establish a pattern of behaviour necessary to establish hate as a motive.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I just encouraged you to read up on what is required to establish hate.

No, you tried to suggest there was no hate in her post.

I cant help it if you cant see it.

 

[motorbiking]

I was suggesting that a decent lawyer could defeat the argument that the motive was hate.

Her defence is she was relying on fake news.
Unless the prosecution can establish a hate motive to the necessary level of the charging standard, I can’t see it sticking. That is not to say there is no offence, there clearly is.

If you look at other prosecutions for the same offence, it has been necessary to show a pattern and sustained hatred.

But she might just plead guilty.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I was suggesting that a decent lawyer could defeat the argument that the motive was hate.

Her defence is she was relying on fake news.
Unless the prosecution can establish a hate motive to the necessary level of the charging standard, I can’t see it sticking. That is not to say there is no offence, there clearly is.

If you look at other prosecutions for the same offence, it has been necessary to show a pattern and sustained hatred.

But she might just plead guilty.

There's enough for her to be charged.

Somebody must have understood, it just wasn't you.

 

[motorbiking]

It’s a two step process. But you’d know if that if you knew what you were talking about.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It’s a two step process. But you’d know if that if you knew what you were talking about.

Has she or has she not been charged?

Charged with an offence?

Somebody who knows what they are talking about has done that, and I've read about it.

Looks like it's you that's wrong. But that's happened a lot before. You couldn't see any hate could you. Good job the real legal experts could.

 

[ajohn]

I was suggesting that a decent lawyer could defeat the argument that the motive was hate.

Her defence is she was relying on fake news.

Most if not all of the people who have been arrested and then get sentenced have pleaded guilty to reduce the sentence. Onliners from what I have heard 30 months maybe longer in one case.

This lady and I think there are others it's a wait and see. It seems one of these types were the ones to get it on main social media 1st. Have any been arrested?

Farage's comment on who it was as usual are flawed as it was mentioned that the name on the web was incorrect early on. His other problem is that the offender is 17years old

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Farage's comment on who it was as usual are flawed as it was mentioned that the name on the web was incorrect early on. His other problem is that the offender is 17years old

Well, if you use Andrew Tate as a source of information then ...

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Nobody can assume anonymity. Especially those who publish their name.

Absolutely, along with their photo and their confession of serious serial crimes.
A bit of facial recognition software, a quick check on the DVLA for vehicles registered in that name over the last few years, and any MOT cert's issued for those vehicles, and Robert's your Father's bother. They could easily check for any NPR contacts(or absence of) while they were at it.
A quick easy one hours work with those with appropriate access to appropriate databases.

It wouldn’t take much effort for plod to obtain the necessary authority to demand disclosure.

It wouldn't be necessary with facial recognition software for those who are daft enough to accompany their confession with a photo of themselves..

Of course confessions of crimes that are alleged to have been committed but without any evidence of an actual crime, aren’t much use.

Unless they're accompanied with all the necessary details, such as insurance and MOT fraud, and a quick one hours work produce all the required evidence..

Whereas those who constantly post hatred, establish a pattern of behaviour necessary to establish hate as a motive.

Absolutely, a quick check to see who's spreading disinformation about RLNI and taxi services, and job done.

 

[motorbiking]

Has she or has she not been charged?

Charged with an offence?

Somebody who knows what they are talking about has done that, and I've read about it.

Looks like it's you that's wrong. But that's happened a lot before. You couldn't see any hate could you. Good job the real legal experts could.

She has been charged with publishing written material which was threatening, abusive or insulting intending thereby to stir up racial hatred or having regard to all the circumstances, whereby racial hatred was likely to be stirred up, contrary to section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Nothing in the above to suggest they are arguing that the offence was aggravated by a hate motive.

See how simple it is. Stirling hatred and motive of hate are two specific things.

If they want to argue an aggravated offence of hatred as the motive, they will need to establish a pattern of hate.

Other offenders committing the above with a hate motive have gone to prison.