[News] 30 people a day on average arrested in UK for offensive online posts....

[dwayne]

You clearly have no idea on the subject you are peddling.

A Caution is a formal outcome, recorded one ones 'record', and can only be given AFTER arrest, and wouldn't be given over the phone .

So you can't say you think people should be Cautioned instead of arrested .

Tbh I've never been arrested so not that familiar with it. You seem a lot more clued up.

 

[Eeyore]

Wannabee what ?

And I had to look up gammony. But this certainly is not me either. And it appears gammon is akin to hate speech. I may have to report you for online abuse

Calling someone a 'gammon' is hate speech

Calling someone a gammon is discourse of the sewer.

www.gq-magazine.co.uk

It is in one person's opinion, using some very questionable analogies. 'But gammon refers to whites only – to white Christians' is a very strange thing to say. There are very few Christians, in the proper sense of the word, in this country and a lot of them aren't white.

'Gammon' isn't hate speech. Perhaps a character slur, but not hate speech. No different to calling someone an unwashed tree hugger.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Wannabee what ?

And I had to look up gammony. But this certainly is not me either. And it appears gammon is akin to hate speech. I may have to report you for online abuse

Calling someone a 'gammon' is hate speech

Calling someone a gammon is discourse of the sewer.

www.gq-magazine.co.uk

It's a fair cop

 

[WATFORD zero]

Tbh I've never been arrested so not that familiar with it. You seem a lot more clued up.

You need to get out more @dwayne. Never been arrested ? Not even as a teenager ? I always thought you were so much more than a shiny undersized suit.

I'm seriously disappointed

 

[Peteinblack]

Happy to report our NSC Patronage's are recognised as the equivalent to diplomatic immunity

Or 'parliamentary privilege'

 

[Sussexscots]

I don't generally get involved in political threads on here. Yet however lairy it gets, at least this message board is grounded in a common interest and a love for our football team.

The rest of social media seems an increasingly embittered sea of sour malcontents. I hold on to the hope that real life isn't quite like that just yet.

 

[Han Solo]

Going to be very efficient in the future through AI. Inevitable.

 

[dwayne]

You need to get out more @dwayne. Never been arrested ? Not even as a teenager ? I always thought you were so much more than a shiny undersized suit.

I'm seriously disappointed

Zeros clearly lost 20% of his pension over the last few days and has hit the grog. Sounding very old and bitter.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'd say NSC is a good example. There are pretty strict rules. But how many people actually get banned ? Hardly any. That's because nearly all know how to conduct themselves.

There was a time when folk could bully and harass as much as they'd like online. And it seems to be those who are complaining that about things.

This is not to say that the new laws haven't brought about some absurdities. They have, and it needs to be addressed. But most of us can get by without using 'hurty words'

There aren’t any new laws. Arrests are made under the 1988 Malicious Communications Act.

It is easier to identify people online now, however.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

I can only imagine that the police do not come on NSC after a brighton defeat. They could make 30 arrests in one foul swoop for some of the crap posted on here.

One fell swoop.

Shakespeare!!

 

[Brovion]

Why would the police not take advantage of arresting hate filled scumbag simpletons who make it very easy to be identified? Drug dealers, thieves and phone snatchers, no lesser scumbags, but I can assume are slightly more sophisticated and make it harder to be caught.

I agree. The problem is defining what constitutes a 'hate filled scumbag simpleton'. I think we'd all agree on some (those who advocated attacking asylum seekers and their hostels in the wake of the Southport stabbings for example), but personally I wouldn't include the people who queried the selection process for the headteacher for their daughter's school.

Police review Borehamwood couple's arrest in school WhatsApp row

A county's Police and Crime Commissioner says the case "shouldn’t have become a police matter".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[keaton]

I agree. The problem is defining what constitutes a 'hate filled scumbag simpleton'. I think we'd all agree on some (those who advocated attacking asylum seekers and their hostels in the wake of the Southport stabbings for example), but personally I wouldn't include the people who queried the selection process for the headteacher for their daughter's school.

Police review Borehamwood couple's arrest in school WhatsApp row

A county's Police and Crime Commissioner says the case "shouldn’t have become a police matter".

www.bbc.co.uk

Come on Brovian , you know there's going to be a lot more to do it than that in that case

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Come on Brovian , you know there's going to be a lot more to do it than that in that case

Yes, the final paragraphs of the article state that.

Hertfordshire Police said: "Following reports of harassment and malicious communications, which are criminal offences, a man and a woman from Borehamwood, both aged in their 40s, were arrested on Wednesday 29 January.

"Following further investigations, officers deemed that no further action should be taken due to insufficient evidence.

"In relation to the police visit on 20 December, a complaint was submitted which was reviewed by our Professional Standards Department.

"It was deemed that the service provided by officers was appropriate."

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Tbh I've never been arrested so not that familiar with it. You seem a lot more clued up.

Just say you’re English.

 

[Brovion]

Come on Brovian , you know there's going to be a lot more to do it than that in that case

I don't know what was said, and if they threatened violence then fair enough. Otherwise I cannot think why a dispute over a school appointment warranted a police raid, them being led away in handcuffs and locked in cells. They weren't even offered the chance to come in and make a voluntary statement. And easily the worst element is the police saying that it was all justified. Really? Is that what we've come to? (Again if violence was threatened then yes it was. Otherwise no).

But leaving aside that particular case my point stands - where do we as a society draw the line? Obviously I'm a bit more liberal than some.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I agree. The problem is defining what constitutes a 'hate filled scumbag simpleton'. I think we'd all agree on some (those who advocated attacking asylum seekers and their hostels in the wake of the Southport stabbings for example), but personally I wouldn't include the people who queried the selection process for the headteacher for their daughter's school.

Police review Borehamwood couple's arrest in school WhatsApp row

A county's Police and Crime Commissioner says the case "shouldn’t have become a police matter".

www.bbc.co.uk

Surely it depends on what they said or did – and to whom

Based on:

"According to The Times, the couple said they had previously been banned from entering Cowley Hill Primary School, in Borehamwood, after questioning the recruitment process for a head teacher and criticising the leadership in a parents' WhatsApp group.
The school said it had "sought advice from police" after a "high volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts" that it said had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors."

I'd say the authorities might be justified in their actions...

Also, rightly or wrongly, this bit raised alarm bells about the whole story:

"Mr Allen, a Times Radio producer, said six police officers turned up at his home on January 29 this year."

 

[Uh_huh_him]

But that's 'on average'.

Remember what happened after the disorder last summer following the Southport stabbings?

I bet the vast majority of the arrests were in the weeks following that, and in reality outside of that period, it's probably just a handful per day.

i think 30 per day is about 1% of all arrests.
so even on average, it's only a handful.

 

[Eeyore]

There aren’t any new laws. Arrests are made under the 1988 Malicious Communications Act.

It is easier to identify people online now, however.

I didn't know that. So it's more about enforcement then. Which I think is an issue. But I think it's certainly better that these issues are being addressed, although some of the arrests in recent times have been absurd.

 

[ROSM]

I didn't know that. So it's more about enforcement then. Which I think is an issue. But I think it's certainly better that these issues are being addressed, although some of the arrests in recent times have been absurd.

The key point here is that the laws have existed for a while.

The numbers of people being investigated for these suspected offences had increased especially around covid

The numbers in the last reported year (2023) were actually down slightly

The numbers of people being convicted are reducing, primarily based on guidance from a former DPP to seek other remedies short of seeking convictions

I would have thought that in a world where more methods for communication exist including direct and anonymous methods, and growing intolerance, that such a rise is not unusual

 

[A1X]

So do we get the context of what they're being arrested for or is this designed to make us think people are being arrested for saying things which are pretty innocuous?

I mean, if someone tweets that they're planning on blowing the Amex up on Saturday with the purpose of killing everyone there then I'd hope they would be arrested.