Demonstrations, Riots and Disorder Across the UK Following the Southport Attacks

[peak4]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy said:

Strange that certain factions didn't complain about Twitter when it was a left leaning platform, even the former owner Jack Dorsey admitted it was biased towards the left.

Odd eh?

Not really, it's not about the political bias of people using the site, it's about the nature of the content.
Under previous ownership, all manner of users etc were banned for extremist content.
Amongst Musk's first actions were to remove many of the staff who used to be responsible for site policing and replace them with AI.
Many of the banned groups and individuals were then re-admitted.
The nature of the algorithms used feed more an more extreme content to users who interact with it most.

[Delbow]

17 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

Does doxxing come under free speech?

Probably not in my opinion. 

 

Well yeah it does. Freedom to post someone's details online, freedom to make whatever allegations about them you want. 

 

As others have said, there is a big difference between expressing an opinion and deliberately spreading false information. I think most people support the former but not the latter. Musk supports both.

[The_DADDY]

1 minute ago, Delbow said:

 

Well yeah it does. Freedom to post someone's details online, freedom to make whatever allegations about them you want. 

 

As others have said, there is a big difference between expressing an opinion and deliberately spreading false information. I think most people support the former but not the latter. Musk supports both.

My bold.

Hmm, I didn't know that. 👍

 

Underlined 

Well, take it up with Elon. 

[Delbow]

1 hour ago, Prettytom said:

Heartwarming news:

 

https://news.sky.com/story/liverpool-riots-people-appear-in-court-the-youngest-just-14-and-the-oldest-a-69-year-old-who-turned-up-with-wooden-bat-13191287

 

More please

 

Enjoy your time on remand, scum.

[peak4]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

 

I agree with some of this, but they could start by better defining what hate speech actually is in law.

At the moment it seems to be whatever the authorities think it is, so the goalposts move all the time. 

Yes there needs to be a degree of flexibility depending on circumstances, intent etc, but that should be at the behest of the judge; that's what they're paid for.

Meanwhile the law itself should be clear, concise and public knowledge so everyone knows where they stand, or it should be scrapped altogether

This is why we have the CPS to decide whether a case is likely to succeed, or is in the public interest.
There are reasons why much legislation isn't overly specific, some of which is to prevent obvious offenders escaping prosecutions via loopholes; e.g. "Driving" isn't defined in mobile phone legislation.
In reality the bar for prosecutions of "hate crime" is actually quite high; far higher than some idiots claim, so no-one is ever going to be prosecuted for flying the Union Jack because it's offensive to some minority group.
Hitting someone over the head with it, whilst shouting obscenities, may well increase the penalties applied if the person is found guilty of assault for example, as it may be viewed as an aggravating factor; all that sort of stuff if published in sentencing guidelines.
Broadly a useful safeguard might be that if everyone treats others, as they expect to be treated themselves, then there is little chance of being prosecuted.

Lots of info here;

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime

 

[The_DADDY]

More trouble to come or just a few hot heads 'biggin it up Gangsta style"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 5 by The_DADDY

[Mister Gee]

Just now, The_DADDY said:

More trouble to come or just a few hot heads 'biggin it up Gansta style"?

 

 

What’s Gansta Style?

 

 

 

 

[The_DADDY]

1 minute ago, Mister Gee said:

 

From google..

 

 

 

[peak4]

By coincidence, I was just reading about this from a different perspective; screenshot about what I assume to be a local doctor's though I've not confirmed it
To be clear, I'm in no way condoning anyone being out on the street breaking the law or threatening anyone.

Then I also saw a Twitter post by Jess Phillips

 

 

 

 

[peak4]

Obviously Tice is using the news report video for a particular reason, but it's also being amplified elsewhere;

The actual Twitter feed I was reading was another by Marc Owen Jones, rolled up here for on account holders
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1820521394134016197.html

I was specifically reading it with reference to the earlier posts discussing Twitter since Musk bought it out, and the much publicised comments regarding civil war.
I genuinely don't understand why he paid so much for the platform, and whether it was to make money, or for more nefarious reasons; there was obvious court cases involved too.
This screenshot's from the end of the thread, but the whole thing is worth considering; RadioGenoa gets a mention too.