54 Year Old Woman visited by Police

You have to wonder why the Daily Mail is so invested in pressing home Vance's 'you can't say anything in the UK' any more message.

It's almost as though Trump, Musk, the Reform MP Musk pays to post on X, the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Farage et al are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Along with the feminists and the free speech people.

Allira

The police refused to confirm that it was Andrew Gwynne or his partner who had made the complaint about the WhatsApp message.

If it was him, he should be ashamed of himself.

If the police were asked, it would be a "Cannot confirm nor deny answer".

Its not in GB news nor the DM as to who made the compliant so where has this rumour come from?

Galaxy

Along with the feminists and the free speech people.

Are you equating feminists and free speech people with Vance et al or with the DM’s targets? I know you try to be even-handed, but your posts can be difficult to follow at times 😀

No I am saying that those who think it is only the likes of Vance etc who have concerns about free speech are wrong.

There is a difference between free speech and directly inciting violence or law breaking, Trump got into trouble in his fight, fight, fight speech. Nothing specific but was interpreted literally and caused disorder, damage and injury.

There are words or phrases you should not use, especially those that wish harm to others, although you don’t mean it it could influence others. You can insult or disagree without threats or wishing harm

You speak as though that is an easy distinction to make, it isnt.
Who would you trust to decide what speech is acceptable.

I am not saying that only the likes of Vance etc have concerns about free speech. What I'm saying is that the Daily Mail doesn't really give fig about free speech.

It just uses it (or any other subject) as a tool to drive home the political ends of its paymasters.

So what. What would you like women and those with concerns to do. The guardian, etc have ignored us, or called us bigots it is to their shame that people with concerns need to speak to the mail and GB news.

No info about what she said means no judgment possible. More DM no sense.

Who decides? the police, backed up by law, which can be changed.

I agree Galaxy around no platforming there are really difficult areas when someone is not allowed to speak (is that still happening in universities for feminists - that was wrong). But should we allow a holocaust denier to speak at a university? Or wait until they have said something? I really don't know.

This is different from actions taken when someone has already spoken or commented online. A few pages back I made it clear why I thought it was essential to have laws limiting free speech

""Harassment" can vary greatly. It can include minor to major online or real life constant stalking or bullying, right up to death or violence threats. Including or not including racism as an element.
It's certainly been an issue for people - especially women - in public life.

It certainly includes domestic cases of co-ercive emotional violence when evidence is found online, and thank goodness it is!

There will always be grey areas.

And yes, the subject of the O/P - we still dont know what she said.

According to today's DT.
" Mrs. Jones repeatedly posted that Mr. Sedgwick (Stockport local councillor)must resign from his Heatons North seat . She said: "Lets hope he does the decent thing and resigns. I somehow think his ego won't allow it.".In another (post) after posting screenshots from the Trigger timbers group, Mrs. Jones wrote: "Not looking good for Cllr Sedgwick!!!"
Mrs. Jones was told the police had received a complaint about her social media posts, and she asked if she had committed any sort of crime; they replied they had received a complaint about her social media posts. She then asked if "I don't take your advice and continue what I am doing, will I be committing a crime?" He said no. She asked what will you be doing about it? He said: " There's not a lot we can do, we are just giving you advice."
Facebook is best avoided. I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
Complaints have been made about private posts between teachers, out of school, which have been reported, and in the case I know about, one teacher was sacked. No complaint was made about the pupil who had hacked into their accounts.

David49

There is a difference between free speech and directly inciting violence or law breaking, Trump got into trouble in his fight, fight, fight speech. Nothing specific but was interpreted literally and caused disorder, damage and injury.

There are words or phrases you should not use, especially those that wish harm to others, although you don’t mean it it could influence others. You can insult or disagree without threats or wishing harm

There are words or phrases you should not use, especially those that wish harm to others, although you don’t mean it it could influence others.

There's often a subtle difference in using speech, or a turn of phrase, between it being fanciful, simply symbolic of one's feelings, and its interpretation as a call-to-arms. That's what society has to grapple with in the matter of free-speech.

Moons ago now, I was suspended from FB for a week for wishing a plague of cockroaches on certain high-profile individuals who were the subject of the debate.

I deliberately picked the least-likely catastrophe to symbolise my animosity to their ideology, but either the FB algorithms or moderators decided it was "hate speech" - whilst a comment a few threads above mine which recommended a rather unpleasant (and illegal) 'solution' - was left to stand.

So, yes, free-speech, eh? Who decides what is an incitement to violence, short of an actual command to (for example), "let's go get him"? Or if there is already an angry mob bent on anarchy and you encourage them further with a similar 'suggestion'...

Galaxy Mon 24-Feb-25 07:17:56
You speak as though that is an easy distinction to make, it isnt.
Who would you trust to decide what speech is acceptable.

Difficult, isn't it?

What makes it doubly so is that, of course, the Right and Left will always attempt to portray the other as the party determined to erode free speech.

However, in the case of Trumps 'new Republicans' - removing books from school libraries and banning the Press hostile to its agenda, doesn't serve the interests of it.

But over here, the continued silencing of those who are gender-critical, or critical of the notion that a biological man can become a biological woman based on his feelings about his identity, also makes a mockery of the concept.

Dickens, just on your last point, where is the silencing going on in this field now? We've just had a long SM thread ourselves expressing those opinions and its openly spoken of by politicians and US opinions openly reported without censorship?

A Scottish newspaper has just been referred to the police for describing a man as a man. Now to be fair I dont think they are going to take any action but there is still a cohort who use it to silence.
The only reason we are able to talk about it now is because women fought, lost their jobs, went through court cases (still ongoing) to give us that ability, at the same time as everyone else was going but what's the problem, of course you can say what you want, right wing, blah de blah.

Galaxy

You speak as though that is an easy distinction to make, it isnt.
Who would you trust to decide what speech is acceptable.

Back when I worked for the vice squad magistrates would be shown stuff that was thought to be pornographic and they would decide, don't know if it's still the same but maybe something like that. Not a nice job.

I do acknowledge this point but giving people (often especially women) and young people/children protection against harassment, stalking, domestic coercive abuse, real racial hatred is very necessary.

eazybee

According to today's DT.
" Mrs. Jones repeatedly posted that Mr. Sedgwick (Stockport local councillor)must resign from his Heatons North seat . She said: "Lets hope he does the decent thing and resigns. I somehow think his ego won't allow it.".In another (post) after posting screenshots from the Trigger timbers group, Mrs. Jones wrote: "Not looking good for Cllr Sedgwick!!!"
Mrs. Jones was told the police had received a complaint about her social media posts, and she asked if she had committed any sort of crime; they replied they had received a complaint about her social media posts. She then asked if "I don't take your advice and continue what I am doing, will I be committing a crime?" He said no. She asked what will you be doing about it? He said: " There's not a lot we can do, we are just giving you advice."
Facebook is best avoided. I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
Complaints have been made about private posts between teachers, out of school, which have been reported, and in the case I know about, one teacher was sacked. No complaint was made about the pupil who had hacked into their accounts.

Interesting post. what does show is how very difficult it is to apply existing laws in the now vast and contentious field of SM comments.

Galaxy

A Scottish newspaper has just been referred to the police for describing a man as a man. Now to be fair I dont think they are going to take any action but there is still a cohort who use it to silence.
The only reason we are able to talk about it now is because women fought, lost their jobs, went through court cases (still ongoing) to give us that ability, at the same time as everyone else was going but what's the problem, of course you can say what you want, right wing, blah de blah.

It depends how the person reporting feels. What bothers one won't bother another. I'm not generally sensitive but the cockroach thing would upset me. The person making the post wouldn't know but when I was a child we had a problem neighbour and eventually her cockroaches invaded our house. I've had some bad things happen in my life but truly waking up with cockroaches crawling on me is probably the one that upset me most. As an example of other things I had a petrol bomb through my office window at a police station and no horrors about that.

I also dont trust the DM of giving us a full idea of what Mrs Jones said, by just revealing a couple, (selective!) or just how many comments were made. Its a drip drip feed to keep a news story alive

Wyllow3

I do acknowledge this point but giving people (often especially women) and young people/children protection against harassment, stalking, domestic coercive abuse, real racial hatred is very necessary.

Absolutely, and disabled people and gay people. Sad that they still need this protection, but that’s how it is!

I guess social media hasn’t helped this in any way and online harrassment and bullying is sadly too common.

I don’t want to see this going too far at all, but I also would hate to see a return to the “good old days” where minority groups and women were spoken of, and to, in very hurtful and disrectful ways.

But it is those very people who have been persecuted in terms of free speech, lesbians, women of colour, etc who have been dragged through the courts, lost work, etc. It is always the most vulnerable who suffer when you control speech, it isn't the JD Vances or the JKrowlings of this world ( I am not for one moment comparing the two) it is those with no power.
I wonder if you asked those lesbians for example who have been dragged through the mire for saying men cant be women what was worse - being dragged through court or some neanderthal saying something homophobic on Twitter, which would they choose.

YES. We should be careful/cognizant what we say all the time. Think before you speak is a value parents used to teach their kids.

Grandmabatty

Where's your proof?

Google it !

And what does being 54 have to do with it? Do you think being 54 means you're older, wiser, and exempt from consequences of your actions? We all need to tone down the rhetoric.