The tide has turned

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Whitewavemark2

Galaxy

It's not against the law to repeat Elon Musk. I know some would like that to be the case. I feel the same way about Owen Jones but we cant always have what we want..

No it isn’t.

But I suspect that this is being looked at by lawyers etc in order to try to stem the flow of online influence to violence.

It isn’t something I particularly relish frankly, as I am by instinct anti- authoritarian, and still hope it can achieved by proselytising by teachers, government etc. But there is undoubtedly a growing call to stop this malevolent influence an I can understand.

An article on Musk and possible responses.
www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-uk-riots-twitter-x-peter-kyle-tech-minister/

If they do, it will make the problem a thousand times worse.
I still have some sort of faith that Starmer wont do that. He did like a bit of authoritarianism within the labour party but am hoping it's not generally his style.

There’s always a growing call for things that ‘shouldn’t be allowed’ as my old Nan used to frequently say in a shocked voice.
We must have freedom of speech and a free press.
Anyone literally urging others to commit violence or promoting the idea of it with anger is a different matter.

excellent post Keepingquiet

Galaxy

It's not against the law to repeat Elon Musk. I know some would like that to be the case. I feel the same way about Owen Jones but we cant always have what we want..

No it isn’t.

But I suspect that this is being looked at by lawyers etc in order to try to stem the flow of online influence to violence.

It isn’t something I particularly relish frankly, as I am by instinct anti- authoritarian, and still hope it can achieved by proselytising by teachers, government etc. But there is undoubtedly a growing call to stop this malevolent influence an I can understand.

Galaxy

Which conspiracy theory. If you mean two tier keir (you havent specified so I am having to guess here) then no of course people shouldnt be arrested for that view. Many of those who attended the Sarah Everard protest expressed a view about 'differences' in policing. It's not a new 'song'.

I think big mistakes were made at the Sarah Everard however I still don’t believe that there is genuinely two tier policing.

Of course people shouldn’t be arrested for their views/opinions, unless those views are presented as facts, incite hatred and cause riots!

Good post, Keeping Quiet. It speaks to the divisive nature of the media's hunger for "shock horror" journalism.

Which conspiracy theory. If you mean two tier keir (you havent specified so I am having to guess here) then no of course people shouldnt be arrested for that view. Many of those who attended the Sarah Everard protest expressed a view about 'differences' in policing. It's not a new 'song'.

Policing with consent is the basis for our culture of policing. Sometimes it works well in communities where there is good leadership religious, commercial or political. It isn't a simple matter but relies on good will, trust and communication.

The trouble we have seen is also due to various factors:
Malice- there are a few hardcore individuals at the centre of any disorder who wish to bring about some sort of attention for themselves by getting others to act for them.

Ignorance- weaker and less manipulative people are wound-up by those who seek to use them for malicious purposes. Ignorant people think the things they stand for are their own opinions but really they have been influenced and manipulated by others into thinking there is something to be afraid of, when often there isn't.

Media- the media have a vested interest in stoking the fires of suspicion and unrest because it sells.

Anxiety- this is the main result of believing we have something to fear when we don't. This is often a result of reading or hearing something someone or something else has told us, rather than having that fearful experience ourselves.

Fear- fuelled by anxiety and the media (especially social media) people generally begin to turn general anxiety into full-blown fear. When people are afraid they kick back. This becomes a real-life manifestation of anxious feelings and causes harm to others especially when that fear is misplaced.

Hate- this is the most serious manifestation of fear. It has no basis in reason and in the end damages the structures of otherwise peaceful socieities.

The police are often between a rock and a hard place, but in the end have to uphold the rule of law, for which we all should be grateful and make positive contributions towards.

I know what you are saying WW. I disagree.

No, it isn’t. Legal experts have explained ad nauseum on Twitter and other social media. The Criminal Bar Association have explained the difference in process and timescales between pleading guilty and being dealt with at a magistrates court and pleading not guilty so moving on to Crown courts.
Do you expect in future that more rioters will plead not guilty if it means they will not get the immediate imprisonment which has followed a guilty plea?
According to a report one of the looting brothers was advised to change his plea to guilty, expecting a suspended sentence.
Now there are queries about whether he suffers from ASC, PTSD, ADHD, etc which may have impacted his choice of action and thus affect his prison sentence.

It's not against the law to repeat Elon Musk. I know some would like that to be the case. I feel the same way about Owen Jones but we cant always have what we want..

Quite a lot of young men do seem to see Elon Musk as some sort of demi God

Galaxy

If you mean the two tier thing, that's a perception that many hold, if you are asking should people be arrested for that view, my answer is no.
Poor sky reporters would be in prison.
I think the idea that further laws on controlling speech will help is wrong.

You are getting ahead of what I am saying.

I am saying that the influencers of which Musk is one should be prevented from spreading conspiracy theories that could and certainly do lead too thuggery, violence and false discontent in our society.

Musk can say what he wants, but he has no standing except as a very rich man holding the power to delete or uphold comments on X which is a very dangerous power to hold irresponsibility.

Yes, he can say what he wants, but to then use his comments in the UK as having some kind of veracity to be quoted and re quoted is what is dangerous.

He's not an elected MP, he is not a UK citizen.

JaneJudge

I've just realised two tier rhymes with kier.

True but of course we all know that the charge is in itself is rubbish.

Why

Because of the separation of powers.

The separate powers can and do cooperate for the good of the country, but the courts, police and parliament are all autonomous to a degree.

If you mean the two tier thing, that's a perception that many hold, if you are asking should people be arrested for that view, my answer is no.
Poor sky reporters would be in prison.
I think the idea that further laws on controlling speech will help is wrong.

@galaxy
Yes ‘as long as it is within the law’ and in the UK there are laws on hate speech and inciting violence.
Anyone can voice an opinion but if your opinion reaches out to countless people via social media who then feel they are validated in committing acts of violence that is a hate crime. Tbh is grooming, as with terrorist organisations.

I've just realised two tier rhymes with kier.

I mean conspiracy theories that may lead to incitement.

As far as I am aware no one has rioted because they insist the world is flat😀😀

So KS, should have just sort of put the perps in some sort of holding pen and carried on working through the back log of court cases?

Are you planning to arrest flat earther next?

What do you mean. Do you mean the two tier comment.

Galaxy

He can comment on whatever he likes within the law.

Are conspiracy theories within the law?