Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#171

Post by cassianoleal »

chairmansteve wrote: post #170
cassianoleal wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're reading both too much into it. First, I don't really consider what exists in "the west" as actual democracies. They are oligarchies or autocracies disguised as democracies instead. They've always been that, only now it's becoming more obvious. > the dictatorship is then better No, not at all. But it does have a clear path toward something better. This doesn't make it better, but it is a silver lining. > Why co…

Only a fool would think a dictatorship would "have a clear path toward something better". The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

Is it? Having lived in one and having studied it extensively, I don't think there was a single moment in time since the coup all the way throughout the 21 years it lasted when the people fighting against had doubts about what they had to do and where they wanted to get.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#172

Post by pcrh »

crtasm wrote: post #153
pcrh wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Connolley's message was posted at 8.30pm on the 29th July. One day before crowds attacked Mosques in Southport. Related disturbances continued until August 5th.

Sweeney != Connolley. There's multiple people being discussed in this thread. My comment refers to the BBC article that pcrh quoted.

Lucy Connolley is the person who said "set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards" on 29th July 2024.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#173

Post by amy214 »

onetimeusename wrote: post #110
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one voted for this. The police in the UK are using a combination of existing powers (for example, intimidating people by using their powers to question people), non-statutory instruments that politicians have told them repeatedly to stop using, and laws that are being applied to the online world in an expansive way (the current PM is the former head of government prosecutions so is basically the worst person possi…

I think the entire West is experiencing this problem. Things like immigration laws are determined not by elected officials but by bureaucrats and judges/lawyers who it turns out are often on the same side. It's a very sticky problem. The Nomenklatura of the USSR is probably the most similar description.

At least in the US, we have discovered an even more complex situation where many of our government organizational low-mid-low/high level leaders all lean left, same for judges, but then our supreme court leans right as well as high level leaders (appointed by right president). It's as off the extreme political polarization our nation suffers from has also manifested itself in our own institutions.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#174

Post by aaaja »

account-5 wrote: post #143
ChocolateGod wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JK Rowling can afford a good lawyer.

Yes I'm sure she can. But that is surely besides the point?

It was central to the point she was making. If the police arrested her for saying a man is a man, it would make headlines across the world, and if it went to court her lawyers, who are very good at what they do, would have a field day challenging this law. Most other people do not have anywhere near this level of access to legal support or media coverage.

But as they chose not to arrest her, this shields every other woman who might want to say similar. The argument being: if JKR can say a man is a man with impunity, then why can't anyone else?

So her making these statements of truth was a win either way. But being able to mount a solid defence in court, if needed, was essential to this strategy working.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1775187763995824350

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#175

Post by AStonesThrow »

account-5 wrote: post #98
ChocolateGod wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

West Yorkshire Police tried to arrest an autistic child for saying a female police officer looked like her lesbian nana on private property. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895 No muddling of the law here, just pure police overreach.

Police didn't arrest J.K. Rowling for her tweets about transwomen after the new Scottish law came into force, even when she asked them to. No muddling of the new law just police... Underreach? Or not doing their job? Depends who you ask. Either way tit for tat examples help nothing. Fact is, police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Plus it's good to just blame them for things they aren't in control of.

Perhaps because the police aren't arresting people over mere Tweets, or their speech alone. Perhaps, just perhaps, conduct or actions or monetary support are also involved, but the headlines can only trumpet the reason for arrest, or the stated charges.

JK Rowling, CH OBE FRSL is an author whose corpus of speech is mainly her novel-writing. Now how did nine letters come to be placed after her name, even as she shortened her first two initials? Because her writing (speech) has been in exemplary service and support of the Crown and the British Empire.

So why would police arrest JK Rowling for pushing back against one wedge-issue in the culture war?

The 70-year-old Guy being arrested outside the abortion clinic for holding a rosary and praying, is that the singular offence he committed? Possession of a phoenix feather? Did he rescue Tom Marvolo Riddle's mother? I don't know. Neither do you.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#176

Post by landl0rd »

KaiserPro wrote: post #166
landl0rd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss the part where I specified the Met Police often do the same. Let me give you an example of "gross offense": "commentary from you regarding the rainbow flags which represent the LBGT community." https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fl4VM7VXkAM8-km.jpg:large "Offending someone" being a crime is basically immoral. Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative Party councilor, was the one jailed for her comments around m…

> was the one jailed for her comments The one that fanned huge fucking protests, the one that caused a massive spike in violence, many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage? That old poor innocent councillors wife? Britain and the US are very different. In the same way that a lot of americans think that school shootings are a fair exchange for second amendment rights, this is a fair exchange for not having…

Right I am not actually interested in whether it was legal under british law. My point is british law is unjust and fundamentally illiberal in this respect. Anything that wouldn't pass the Brandenburg v. Ohio test of "imminent lawless action" is unconscionably bad.

All that aside, can you explain the other 29 arrests that day so well? https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police...

This is from The Economist of all places not some right-wing rag. Please do not stick your head in the sand on this to "own the rightoids" or whatever. If you're a lefty oppose it on grounds of how it's used against the pro-palestinians.

P.S. I don't see why you're bringing up the trump admin's actions like one bad thing existing means another can't. Both things can be bad. We can oppose both things. It's not that hard.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#177

Post by beej71 »

soco wrote: post #150
beej71 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you think dictatorships come to be?

I'm sick of all this doomsaying coming from the bench. If somebody thinks the dictatorship is around the corner, then please get on your ass and do something about it! Organize, vote, find your own way. Because the world has zero uses for more oracles, but a lot of use for _involved_ people.

> please get on your ass and do something about it!

I do! I wish more people would.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#178

Post by account-5 »

aaaja wrote: post #174
account-5 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I'm sure she can. But that is surely besides the point?

It was central to the point she was making. If the police arrested her for saying a man is a man, it would make headlines across the world, and if it went to court her lawyers, who are very good at what they do, would have a field day challenging this law. Most other people do not have anywhere near this level of access to legal support or media coverage. But as they chose not to arrest her, this shields every other…

I agree but my point was not that my point was you can find tit for tat examples all over the place. It doesn't move the original conversation on. Point in fact, this morning in the news, a MET employee was reinstated after getting sacked for gross misconduct over comments apparently made whilst dealing with calls to the police. This time they're critised for the opposite of doing what they've been critised in the OP article for. Lose, lose for the police.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ke41yg18o

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#179

Post by onetimeusename »

ethbr1 wrote: post #162
onetimeusename wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the entire West is experiencing this problem. Things like immigration laws are determined not by elected officials but by bureaucrats and judges/lawyers who it turns out are often on the same side. It's a very sticky problem. The Nomenklatura of the USSR is probably the most similar description.

> are determined not by elected officials but by bureaucrats and judges/lawyers who it turns out are often on the same side "Fixing" that is an awfully slippery slope towards dictatorship though. The entire reason that system exists -- to preserve competence and skills in government despite political leadership change and to provide independent checks on elected officials' power -- is because of historical abuses by…

I am concerned about how lawyers may be a closed off group. Especially with grads from the top law schools who often work at NGOs or become judges in high courts that end up deciding major things. I think precedent could be set in a way that reflects the tastes of a small and detached group of people.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#180

Post by ChocolateGod »

account-5 wrote: post #143
ChocolateGod wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JK Rowling can afford a good lawyer.

Yes I'm sure she can. But that is surely besides the point?

> But that is surely besides the point?

The people who wanted JK Rowling arrested knew her views and comments are legal. If the police arrested her and she won in court, that would set a precedent and invalidate any attempt to use that legislation to prosecute people with similar views, which activists were hoping to use it for.

But also, her not getting arrested does the same.

So she was in a win-win position.

Post reply on HN