21–30 of 38 posts
Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. Media should call this waste of oxygen by his real name on the headline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> UK certainly doesn’t seem to respect the right against self-incrimination, given that it charges people with a crime for not allowing a border agent to rifle through their phone You're describing a violation of privacy, possibly privilege, not self-incrimination doctrine. Self incrimination relates to compelled speech [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination
I think it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination.
No? If we do that we render the term meaningless as any incriminating evidence could be termed self-incrimination.
Self-incrimination is about speech. Violations of privilege are not self incriminating. Neither is murder. Both are bad. But just because something is bad doesn't make it every specific type of bad.
Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. Media should call this waste of oxygen by his real name on the headline.
the independent have used the name people would recognise in their headline
Under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, police are allowed to stop anyone passing through a UK port “to determine whether they may be involved or concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.
The person who is detained can be held for up to six hours, is legally obliged to answer questions and must provide the password or access number for electronic devices, or be held to have committed a criminal offence if they refuse.
He exposed an organised totalitarian system taking over both gov and legal system, with anyone resisting being arrested/crushed with lawfare. Go see the documentary he created, it's eye opening, scary, true.
> see the documentary he created, it's eye opening, scary, true How can you trust him given his personal history of violence, fraud and lying? Are his accounts corroborated by someone reputable? From his record on Wikipedia and the facts in this article, he's either an idiot with impulse-control issues, or a provocateur who repeatedly gets himself in trouble to play victim for views. Neither suggests a reliable narra…
What is insane is not really his specific case, but the last paragraph of the article about the law in UK: Under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, police are allowed to stop anyone passing through a UK port “to determine whether they may be involved or concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. The person who is detained can be held for up to six hours, is legally obliged to answer…
Such a shame to see that country go from what it was to what it is now.
It's like they've all decided "ok so we've done being strong and great, now let's try be the biggest pieces of shit we can be".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> see the documentary he created, it's eye opening, scary, true How can you trust him given his personal history of violence, fraud and lying? Are his accounts corroborated by someone reputable? From his record on Wikipedia and the facts in this article, he's either an idiot with impulse-control issues, or a provocateur who repeatedly gets himself in trouble to play victim for views. Neither suggests a reliable narra…
It's more established there is a smear campaign against him, with bots and shills trying to smear him as it's pretty hard to refute what he says. Guy been put through hell, in the new UK where free speech is nonexistent and people are imprisoned for opposing 'the party'. Mind you, I'm not English nor do I live there, but it's scary seeing what is happening there and how it seems to be spreading
What a shock.
What is insane is not really his specific case, but the last paragraph of the article about the law in UK: Under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, police are allowed to stop anyone passing through a UK port “to determine whether they may be involved or concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. The person who is detained can be held for up to six hours, is legally obliged to answer…
It is a core characteristic of a nation that it is able, if it chooses, to inspect every single person and item entering it.
Even countries with open borders reserve the right, and have often exercised that right, to close their borders and enforce strict customs, immigration, and security laws.
It doesn't matter where. Europe, Asia, Africa, "good" countries, "bad" countries-- if you cross their border you can be compelled to unlock your phone.
If you think you live in a country that cannot do so, you are wrong. The only differentiating characteristic among all nations is the nature of the reaction if you refuse to comply.
What is insane is not really his specific case, but the last paragraph of the article about the law in UK: Under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, police are allowed to stop anyone passing through a UK port “to determine whether they may be involved or concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. The person who is detained can be held for up to six hours, is legally obliged to answer…
Every single country on Earth has these same rules. It is a core characteristic of a nation that it is able, if it chooses, to inspect every single person and item entering it. Even countries with open borders reserve the right, and have often exercised that right, to close their borders and enforce strict customs, immigration, and security laws. It doesn't matter where. Europe, Asia, Africa, "good" countries, "bad"…
> The only differentiating characteristic among all nations is the nature of the reaction if you refuse to comply.
You mean the nature ranging from to going to jail to you wasting a few hours more in the airport?
> if you cross their border you can be compelled to unlock your phone.
Do you have a source for this?
What is insane is not really his specific case, but the last paragraph of the article about the law in UK: Under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, police are allowed to stop anyone passing through a UK port “to determine whether they may be involved or concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. The person who is detained can be held for up to six hours, is legally obliged to answer…
Every single country on Earth has these same rules. It is a core characteristic of a nation that it is able, if it chooses, to inspect every single person and item entering it. Even countries with open borders reserve the right, and have often exercised that right, to close their borders and enforce strict customs, immigration, and security laws. It doesn't matter where. Europe, Asia, Africa, "good" countries, "bad"…