udderlyoffroad Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 26 minutes ago, Mungler said: I'd hope my other half would do the same if I ended up in a similar situation. Modern day life requires evidence and photos - indeed, these days, if there's no photo, it didn't happen. I have a camera pointed at my front door with the sound record function permanently enabled. Mostly because of a nearby elderly neighbour with mental health issues who is apparently fond of making unfounded allegations to police, but that's beside the point. 31 minutes ago, Rem260 said: For what exactly? Presumably for forcing entry without a warrant or other grounds to do so. Her lawyers have instructed her to not tweet further on the matter so we'll have to wait for any court dates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 44 minutes ago, Rem260 said: For what exactly? false arrest for a start still not over the huge amount they cost arresting local landlord on rumour was a time they found proof of a crime before arresting people but not like they will be the ones paying the compo bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 1 hour ago, Mungler said: Errr it was her husband taking photos on his phone. I'd hope my other half would do the same if I ended up in a similar situation. Modern day life requires evidence and photos - indeed, these days, if there's no photo, it didn't happen. It would be a great idea to do that if you knew that something that may lead to legal issues was about to happen, but this decidedly fishy. Another of her tweets is this; " 'When read my rights and told that what I said could be used in evidence against me, I replied that women don't have an [aubergine emoji - often used online to refer to a penis]." 🐟🐡🐠 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 13 minutes ago, henry d said: but this decidedly fishy. You can invoke the no smoke without fire argument all you wish. I, along with most of humanity, do not consider hurty words on social media to be a police matter, ever. The college of policing, who write these 'hate crime' guidelines, are totally out of control. They have been instructed by a judge rewrite their guidance, but seemingly the message has yet to register with Surrey Police. These are not isolated cases, there are literally thousands of arrest every year for this sort of nonsense. One of the few tools the public has against these, let's call them police officers, is recording and publishing as much of their interactions as possible. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rem260 Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 50 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: I have a camera pointed at my front door with the sound record function permanently enabled. Mostly because of a nearby elderly neighbour with mental health issues who is apparently fond of making unfounded allegations to police, but that's beside the point. Presumably for forcing entry without a warrant or other grounds to do so. Her lawyers have instructed her to not tweet further on the matter so we'll have to wait for any court dates. 40 minutes ago, clangerman said: false arrest for a start still not over the huge amount they cost arresting local landlord on rumour was a time they found proof of a crime before arresting people but not like they will be the ones paying the compo bill Have Surrey published the grounds for her arrest. Or are you just going by what she tweeted. Contrary to popular belief its not the police who make these stupid laws. They do not get to pick and choose which they enforce. They do not need a warrant to arrest someone or enter their property in order to do so. But then again don't let the facts spoil your political beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Rem260 said: Contrary to popular belief its not the police who make these stupid laws. Incorrect. As stated, the college of policing have written these guidelines giving their somewhat unhinged(personal opinion) interpretation of the law. They have been told, more than once, by a judge, that this Interpretation is outwith the law. They have yet to revise their guidance and/or Surrey Police haven't implemented the revised guidance. These are facts. But then again don't let the facts spoil your political beliefs. More broadly, if you seriously think hurty words on social media should be a police matter at all, then I should probably block you immediately lest you report me for your hurt feelings in any future posts. I'll just have to take a risk that I haven't upset you in previous posts. 26 minutes ago, Rem260 said: They do not need a warrant to arrest someone or enter their property in order to do so. But then again don't let the facts spoil your political beliefs. Eh? You even highlighted in bold: Forcing entry without a warrant or or other grounds to do so. Yes, they don't need a warrant to arrest you; but they are only able to force entry under certain circumstances. I'm not an expert on PACE, but I suspect her lawyers will be going over it any other applicable legislation or case law with comb of the fine toothed variety. Edited October 5, 2022 by udderlyoffroad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonepark Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 Her Barrister has spoken up on twitter now, it appears to be the police being used by a "Trans" activist (loonie) to intimidate and harass her https://twitter.com/AdrianYalland/status/1577441999191408641?t=b-KzNlxIakdE7xq1GaC04w&s=19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 4 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: More broadly, if you seriously think hurty words on social media should be a police matter at all, then I should probably block you immediately lest you report me for your hurt feelings in any future posts. I'll just have to take a risk that I haven't upset you in previous posts. Theres a man doing 5 1/2 years for hurty words on tinternet ATM , and theres plenty on here who think he deserved it. It goes all the way back to that question of offending people, there was a time when getting offended was a part of life, now days , in this snowflake generation, you need to be very careful what you say. Stand up comedians are on very dodgy ground, and dont forget , it wasnt that long ago when Scotland was going to pass laws limiting what you could verbally say in your own home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 59 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: I, along with most of humanity, do not consider hurty words on social media to be a police matter, ever. Do you have (grand) kids? Do you know what is being said about them and how it affects them, or what they say about others? ...along with most of humanity... A bold statement, care to clarify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 Quote Theres a man doing 5 1/2 years for hurty words on tinternet ATM He did a whole lot more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 2 minutes ago, Gordon R said: He did a whole lot more than that. Like ? There was no physical confrontation, all his stalking was conducted via social media and email. Even BBCs own security said there was no cause for alarm, and risk was negligible . Im not saying for one moment he did nothing wrong, he was pretty relentless, and his personality obsessive, but if he had personally battered Mr Vine half to death , he would probably got less. And Im not even joking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 12 minutes ago, Rewulf said: Theres a man doing 5 1/2 years for hurty words on tinternet ATM , and theres plenty on here who think he deserved it. I think invoking Alex Belfield clouds the argument here. There's a separate discussion to be had about whether or not you agree his actions amounted to 'simple stalking', but I don't think it's particularly a free-speech/police over-reach discussion. The fact that plenty of people on this forum seemingly think "He/She must be guilty, he's been accused of something" is depressing, but reflective of reality. 16 minutes ago, Rewulf said: It goes all the way back to that question of offending people, there was a time when getting offended was a part of life, now days , in this snowflake generation, you need to be very careful what you say. I do wonder if the problem is more with Gen X/Millennials who have made it to senior and middle management and are breathlessly reinforcing this kind of culture for fear of their own careers. The so-called snowflake generation are barely in the workplace... 17 minutes ago, Rewulf said: Stand up comedians are on very dodgy ground, and dont forget , it wasnt that long ago when Scotland was going to pass laws limiting what you could verbally say in your own home. I previously started a thread where I suggested comedians could be licenced, but a lot of people missed the point: Those who want no-offence comedy can watch licenced comedians. There would be sanctions for offensive jokes. Those happy to live on the edge, however, could watch unlicensed comedians. Since that thread, the private sector has apparently stepped in, with some venues making their USP "If you're offended, it's your problem" type nights. Hopefully Surrey Police don't hear about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rem260 Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 (edited) 42 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: Incorrect. As stated, the college of policing have written these guidelines giving their somewhat unhinged(personal opinion) interpretation of the law. They have been told, more than once, by a judge, that this Interpretation is outwith the law. Can you provide the case precedent that rules what the police did in this case was unlawful? Plus guidelines are not law. They have yet to revise their guidance and/or Surrey Police haven't implemented the revised guidance. These are facts. But then again don't let the facts spoil your political beliefs. More broadly, if you seriously think hurty words on social media should be a police matter at all, then I should probably block you immediately lest you report me for your hurt feelings in any future posts. I'll just have to take a risk that I haven't upset you in previous posts. I am not hurt by hurty words and think these laws are ridiculous but they are laws nether the less. Eh? You even highlighted in bold: Forcing entry without a warrant or or other grounds to do so. Yes, they don't need a warrant to arrest you; but they are only able to force entry under certain circumstances. I'm not an expert on PACE, but I suspect her lawyers will be going over it any other applicable legislation or case law with comb of the fine toothed variety. We are talking about this case and based on her own tweets she refused entry and they had the power to force entry and arrest her. Had the police been acting unlawfully I am sure her solicitor would have pointed this out to her and more so the custody Sgt. However she makes no mention of this and the interview went a head. I suppose you also think that those who destroyed the Colston statue had every right to do so and the police overstepped their remit. Edited October 5, 2022 by Rem260 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 3 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: I think invoking Alex Belfield clouds the argument here. There's a separate discussion to be had about whether or not you agree his actions amounted to 'simple stalking', but I don't think it's particularly a free-speech/police over-reach discussion. The fact that plenty of people on this forum seemingly think "He/She must be guilty, he's been accused of something" is depressing, but reflective of reality. Point taken , but Belfield took it upon himself to champion free speech, whilst pursuing his own claims about what he believed to be his poor treatment by the police. Many believe his 'cause' and its effects , are reflected in his sentencing... 5 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: I previously started a thread where I suggested comedians could be licenced, but a lot of people missed the point: Those who want no-offence comedy can watch licenced comedians. There would be sanctions for offensive jokes. Those happy to live on the edge, however, could watch unlicensed comedians. Since that thread, the private sector has apparently stepped in, with some venues making their USP "If you're offended, it's your problem" type nights. Hopefully Surrey Police don't hear about it... Most jokes , particularly stand up routines , usually poke fun at someone, or something. Imagine the palpitations modern audiences would have at the stand up routines of 70s and 80s comedic acts, causing offence was funny, and 99 % of the time , taken in good heart. Making some routines 'safe' , and others 'weapons free' would be a rather sad state of affairs, I would think audiences would do some research on what they are going to see, and the possible offence likely to be caused, before they go ! Some still seem to forget there is an off button , or other channels , before they make their complaints to OFCOM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 Quote Like ?There was no physical confrontation, all his stalking was conducted via social media and email. Quote Theres a man doing 5 1/2 years for hurty words on tinternet ATM Spot the difference and the reason why he is doing 5 1/2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said: You can invoke the no smoke without fire argument all you wish. I, along with most of humanity, do not consider hurty words on social media to be a police matter, ever. The college of policing, who write these 'hate crime' guidelines, are totally out of control. They have been instructed by a judge rewrite their guidance, but seemingly the message has yet to register with Surrey Police. These are not isolated cases, there are literally thousands of arrest every year for this sort of nonsense. One of the few tools the public has against these, let's call them police officers, is recording and publishing as much of their interactions as possible. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as they say. Also an easy way to collect more DNA samples for the state database? (Never to be removed?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 13 minutes ago, Gordon R said: Spot the difference and the reason why he is doing 5 1/2 years. OK , I can see where you define a distinction , but in my view , using social media , or email , is hurty words on the internet. Give me an idea of what he would have got , if he had punched each one of his victims in the face a couple of times ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 3 minutes ago, old man said: Also an easy way to collect more DNA samples for the state database? (Never to be removed?) Not quite right especially the state bit, I didn't think it was so checked. "You have to write to your local police (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) or local police (Scotland) to have your personal information removed from the police database. They’ll only do this if an offence no longer exists or if anything in the police process (eg how you were arrested or detained) was unlawful." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Rewulf said: Most jokes , particularly stand up routines , usually poke fun at someone, or something. Indeed, people will insist on talking about 'punching up rather than down' - how exactly is a multimillionaire successful comedian meant to do anything other than 'punch down', if they've made it to the top of the pile. 36 minutes ago, Rem260 said: Can you provide the case precedent that rules what the police did in this case was unlawful? Plus guidelines are not law. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Police are dependent on guidelines to work to as the law as it is written, can be rather hard or impractical to interpret out in the field. The guidelines written by the COP have been found to be wildly overzealous (my terms) and they've been told by a judge that front-line officers should have revised guidelines. This apparently has yet to happen in Surrey. 36 minutes ago, Rem260 said: I am not hurt by hurty words and think these laws are ridiculous but they are laws nether the less. That is quite the amusing Freudian slip, but the 'law is an ***' argument is no argument. It is not law, but guidance they're acting on, and a scandalous waste of resources. The police actively do make decisions every day about which laws to enforce, they have to, as they do not have limitless resources. 8 minutes ago, old man said: Also an easy way to collect more DNA samples for the state database? I'd suggest that ship has long since sailed. Free speech is still worth fighting for however. Edited October 5, 2022 by udderlyoffroad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 4 minutes ago, henry d said: Not quite right especially the state bit, I didn't think it was so checked. "You have to write to your local police (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) or local police (Scotland) to have your personal information removed from the police database. They’ll only do this if an offence no longer exists or if anything in the police process (eg how you were arrested or detained) was unlawful." Mm, I would suspect if the Police have it so does the State? You may have more faith in the system than some? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 Just now, old man said: Mm, I would suspect if the Police have it so does the State? You may have more faith in the system than some? Go on then, why would "the state/system" want someone's DNA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpowder Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 Never mind chaps heard on the radio this morning that police in England will now investigate every reported domestic burglary. Sleep tight. Blackpowder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rem260 Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 1 minute ago, henry d said: Go on then, why would "the state/system" want someone's DNA? So that when theres a anti establishment rally. They can collect all the fag butt's and drinks cans and see who was there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 Quote OK , I can see where you define a distinction , but in my view , using social media , or email , is hurty words on the internet.Give me an idea of what he would have got , if he had punched each one of his victims in the face a couple of times ? More than 5 1/2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted October 5, 2022 Report Share Posted October 5, 2022 8 minutes ago, henry d said: Go on then, why would "the state/system" want someone's DNA? because knowledge is power the data base gives them even greater control over us if they didn’t have enough already not like it will ever have public access to many women have lied who the father is for that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.