Jump to content

Lawrence Fox


Rewulf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Another person whos manner I dont particularly like , but can often speak a lot of sense is Mr Fox.

Sacked by GB news for a comment about a female journo, he has had his house raided this morning about comments he made about ULEZ cameras.

Basically he made a podcast where he urged the people of London to 'tear down' said cameras, and that he would be joining them to do so.
He has been arrested and charged (I assume) with conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

Beware what youre posting on social media folks, because its a lot easier for the Met police to trawl social media looking for crimes like this , than tackle Londons out of control knife crime, burglary and street robbery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Another person whos manner I dont particularly like , but can often speak a lot of sense is Mr Fox.

Sacked by GB news for a comment about a female journo, he has had his house raided this morning about comments he made about ULEZ cameras.

Basically he made a podcast where he urged the people of London to 'tear down' said cameras, and that he would be joining them to do so.
He has been arrested and charged (I assume) with conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

Beware what youre posting on social media folks, because its a lot easier for the Met police to trawl social media looking for crimes like this , than tackle Londons out of control knife crime, burglary and street robbery.

So chris Packham will be next eh ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Another person whos manner I dont particularly like , but can often speak a lot of sense is Mr Fox.

Yes, not listened to an awful lot he's said but I find myself agreeing with him.

 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Basically he made a podcast where he urged the people of London to 'tear down' said cameras, and that he would be joining them to do so.
He has been arrested and charged (I assume) with conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

Trouble is, they are tearing them down, and whether you agree with them or not, it is criminal damage and he's inciting it.

I'd rather not live in a lawless society (well, any more than it is now).

9 minutes ago, Weihrauch17 said:

And the Extinction lot caught red handed causing criminal damage were acquitted by a Jury the other week despite the judge instructing them not to.

I wonder if Mr Fox went to trial with a jury of Londoners he'd be acquitted too?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, whatever you think of Mr Fox, what is happening is what will be coming in for ordinary people -go against Climate change you will be arrested. Don’t have enough insulation, down you go for 12 months. Say something in jest on social media and it will be bend over Sir!!

we live in dangerous times where the forces and agencies that we pay for are at war against us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Wymondley said:

I'd rather not live in a lawless society (well, any more than it is now)

I understand conspiracy charges, but saying stuff on the interweb is drifting into the grey area of a credible charge IMHO. 

There have been plenty of instances lately of 'incitement' which have not attracted an inkling of police attention, yet here we have a full scale house search and investigation for an I'll advised comment? 

I'll be following this story closely, as it seems to be another attempt to stifle free speech and protest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I understand conspiracy charges, but saying stuff on the interweb is drifting into the grey area of a credible charge IMHO. 

There have been plenty of instances lately of 'incitement' which have not attracted an inkling of police attention, yet here we have a full scale house search and investigation for an I'll advised comment? 

I'll be following this story closely, as it seems to be another attempt to stifle free speech and protest. 

That was raised on Julia Hartley Brewer before - and a lot of them are BBC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I understand conspiracy charges, but saying stuff on the interweb is drifting into the grey area of a credible charge IMHO. 

I agree, but there is a distinction between saying things that offend, criticise or are clearly fancifull, and encouraging people to participate in a criminal activity that's already taking place.

Whilst I'm sure the police have far more important issues to deal with than what an actor said on the internet (like maybe catching those responsible for the damage) I can see (sort of) why they chose to investigate.

The fact they probably went over the top about it is par for the course with plod, a "quiet word the ear" went out the window long ago.

It has however given him, and the cause, some publicity and that may well have been the intention.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, discobob said:

Again, whatever you think of Mr Fox, what is happening is what will be coming in for ordinary people -go against Climate change you will be arrested. Don’t have enough insulation, down you go for 12 months. Say something in jest on social media and it will be bend over Sir!!

we live in dangerous times where the forces and agencies that we pay for are at war against us

Yep  destroyed from within?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no lawyer but I'd of thought it could be argued the implementation of ulez is it's self illegal. It's a deeply unpopular policy that is being rejected by the people. The Ulez scheme can hardly claim to have public backing or legitimatcey, how can the police claim to be policing by consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm no lawyer but I'd of thought it could be argued the implementation of ulez is it's self illegal.

I ain't a lawyer either, but I doubt that's grounds for defence against a charge of conspiracy to commit criminal damage.  Mitigation, perhaps.

Obvious caveat that I think the guy can be a bit odious.  And he definitely should've clarified that he was responding in kind (read; lowering himself to her level) when he said he wouldn't **** Ava Wosshername - she'd posted the inverse numerous times on her social media.  But he's hardly Oswald Mosley either.

The silver lining to this cloud, however, is the amount of people asking questions on social media (I know, not real life) of Hampshire constabulary, as to why they hadn't yet invited Packham down the station for a chat with no tea and biscuits.  He after all, made a whole programme on the breaking of the law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/10/2023 at 18:36, Wymondley said:

Yes, not listened to an awful lot he's said but I find myself agreeing with him.

 

Trouble is, they are tearing them down, and whether you agree with them or not, it is criminal damage and he's inciting it.

I'd rather not live in a lawless society (well, any more than it is now).

I wonder if Mr Fox went to trial with a jury of Londoners he'd be acquitted too?

 

Id rather not live in a lawless society either but we are over monitored, over regulated and under enforced with little proportionality in a lot of sentencing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I ain't a lawyer either, but I doubt that's grounds for defence against a charge of conspiracy to commit criminal damage.  Mitigation, perhaps.

Obvious caveat that I think the guy can be a bit odious.  And he definitely should've clarified that he was responding in kind (read; lowering himself to her level) when he said he wouldn't **** Ava Wosshername - she'd posted the inverse numerous times on her social media.  But he's hardly Oswald Mosley either.

The silver lining to this cloud, however, is the amount of people asking questions on social media (I know, not real life) of Hampshire constabulary, as to why they hadn't yet invited Packham down the station for a chat with no tea and biscuits.  He after all, made a whole programme on the breaking of the law

All very good points. I think this is a much wider problem, with the police choosing to police some matters more firmly depending on what side of a political topic it's on.

I'd love to see packhams collar felt for his comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...