Sentences too harsh!

[Wisbech Eagle]

I see that the SNP have suspended one of their Scottish parliament members for merely saying that he didn't think Israel was committing genocide.

Which they have every right to do, especially if that is their agreed position. All parties do this.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

They would certainly seem to make sense. Who though will deal with them every time they go off or examine those carrying metal objects other than knives, like tools, so they can get to work?

I only saw them in the evening. They only involved 2 or 3 police officers with community support as back up and only appeared sporadically just outside the ticket barriers so passengers were effectively contained. Delays were fairly well accepted since people appreciated the effort being made and they didn't check everyone but teenagers and young men were routinely asked to go through.
The only problem was anyone carrying could turn round and get a tube to the next stop but maybe they had another officer positioned to watch for that.

 

[YT]

"Labour speech curbs show it believes it should decide 'the truth'" by Frank Furedi, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Kent University

It seems the government and its allies in the media and various cultural institutions have declared a war on free speech

Since the outbreak of the recent riots they have enthusiastically embraced the simplistic theory that these conflicts are the outcome of the free flow of communication on social media.

Last Friday Sir Keir Starmer indicated that misinformation laws would be reviewed since social media was "not a law-free zone". It appears the government will try to strengthen the Online Safety Act before it is fully implemented next year. Ministers have indicated that they will look at introducing a duty on social media companies to restrict what they call, euphemistically, "legal but harmful content". What can be termed legal but harmful content is highly subjective and political. The term erodes the distinction between what legally cannot be said and what should not be communicated.

It is important to realise that Labour's' estrangement from the ideal of free speech is not confined to regulating social media. For its censorious activists, terms such as disinformation and fake news serve as a medium for delegitimising the principle of free speech.

One of the first announcements by the new government was from Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, to halt measures designed to protect the freedom of speech in universities, introduced by the Conservatives. The prime minister and Angela Rayner, his deputy, are also considering embracing a controversial expansive definition of Islamophobia. This would inevitably have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech on a wide variety of matters that pertain to Islam.

Why has Labour become so distanced from the ideal of tolerance and free speech? It appears that along with allies in cultural institutions, the party believes views with which it sharply disagrees are legitimate targets of censorship.

Instead of encouraging a climate of debate on controversial matters, it assumes it possesses the moral authority to determine what can be said about them.

Labour takes its mission of controlling public discourse so seriously it wants to socialise children into its version of the truth. Phillipson reacted to the riots by saying she wants schools to teach children how to spot fake news and conspiracy theories. According to her plan, children as young as five will be taught how to identify "misinformation". Yet even highly educated adults struggle to draw a clear distinction between truth and falsehood. It is unlikely that even the most sophisticated pedagogue is up to the task of teaching five-year-olds to spot the difference. Such classes are likely to become an exercise in indoctrinating youngsters.

A government that claims a monopoly on determining what is truth and what isn't is a far greater threat to Britain's public life than the targets of its censorship.

 

[Charles]

I would hope that any decent defence lawyer would be able to convince the Judge that this was a genuine mistake. In fact the CPS may withdraw it, if what’s described is all true. If she did nothing but post a mistake the case should be dismissed. Only if she encouraged violence as a consequence would a custody sentence be appropriate.

I haven’t read what Nick Lowles wrote (there is nothing on their website) but if what is suggested is true, then a simple correction is all that is required. Posting mistakes happen. It’s not the disinformation itself which is illegal. It’s any actions which are incited that are.

Nick Lowles issued an X-tweet reading "Reports are coming in of acid being thrown out of a car window at a Muslim woman in Middlesbrough. Absolutely horrendous" beneath which appears
"Readers added context
The reports of an acid attack in Middlesbrough have been denied by local police."

All this has been retweeted by Nick Lowles beneath the following "Police in Middlesbrough have denied any knowledge of this acid attack, though some in the local Muslim community insist it happened. Hold my hands up if my initial tweet was wrong. Won’t comment further until more information is known"

Cleveland Police have commented including the following:
"Cleveland Police has not, to date, received any formal complaint from any victim or anyone on their behalf.


We did receive limited information from a third party earlier this evening regarding a possible incident in central Middlesbrough,".

I include the last because it appears to show that Nick Lowles' initial tweet was not misinformation; there was indeed a report. I think the earlier poster perhaps relied on an x-tweet by Richard Tice with content very similar to his post or possibly GB News. Cleveland Police have not in fact denied there was an incident but merely stated they have no information which would enable any further investigation and that they cannot confirm reports.

 

[georgenorman]

Nick Lowles issued an X-tweet reading "Reports are coming in of acid being thrown out of a car window at a Muslim woman in Middlesbrough. Absolutely horrendous" beneath which appears
"Readers added context
The reports of an acid attack in Middlesbrough have been denied by local police."

All this has been retweeted by Nick Lowles beneath the following "Police in Middlesbrough have denied any knowledge of this acid attack, though some in the local Muslim community insist it happened. Hold my hands up if my initial tweet was wrong. Won’t comment further until more information is known"

Cleveland Police have commented including the following:
"Cleveland Police has not, to date, received any formal complaint from any victim or anyone on their behalf.


We did receive limited information from a third party earlier this evening regarding a possible incident in central Middlesbrough,".

I include the last because it appears to show that Nick Lowles' initial tweet was not misinformation; there was indeed a report. I think the earlier poster perhaps relied on an x-tweet by Richard Tice with content very similar to his post or possibly GB News. Cleveland Police have not in fact denied there was an incident but merely stated they have no information which would enable any further investigation and that they cannot confirm reports.

Bernadette Spofforth, in her tweet, said "if this is true" there could be trouble. Yet she has been charged whereas far-left Lowles has not.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

I notice there are no such curbs or prosecutions happening in television studios/broadcasters, where misinformation has been put out to the masses, seemingly on a regular basis.

 

[YT]

If you ignore someone do you still get responses to the bilge they pump out in response to others that haven’t (yet) taken such action ?

Just to be unequivocal about this...

I'm ignoring Wisbech, for obvious reasons including that I'm fed up with his trolling. If he posts something and someone then replies to his post, I will be able to see that reply. Above the reply is a box that indicates that the reply is to a message from Wisbech. Should I choose to, I can click a link that's given in order to view the Wisbech message. But obviously I won't be doing that!

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

The Ignore function is very effective. It even ignores the poster if quoted in someone else's post. A masterclass
{The Edit button is also useful}

 

[YT]

I notice there are no such curbs or prosecutions happening in television studios/broadcasters, where misinformation has been put out to the masses, seemingly on a regular basis.

Yes, and this is going to be the way of the world going forward - or rather the way of the nation. As per the commentary I posted above, it will only be certain types of "misinformation" that will be punished by the state whereas other types will be permitted.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

"Labour speech curbs show it believes it should decide 'the truth'" by Frank Furedi, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Kent University

It seems the government and its allies in the media and various cultural institutions have declared a war on free speech

Since the outbreak of the recent riots they have enthusiastically embraced the simplistic theory that these conflicts are the outcome of the free flow of communication on social media.

Last Friday Sir Keir Starmer indicated that misinformation laws would be reviewed since social media was "not a law-free zone". It appears the government will try to strengthen the Online Safety Act before it is fully implemented next year. Ministers have indicated that they will look at introducing a duty on social media companies to restrict what they call, euphemistically, "legal but harmful content". What can be termed legal but harmful content is highly subjective and political. The term erodes the distinction between what legally cannot be said and what should not be communicated.

It is important to realise that Labour's' estrangement from the ideal of free speech is not confined to regulating social media. For its censorious activists, terms such as disinformation and fake news serve as a medium for delegitimising the principle of free speech.

One of the first announcements by the new government was from Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, to halt measures designed to protect the freedom of speech in universities, introduced by the Conservatives. The prime minister and Angela Rayner, his deputy, are also considering embracing a controversial expansive definition of Islamophobia. This would inevitably have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech on a wide variety of matters that pertain to Islam.

Why has Labour become so distanced from the ideal of tolerance and free speech? It appears that along with allies in cultural institutions, the party believes views with which it sharply disagrees are legitimate targets of censorship.

Instead of encouraging a climate of debate on controversial matters, it assumes it possesses the moral authority to determine what can be said about them.

Labour takes its mission of controlling public discourse so seriously it wants to socialise children into its version of the truth. Phillipson reacted to the riots by saying she wants schools to teach children how to spot fake news and conspiracy theories. According to her plan, children as young as five will be taught how to identify "misinformation". Yet even highly educated adults struggle to draw a clear distinction between truth and falsehood. It is unlikely that even the most sophisticated pedagogue is up to the task of teaching five-year-olds to spot the difference. Such classes are likely to become an exercise in indoctrinating youngsters.

A government that claims a monopoly on determining what is truth and what isn't is a far greater threat to Britain's public life than the targets of its censorship.

They have had this all prepared for when there was public outrage and violent response to such an atrocity. They knew it was just a matter of time, and I'm sure they have more contingency plans for a larger rebellion to government policy on immigration.
This is the country we now live in. Obedience and order via subjugation. A taster of things to come.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I only saw them in the evening. They only involved 2 or 3 police officers with community support as back up and only appeared sporadically just outside the ticket barriers so passengers were effectively contained. Delays were fairly well accepted since people appreciated the effort being made and they didn't check everyone but teenagers and young men were routinely asked to go through.
The only problem was anyone carrying could turn round and get a tube to the next stop but maybe they had another officer positioned to watch for that.

So they were checking people coming out of a station? Would have thought it better to do it on the way in! Random unannounced checks like that, at pinch points, with well publicised uncomfortable punishments, like some farm labouring with early starts, would deter some!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I notice there are no such curbs or prosecutions happening in television studios/broadcasters, where misinformation has been put out to the masses, seemingly on a regular basis.

Misinformation is not illegal. Often what is regarded as misinformation is actually just another opinion. Disinformation is the deliberate spreading of misinformation with the intention to deceive, and is potentially more serious.

TV stations in the west are not involved in disinformation. Should they be Ofcom would quickly become involved, whether actually illegal or not.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

The ignore button is working wonderfully. Much better than the other place.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

They have had this all prepared for when there was public outrage and violent response to such an atrocity. They knew it was just a matter of time, and I'm sure they have more contingency plans for a larger rebellion to government policy on immigration.
This is the country we now live in. Obedience and order via subjugation. A taster of things to come.

This obsession with immigration as the source of every problem is thankfully not shared by the majority of our fellow citizens. So there is no need for any concern.

Preparing contingency plans is the duty of every government and these would already be in place. So if anyone is foolish enough to repeat the events of 10 days ago, they will be dealt with. Although seeing the way their foolish friends have been dealt with will restrain most.

Nobody is subjugated at all. You can express yourself freely and protest to the cows come home. So long as you do so peacefully and don’t threaten others or destroy property.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The ignore button is working wonderfully. Much better than the other place.

It is.

No replies from anyone I wouldn’t welcome a reply from.

Uninterrupted point making to those I believe might understand, and even appreciate, them. Some of whom read, but rarely post.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Bernadette Spofforth, in her tweet, said "if this is true" there could be trouble. Yet she has been charged whereas far-left Lowles has not.

That’s the only problem with the ignore button. Things get repeated because explanations are missed.

Unless there is more to her case than is being suggested here I don’t think it will see a court.

Lowles reported what he had heard. He didn’t claim it was true, or encourage violence. He doesn’t have a case to answer.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Nick Lowles issued an X-tweet reading "Reports are coming in of acid being thrown out of a car window at a Muslim woman in Middlesbrough. Absolutely horrendous" beneath which appears
"Readers added context
The reports of an acid attack in Middlesbrough have been denied by local police."

All this has been retweeted by Nick Lowles beneath the following "Police in Middlesbrough have denied any knowledge of this acid attack, though some in the local Muslim community insist it happened. Hold my hands up if my initial tweet was wrong. Won’t comment further until more information is known"

Cleveland Police have commented including the following:
"Cleveland Police has not, to date, received any formal complaint from any victim or anyone on their behalf.


We did receive limited information from a third party earlier this evening regarding a possible incident in central Middlesbrough,".

I include the last because it appears to show that Nick Lowles' initial tweet was not misinformation; there was indeed a report. I think the earlier poster perhaps relied on an x-tweet by Richard Tice with content very similar to his post or possibly GB News. Cleveland Police have not in fact denied there was an incident but merely stated they have no information which would enable any further investigation and that they cannot confirm reports.

What you appear to be suggesting is that because some undisclosed 'third party' mentioned some 'possible incident' that a woman was attacked with acid that this somehow gets Nick Lowles off the hook....?

I would suggest to you that if this incident were indeed true that there would have been a massive outcry from the Islamic community which would have made the kicking in the head airport incident look like a small whinge.

What appears far more likely....as with the 100 planned protests hoax, that this is another hoax planted without evidence to give Lowles wiggle room.

If not, and this actually happened, where is the evidence?

Apologies for incitement haven't worked with other social media posts over this event.....Why should Nick Lowles be afforded special treatment? Because I have to be frank, that's what it looks like.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

So they were checking people coming out of a station? Would have thought it better to do it on the way in! Random unannounced checks like that, at pinch points, with well publicised uncomfortable punishments, like some farm labouring with early starts, would deter some!

I suppose the rationale was that the stabby folk are more active later and doing it then didn't delay anyone getting to work which might have caused problems.
There seemed to be more drug sniffing dogs (looking for, not partaking) in the morning.

 

[Charles]

Bernadette Spofforth, in her tweet, said "if this is true" there could be trouble. Yet she has been charged whereas far-left Lowles has not.

No, she has not yet been charged.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Bernadette Spofforth has thus far spent 36 hours in a police cell for 'misinformation' on the attacker identity, which she had added, 'if this is true'.....the post was up for two hours and was deleted once she realised her mistake and apologised.

Nick Lowles however put out misinformation on an attack on a Muslim women (there is video of an angry Muslim man on the street referring to this attack)....Lowles even stated he didn't know that it was true in his next post.

What has happened to him thus far?.....nothing.

We all know why.

Two tier for state backed operatives.