A total of 625 arrests were made for alleged section 127 offences in 2010 – a number which had ballooned to 857 by 2015.
During the years 2010-2015 2,130 people were arrested between 2010 and 2015 for “sending by public communication network an offensive / indecent / obscene / menacing message / matter” – which is a criminal offence under section 127.
Thanks for bringing this up. That is a very concerning trend. Still not quite Mao level, but it certainly is starting to look a lot more like totalitarianism.
> A total of 625 arrests were made for alleged section 127 offences in 2010 – a number which had ballooned to 857 by 2015.
There's a very low bar to being arrested in England. The arrest rate isn't important, it's the conviction rate that you need to be presenting. Also, the law is developing (because that's how a system with case law works) so you need to be showing what's happening now, not ten years ago.
That last link isn't a great example. She engaged in a long running campaign of harassment, using two twitter accounts to harass and defame someone, including leaking financial and medical information. There's a reason the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source for wikipedia. These conversations always seem to place the right of some cunt to behave like an utter cunt above the rights of all the people who have to interact with that person to be protected from protracted campaigns of harassment. The UK and EU sees protecting the rights of others, protecting them from harassment and defamation, to be a legitimate aim.
What used to be called Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction nowadays increasingly attach at the point of arrest (and even more so at the point of charging, even if an acquittal is the outcome of the trial) because of publicity (names end up in the press often when people are arrested and then are available on Google forever) and the fact that they'll be listed on enhanced criminal records checks (needed for entry to certain occupations like teaching or in many cases financial services).
> The arrest rate isn't important, it's the conviction rate that you need to be presenting.
Being publicly arrested and held against your will, even for only 24 hours, is still a very significant punishment. If charges are filed and then later dropped, they can hold you longer or require you to post bail. It can cause you to miss work, especially if you can't make bail. Frivolous arrests are definitely a form of punishment without trial.
Hate speech is illegal in the UK. This means you can report social media posts and the police will knock on the poster's door (I guess if they can figure out who it is) and "investigate".
If you clicked the link, why quote it out of context?
> In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing. Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it #HateHurtsSY
In addition to reporting hate crime...
Anyway, it's quite easy to verify that hate speech is illegal in the UK. Plenty of people have been prosecuted for it.
I don't understand the confusion here. The quote clearly distinguishes between crime and non crime actions yet still encourages people to report non-crimes to the police. This is unacceptable thought-crime type stuff.
"Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire" is also a disturbing sentence because hate is a totally normal, and healthy emotion to have. I hate the taste of parsley. I hate racists. I hate being caught in the rain with a flat tire, but more of all I hate the idea that the police would do these kinds of things.
Let me re-introduce you to China and Russia