• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PC Madness in UK?

Westphalian said:
The issues here are about when freedom of expression is illegal, about when causing offence to someone justifies arresting someone else.
Click to expand...
Oh, go away with your crocodile tears over freedom of expression in a country you clearly know nothing at all about.

If you turned to your own doorstep of Kremlin suppression, you'd spend the rest of your days sweeping.
These are important questions which are rightly being asked.
Click to expand...
I already asked the most important question in post #9, but I'll gladly repeat it:

.....................why having started out with a :failpail:, do then follow up with yet another :failpail:

???
 
Amelia said:
You think the police did this without evidence of her targeting Stephanie Hayden?
Click to expand...

Yes. According to reports Scottow and Hauden had never met, merely exchanged tweets.
 
TheParser said:
Americans who are planning to visit England should know that its government is much more politically correct than ours (so far).

I believe that some of the comments allowed on this forum, for example, would not be allowed on the Internet in England.

Be very careful.

Hopefully, some Brits can elaborate on this topic.



P.S. The OP's source is London's Daily Mail online edition. It regularly carries news about the States that most American newspapers will not report.
Click to expand...

Boris Johnson, former Mayor of London had a piece about this case in the Spectator, making the point that sending three police officers to arrest someone for an imaginary crime was grotesque.
 
Last edited:
Amelia said:
You think the police did this without evidence of her targeting Stephanie Hayden?
Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on what you consider to be "targeting". According to the article the problems involved online "harassment" in the form of referring to the individual, intentionally, with their non-preferred gender pronoun. I mean, I can understand how someone might be upset by that but I fail to see how it warrants arrest, confiscation of personal electronic communications devices and detention for "several hours".
 
Amelia said:
You think the police did this without evidence of her targeting Stephanie Hayden?
Click to expand...

Do you believe that it is an appropriate use of judicial resources for people to be arrested, tried and perhaps imprisoned for "deadnaming" transgendered individuals, Amelia? Would you advocate for such laws in the United States?

Because here is my thought: Unless this woman doxxed the transgendered individual in question, I think the appropriate response to online harassment is to be banned from the social network where the harassment took place. If Twitter wants to ban her, perfectly fine.

EDIT: And if she did indeed defame the transgendered woman in question, the appropriate course of action is for the transgendered woman to file a civil suit against her and seek monetary damages.
 
Last edited:
What's up with this recent obsession in the UK from a our resident Russian trolls? It's almost like they feel like they have something to be defensive over?
 
Lutherf said:
I suppose that depends on what you consider to be "targeting". According to the article the problems involved online "harassment" in the form of referring to the individual, intentionally, with their non-preferred gender pronoun. I mean, I can understand how someone might be upset by that but I fail to see how it warrants arrest, confiscation of personal electronic communications devices and detention for "several hours".
Click to expand...

Try again. According to the article there was more involved than just referring to her with her non-preferred gender pronoun.

That of course is the convenient part of the charges to focus on if you want to act like there was nothing worth complaining about. But the article said much more than that was involved in the allegations. Did you read the article or not? If you did, then why act like all the accused did was to use the wrong pronoun? If you don't think the REST of what the accused is alleged to have done was worth prosecuting, say that. But don't pretend that it's all about using the wrong pronoun.

The papers claim that, as a 'toxic' debate raged online over plans to allow people to 'self-ID' as another gender, Mrs Scottow tweeted 'defamatory' messages about Miss Hayden.

She is also alleged to have used accounts in two names to 'harass, defame, and publish derogatory and defamatory tweets' about Miss Hayden, including referring to her as male, stating she was 'racist, xenophobic and a crook' and mocking her as a 'fake lawyer'.
Click to expand...
 
Higgins86 said:
What's up with this recent obsession in the UK from a our resident Russian trolls? It's almost like they feel like they have something to be defensive over?
Click to expand...

The European forum is ruined because of it, IMO.
 
Amelia said:
Try again. According to the article there was more involved than just referring to her with her non-preferred gender pronoun.

That of course is the convenient part of the charges to focus on if you want to act like there was nothing worth complaining about. But the article said much more than that was involved in the allegations. Did you read the article or not? If you did, then why act like all the accused did was to use the wrong pronoun? If you don't think the REST of what the accused is alleged to have done was worth prosecuting, say that. But don't pretend that it's all about using the wrong pronoun.
Click to expand...

Um...all that amounts to "someone on the internet called me names". I mean, do you really think that should warrant criminal charges or even arrest on suspicion of criminal activity? There has to be a level of damages for an act to be criminal and "it hurt my feelings" really shouldn't be considered "damaging". That would ESPECIALLY be the case in situations where the victim could easily and readily disengage from the harassment.
 
Higgins86 said:
What's up with this recent obsession in the UK from a our resident Russian trolls?
Click to expand...

You had to know they were coming to DP. They're present at all social media/board sites.
 
Lutherf said:
Um...all that amounts to "someone on the internet called me names". I mean, do you really think that should warrant criminal charges or even arrest on suspicion of criminal activity? There has to be a level of damages for an act to be criminal and "it hurt my feelings" really shouldn't be considered "damaging". That would ESPECIALLY be the case in situations where the victim could easily and readily disengage from the harassment.
Click to expand...


You are moving the goal posts. It's nice to see you acknowledge there is more to it than you originally claimed, but there's still more alleged than merely namecalling. Making two accounts to harass someone is more than mere namecalling.

You obviously don't want to talk about the actual allegations in a serious way so why are you wasting your time and mine?

^^ rhetorical question ... I doubt your answer would be substantive or humorous or creative enough to make me want to reply again ...
 
HonestJoe said:
People really need to read tabloid trash stories more carefully (and preferably click through to the primary sources) before reacting to them. In a single line, you repeated one lie and invented one of your own.

First, he was arrested but immediately released on street bail (all the articles are conveniently silent on exactly why he was arrested at that point). He wasn’t even taken to a police station, let alone “jailed” (see the BBC link in your source). I hope that was just an error on your part but even if that was the case, it just goes to show that you need to make sure you fully understand a situation before jumping to conclusions.

Secondly, though he says they were merely performing the song (which could be entirely true) he was actually accused of racial abuse and it was that which was the basis of the arrest. It could well have been a false accusation or he could not be telling the entire story but it is not fair to say the police arrested him just for performing the song. The police can only act on the information they receive and indeed, arresting a suspect is a legitimate part of gathering more information.
Click to expand...

Arrested - Jailed....who gives a ****.

Same same in my book. You still are going to see the judge.

It's a shame when the last good man in the UK was Margaret Thatcher.
 
Westphalian said:
Mother is arrested in front of her children after calling a transgender woman a man | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

Westphalian:

The Malicious Communications Act has been a threat to free speech in the UK since 1988 when it was first passed and given Royal assent. IIRC a guy in the UK who said publicly that a competitive diver had disappointed his own dad by losing a competition was done using this law around 2010-12. By the wording of the law every cease and desist letter sent by a lawyer could be construed using this law to be a crime. Hey, maybe it's not such a bad law after all. ;)

Three of the things Ms. Scottow was reported to have said online were just matters of opinion and the last one could have been handled by libel law. If one holds the conviction that while people can self-identify as whatever they choose to be, it does not follow that such people can compel others to agree with them, nor have the state compel the agreement then this is bad, bad application of a bad law. If Ms. Scottow embarked upon a campaign of harassment then do her for harassment and if she libelled the plaintiff then have her done on either civil or criminal libel. But prosecuting people for refusing to acquiesce to the identity demands of others is absurd and an abuse of the legal system and the legislative responsibility.

The way the arrest was handled is a matter for concern and I hope the Hertfordshire constabulary explains publicly why the acted the way they did in this case. If they had good reasons for what seems on the surface to be a very heavy-handed approach for dealing with a very rude and very determined woman being insulting online, then let them justify their actions to the UK public. The coppers might have had good reasons for doing what they did, so let's hear that reasoning in the very near future.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSN said:
Arrested - Jailed....who gives a ****.

Same same in my book. You still are going to see the judge.
Click to expand...
Until you understand the difference between being arrested and jailed, you probably shouldn’t be commenting on criminal justice issues. You’re also entirely wrong that either automatically means the suspect will go before a judge. Most arrests, even if the suspect is taken in the custody at that point, will be resolved by the police alone. A case will only actually go to court if they’re going to be charged (or circumstances like the police seeking permission to hold a suspect longer than the default limit).
 
Evilroddy said:
The Malicious Communications Act has been a threat to free speech in the UK since 1988 when it was first passed and given Royal assent. IIRC a guy in the UK who said publicly that a competitive diver had disappointed his own dad by losing a competition was done using this law around 2010-12. By the wording of the law every cease and desist letter sent by a lawyer could be construed using this law to be a crime. Hey, maybe it's not such a bad law after all. ;)
Click to expand...
The Act isn’t a threat to free speech. A few people moan about it (but then someone moans about pretty much any law and just as many people would moan if it was amended or repealed). There’s no actual evidence of a threat to free speech in the context that free speech is commonly recognised in the UK. I also suspect that individual opinions would shift significantly if people become targets of “free speech” themselves.

Relying on our own memories of previous cases is a bad habit, especially when that is inevitably memories of the tabloid headlines rather than the facts. In the case involving diver Tom Daley, the post you mention wasn’t the only one he sent and he only ended up receiving a formal warning; Teenager issued with harassment warning over tweets sent to Tom Daley | Sport | The Guardian

The is no way, in principle or in practice, that standard cease and desist letters could fall foul of this law. That kind of lie has no place in serious discussion (even in jest) and does you no credit. As has been demonstrated several times in this very thread, there are already far too many people ignorant of some basic legal concepts and principles for you to go misleading and confusing them further. That kind of public ignorance can even lead to actual bad laws being proposed and enacted.
 
TheParser said:
Americans who are planning to visit England should know that its government is much more politically correct than ours (so far).

I believe that some of the comments allowed on this forum, for example, would not be allowed on the Internet in England.

Be very careful.

Hopefully, some Brits can elaborate on this topic.



P.S. The OP's source is London's Daily Mail online edition. It regularly carries news about the States that most American newspapers will not report.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I'm British and I haven't seen anything on here that would be deemed illegal - anything that bad would be deleted by mods anyway.

There's an infamous journalist in the UK called Katie Hopkins who publicly called for a 'final solution' for Muslims. She wasn't even arrested despite some people making a complaint to the police saying it was incitement to violence. The police said there was no grounds for her arrest. So there you have it - a famous person publicly hints that Muslims should be exterminated, and the police say not illegal.
 
What's that old saying..."Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can get me arrested."?
 
Westphalian said:
The issues here are about when freedom of expression (to offend someone else) is illegal, about when causing offence to someone justifies arresting someone else.
Click to expand...

corrected your sentence to show your real opinion. And yes, I think that has nothing to do with freedom and should be punished.

I like the sentence "personal freedom ends where the personal freedom of another guy begins"
 
For reference and the perusal of posters here:

The Malicious Communications Act of 1988:

Malicious Communications Act 1988

Bad law in my layman's opinion. A serious and dangerous chill on the right/freedom of free speech which is unnecessary given other already existing and established laws on the books in the UK. The offence refers to the sending, delivering or transmitting of offensive or harassing communications, there is no requirement for the communication to reach (or be seen by) the person who is intended to receive it. How can a communication cause distress and anxiety to a person who is unaware of its existence?

Cheers.
Evilroddy
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
~ How can a communication cause distress and anxiety to a person who is unaware of its existence? ~
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity - if a communication to go kill a specific named person is broadcast but that person is unaware of the message what is your position then?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Out of curiosity - if a communication to go kill a specific named person is broadcast but that person is unaware of the message what is your position then?
Click to expand...

Infinite Chaos:

Under UK law it is already to illegal to threaten murder or bodily harm. Threatening murder falls under the Offences Against the Body Act of 1861, section 16. Lesser threats are covered in the Public Order Act of 1986. The penalties for such murderous utterances are far higher than those in MCA of 1988. Again the law looks at the making of the threat and not the receiving of the threat and so your scenario is covered.

Why I object to the MCA of 1988 is that it claims that a person who utters objectionable language is guilty of distressing and causing anxiety in a person even if that person is not distressed or anxious because they are unaware of the uttered objectionable material. So you say something objectionable about me to your friend on Facebook, are reported by an enemy of yours to authorities and I remain blissfully unaware of this. However the state prosecutes you under the MCA of 1988 without regard to whether I'm offended, distressed or anxious (the whole justification for the offence.

Bad law.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom