| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 41:09:49 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,724 |
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-09-25, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Another example along the line of the case of the police checking someonerCOs
thinking.
Lady puts post on social media. Someone finds it offensive, reports it to >>> the police. Officer turns up at ladyrCOs abode, demands she apologises for >>> the offensive post or suffer an interview at the police station.
Lady is made of sterner stuff and is not intimidated by the police officer. >>> Later, she engages an organisation to support her, the case (such as it is) >>> is dropped.
Video of the police encounter, and an explanation of the law, by
BlackBeltBarrister approx 15 min including plug for the Free Speech Union: >>>
<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps7LJYXqOig&pp=ygUSYmxhY2tiZWx0YmFycmlzdGVy> >>>
Whatever lay behind the policerCOs action here? Who authorised this case >>> (sic) to be investigated?
Lady is having treatment for cancer. She is American. Police interview
takes place during TrumprCOs visit to the UK at a time when Starmer is
extolling free speech in the UK.
There's not much to go on here given nobody seems to want to say
what it was that she posted. The claim that the police wouldn't
tell her seems nonsensical given allegedly they were insisting
she apologise to the complainant, which would be impossible to do
without her being told who that was, and their identity would
inevitably give away what post it was.
Speaking from memory, I believe the same thing happened in the rCywe must check your thinkingrCO case of a few months ago, wherein two of the relevant CountyrCOs finest called on a social-media poster to check his thinking but without telling him the specifics of the suggested problem.
On 2025-09-25, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-09-25, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Another example along the line of the case of the police checking someonerCOs
thinking.
Lady puts post on social media. Someone finds it offensive, reports it to >>>> the police. Officer turns up at ladyrCOs abode, demands she apologises for >>>> the offensive post or suffer an interview at the police station.
Lady is made of sterner stuff and is not intimidated by the police officer.
Later, she engages an organisation to support her, the case (such as it is)
is dropped.
Video of the police encounter, and an explanation of the law, by
BlackBeltBarrister approx 15 min including plug for the Free Speech Union: >>>>
<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps7LJYXqOig&pp=ygUSYmxhY2tiZWx0YmFycmlzdGVy>
Whatever lay behind the policerCOs action here? Who authorised this case >>>> (sic) to be investigated?
Lady is having treatment for cancer. She is American. Police interview >>>> takes place during TrumprCOs visit to the UK at a time when Starmer is >>>> extolling free speech in the UK.
There's not much to go on here given nobody seems to want to say
what it was that she posted. The claim that the police wouldn't
tell her seems nonsensical given allegedly they were insisting
she apologise to the complainant, which would be impossible to do
without her being told who that was, and their identity would
inevitably give away what post it was.
Speaking from memory, I believe the same thing happened in the rCywe must
check your thinkingrCO case of a few months ago, wherein two of the relevant >> CountyrCOs finest called on a social-media poster to check his thinking but >> without telling him the specifics of the suggested problem.
There's even less to go on with that detail-free anecdote.
Don't get me wrong, I would be literally the last person to suggest that
the police are flawless and never get things wrong. I'd be much closer to suggesting they be defunded. But I'm not going to leap to conclusions
based on little to no evidence.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-09-25, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-09-25, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Another example along the line of the case of the police checking someonerCOs
thinking.
Lady puts post on social media. Someone finds it offensive, reports it to >>>>> the police. Officer turns up at ladyrCOs abode, demands she apologises for
the offensive post or suffer an interview at the police station.
Lady is made of sterner stuff and is not intimidated by the police officer.
Later, she engages an organisation to support her, the case (such as it is)
is dropped.
Video of the police encounter, and an explanation of the law, by
BlackBeltBarrister approx 15 min including plug for the Free Speech Union:
<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps7LJYXqOig&pp=ygUSYmxhY2tiZWx0YmFycmlzdGVy>
Whatever lay behind the policerCOs action here? Who authorised this case >>>>> (sic) to be investigated?
Lady is having treatment for cancer. She is American. Police interview >>>>> takes place during TrumprCOs visit to the UK at a time when Starmer is >>>>> extolling free speech in the UK.
There's not much to go on here given nobody seems to want to say
what it was that she posted. The claim that the police wouldn't
tell her seems nonsensical given allegedly they were insisting
she apologise to the complainant, which would be impossible to do
without her being told who that was, and their identity would
inevitably give away what post it was.
Speaking from memory, I believe the same thing happened in the rCywe must >>> check your thinkingrCO case of a few months ago, wherein two of the relevant
CountyrCOs finest called on a social-media poster to check his thinking but >>> without telling him the specifics of the suggested problem.
There's even less to go on with that detail-free anecdote.
Don't get me wrong, I would be literally the last person to suggest that
the police are flawless and never get things wrong. I'd be much closer to
suggesting they be defunded. But I'm not going to leap to conclusions
based on little to no evidence.
The case reached the High Court; hererCOs an account of what happened to Harry Miller. It makes the police look even more bumbling and clumsy that
the rCycheck your thinkingrCy remark might suggest.
<https://news.sky.com/story/harry-miller-police-unlawfully-interfered-with-freedom-of-expression-over-transphobic-tweets-11933809>
One short extract:
Quote: "What you need to understand is that you can have a foetus with a female brain that grows male body parts and that's what a transgender
person is."
The officer said he made the remark after having "learned it on a training course".
Mr Miller claimed the officer had also told him: "We need to check your thinking." Unquote
Enjoy, or otherwise.