Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[JimUk1]

Not familiar with his content, but this looks like a fishing expedition from the rozzers.
If there was anything illegal they'd have felt his collar.

The police have already lost at the Supreme Court regarding what you can write on social media (unless it’s terrorism related)

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... dgment.pdf

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The police have already lost at the Supreme Court regarding what you can write on social media (unless it’s terrorism related)

I'm sure there are more learned person here, but the crucial statement is:

Given the common ground that at no stage did anyone (apart from Mrs B) think that the
Claimant had committed a crime...

Even after that judgement criminal hate speech on social media not related to terrorism will still be able to constitute criminal hate speech. It seems the verdict is more a "don't be so ****ing stupid" message to the police.

[CrankyBoomer]

Not directly related to the posts immediately preceding this one, but I suppose people saw the 'protest' in Trafalgar Square yesterday (London) which was something like crossover between FMOTL/conspiracy lunacy/grifters corner. Honestly, there were videos by Jon Wedger and Anna Brees and David Icke spoke there. I think it was a mish-mash of FMOTL, saving the children from the satanic cabal, whinging about wearing a mask (or add conspiracy theory of your choice). I don't doubt that some of the people who were caught up in the swim of things were probably good hearted. There may have been some campaigners who were there to support veterans (as in ex-armed services) and I might have some sympathy there because veterans are sometimes treated ill. Conspiracy theories are not the main focus of Quatloos I realise but the taking of money by some of these people on the pretext that they are going to help the disadvantaged is a con (in my humble opinion at last).

I looked at the Canada thread and someone had mentioned (sorry I have a memory like a sieve so can't think who it was off the top of my head) a video by Leonard French. I have watched some of Mr French's videos but not for a couple of months so this may be an appropriate time to play catch-up.

[CrankyBoomer]

Not familiar with his content, but this looks like a fishing expedition from the rozzers.
If there was anything illegal they'd have felt his collar.

The police have already lost at the Supreme Court regarding what you can write on social media (unless it’s terrorism related)

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... dgment.pdf

JimUK, I remember that case but I've never read the transcript (well I have read some of it now you've linked it but it will take more than a cursory glance on my part to let the salient points sink into my brain). I thought the person who complained was rather silly at the time - after all part of growing up is to learn to deal with the fact that other people don't always say things to your liking. (I'm not talking about defamation and lying - that's beyond the pale). Not saying Mr M's comments weren't somewhat crass.

[longdog]

Reading, or at least skimming through it, it looks like nothing really out of the ordinary. A cop with a poor grasp of the law tries to "wrap up the case" and goes about it in such a cack-handed way his actions became unlawful. What I don't get is why the police even bothered fighting the case. They didn't have a leg to stand on.

On half a dozen occasions I've had cops tell me I was doing something criminal, not because I had, but because the cop thought there was a law against doing something when there wasn't. I was doing the thing... It was the bit about it being illegal they got wrong.

I don't expect the wallopers to know the exact details of the law on everything but I do expect them to not make up offences or threaten to arrest people without being absolutely sure the thing is an offence. I find an attitude of "I suggest you take legal advice before you get yourself into trouble by arresting me" usually works but not always. I've never thought of suing over it. I'm content with the knowledge that the cop has made a fool of themselves and is probably going to get shouted at by somebody with their own office and a smartly pressed uniform.

[John Uskglass]

I can't help thinking that the 'Mrs B' in the case was called Violet Elizabeth.

[TBL]

I looked at the Canada thread and someone had mentioned (sorry I have a memory like a sieve so can't think who it was off the top of my head) a video by Leonard French.

That was me. Good stuff if you're into that kind of thing.

Longdong, as a retired "walloper?" (not sure if this is inherently a negative stereotype or not), I agree that overzealous LEOs can get ahead of themselves when dealing with things they believe should be illegal. But, at least from my (granted US-based) experience, before you can arrest (not just detain) you need to locate the specific charge. I typically searched using the in-cruiser laptop and the LexisNexus website to find it. If you can't locate a charge, or ask up the chain, you need to release. Here in the US, it's perfectly legal, and I'd argue reasonable, to detain pending investigation and release when no law has been broken.

I also agree that laws violating freedom of speech suck and have no business being enforced by the government. I personally feel that the UK's laws on online "hate speech" are too restrictive and can be used to squelch valid discourse online.

[hucknallred]

An exhaustive internet search (Google Bostock youtube facebook police) reveals the recipient of the letter from plod.
https://www.politicalite.com/pc-gone-ma ... arassment/

[longdog]

[But, at least from my (granted US-based) experience, before you can arrest (not just detain) you need to locate the specific charge. I typically searched using the in-cruiser laptop and the LexisNexus website to find it. If you can't locate a charge, or ask up the chain, you need to release. Here in the US, it's perfectly legal, and I'd argue reasonable, to detain pending investigation and release when no law has been broken.

It doesn't work that way in the UK. Not in practice at least.

If you are being a loud-mouthed, abusive dickhead then the cop is probably going to say "I'm arresting you under The Public Order Act" and they might even tell you which section of the act. But... They can just say "I'm arresting you for being a loud-mouthed, abusive dickhead" and worry about the specific charge later. As long as the loud-mouthed abusive dick-headery was an offence they are on firm legal ground and can choose which section of which act to use later.

I also agree that laws violating freedom of speech suck and have no business being enforced by the government. I personally feel that the UK's laws on online "hate speech" are too restrictive and can be used to squelch valid discourse online.

From the case above it seems the courts are of the opinion that the principle is OK if not always the interpretation. On that I am inclined to agree with them. Freedom of speech is guaranteed under The Human Rights Act and I don't see anything to get upset about. Apart from over-zealous and, if this case is anything to go by, unlawful interpretation by the cops and the CPS.

[John Uskglass]

An exhaustive internet search (Google Bostock youtube facebook police) reveals the recipient of the letter from plod

The linked article describes him as 'based'

EXCLUSIVE: Based Political YouTuber

A BASED Political YouTuber has claimed police harassment

Presumably they haven't missed out his location twice, so what do they mean by it? I seem to recall a 'Based Amy' from back in the day - is it a term in general use on the FMOTLish fringe?

[exiledscouser]

An exhaustive internet search (Google Bostock youtube facebook police) reveals the recipient of the letter from plod.
https://www.politicalite.com/pc-gone-ma ... arassment/

All of which reminds me that modern day plod has moved into new and previously uncharted territory far removed from nicking villains and helping old ladies across the road. Nowadays the latter would be subject to immediate sanction if a 20 page risk assessment were not signed off.

Welcome to ploddledygook, an impenetrable mix of management bollock-speak and Right-On political correctness, where the control room is known as the “Citizen Focus Command”, bad guys are known as “customers” and senior officers have grand titles such as Head of Knowledge Architecture. Call the police, there’s been a muuuurder, someone’s killed the English language.

Thankfully most front-line plod do not say;

Yes Ma'am, we will Follow the problem-solving mythology as a supportive framework to work the problem through: Understand where the drivers and demand originated; Clearly define and understand what the actual problem was; Articulate our aim as SMART and understand the impact we intended.

But they are careful not to venture too far off message either.

As was posted up thread Plod got a right kicking in the appeal courts for wanting to “check someone’s thinking” in the complaint about alleged transphobia - and rightly so; it’s no business but my own what I choose to think and certainly none of theirs - but there are certain ambitious elements within plod-land for whom this is a temporary setback.

Mind how you go!

[JimUk1]

Not familiar with his content, but this looks like a fishing expedition from the rozzers.
If there was anything illegal they'd have felt his collar.

The police have already lost at the Supreme Court regarding what you can write on social media (unless it’s terrorism related)

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... dgment.pdf

JimUK, I remember that case but I've never read the transcript (well I have read some of it now you've linked it but it will take more than a cursory glance on my part to let the salient points sink into my brain). I thought the person who complained was rather silly at the time - after all part of growing up is to learn to deal with the fact that other people don't always say things to your liking. (I'm not talking about defamation and lying - that's beyond the pale). Not saying Mr M's comments weren't somewhat crass.

There’s a lot of people I don’t agree with, but as someone who studied science and engineering I would typically argue with facts rather than feeling and sometimes telling people the science behind the reasoning is all it takes. You're correct this was silly of Blunderside police, there was no need to escalate this at all. The man who wrote what he did on Twitter maybe wasn’t aware as he should of been, but to go full facist isn’t going to win hearts and minds.

He was ignorant, so let him be. That’s my opinion.

[TBL]

Am I reading this correctly (or just an ignorant fool) but a simple plod, as you across the pond put it, can appeal a judgment? I thought that was the role of prosecutors?

[Pottapaug1938]

Appealing judgments -- if that is possible -- would have to be done by a District Attorney or Attorney General; and a judgment of acquittal is unappealable, per the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. Only a judgment which is not a final judgment can be appealed, such as a dismissal on procedural grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Je ... ditionally.

[Juisarian]

Presumably they haven't missed out his location twice, so what do they mean by it? I seem to recall a 'Based Amy' from back in the day - is it a term in general use on the FMOTLish fringe?e

"BASED" (often capitalised for emphasis) and "woke" both mean something like "politically enlightened". It's a term more associated with the Alt-Right than the Freeman movement.

[John Uskglass]

"BASED" (often capitalised for emphasis) and "woke" both mean something like "politically enlightened".

Thanks. As a Guardian reader, I'm all too aware of 'woke', but 'based' had somehow passed me by.

So that caravan of armed right wing nutters in Portland were Based City Rollers?

I'll get me coat.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

So that caravan of armed right wing nutters in Portland were Based City Rollers?

I'll get me coat.

I hope it's waterproof!

The scripts for this season's Portlandia have definitely taken a nose dive



This show really be more well know. Much underrated in its own vegan cafe.

[John Uskglass]

More evidence of the synergy between FMOTLism and Covid conspiracy theorists.

The Guardian has an article on letters circulating on social media that threaten legal action against schools requiring pupils to wear face masks or use hand sanitiser.

One of the letters quoted reads:

I am deeply concerned at the potential for detrimental health issues from mask wearing, and I serve this Notice of Liability on you to inform you I DO NOT CONSENT to my child being compelled to wear a mask at school and will, if any harm or injury arises from same, hold you personally liable for damages and or injury.”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... face-masks

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Given he is one of Neelu's cause celébres, can we add Assange to the list of FOTLers?

"[Assange] told the judge at the start of Monday's hearing he does not consent to extradition."

Sorry Joolz. That's not how it works.

[Notsogreen]

So apparently a director of Welsh water has "agreed" a 5 generation lien binding on her personal estate for £45million.



There is a 117 page quasi legal sheet of nonsense to boot..

But body (for non FB peeps) is here.

As of this date: 14th day of September 2020, it is formal. The public notices are formally posted to the list for public notice, as listed in final pages of the legal document here so attached.
That Debra BOWEN-REES, Director for DWR CYMRU (WELSH WATER) has agreed she is a criminal by her own hand and should no longer hold a position of trust in the community.
That a Lien is an agreed remedy for criminal offences by public employees.
Public Notice
NOTICE: That I, Baroness Madeline of the House of James (Lister), have an Affidavit Of Obligation – Security by way of a Lien against, and therefore an interest in, the personal property of Debra BOWEN-REES and have listed property of the debtor on the Affidavit of Obligation – Security by way of a Lien, and by way of the sins of the father to the seventh generation where there may be an attachment of earnings to the pensions of the grand-children’s grand-children of Debra BOWEN-REES
Record Location - https://www.facebook.com/groups/798269636907862/files/
Number-DCWW_REESD_LIEN_001
Thus, I hereby give public notice that I, Baroness Madeline of the House of James, (Lister) has an Affidavit of Obligation – Security by way of a Lien against debtor listed on Lien No. -DCWW_REESD_LIEN_001. Listed in the link above.
End of Notice
Baroness Madeline of the House of James.