It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

4 Arrested in UK Over Alleged Support of NZ Shooting

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

I think you'd need to know what was actually said, before you could establish whether these people were arrested for simply exercising freedom of speech.

I mean, having an opinion that's unsympathetic about what happened in Christchurch would be one thing, but making threats by referencing the massacre... well that's a whole different kettle of fish.

I'm pretty sure that would even be considered illegal over in the land of the free... I highly doubt even the 1st amendment affords people the right to make threats of violence.

This in no way references any threat.



A man, aged 33, and a woman, 34, were held on suspicion of racially aggravated public order offences in Rochdale.




Another woman has also been arrested in the same town on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence "following comments made online about the New Zealand attack". Separately, a 24-year-old from Oldham was arrested over a Facebook post which police said expressed "support" for the white supremacist terror attack.

no threats
just opinions it seems
too bad it appears opinions in the uk now can be against the law


The two arresred Rochdale were arrested for a pubic order offence. I.e. abusing a taxi driver.

With regard the online content unless anyone can actually provide what they said, no one on this thread can say one way or the other if the arrest was justified.




posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=24264403]Freeborn

There's always been hatred, just take a casual look at history....there's nothing extra special about the degree of hatred shown today.
That's quite a damning thought but we haven't regressed or progressed.....just same old #ing same old.



I'm not sure i agree mate. Yes there has always been hatred but it generally peaked when times were bad. It's only a 100 and odd years ago that 6 out of 10 never made it out of childhood - hard to maintain hate when life is so tough.

Wheras now people hate all the time and usually over the trivial (for example left vs right of the same flawed system). Or the really trivial such as religion! (and yes i realise the last is the worst possible supporting argument!).

Eta:

Sorry for thread drift.
edit on 18-3-2019 by Flavian because: As above



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

you're not wrong there mate i have just watched a clip with rowan atkinson posted by tartuffe worth a watch



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Steveogold

protection of free speech means we protect even those whose speech is offensive


That's the prime duty of any advocate of free speech. We should especially protect free speech for views we find offensive.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Funny though, if you support your Leader, who is responsible not for shooting up 49 people, but for bombing thousands, you get to be a good patriot citizen. If you go and vote for them again, you get a STICKER.

Not condoning violence from either side, just pointing out the lunic hypocrisy.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

I don't believe there's as much actual "hatred" as you think or other people think. Hatred is thrown around just like racism nowadays and rarely is it actual hatred. There's anger there's frustration there's many things but true utter hatred is rare in my humble opinion. However, when real hatred does rear its ugly head....that's when you get things like the shooting in NZ or Orlando and so many others. But people in the street generally don't hate...that involves way too much emotional investment and most people simply can't be bothered. We have quite a severe apathy in the UK otherwise we'd be on the streets like the French or Italians but as congregating in large organised groups is also a criminal offence....



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: CosmicAwakening
Funny though, if you support your Leader, who is responsible not for shooting up 49 people, but for bombing thousands, you get to be a good patriot citizen. If you go and vote for them again, you get a STICKER.

Not condoning violence from either side, just pointing out the lunic hypocrisy.


Thats on the money





posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

They still have them but Politics and Religion are banned but sadly Muslims have started using speakers corner to pray which has been banned for many years. Its annoyed a fair few so a petition was started on Change Org specifically after a woman was arrested for questioning Police about Muslims praying there but stopping her from praying back in 2018.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




With regard the online content unless anyone can actually provide what they said, no one on this thread can say one way or the other if the arrest was justified.

are there not laws for threats or would they be encompassed in the public order offence?
nothing about communicating a threat?



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport


No victim no crime.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   
My point is that IF an actual crime had been committed i.e. assault or threats to kill etc then fair enough but when the alleged crime is words online that's a whole different kettle of fish. The couple in Rochdale were arrested for a public order crime fine....so why is it necessary to mention that they referenced the NZ shooting? It sounds like they were arrested for bringing that up rather than any actual physical crime
Shortly before 12.20am on Sunday 17 March 2019, police were called to Queensway, Rochdale, following a report that passengers had referenced the New Zealand terrorist attacks while abusing and threatening a taxi driver.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport




A 24yr old man was earlier arrested in Oldham for showing support of the NZ shooter online.

was this online?
or was this in person?



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Online

The thing is here that the Police should NEVER be used in this way. They should be out there solving crime not pandering to the politically correct crowd or being the enforcers for political & social dogma. If someone is attacked as a result of words exchanged online...fine a crime has been committed, but when a Police Force such as my own West yorkshire Police have to cut back and actually admit they don't have the resources to investigate theft & burglary amongst others and state they are spending the resources on "more complex issues" which of course involves investigating alleged hate crime, and this "hate crime" is still to be properly defined and is apparently STILL under review and is morphing constantly, it leaves us with very few resources. In my area on a night we only have 1 police woman in car that has to cover a huge area. If we need Police in numbers for some incident they have to come from Wakefield miles away because our police are too busy trolling social media accounts



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Commies censor.

Like what NZ is doing.


no, totalitarian regimes censor. Commies share.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: ScepticScot




With regard the online content unless anyone can actually provide what they said, no one on this thread can say one way or the other if the arrest was justified.

are there not laws for threats or would they be encompassed in the public order offence?
nothing about communicating a threat?


It would come under malicious communications I believe.

That's quite a broad category and in my view can and has been overused. However it would also cover a lot of legitimately threatening behaviour.

As we don't know what was actually sauid it's impossible to say at this time where this sits.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport


No victim no crime.


Clearly not true.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The point is that at the moment just about anything can be construed as a threat under the 2007 law.

South Yorkshire Police Mocked Over Hate Crime
After South Yorkshire Police encouraged its 166000twitter followers to report ANY insulting or offensive words NOT just those considered hate as defined by the current stupid law


But in a separate follow-up tweet, it added: “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.”


Rumour has it they were inundated with teenagers with hurt feelings

Even the Police Federation have stated quite clearly that their members would rather be out solving actual physical crimes than sat at a desk with a phone listening to people crying over tweets.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   
If this is becoming a real trend in Britain, or Europe in general, then keep an eye on New York and the West Coast, that's where we are going to see it happen here soon.

I don't believe I'll be saying what I really think in public anymore, or in private outside my closest associates. It's becoming too risky, time to become the gray man, to look and act like everyone one else to stay off the radar. It's sad to have to self-censor, but it is a survival tactic and I intend to survive. Besides, freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to be heard or listened to, it usually amounts to wasted breath most of the time, esp. if it's just one voice. Sad to be losing such a fundamental right as freedom of speech though, but it seems to really be happening now. If it is, it's time to face that fact.

The day will come soon enough though, no need to be red flagged before the S really HTF. When the line is finally drawn is the time to reveal what side you are actually on. Until then I'll have more time to be prepared by keeping my true thoughts to myself. Keep your mouth shut and your ear to the ground.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I've got to be honest and say even I'm becoming tired of reputing things that occur here in the UK.

It's easy to say they are a few isolated incidents, which the vast majority of us here in the UK know they are.
But these isolated incidents are becoming more and more common.

We can't upset or hurt people's feelings without the police turning up and threatening us?
What next?

This really needs to be nipped in the bud....its #ing farcical!



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   
This is disturbing news, I'm betting we won't even find out what these people posted that was apparently worthy of arrest.

Maybe the state should release a document that outlines what speech is acceptable for us plebs, state mandated speech parameters.




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join