Prices of the electricity we use to charge
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
The woman has been arrested on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred and false communications. She's not been charged, which will only happen if the Crown Prosecution Service decide she's likely to be convicted i.e. if they think she broke the law. Then she will go to trial
There's lots that doesn't add up at the minute, including the timings and sequence of events.
From what I have seen, including the online sleuthing and my layman reading of the relevant clauses of the acts I suspect the police will secure a conviction, bit it's definitely one to watch
You would need to prove that there was an intention to promote violence. I suppose that many of us might fall foul of a false story seen on line and comment on it, imagining what might occur.
All I know about this is what is in the Metro article. It seems to me that there is no urging to violence, merely a remark suggesting that if the report is true there will be a lot of trouble.
Had the remark actually urged violence - like that of the Labour councillor who suggested that certain people should have their throats cut, it would be very different.
People should be careful about the source of their news and certainly so, before they start commenting on it in public. Of course, these days there are popular conspiracy theories devoted to the idea that our news organisations are like those run by the Kremlin and consistently seek to spread falsehoods. It is not true, though the press in particular does publish a lot of stuff which is highly biased, with writers cherry picking and distorting events. This happens on both the right and left. It is regrettable.
I have never argued for more immigration. Check all my posts if you like. I argue for tax funded employer of last resort. On house price inflation: i think green belt policy, low stamp duty rate and lack of long term mortgage deals are the drivers.
Long term mortgage deals would cause a rise in house price inflation. How? Easy - it would allow people to bid more for the property they desire. The exact same effect was attached to the frankly stupid 'help to buy' initiatives brought in by the Conservatives. The cause of the ever rising costs of things that are in short supply is shortage. Enabling people to borrow more money in the hope of obtaining property would only make things worse. It boosts prices.
It is certainly true that our planning policy is a cause of housing shortage, whether through green belt policy or otherwise, but by far the greatest cause of shortage is the ever rising number of people seeking a roof over their head. Since 1995 we have gained eleven million people, almost all of that rise is from migration. Governments are running terrified of the collapse of the giant ponzi scheme which is the health and welfare budget, hence the need for an endless stream of new tax payers from poorer countries. Of course there is an endless supply of willing new contributors, but a shortage of places to house them and this island is not getting any larger. new Zealand is about he same size as the UK but has about one tenth the people. They intend to keep it that way too. Just try emigrating there. They won't touch you with a barge pole unless you are completely healthy, young, and have shortage skills and a completely clean record as far as crime is concerned. Australia and Canada are the same. There the politicians prize the well being of their people above the chance for a few pounds more in tax take.
We need to make sure we only import high skill and high value migrants and we need to build and build and build to counteract a thirty year disaster.
Last edited:
Not true. I would vote for such party without hesitation.
Then you are most generous and forgiving fellow. How typical is that? People I know are always checking what the value of their houses are. One of the big estate agents even featured the tendency in an advert, encouraging people to check market prices and sell their homes. There was a time not long ago when the fashion was to re-mortgage, extract equity and spend the money. I think the rise in interest rates may have dampened that one down.
On contrary. It would be very selfish of me, but price drop would also benefit society as a whole. I want house prices to go down. In my opinion it is criminal to keep them on so high level.
High house prices benefit only a very small percentage of house owners. I don't understand how people can't see that.
Here is some legal discussion on it
It's very widely drafted ! (But depends on the intention of the person sharing the false information)
Last edited:
Seven of the UK's 10 most deprived areas witnessed unrest
www.thenationalnews.com
Decades of deprivation behind UK riots present an immediate challenge for Keir Starmer | The National
Seven of the UK's 10 most deprived areas witnessed unrest
www.thenationalnews.com
Perhap not as rare as you think, I'm very much inline with
the thinking of Az and have put it into practice. The bungalow I bought at 24 years old for my parents to live in free for the second half of their lives had come vacant for sale in 1993, but at the very low value at that time in the John Major recession.
So I sold it immediately for an easy sale at £59k, even though its earlier high at a peak in the market had been near 90K. I could have hung onto it for the prices to recover or let it out through an agent with the same intention, but I thought no, let someone else benefit. Years later I saw it sell for over a third of a million. After all, when I bought it in 1960 it only cost me £2650, so I hadn't really lost anything in striking a blow for lower house prices.
My mother in the photo below:
I have taken a look into the offence and I say now that there is not a cat in Hell's chance that the woman will be convicted.
Section 179 creates a criminal offence of sending false communications. A person is guilty of this offence if they:
- send a message;
- conveying information that they know to be false;
- at the time of sending it they intend the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience (i.e. someone who is likely to read it, whether originally or after someone has shared it); and
- they have no reasonable excuse for sending the message
Now, unless I am severely misinformed, this woman is an ordinary business owner in Cheshire. I am unaware of any suggestion that she has any connection with dissemination of racially aggravating propaganda. I think she is an ordinary person who found a website asserting something about the assailant in the Southport outrage and she made a non threatening remark about it - even questioning if it was true.
She can certainly claim she did not know it was false, and she can certainly claim not to have intended to cause harm to any person.
Under the circumstances this is VERY heavy handed policing and is clearly intended to prevent free speech and communication. This kind of use of powers of arrest makes it very easy for people like Elon MUsk (whom I detest, by the way) to rightly ask if this is the UK or Moscow.
People should have every right to post online their honest thoughts about current events and they also should have every right to sometimes be mistaken, or to be misled, or to misunderstand something they have read.
The law actually allows what I have suggested in those exceptions shown in red and bold above.
The police concerned have used powers they ought to know won't stand up in court, in order to make an example of someone who has not, or is likely to show that they have not committed the offence.
Edit - the red text and bold was inserted by me for emphasis.
Last edited:
Your first part is right, but I don't think the i.e. is.
They may well think she has broken the law, or even be completely convinced of it, but they still wouldn't usually bring a case if they didn't think she was likely to be convicted.
?more? i.e. if they think a jury can be convinced she broke the law
They haven't brought a case. She was simply arrested and detained in cells. It is for the CPS to decide on charging and it is my opinion, given the law as shown above that they won't charge her.
This particular offence can only be tried in a magistrates court I think, so a jury is not going to hear such cases.
There are limits to free speech. This woman’s tweet was the equivalent of shouting “Fire!” In a crowded cinema.
What you say above does not meet the demands of the law.
I say you will soon see that the case is dropped, and that it was dropped for the reasons I outlined above.
It is my feeling that the police exceeded their lawful powers in arresting this woman.
If the CPS can prove mens rea, they will likely proceed with charging her.
They won't. I'd put money on it. Those red and bold clauses above, are required for the person to commit an offence, and they are not met.
It would be different if say Tommy Robinson, or a well known hard right propagandist had re-tweeted it, and more so if such a person had been the original source of the false information. In such cases the prosecution would be able to claim, whatever protestation of innocence was made by the defendant, that the individual KNEW the posting was false and had a pattern of previous conduct which showed that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the individual had intended harm.
If she is a person not of such character, it would be impossible to show she meets the test of a person deliberately posting a falsehood for the purpose of causing harm.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
