Is this the reason police won’t investigate Twitter disputes ‘simply because someone is offended’?
Offensive: Police have been told not to investigate Twitter posts as hate crimes just because they offend people – but is it because the person in charge of policing the internet is a principle offender? This image has offended people – and was posted by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: Nadine Dorries.
This is interesting:
Police should stop “wasting time” investigating when people are offended, a senior police chief has said.
Stephen Watson, chief constable of Greater Manchester, admitted police had been overzealous in recording trivial online spats and legitimate debate as hate incidents at the expense of tackling mainstream crimes.
Mr Watson welcomed revised guidance by the College of Policing, the national standards body, as a “move in the right direction”. It has decreed that police officers should no longer investigate legitimate debate or treat trivial online spats as hate incidents.
The guidance, hailed as a victory for free speech, said people contributing to political and social debate must not be “stigmatised simply because someone is offended”.
But is this the reason?
I’ve expressed longstanding concerns about the behaviour of #NadineDorries online. Wildly intemperate & frequently abusive it’s absurd she’s the Cabinet minister responsible for online safety – and disturbing the #OnlineSafetyBill grants her more powers. https://t.co/B0SVE4w3VH
— JOHN NICOLSON M.P. (@MrJohnNicolson) August 1, 2022
Source: Police told to stop wasting time on Twitter disputes ‘simply because someone is offended’
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
I don’t find the image posted by Dorries in the least bit offensive. It’s good old-fashioned political knockabout. Quite funny really. She could have added Truss wielding a similar knife at Sunak’s back – that would have also been amusing. Incidentally, I may not find the image offensive, but I definitely DO find Dorries offensive, ditto Johnson, Sunak, Truss, the whole damn lot of ’em. AND Starmer and his mob. The LimpDems and Greens (other than Caroline) are simply not worth bothering about. And Corbyn is simply too damn conciliatory, unfortunately; the problem being that if he had been devious and vicious enough to survive, he wouldn’t have been the type I feel I could support. Sod’s Law. Also, I absolutely agree that police should stop wasting time (no need for the quotes!) investigating when ‘people are offended’. Being offended is a fact of life! I would, though, like to make it VERY clear that such as the obnoxious Israeli agent Rachel Riley should be subject to the full force of the law for the hate crimes of which they are guilty! Suffering from dogpiling and the like is very different from the indulgence of ‘being offended’.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the Communications Act (I think this is the applicable legislation) specifically mentions causing offence. I am reminded of the case of the Glasgow man prosecuted for online remarks made about Captain Tom Moore on his death. They WERE offensive but certainly NOT a hate crime and it was prosecuted as having caused offence and, obviously, not to the person concerned.
If they want to remove that part of it then remarks like that will stand unprosecuted and it will encourage others too. I think Dorries and others look at how Americans communicate with each other and see it as a positive ie racist terms, misogyny, threats etc. They base this on ‘free speech’ whereas we base ourselves on ‘not being offensive’ to people..