Woman who helped instigate riots now playing victim card (Telegraph)

[Unusual Tournament]

12 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

It Pretty obvious his comments were not direct at you, so who did he threaten?

But they were. He was answering me without attaching a quote or attention if me.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Arbenol said:

You (although, by then, @Ell had also chipped in).

You asked me what she had written. I answered you.

Why do you feel threatened by me?

A couple of things. You were speaking to two posters and posted something in an aggressive manner without referring to who you were speaking. 
 

Did I feel threatened about your post? No! Because I’ve done nothing wrong. Did I feel you were posting in a threatening style by talking about MI6 consequences if you posted something anti-immigrant yes. 
 

I hope that clarifies that!

[Ell]

28 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Do you think it was a threat to any forum member?

I cannot discern a threat having been made. I have no idea what motivated that question in post 27.

I suspect it was the consequence of a misunderstanding of post 26, which is why I elucidated that post 26 was in reply to post 21.

Edited August 12 by Ell

[+and-then]

Not all nations in Europe are allowing uncontrolled migration and once those "immigrants" begin using force to gain entry, things like this are beginning to occur:

 

[Arbenol]

8 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

A couple of things. You were speaking to two posters and posted something in an aggressive manner without referring to who you were speaking. 
 

Did I feel threatened about your post? No! Because I’ve done nothing wrong. Did I feel you were posting in a threatening style by talking about MI6 consequences if you posted something anti-immigrant yes. 
 

I hope that clarifies that!

You should read the woman's post in the OP. She stated the murderer was on an MI6 watch list. A complete fabrication, by the way.

You thought I was threatening you with MI6?

I'm not sure how you think I could do that,  but it at least explains your misunderstanding.

 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, Arbenol said:

You should read the woman's post in the OP. She stated the murderer was on an MI6 watch list. A complete fabrication, by the way.

You thought I was threatening you with MI6?

I'm not sure how you think I could do that,  but it at least explains your misunderstanding.

 

I did read that when I first entered the thread and didn’t find anything wrong with what she wrote. So therefore I had no idea what got you all worked up.
 

Since when is the onus on a poster to double and triple check the authenticity of what they read in a social setting, especially if they post anonymously? That’s just my view. And the fact that we disagree added to your misunderstanding 
 

Did I think you were threatening me? No I’ve already said so. Don’t know why you keep bringing it up. But I did think the tone of your post was threatening to everyone, thinking of posting something anti-immigrant. That’s what happens when you don’t attach the name of the person you are addressing. 
 

 

[pellinore]

On 8/11/2024 at 12:59 AM, Unusual Tournament said:

She stressed an opinion with the facts that were available at the time. And you can thank the British authorities for clouding the facts with their actions in trying to damage control the situation. The concept of free speech and assembly shouldn’t be attacked. Close down the social media platforms if they must but this vilification of peoples opinions is just too much like animal farm

There were no facts available at the time.  And the police don't release the names of minors arrested unless a court directs them.

You think everyone should publish what they want in the interests of free speech? What if your neighbour posted to a Facebook group that there was a suggestion, he couldn't be sure, so don't blame him if it is wrong, but there is a suggestion you are a pedo, a friend of a friend told him- what that be okay?

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, pellinore said:

There were no facts available at the time.  And the police don't release the names of minors arrested unless a court directs them.

You think everyone should publish what they want in the interests of free speech? What if your neighbour posted to a Facebook group that there was a suggestion, he couldn't be sure, so don't blame him if it is wrong, but there is a suggestion you are a pedo, a friend of a friend told him- what that be okay?

I’m sure there are individual examples that can be argued back and forth.

I don’t think the government would give a fig about me and my reputation. The UK government didn’t do a thing about the brexiteers and their lies. Media barons have brought down UK governments and nothing happened to them. Do you see where I’m going with this? 
 

It’s not like Britain didn’t have an immigration problem before now. It’s not like this particular person specifically advocated violence. She’s a dim retard that really doesn’t deserve to be scapegoated because the authorities are worried about social cohesion. 
 

 

 

[pellinore]

21 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

It’s not like this particular person specifically advocated violence. She’s a dim retard that really doesn’t deserve to be scapegoated because the authorities are worried about social cohesion. 
 

In the hypothetical example I gave about neighbours, the poster Fb didn't specifically make an accusation, in fact they put in place several caveats, but it would still be damaging don't you think?

And since the authorities are worried about social cohesion and public order don't you think it is right they should punish people who try to undermine these? You may think it isn't right to punish them, I think it is.

[Unusual Tournament]

5 minutes ago, pellinore said:

In the hypothetical example I gave about neighbours, the poster Fb didn't specifically make an accusation, in fact they put in place several caveats, but it would still be damaging don't you think?

And since the authorities are worried about social cohesion and public order don't you think it is right they should punish people who try to undermine these? You may think it isn't right to punish them, I think it is.

You think that her stupid post caused this?

[Unusual Tournament]

17 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

Continuing from the other thread. I wasn't aware there was already one on the topic.

What kind of crime she committed to be arrested?

The BBC link I gave says she posted inaccurate information online on the identity of the person who killed the the three girls. Is this a crime in the UK or cybercrime as you called it? Because you will be living in a very dystopian society if you get arrested for thought crimes, personal opinions, and even for lies. It will require the thought police to spend so much time and resources to police free speech and they have to make thousands of arrests every day.

Is this arrest politically motivated?

@pellinore

Correct. She gave inaccurate information. Not the truth. 

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, Arbenol said:

You should read the woman's post in the OP. She stated the murderer was on an MI6 watch list. A complete fabrication, by the way.

You thought I was threatening you with MI6?

I'm not sure how you think I could do that,  but it at least explains your misunderstanding.

 

So what if she stated the suspect was on a MI6 watch list? She’s a no body. If she told someone to jump off the London bridge would she be charged with murder?

[MrAnderson]

17 hours ago, Setton said:

No.

She wasn't arrested for "posting inaccurate information".

She was arrested "on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred and false communications".

The fact that she has been arrested, while others who posted the same lie (like @itsnotoutthere) haven't, suggests she did a lot more than just retweet the false post.

No. She was arrested for posting information online which was inaccurate. They need to prove that she was stirring up racial hatred. This arrest seems politically motivated to me. You can post false or inaccurate information and in a dystopian society you could get arrested pretty much for everything! The fact that others haven't been arrested it's due to the limited resources and manpower the police has. Otherwise they would have arrested thousands of people for exactly the same thing.

Edited August 12 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, Unusual Tournament said:

I’m sure there are individual examples that can be argued back and forth.

I don’t think the government would give a fig about me and my reputation. The UK government didn’t do a thing about the brexiteers and their lies. Media barons have brought down UK governments and nothing happened to them. Do you see where I’m going with this? 
 

It’s not like Britain didn’t have an immigration problem before now. It’s not like this particular person specifically advocated violence. She’s a dim retard that really doesn’t deserve to be scapegoated because the authorities are worried about social cohesion. 
 

 

 

Spot on!

If they now make up new rules to arrest or question people who post false or innacurate information online then they should arrest thousands of people on a daily basis making free speech impossible.

But the most worrying thing is who gets to decide what is false or inaccurate information. The government?!

[MrAnderson]

11 hours ago, pellinore said:

She isn't a naive middle-aged woman; she is a right-wing Conspiracy Theorist who is well known on GBNews and Talk TV: https://youtu.be/7cya_Ki4MR4?si=yn7_8oah7xyDkFWy

She has many followers and makes good money out of stirring up hatred (she lives in a million-pound farmhouse).

She was incited for inciting race hatred. The laws she was arrested for breaking are on the interweb if you Google her. She has been caught bang to rights- excuses like adding " if true" or "I'm only asking" etc won't work. It's like a burglar claiming he thought he was breaking into his own house because he forgot his key. She did the crime and has been caught.

Mr Anderson- no doubt you believe the American thought police were involved in Alex Jones being indicted? If you believe spreading misinformation and lies in order to cause pain for gain is free speech, you need to give your head a wobble. It would be a very dystopian society if there was no rule of law.

 

 

I am talking about this case and not anything else. So I don't want to divert from the topic.

It's clear to me that she was arrested for posting inaccurate information online and that's all. That's not a crime unless the thought police is interpreting her views on the identity of this person as an attempt to stit up racial hatred.

There are thousands of these posts made everyday by random online posters. A small number could be arrested but the rest will not die to the lack of resources and manpower the police has.

But going down this path will be very dangerous for any society that wants to be called free and democratic.

[pellinore]

18 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

the thought police is interpreting her views on the identity of this person as an attempt to stit up racial hatred.

You don't have to be a member of the thought police or a genius to see that that was exactly what she was doing. Of course her identity and her past history is relevant - she has a huge following and is believed by similar like-minded CTs.

She was caught bang to rights and her attempt at deleting didn't work as she had been screen shotted. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, I always say.

[Grim Reaper 6]

33 minutes ago, pellinore said:

You don't have to be a member of the thought police or a genius to see that that was exactly what she was doing. Of course her identity and her past history is relevant - she has a huge following and is believed by similar like-minded CTs.

She was caught bang to rights and her attempt at deleting didn't work as she had been screen shotted. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, I always say.

I totally agree with your point of view on this situation. There is no mistake about her actions or her behavior and she should pay for her actions.

Good Post.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

No. She was arrested for posting information online which was inaccurate.

Not according to the OP.

Quote

They need to prove that she was stirring up racial hatred.

Well yes. That's what "suspicion" means. And how every criminal case works.

Quote

This arrest seems politically motivated to me. You can post false or inaccurate information and in a dystopian society you could get arrested pretty much for everything! The fact that others haven't been arrested it's due to the limited resources and manpower the police has. Otherwise they would have arrested thousands of people for exactly the same thing.

This all relies on your false assumption that the crime is just posting something that isn't accurate.

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, Setton said:

Not according to the OP.

Well yes. That's what "suspicion" means. And how every criminal case works.

This all relies on your false assumption that the crime is just posting something that isn't accurate.

I read the story and still I can't see the stirring up of racial hatred as it was alleged. The woman whatever she is and she her history is and whatever her political views (right wing in this case) posted something inaccurate about the origin of the killer. She shouldn't have posted it without checking but that's about it.

[MrAnderson]

5 hours ago, pellinore said:

You don't have to be a member of the thought police or a genius to see that that was exactly what she was doing. Of course her identity and her past history is relevant - she has a huge following and is believed by similar like-minded CTs.

She was caught bang to rights and her attempt at deleting didn't work as she had been screen shotted. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, I always say.

I can't see any crime committed by posting false information on who the killer was. It's a slippery slope for the UK imo and there could be thousands of arrest in the future before you know it on the basis on what the state thinks about your intentions and political views.

[pellinore]

Elon Musk should face “personal sanctions” and even the threat of an “arrest warrant” if found to be stirring up public disorder on his social media platform, a former Twitter executive says.

It cannot be right that the billionaire owner of X, and other tech executives, be allowed to sow discord without personal risks, Bruce Daisley, formerly Twitter’s vice-president for Europe, Middle East and Africa, writes in the Guardian.

He said the prime minister, Keir Starmer, should “beef up” online safety laws and reflect on whether the media regulator, Ofcom, “is fit to deal with the blurringly fast actions of the likes of Musk”.

Elon Musk should face arrest if he incited UK rioters, says ex-Twitter chief (msn.com)

Edited August 12 by pellinore

[Arbenol]

15 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

 I had no idea what got you all worked 

 But I did think the tone of your post was threatening to everyone, thinking of posting something anti-immigrant. 

You're projecting and attaching your own interpretation of tone to my post. 

11 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

So what if she stated the suspect was on a MI6 watch list? She’s a no body. If she told someone to jump off the London bridge would she be charged 

Actually yes. There are many cases of people being charged after encouraging someone to commit suicide.

[Unusual Tournament]

8 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

You're projecting and attaching your own interpretation of tone to my post. 

No I think it’s safe to say you’re heavily invested in this topic, even introducing the concept that a poster on this forum was also part of this investigation. How would you know that? (Post 16). Your tone leaves no doubt about any red lines you support and I stand by picking up the subtle projection of what you regard as right or wrong. I have a different perspective than you

16 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Actually yes. There are many cases of people being charged after encouraging someone to commit suicide.

No now you’re just taking an extreme interpretation of a jovial way of telling someone you don’t care what they do 

[Arbenol]

Just now, Unusual Tournament said:

even introducing the concept that a poster on this forum was also part of this investigation. How would you know that? (Post 16). 

I never said that either.

You really do have a hard time comprehending what you read, don't you?

Anyway, this is boring now. I'm sorry you felt threatened.

[Unusual Tournament]

On 8/11/2024 at 11:16 AM, Arbenol said:

The people that lied. 

Nobody can be forced to lie. And the sad truth about it all is that others, including this woman and at least one member of this forum, continued to spread the lie because they wanted it to be true.