Police showed up to question them.
Many of the tweets in question were around gender identity, but were not directly hateful let alone offensive to the point cops need be involved.
Eh, I think it's been abundantly clear enough that a quick search would fill in the blanks, but here is one such example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636383/Twitter-use..., and it doesn't matter that it's from the DM in this case.
> But it sounds like these are cases of people being questioned by police and then…not getting arrested because they weren’t committing a crime.
The problem is cops showing up at all for people sharing an opinion. The tweets were visible at cop HQ. Sending cops out reads like intimidation which is something cops do in authoritarian societies.
Incidentally, the Daily Mail is not a news source.
It. Doesn't. matter. The article linked is but one incident. There's been plenty others, some involving public figures. Cops are literally acting like thought police and no, that isn't hyperbole.
The problem that this occurs in the UK far more widespread than it does. I get you want to defend your country but I think you're taking it a bit far here. Denying the issues out of a sense of patriotism is how they worsen.
> Incidentally, the Daily Mail is not a news source.
As I said, the fact that it was a DM article is irrelevant here.
You’ll have to remind me of the Chapter of 1984 in which the actions of the Thought Police are reined in by a system of legal checks and balances…
> Denying the issues out of a sense of patriotism is how they worsen.
You’re way off base here. Complaining about the UK is the UK’s national sport. I’m still bitter about Brexit and could write an essay about everything that’s wrong with this silly country. But it’s not a sinister Orwellian police state. If you want something genuinely sinister, look to the motivations of the people posting nonsense about the UK on Twitter.
It's a UK wide problem seemingly and has happened numerous times since the DM article incident, so clearly not. Maybe one little police dept did, but it's a systemic problem or seems to be.
> It’s because of this court decision that your Google search turned up a Daily Mail article from 2019 and not something more recent!
I pasted the first result I found. I'm not interested in finding every. single. incident so you can dispute it one by one to keep trying to defend the UK. You either acknowledge there is an issue or you don't, for me, the numerous incidents of this happening are a problem, not just isolated incidents being blown out of proportion. You clearly disagree.
> You’ll have to remind me of the Chapter of 1984 in which the actions of the Thought Police are reined in by a system of legal checks and balances…
Heh. There were building blocks before Big Brother was introduced, and it was no accident the story was set in the UK either.
> But it’s not a sinister Orwellian police state.
I never said it was. My claim was that it's closer to being so than any other first world country. Downplaying cops acting as literal thought police (in that they are literally policing thoughts) is a problem and despite your assertion that your willing to be critical of the UK (which I don't doubt but don't tae as absolute), reads to me like being patriotic to the point of denying the issues being discussed.
> I'm not interested in finding every. single. incident so you can dispute it one by one to keep trying to defend the UK
When I Google, pretty much every instance of the police interviewing people about transphobic tweets (that aren't actually hate speech) occurred before the court judgment I linked to. What you're saying in effect is that you want to go with the vibes about the UK you get from Twitter but don't want to look into the specifics and check their basis in fact.
If you think there are numerous instances of this happening following the court judgment, and that these instances are easy to find by Googling, then it should be easy to provide sources. I am willing to change my mind if you do that, but if you continue to just assert that this is happening frequently without providing evidence, then I won't respond further. I personally was able to find exactly one incident by Googling (which I would not entirely trust the Telegraph to report accurately): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/15/police-drop-hate...
Not so much that it just happened to be where he was from but more that he saw issues in the government of the day, some of which still persist since they seem to be cultural.
> When I Google, pretty much every instance of the police interviewing people about transphobic tweets (that aren't actually hate speech) occurred before the court judgment I linked to. What you're saying in effect is that you want to go with the vibes about the UK you get from Twitter but don't want to look into the specifics and check their basis in fact.
I'm aware of several incidents happening after the DM article linked which was six years ago. I'm not particularly motivated to find incidents and link them here because I think you're in a mode to dismiss anything found to try and defend against the notion the UK is less free than it's peers. I apologize for not being able to take you at your word that that isn't the case.
> then I won't respond further.
I appreciate that, and think that's for the best for both of us. Cheers.
The other commenter has cited evidence that’s backed up their claims and you’re consistently responding with rhetoric.
This is a constant theme when people argue about freedom of speech being worse in the UK. They cherry pick a couple of headlines from hugely unreliable sources like Twitter (the land of vocal twits) and the Daily Mail (which most people here have nicknamed The Daily Fail because it’s so often wrong) and overlook what’s actually happening in their own countries too.
But if it makes you feel better that your own country isn’t also going to hell in a hand-basket because you’re too busy doomscrolling the UK news, then keep at it. ;)
Not the way I see it.
I'm not willing to cite every single instance of a trend so a commenter can pick apart each one to try and dismiss it, when the problem is the trend itself, and not specific instances.
That user also wants to try and pretend that the issue magically stopped after the local police were apparently counseled on the matter, and yet, hark!- another instance less than 4 months old![0]
> This is a constant theme when people argue about freedom of speech being worse in the UK.
I think the bigger issue is tribalism and feeling the need to defend country (and thus tribe) instead of acknowledging hey, maybe there really is a problem?
> They cherry pick a couple of headlines from hugely unreliable sources like Twitter (the land of vocal twits) and the Daily Mail (which most people here have nicknamed The Daily Fail because it’s so often wrong) and
I'm well aware of the reliability of the DM, but when they are just posting basically an interview with someone, it's sufficient as a source. Unless you want to dispute anything factual in the DM article that was linked?
> overlook what’s actually happening in their own countries too.
I think this is mostly a whataboutism.
> But if it makes you feel better that your own country isn’t also going to hell in a hand-basket because you’re too busy doomscrolling the UK news, then keep at it. ;)
I'm deeply concerned with what is happening in many countries, but that doesn't mean I can't be more concerned and critical of a country that is doing more wrong in some contexts than others.
[0]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/16/tweets-free-spee...
This is why it’s important to show sources so that (understandable) mistakes like this can be pointed out. If you keep posting sources that have been misinterpreted or that lack important context (which again is understandable - I don’t expect people outside the UK to obsessively follow UK news) then we can’t really take your word for it that you’ve Googled and found lots of better examples.
That page isn't rendering at all for me in Firefox for some reason, but I can read the text and it appears the Bindel incident was in 2024, and the Pearson incident which is referenced was in 2019. So, no, the 2024 incident happened in 2024.
I'll also note that in the Telegraph article I linked, the prominent author also describes the experience as Orwellian, so the view is hardly as niche or exaggerated as you want it to be.
> then we can’t really take your word for it that you’ve Googled and found lots of better examples.
Maybe, but at this point it seems your looking to dismiss incidents without reading them properly yourself.
Have some more links to incidents that happened after 2019 though, feel free to put each one under a microscope and find reasons to dismiss them, while continuing to ignore a trend and not see the forest for the trees:
- https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-is-the-met-police-investigat...
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233691/Scots-Tory...
- https://freespeechunion.org/police-log-hate-incident-for-ref...
And in case you want to continue to insist that the issue was resolved due to that one case in 2019, I'll leave you with this excerpt from an article on this very issue[0]:
----
Is the new Code better?
It sets a higher threshold, stating that NCHIs should only be recorded against individuals if there is "a real risk of significant harm" or crime. But problems remain: the police inspectorate HMICFRS found that 25% of recent NCHIs and hate crimes were wrongly recorded. Police reported being confused by attempts to train them in the Code; many still struggle to distinguish between a crime and an NCHI. This confusion is clear in the most famous recent case. The Daily Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson said that Essex Police visited her in November, wishing to record an NCHI against her (because on X/ Twitter she had mistakenly described two protesters as "Jew haters"). Essex Police denied it was an NCHI case, saying Pearson had been investigated for a public order offence. Either way, the case was dropped after an outcry.
[0]https://theweek.com/crime/nchis-the-controversy-over-non-cri...
One of your links is the incident that I myself already linked. I will look at the others.
Edit: Ok, the other specific incident is about a Conservative MSP who was not actually contacted by Police as part of their investigation. The Police just logged someone's report of one of his tweets under a specifically non-criminal category. They're required to do this because someone reported the tweet and they have to keep a record of that. The freespeechunion article similarly seems to be about cases where the police have correctly recorded someone's complaint and then correctly done nothing about it (as happens all the time with nuisance complaints about noisy neighbors, etc. etc.)
Fair enough, appreciate the clarification.
> The Pearson incident happened more recently but had nothing to do with trans issues
It's still what can be described as thought policing. As I keep saying this is part of a trend in your country. How many incidents would it take for you to concede that? These types of examples you are working to dismiss are flat out not happening in other western countries.
> The Police just logged someone's report of one of his tweets under a specifically non-criminal category. They're required to do this because someone reported the tweet and they have to keep a record of that.
That's still very much a problem. Now we have thought cataloging for use against people later on. His tweet was logged as a 'hate incident' - that's not nothing.
> The freespeechunion article similarly seems to be about cases where the police have correctly recorded someone's complaint and then correctly done nothing about it
They are logging incidents as 'hate incidents', again, that's not nothing.
And the fact the the police are involved at all and showing up to talk to people who shared their thoughts is the problem here. The fact that no action was taking is basically completely irrelevant to the problem of people being intimidated by cops for sharing thoughts, and yes, cops showing up is enough to count as intimidation.
"In Warwickshire, a suspect was recorded by the force for refusing to shake a person’s hand,"
That should be completely unacceptable and you should agree that that alone is Orwellian or uncomfortably close to it.
And it's not like there are not still more incidents. Gender critical feminists moved to their own platforms but still report such issues - not every issue gets a newspaper story (and I see a lot of these posts which is why I've said there were at least 20 incidents), but given 13,200 incidents were logged in the year from June 2023 to June 2024 and 25% of those were wrongly recorded, that seems like a lot of unnecessary intimidation and intrusion.
I know what I’d consider more worrying and it isn’t the police recording things (which literally just mean they’ve investigated a complaint) and deciding those frivolous complaints don’t deserve any action.
Yes, race issues in the US are a huge issue. That doesn't mean thought policing in the UK isn't also a huge issue.
The difference is I don't deny the issues you mention, nor do I try to deflect by referring to, say, the growing bladed weapons epidemic in the UK.
For someone that said they were done when asked to provide sources, you're participating in this discussion more than I would have expected. Is this what you consider 'being done', writing low-effort fallacious comments?
> (which literally just mean they’ve investigated a complaint)
It means they showed up to grill people over thoughts, and it's baffling how you don't see that as an issue.
And my point about your police force is saying perhaps you should spend more energy addressing your own country’s problems before making incorrect judgments about others.
> We’ve demonstrated how that doesn’t actually happen though. You’re the one refusing to accept the evidence.
The other user stated nothing had happened since 2019, and there was an incident in 2024. The examples you've provided are not equivalent to the examples in the UK you are trying t o map them to.
You showed no equivalent to people being arrested for white paper protests, the last examples in the US were in the 70s.
Additionally, 2500s NCHI were incorrectly reported, and you haven't addressed that as well.
That someone has to talk to cops at all for not wanting to shake hands is as scary as it is ridiculous, and its frankly bizarre you want to downplay and dismiss it.
Exactly what evidence is it you think I am refusing to accept? If you can be clear (and I expect you won't be able to because you've only been vague so far and frankly I doubt your claims have substance, which is why out of frustration your resorted to vulgarity and insults, and why when I asked you for links you claimed it was too much effort but here you still are replying...), then I can tell you exactly what issues I have with each item and there can be some productive discussion on the merits of my arguments.
> And my point about your police force is saying perhaps you should spend more energy addressing your own country’s problems
Yes, that's exactly what a whataboutism is. It's literally a perfect example.
> before making incorrect judgments about others.
So far, the evidence supports my claim, and the evidence from the both of you has the other user falsely claiming there were no incidents after 2019 and you equating unrelated non-equivalent incidents in other countries to incidents in the UK. Not at all convincing, and frankly seems rather desperate. If your searches are failing to turn up sufficient evidence, you should maybe consider that your point doesn't have the backing you assume it does.
And here lies the problem. You have formed an opinion and are unable to accept counter evidence.
> I think the bigger issue is tribalism and feeling the need to defend country (and thus tribe) instead of acknowledging hey, maybe there really is a problem?
That’s an idiotic comment given I’ve listed plenty of issues with the UK already. My opening comment even stated how I’m loathed to defend the uk government. I’ve also talked about how I’ve had literal arguments with MP over stupid policies regarding information technology.
The literal one point I’m defending is that the police don’t arrest you for thought crimes / posting memes online. And the reason I’m defending the government on that one point is because it’s flat out wrong and those who claim otherwise are spouting ignorant horseshit.
> I think this is mostly a whataboutism.
Bullshit. You’re the one making comparisons and claiming the UK is the worst offender. Then when evidence is shared about how the UK isn’t you ignore it.
Are you sure it’s not yourself who’s suffering from tribalism?
Pot, kettle. Upon discussing things further, the evidence I found completely supports my point.
> That’s an idiotic comment given I’ve listed plenty of issues with the UK already.
Wow, resorting to insults. Nice. I should probably point out that's against the HN guidelines.
The issues you listed are different types of issues. You're going out of your way to deny the issue we are discussing is an issue.
> The literal one point I’m defending is that the police don’t arrest you for thought crimes / posting memes online.
Not arrested, but they show up to intimidate which itself is the problem.
> And the reason I’m defending the government on that one point is because it’s flat out wrong and those who claim otherwise are spouting ignorant horseshit.
Seems your defending against a strawman and not the actual issue being discussed.
> Bullshit. You’re the one making comparisons and claiming the UK is the worst offender. Then when evidence is shared about how the UK isn’t you ignore it.
It's not bullshit, and subsequent discussion and investigation has only strengthened my point.
I don't ignore anything, it's just that the evidence presented doesn't support your position.
Thought crime policing is still going on as of 2024, and 25% of the roughly 13,000 "non hate crime incidents", many of which are thought crimes, were incorrectly reported. [0]
Jesus, they recorded an issue as a hate incident because someone didn't want to shake hands. Ignoring and excusing that is akin to burying your head in the sand IMO.
> Are you sure it’s not yourself who’s suffering from tribalism?
Reasonably, since I'm not resorting to insults and strawmen.
[0] https://theweek.com/crime/nchis-the-controversy-over-non-cri...
By the way, you seem to be using 'the government' in a very broad 90s internet libertarian sense. The police in the UK are operationally independent of the government of the day. As Wikipedia explains:
> Police officers [in the UK] hold office and are not employees. Each officer is an independent legal official and not an "agent of the police force, police authority or government". This allows the police their unique status and notionally provides the citizens of the UK a protection from any government that might wish unlawfully to use the police as an instrument against them.