Re: Online Safety Bill
 

How you must yearn for the salad days of the Soviet Union.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Absolutely not, free speech is essential in any democratic & civilised society, but there are right ways and wrong ways to put a point across without being malicious or offensive.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

"malicious or offensive" as defined by who exactly ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Assuming we can agree on a definition of ‘malicious and offensive’, do you seriously think a dispute on a school-gate WhatsApp group warrants attendance by six uniforms, eight hours in a police cell and threatening emails sent to elected officials? Because that’s precisely the chain of events you were so breathlessly applauding yesterday.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's a shame you forgot to mention the police have decided to take no further action, makes me think they didn't do what they were accused of. Waste of police time and public money.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Even worse, it appears the "messages" were on a private chat, not connected with the school.
What part of "Private" is hard to grasp here.

Oh, and as above ;

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Those who the remarks are about.

---------- Post added at 09:17 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------

I did say that it seemed a bit overboard when the police are saying they are short of resources. The emails were not known to me at the time.

I've heard that the police have become involved with a journalist over something she posted on Twitter/X and that she now regrets posting it.

Do you know anything about this as it was only briefly mentioned on the News.

---------- Post added at 09:19 ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 ----------

Didn't 'forget', this information wasn't known at the time.

A complaint was made, it was investigated and, subsequently, it was 'no further actioned'.

We don't know the actual wording of what was posted, it could have been libellous, insulting, threatening etc.

---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 ----------

People are entitled to complain about what is said about them, even if it was never intended that they see the remarks. In some ways, if it was said behind their back, it's actually worse.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That’s a breathtakingly naive way to describe six coppers attending, arresting both parents in front of their kids and keeping them in a cell for 8 hours.

The response to this was grossly disproportionate and it is to be hoped that someone in Herts police suffers disciplinary consequences.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

By that measure anything can be Malicious or Offensive. In fact Richard if I reported your post to be malicious and offensive to me, I assume you would have no problem with being arrested by six policemen and held in a cell for 8hrs whilst they investigated my claim?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Eight hours does seem excessive, maybe they were trying to get in touch with or liase with the aggrieved parties, or wanted to teach them a lesson, but without taking it any further??

As I said, we don't know what was actually said. She might have used an everyday phrase like 'I'm going to kill him if he does XYZ'. Of course, as it stands that's a threat to kill, but using common sense wouldn't interpret it as such. In this hypothetical situation she would have had chance to explain that it was a figure of speech & not meant literally. They would then have had to contact the aggrieved parties to see if they accepted this explanation. They might have needed time to think it over or to seek legal advice before responding.

Recently a woman who was sacked from our local dry cleaners posted on Facebook that she was going to blow it up. The police visited her and no further action was taken because she agreed to remove her post and replace it with a public retraction and apology.

If they had decided to I imagine that they could have changed her under terrorism legislation, but understood that she was young, upset after being dismissed and had subsequently agreed to make amends.

---------- Post added at 12:30 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------

I think most people would know what was or wasn't offensive and wouldn't make such remarks. However, we can all inadvertently offend people without realising, but in most cases, if the comment(s) are withdrawn and an apology made, there's no harm done.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You do realise this is not what arrest and police detention is for? Stupid question, you obviously don’t.

It is not the polcie’s job to hand out eight-hour prison sentences without trial. The power of detention has specific uses and is meant to be proportionate.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You misunderstand. "You" may make an entirely innocent and seemingly inoffensive remark, but subjectively, by your standard, If find offensive, I can call the police have you arrested and detained for 8hrs.

After you've been arrested and held in a cell for 8hrs.....and that's no harm done is it?

and why should you withdraw a comment and apologise, if no offence or malice was intended?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It might have been proportionate, we simply don't know either way. The police have been known to bend (or even blatantly break) the rules to suit themselves. If they did on this occasion, hopefully any investigation will bring this to light.

---------- Post added at 16:01 ---------- Previous post was at 15:55 ----------

No, if it was clearly nothing offensive like 'Do you like apple pie', you would be given short thrift if you complained.

If someone inadvertently offended someone, for example by using a dated term for a black person, and they genuinely didn't mean to be offensive, they would be only too pleased to negate the offense caused by withdrawing and apologising for the remark. If they refuse to do so, this would call into question whether if was accidental and if it was deliberately said in order to cause upset. The incident would then be viewed in an entirely different light.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You seem to think that they did it in order to teach a lesson. That is, without doubt, disproportionate and a misuse of the power of detention. Make up your mind.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Do you even realise how incrediby daft that definition is ?
By that standard anyone can simply say anything anyone else says is "malicious or offensive".

Not to mention in this case the comments were in a PRIVATE conversation between unrelated people.