Another story of police overreach and a failure to understand the law. A placard stating ‘not my king’ is not illegal and should not lead to arrest.
A man who claims he was warned by police that he risked being arrested if he wrote “not my King” on a placard now feels “more inclined to go out there and to protest to uphold our rights”.
This is probably the best way of dealing with an out of control police – refuse to obey them, deliberately flout their orders. Yes, I do think that the republican argument should be left for another time. At least wait until after the funeral. But if freedom of speech is to mean anything at all, it is the freedom to be crass, offensive and disrespectful. And if you cannot bring yourself to defend these twats’ right to be twats, then you don’t believe in free speech.
Now a clip of him speaking with an officer who warned he may be arrested for “offending someone” has been viewed more than 700,000 times on social media.
How many times do these morons need to be told? Causing offence is not an offence.
I could be wrong but I think that if you are a UK citizen Charles is your king whether you like it or not. I don’t really like him much but I think that he should be given a chance to prove himself before writing him off.
Best gag that I’ve heard so far is the suggestion that the Royal Mail is rebranded as C3PO.
Oh, very good.
My own gag is, at least she’s gone to a place that can afford the heating. Call me thick, but I don’t get the link between Royal Mail and C3PO.
Ah, I just got it – Chuck Da Tird Post Office! Boy am I dumb at times…
Charles III Post Office.
It certainly does stretch the “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it” to the absolute limit. He is a weapons grade arsehole, a climate change barrister with an Extinction Rebellion badge.
Given how the police accommodate BLM and XR scum who actually do break the law, you’d think that they’d just ignore anyone who held up a banner saying “not my king”.
It’s that stretch that tests your resolve. Over at the Free Speech Union’s discussions, there are plenty falling at this hurdle.
I think you will find that the police are more concerned about there being a serious breach of the peace if someone else takes exception to his stupidity.Stanley Holloway used to sing about young Albert teasing the lion and its consequences.
If there is a breach of the peace, then they are obliged to deal with it. Not engage in precrime.
The view of the left seems to be that those that they disagree with only want free speech so that they can say nasty racist and fascist stuff. They tend to project their notion that only speech that they agree with should be allowed onto their political opponents. For myself I think that all opinions should be aired. Just because a view is unpopular doesn’t mean it is wrong. Just because I disagree with something doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong, I’m not infallible but I am willing to learn if better information comes along. How will I learn if I ban those who would correct me from speaking? Lastly, allowing idiots to speak freely often means that they condemn themselves by their own words. I would prefer to know what they are thinking, only that way can they be refuted.
I’ve just seen this from the Daily Mash.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/six-entirely-truthful-statements-the-police-might-arrest-you-for-making-20220915225739
The first thing to understand about the UK Police is that too many of them – far, far too many – have only a limited understanding of the law beyond the basic stuff and use the uniform as a pretence for just making a lot of it up as they go along.