UK Home Secretary sets up 'HATE CRIME' unit - Free speech will now cost Jail time.

[Phil Perry]

Wiltshire Plod have been so successful, they are being replicated!

 

http://www.breitbart.com/lo...

 

UK Government Targets Internet ‘Trolls’ with Specialist Police Unit

 

The government is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ cash on the first-ever national police unit dedicated to tackling internet ‘trolls’.

 

The Home Office has dedicated £200,000 towards setting up the ‘hub’ in the hope it will see more web users tracked down and prosecuted for causing offence on social media.

 

A small team of officers will be dedicated to assessing reports of perceived abuse made to the police’s True Vision ‘hate crime’ reporting platform, which was used by pro-EU campaigners to claim Brexit had caused a wave of ‘hate crimes’.

 

The police will also spend their time contacting tech firms to demand that ‘hate speech’ is deleted from the internet, the Mail on Sunday reports.

 

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said Saturday night: “Online hate crime is completely unacceptable.

 

“What is illegal offline is illegal online, and those who commit these cowardly crimes should be met with the full force of the law.

 

“The national online hate crime hub that we are funding is an important step to ensure more victims have the confidence to come forward and report the vile abuse to which they are being subjected.”

 

Last year, the London mayor’s office for policing and crime (Mopac) announced it was spending £1,730,726 of taxpayers’ money policing speech online after applying for a grant from the Home Office.

 

Sadiq Khan’s office promised to set up a police “online hate crime hub” to work in “partnership with social media providers” to criminalise “trolls” who “target … individuals and communities”.

 

Last year, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) confirmed that no evidence is needed to bring a criminal complaint against someone for a “hate crime”, as “reporting … is subjective and is based on the perception of the victim”.

 

“In order to treat a crime as a hate crime for the purposes of investigation, there is no need for evidence to prove the aggravating element,” the guidelines add.

 

“Hate crimes” receive harsher sentences than other crimes, and “aggravating” factors are often vague, such as the definition of “transphobia”.

 

Thought crime now takes precedence over real crime.

 

 

Jeeze,. . .Old Georgy Orwell couldn't have made this $hit up in one of his worst nightmare scenarios.

 

 

Some people now seriously believe that it's time for a new Guy Fawkes, or at the very least, a battlefield nuke at the Houses of Parliament. They have gone totally mad.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I fear for the sanity of my country. . .I really do. . . .with these fecking insane mongoloids in the driving seat. . . .Coming to a Government near YOU. . .if it proves a success. . . .

 

( Phones Qantas for a price on six one-way tickets. . .)

 

 

[nomadpete]

I wouldn't be talking like that, Phil. (The walls have ears)

 

Cancel those tickets so you can stay to answer charges!

 

 

[Marty_d]

There is no such thing as totally "free speech" anyway. Try going to a street corner and preaching hate against whatever minority gets your goat, and you'll soon find Mr Plod and his associates having a quiet word to you.

 

Even a "free" society such as ours, or the UK, has a social contract where your individual freedoms are protected - up to a point. This is a good thing; if every nutjob who hated black people, or people in wheelchairs, or gays, were able to get on their soapbox and scream that hatred to the population at large, life would be less pleasant for everyone.

 

Now we have the internet, where everyone seems to think they can yell as loudly and nastily about whatever they want with absolutely no consequences. And unlike the corner soapbox where hundreds of people could hear, their audience could be in the millions.

 

I think there has to be a balance here. As for the bit in red about lack of evidence and harsher penalties (harsher than what?) I'd be interested to see the actual laws and whether they contain, as ours do, the caveat that a "reasonable person" would find the statement offensive/hurtful/whatever.

 

 

[old man emu]

SUBJECTIVE JUSTICE

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

I HATE it

 

I do really HATE it, makes my Blood boil,

 

HATEFUL NBN taking my old internet away.

 

spacesailor