In Part 1 we examined the silly concept of the “armchair rioter” which has been offered to suggest people can start riots from the comfort of their favourite recliner.
Clearly the level of 'proof' needed for a conviction for 'encouraging' a crime is far lower than for incitement of a crime, because as stated in the article, a crime has to actually have been committed for a charge of incitement to stick, whereas 'encouraging' a crime really only comes down to interpretation of the circumstances of the event. It is a lot like the weird concept of victimless crime which is so much a part of the state's war against its population.
I entirely agree that the state is erecting a control system to ready the public to live under a dictatorship. It is a metaphorical cage that is being constructed around people, one which appears to have moveable bars according to how much a person complies with the state's diktats where the space between the bars will be wide for those complying or narrow for those refusing to comply.
In the several filmed judgments of the court cases the judges all said a more lenient sentence was given where the accused pleaded guilty. In other words, comply and play the game the way we like and we'll give you less jail time. Only a tiny percentage of people chose to have their cases heard in a crown court and before a jury. It will be very interesting to see what the jury's verdict will be in these cases.
I admire your tenacity Iain, unpicking that lot must have been a huge timesink.
I don't do social media so it was very difficult to get a handle on the finer details without knowing what was actually said by those swept up in this psyop. I appreciate you covering this, and look forward to the rest of the series.
I'm left wondering if those you've exampled who had been arrested, had exercised their right to silence, and had decent legal representation, whether they would have been convicted at all.
It will be interesting to see the outcomes of those who opted for a trial rather than those who fell for the 'plead guilty and get a lesser sentence' ploy, I'm pretty sure that if they thought they were going to do actual gaol time for words they posted on social media, they would have opted to take their chances with a jury. It's unlikely they can get even harsher with sentencing.
While I agree with the gist of your argument, that the claims of inciting violence through "hate speech" are ginned up and lacking in proof of the existence of a causative link, I must say that I believe that much online speech is extremely harmful and toxic to the population, without necessarily "inciting" violence or obvious noxious behavior. Regrettably, this speech is almost exclusively, regularly and consistent coming from the government itself, which has seen fit to use the power of the media and censorship to foment hatred, divisiveness and social discord through its improper exercise of editorial power. As we have seen for some time now, it is those who hypocritically point the finger who are most likely to be guilty themselves of the crimes alleged to have been committed by others.
Complacency has allowed the rule of law to become so elastic that the blindfold of justice has slipped to the point of becoming a gag for those who seek to point it out.
Clearly the level of 'proof' needed for a conviction for 'encouraging' a crime is far lower than for incitement of a crime, because as stated in the article, a crime has to actually have been committed for a charge of incitement to stick, whereas 'encouraging' a crime really only comes down to interpretation of the circumstances of the event. It is a lot like the weird concept of victimless crime which is so much a part of the state's war against its population.
I entirely agree that the state is erecting a control system to ready the public to live under a dictatorship. It is a metaphorical cage that is being constructed around people, one which appears to have moveable bars according to how much a person complies with the state's diktats where the space between the bars will be wide for those complying or narrow for those refusing to comply.
In the several filmed judgments of the court cases the judges all said a more lenient sentence was given where the accused pleaded guilty. In other words, comply and play the game the way we like and we'll give you less jail time. Only a tiny percentage of people chose to have their cases heard in a crown court and before a jury. It will be very interesting to see what the jury's verdict will be in these cases.
I admire your tenacity Iain, unpicking that lot must have been a huge timesink.
I don't do social media so it was very difficult to get a handle on the finer details without knowing what was actually said by those swept up in this psyop. I appreciate you covering this, and look forward to the rest of the series.
I'm left wondering if those you've exampled who had been arrested, had exercised their right to silence, and had decent legal representation, whether they would have been convicted at all.
It will be interesting to see the outcomes of those who opted for a trial rather than those who fell for the 'plead guilty and get a lesser sentence' ploy, I'm pretty sure that if they thought they were going to do actual gaol time for words they posted on social media, they would have opted to take their chances with a jury. It's unlikely they can get even harsher with sentencing.
Bravo Iain. Look forward to 3 and 4.
While I agree with the gist of your argument, that the claims of inciting violence through "hate speech" are ginned up and lacking in proof of the existence of a causative link, I must say that I believe that much online speech is extremely harmful and toxic to the population, without necessarily "inciting" violence or obvious noxious behavior. Regrettably, this speech is almost exclusively, regularly and consistent coming from the government itself, which has seen fit to use the power of the media and censorship to foment hatred, divisiveness and social discord through its improper exercise of editorial power. As we have seen for some time now, it is those who hypocritically point the finger who are most likely to be guilty themselves of the crimes alleged to have been committed by others.
Complacency has allowed the rule of law to become so elastic that the blindfold of justice has slipped to the point of becoming a gag for those who seek to point it out.