We have a ridiculous range of overlapping statutes that can be applied to similar actions. This enables the authorities to game the system. Where the target can be intimidated, like Lucy Connolly, they use the Public Order Act, which can result in a 7 year prison sentence. Where intimidation is unlikely to work, as in this case, they use a summary only offence to keep the matter away from a jury.
There seems to be so many things wrong with this country at this time . Control of our speech is sad as the majority of people do not have access to the on line written words. It seems the mobile phone is becoming a weapon that should be used very carefully. ?
Beyond sad Peter I agree. The general rule of line for us Brits should be (at the moment with the laws as they are) be careful encouraging any action. But if Greg is found guilty by a magistrate, it seems even asking questions could be an issue, putting us into far darker territory. Genuinely scary times.
The main problem is anyone can be tried under the various speech or communications legislation at any time for questioning those in power. That has to end or we are heading down a very dark road.
The law must be applied equally. The scary bit is that because it is not and subject to whims of PCC and College of Policing directions no one knows how the law will apply to them. Leftist card carrying Fabian - one rule. Bexiteer or even owner of ‘Brexity’ books another; skin colour or sexual preferences outside the standard and another; boat invader another. We are heading for absolute chaos. It doesn’t matter whether KS is stupid or evil the outcome is the same. He even authored the rules for sentencing of pedos.
All on the island know it, but this is just another example that your governments (all levels) have gone round the bend. They have precious little to do with the citizenry, except to persecute them.
The countries of the UK must root out their local governments and replace them with populist, nationalist ones, intent on limiting the powers of the government to only those essential to maintaining the safety, prosperity and rights of those citizens.
Right now, as all know, you have governments driven by ideologies and agendas, designed for maximum control and manipulation of the people. Hence the actions of your law enforcement and judiciary, when it comes to protecting the apparatus and not the people.
The marches are great to finally see happening, but they will only go so far, and the momentum will only survive for so long. There needs to be a plan to revamp these local governments, that is actively being worked toward.
Because the regimes are only waiting for the populist momentum to fade. They know that the crowds will dwindle when winter comes and they impose more austerity measures for heating.
The bottom line is this will not stop and only get worse, so long as the governments in power see the native and legal citizen as a burden and not an employer.
Starmer has twice gone on TV and called the average British person with a semblance of national pride and wish for proper justice and decorum “far right”. How is that not an offence under the Communications Act?
Ah but he’s a Blair prodigy so can’t be punished under a Blair law is that it?
We really should have “Sticks and Stones” and “Offence is never given” as actual laws.
So a former politician posts positive comments to posing gay boys and then tries to chat up a schoolkid and the police aren't bothered and the political party he belongs to also aren't too bothered. A "proper" credentialled journalists calls attention to this behaviour and he's the one being arrested.
Likewise, a bloke shouts out a comment about a religion at a scene where children have been murdered and he goes to prison for it. Whereas a silly woman posts a video of her calling for people to be killed and the police just ask her to maybe not be so emotional.
The police and the judiciary have completely lost the plot haven't they? The law has become so complicated that nobody has any idea what might be illegal or why. Arresting people for saying things is a lot easier than having to find people who have stolen stuff or raped women or traded narcotics.
It's easy enough for us little people to ignore the crazy laws but that only works if the police don't notice us.
And isn't it creepy how many public figures are interested in young people for all the wrong reasons?
I’m greatfull for the story, it’s unbelievable that we are living under this state control and terrifying. I cannot help but see the “two tier” narrative as a trick we fall into tho. The story is that a journo is getting arrested for a story and a douche bag lefty is getting a warning but both are a huge problem and shouldn’t be happening. It’s what can bring all sides together against the authority but alas we will even be divided on who should have their fundamental rights taken more!
Yes it certainly appears that we have a 2 Tier justice system operating.
The former MP...firstly I discount 'evidence' produced by paedo hunters who are thugs and bullies looking for likes and clicks on their youtube channels. They are in an ethically very murky area because technically those they sting haven't actually done anything wrong. Communicating with an adult pretending to be a child isn't actually communicating with an actual child.
Anyone serious about preventing paedophilia would better spend their time drawing attention to the LGBTQ+ propaganda going into schools, the likes of drag queen story hour, the 'family oriented' pride parades...all of these are about breaking down boundaries and are a slow, insidious attempt at first of all the de stigmatisation of and then ultimately the acceptance of, child adult sexual relations. If you can get people to accept transgender woo woo and importantly the idea of 'trans kids', you are more than halfway to getting them to accept paedophilia as another sexual orientation.
In any case, hard core paedos are far too cunning to allow themselves to be trapped in a sting.
As for the former MP..."school age" could mean attending VI form i.e 16, 17, 18 or even 19 years old and over the legal age for consent unless the adult involved is in some position of care or professional responsibility.
A 66 year old flirting with a teenager 16 years plus isn't doing anything illegal. It seems to me there's more to this and maybe the police had concerns that an ongoing criminal investigation could be affected by speculation on social media.
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, especially about the LGBTQI+ propaganda going into our schools breaking down boundaries of social norms and acceptance of transgender woo woo, I do not agree with your last sentence; a 66 yr old flirting with a 16 year old in my view is a form of grooming along the lines of Huw Edwards and the schoolboy that he groomed.
16 is the age of consent under UK law. Now you may well find a 66 year old chasing a lad of 16 (if thats what he was doing) distasteful or whatever but he isn't doing anything illegal.
Sexual banter between much older men and boys is quite common amongst gay men and in my vast experience is not necessarily predatory. Lots of boys like attention from older men, plenty of whom are happy to oblige, whilst maintaining appropriate boundaries.
I think it's fair to point out that some young lads are physically attracted to much older men. About three years ago I met a young man at a party who has such an attraction and he informed me that when he was in his mid teens (he's now late 20s) he engineered a meeting with a well-known TV personality, but wouldn't say who it was. It was only after the news about Huw Edwards came to light that he admitted that it was him that he had been with. So it's not always the older person who is doing the chasing. Just to add balance I also know another young man (mid 20s) who likes women who are 65+.
Hugh Edwards was leveraging a position of power if I recall. I don't want to live in a world where we can't enjoy a bit of banter...even if it's a bit flirty or seedy.
Oh and my final word....any 66 year old trying to groom a 16 year old boy is going to have his work cut out. Having spent A LOT of time in the company of teenage boys I can with confidence say that he'll be lucky if he gets past "fuck off you queer bastard" or variations thereof.
I see these stories coming from the UK and can't help thinking "is this satire, the Babylon Bee or The Onion?". Alas, apparently they are true and individual rights are quite subjective.
The explicit strategy of Anarcho Tyranny is to not *enforce* the law. Anarcho Tyranny explicitly uses the law as a tool of tyranny: punish those out of favor under cover of law, while ignoring the law as it applies to those in favor of the tyrants.
This man was a hair’s breadth away from being elected President of the US. He was our Secretary of State and a US Senator and a lawyer who swore an oath to defend and protect the “Constitution” of the US.
And now his “American and Constitutionalist” mask has slipped with this comment regarding our free speech rights to reveal the totalitarian ghoul behind censorship in the US and around the globe.
“Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence.” John Kerry
Enforcing “Groupthink” is the goal of all these legal niceties and processes.
Courageous lawyers and judges will have to repeal steadfastly, with the support of the public, this cynical and elaborate spider web of laws in the UK and US and EU.
It depends on the maturity of the boy. Yes it could be grooming. It could also just be banter online. What if the boy himself approaches the man first? At that age pre internet days I was seeking out sex with older men. I didn't need to be groomed I was gagging for it.
We have a ridiculous range of overlapping statutes that can be applied to similar actions. This enables the authorities to game the system. Where the target can be intimidated, like Lucy Connolly, they use the Public Order Act, which can result in a 7 year prison sentence. Where intimidation is unlikely to work, as in this case, they use a summary only offence to keep the matter away from a jury.
🎯🎯🎯
Greg needs to join the Free Speech Union !
There seems to be so many things wrong with this country at this time . Control of our speech is sad as the majority of people do not have access to the on line written words. It seems the mobile phone is becoming a weapon that should be used very carefully. ?
Beyond sad Peter I agree. The general rule of line for us Brits should be (at the moment with the laws as they are) be careful encouraging any action. But if Greg is found guilty by a magistrate, it seems even asking questions could be an issue, putting us into far darker territory. Genuinely scary times.
The main problem is anyone can be tried under the various speech or communications legislation at any time for questioning those in power. That has to end or we are heading down a very dark road.
The law must be applied equally. The scary bit is that because it is not and subject to whims of PCC and College of Policing directions no one knows how the law will apply to them. Leftist card carrying Fabian - one rule. Bexiteer or even owner of ‘Brexity’ books another; skin colour or sexual preferences outside the standard and another; boat invader another. We are heading for absolute chaos. It doesn’t matter whether KS is stupid or evil the outcome is the same. He even authored the rules for sentencing of pedos.
Remember that we've had free speech for a very long time and guard it jealously.
An excellent article JJ!!
All on the island know it, but this is just another example that your governments (all levels) have gone round the bend. They have precious little to do with the citizenry, except to persecute them.
The countries of the UK must root out their local governments and replace them with populist, nationalist ones, intent on limiting the powers of the government to only those essential to maintaining the safety, prosperity and rights of those citizens.
Right now, as all know, you have governments driven by ideologies and agendas, designed for maximum control and manipulation of the people. Hence the actions of your law enforcement and judiciary, when it comes to protecting the apparatus and not the people.
The marches are great to finally see happening, but they will only go so far, and the momentum will only survive for so long. There needs to be a plan to revamp these local governments, that is actively being worked toward.
Because the regimes are only waiting for the populist momentum to fade. They know that the crowds will dwindle when winter comes and they impose more austerity measures for heating.
The bottom line is this will not stop and only get worse, so long as the governments in power see the native and legal citizen as a burden and not an employer.
Starmer has twice gone on TV and called the average British person with a semblance of national pride and wish for proper justice and decorum “far right”. How is that not an offence under the Communications Act?
Ah but he’s a Blair prodigy so can’t be punished under a Blair law is that it?
We really should have “Sticks and Stones” and “Offence is never given” as actual laws.
So a former politician posts positive comments to posing gay boys and then tries to chat up a schoolkid and the police aren't bothered and the political party he belongs to also aren't too bothered. A "proper" credentialled journalists calls attention to this behaviour and he's the one being arrested.
Likewise, a bloke shouts out a comment about a religion at a scene where children have been murdered and he goes to prison for it. Whereas a silly woman posts a video of her calling for people to be killed and the police just ask her to maybe not be so emotional.
The police and the judiciary have completely lost the plot haven't they? The law has become so complicated that nobody has any idea what might be illegal or why. Arresting people for saying things is a lot easier than having to find people who have stolen stuff or raped women or traded narcotics.
It's easy enough for us little people to ignore the crazy laws but that only works if the police don't notice us.
And isn't it creepy how many public figures are interested in young people for all the wrong reasons?
I’m greatfull for the story, it’s unbelievable that we are living under this state control and terrifying. I cannot help but see the “two tier” narrative as a trick we fall into tho. The story is that a journo is getting arrested for a story and a douche bag lefty is getting a warning but both are a huge problem and shouldn’t be happening. It’s what can bring all sides together against the authority but alas we will even be divided on who should have their fundamental rights taken more!
Yes it certainly appears that we have a 2 Tier justice system operating.
The former MP...firstly I discount 'evidence' produced by paedo hunters who are thugs and bullies looking for likes and clicks on their youtube channels. They are in an ethically very murky area because technically those they sting haven't actually done anything wrong. Communicating with an adult pretending to be a child isn't actually communicating with an actual child.
Anyone serious about preventing paedophilia would better spend their time drawing attention to the LGBTQ+ propaganda going into schools, the likes of drag queen story hour, the 'family oriented' pride parades...all of these are about breaking down boundaries and are a slow, insidious attempt at first of all the de stigmatisation of and then ultimately the acceptance of, child adult sexual relations. If you can get people to accept transgender woo woo and importantly the idea of 'trans kids', you are more than halfway to getting them to accept paedophilia as another sexual orientation.
In any case, hard core paedos are far too cunning to allow themselves to be trapped in a sting.
As for the former MP..."school age" could mean attending VI form i.e 16, 17, 18 or even 19 years old and over the legal age for consent unless the adult involved is in some position of care or professional responsibility.
A 66 year old flirting with a teenager 16 years plus isn't doing anything illegal. It seems to me there's more to this and maybe the police had concerns that an ongoing criminal investigation could be affected by speculation on social media.
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, especially about the LGBTQI+ propaganda going into our schools breaking down boundaries of social norms and acceptance of transgender woo woo, I do not agree with your last sentence; a 66 yr old flirting with a 16 year old in my view is a form of grooming along the lines of Huw Edwards and the schoolboy that he groomed.
16 is the age of consent under UK law. Now you may well find a 66 year old chasing a lad of 16 (if thats what he was doing) distasteful or whatever but he isn't doing anything illegal.
Sexual banter between much older men and boys is quite common amongst gay men and in my vast experience is not necessarily predatory. Lots of boys like attention from older men, plenty of whom are happy to oblige, whilst maintaining appropriate boundaries.
I think it's fair to point out that some young lads are physically attracted to much older men. About three years ago I met a young man at a party who has such an attraction and he informed me that when he was in his mid teens (he's now late 20s) he engineered a meeting with a well-known TV personality, but wouldn't say who it was. It was only after the news about Huw Edwards came to light that he admitted that it was him that he had been with. So it's not always the older person who is doing the chasing. Just to add balance I also know another young man (mid 20s) who likes women who are 65+.
Hugh Edwards was leveraging a position of power if I recall. I don't want to live in a world where we can't enjoy a bit of banter...even if it's a bit flirty or seedy.
Oh and my final word....any 66 year old trying to groom a 16 year old boy is going to have his work cut out. Having spent A LOT of time in the company of teenage boys I can with confidence say that he'll be lucky if he gets past "fuck off you queer bastard" or variations thereof.
I see these stories coming from the UK and can't help thinking "is this satire, the Babylon Bee or The Onion?". Alas, apparently they are true and individual rights are quite subjective.
The explicit strategy of Anarcho Tyranny is to not *enforce* the law. Anarcho Tyranny explicitly uses the law as a tool of tyranny: punish those out of favor under cover of law, while ignoring the law as it applies to those in favor of the tyrants.
Makes no sense - law against journalist doing his job. No mention of whether any action taken against Caplin.
This man was a hair’s breadth away from being elected President of the US. He was our Secretary of State and a US Senator and a lawyer who swore an oath to defend and protect the “Constitution” of the US.
And now his “American and Constitutionalist” mask has slipped with this comment regarding our free speech rights to reveal the totalitarian ghoul behind censorship in the US and around the globe.
“Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence.” John Kerry
Enforcing “Groupthink” is the goal of all these legal niceties and processes.
Courageous lawyers and judges will have to repeal steadfastly, with the support of the public, this cynical and elaborate spider web of laws in the UK and US and EU.
John Kerry - not his real name
It depends on the maturity of the boy. Yes it could be grooming. It could also just be banter online. What if the boy himself approaches the man first? At that age pre internet days I was seeking out sex with older men. I didn't need to be groomed I was gagging for it.
This is clearly a tissue of far right lies aimed at discrediting our fantastic police force.
🤣😂