To think that the UK police have no right to "check our thinking"?

[HawayMan]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636383/Twitter-user-investigated-police-posting-poem-social-media-site.html

Yes, its a DM link; however, the Guardian and BBC don't seem to be covering this story yet...

From the article...

A Twitter user is planning to complain to the Home Secretary after police investigated him for retweeting a poem which suggested transgender women are still men.

Harry Miller is furious at his ‘Orwellian’ treatment by an officer who rang to check his ‘thinking’ after he had ‘liked’ a limerick

In better news, I'm planning on moving to Humberside. Clearly, there must be no actual crime there!

These weird comments about homosexuality are a value judgement. Having gay people in a community may bring other benefits that offset the fact they generally won't produce offspring.

Humans not being able to change sex isn't a value judgement, it's a fact.

For something to be a hate crime, it has to first be a crime which can then be considered to have exacerbated by hate of a protected group

it can't be a bias motivated crime if it's not a crime in the first place

There has to be a criminal offence before there can be a hate crime. Where is the actual offence here?

@worridmum that’s not a hate crime either though. It doesn’t matter whether a statement is offensive or not. People can be as offensive as they like. What they can’t do is incite violence.

And it's not hateful to disagree with the opinions of others.

It would be hateful to invite people to violence because of those opinions. It would be hateful to discriminate against another person because of those opinions.

Since when was it about hurt feelings because someone doesn't agree with you?

If there is no incitement to violence or physical assault you're left with public order "using insulting words" knowing that it might cause feelings of harassment, alarm or distress etc etc type stuff. Even then there's a defence that you were being reasonable - stating biological fact is reasonable in my book.

Obviously a ridiculous situation, but not surprising these days really. I find it odd that they tracked him and rang his employer whilst also agreeing that he had not committed a crime. And the pink brain blue brain nonsense being repeated by police is obviously stupid.

Meanwhile women are receiving actual threats of violence and the Police Crime Commissioner of Humberside is blocking women who raise the issue with him.

Btw wasnt someone arristed for calling someone a stupid n word and was done for a hate crime.

The man didn't write the words himself though! He "re-tweeted" them, which could have even meant that he disagreed with them!

There was no offence. The police officer admitted that. The police officer contacted a man who had liked a tweet to "check his thinking".

If that doesn't chill people to the bone then they have very short memories.

So you are saying i would not be committing a hate crime saying homosexuality was a abomination of nature standing outside a event for lgbt community. (I would be done for hate crime but what i said was 100% truth)

He retweeted a poem.

The police officer stated that there was no victim, and that there was no crime. And that he was checking Harry's thinking.

Worridmum first of all, your statement about homosexuality is not 100% true. Yes, gay people are same-sex attracted, but you don't actually need to be attracted to the opposite sex to have children with them. You could be a lesbian and have sex with a man solely to get pregnant but not have any sort of romantic relationship with them. Also, in today's day and age and actually going back a lot longer, there is such a thing as IVF and turkey-basters etc, so you only actually need sperm. So it is untrue that homosexuality would cause the species to die out.

Also, a hate crime is something that is already a crime (e.g. robbery or criminal damage) that is deemed to be motivated by hate for a particular group. Tweeting a poem is not a crime, so it cannot be a hate-crime.

So you are saying i would not be committing a hate crime saying homosexuality was a abomination of nature standing outside a event for lgbt community. (I would be done for hate crime but what i said was 100% truth ).

I'm saying if you liked a poem that said homosexuality was a barrier to procreation, that wouldn't be a hate crime.

worridmum that would possibly be a hate crime because you're saying it somewhere public and somewhere where it will obviously be heard by a person who may feel harassment alarm or distress and because by doing it where you're doing it your intent is obviously to cause such harrassment/alarm/distress.

Nor would your behaviour be objectively reasonable.

He should have simply sent misogynistic tweets; nobody would have batted an eyelid.

Its a hate crime plain and simple.

It clearly wasn't a hate crime, since the police assessed the limerick and found no crime committed.

What is more worrying is that the public order act is being used to charge 'hate crimes' at a very low threshold where the only criteria is a that a member of a particular group might be offended- people are actually going to jail for tasteless jokes or unpopular views (The case of the Nazi dog is worth a google).

stating facts can be offesive factually that statement is true 100% biologically speaking BUT IT IS offensive to homosexuals because it implies they are a mistake or failure in nature

No it can't. Your argument is that IF a species were completely gay it would die out. That's true, (though any imbecile could point out how stupid an argument it is) and truth should not be a crime.

Your other statements about perversion of nature are offensive (which I think was your point, it's hard to tell) but I would defend your right to be offensive. You are allowed to think homosexuality is morally wrong and to argue that in public forum. There is no need for the law to weigh in- plenty of us around to argue with that rubbish.

Incitement to racial hatred is actually a crime in itself.

And, as other's have said....There are actual women out there suffering actual violence. Perhaps we could concentrate on them?

worridmum you're still not getting the point, are you? The N word dates back to the days of slavery, and was specifically coined to dehumanise black people and to justify cruelty and murder.
Stating that transwomen (or some) have surgically constructed breasts and 'neo vaginas' is simply fact, in the same way that it's a fact that Katie Price has surgically enhanced breasts and any number of celebrities have botox and fillers. Would that be a hate crime if someone retweeted a poem about Katie Price's silicone boobs? I think not.

There was no offence. The police officer admitted that. The police officer contacted a man who had liked a tweet to "check his thinking".

More than that, the officer criticised his thinking, spouting some pseudoscience about boy and girl brains; nonsense which is not supported by medical guidance or UK law.

This thread took a turn...