LimeKiwi I find your outlook on this extremely alarming. Throughout this thread you have made vague insinuations about what Caroline Farrow, Harry Miller and now Posie Parker have said, while providing no specific examples. So many of your posts have made my jaw drop but I think this one sums it up:
I would happily stifle the individual
(and yes I'm aware you said that in relation to Tommy Robinson and I'm happy to come back tomorrow to discuss the lessons we should have learnt from that example)
This thread is about a woman who has been investigated by the police for a potential crime and draws in examples of other people who have been investigated by the police for a potential crime.
Here's the thing - in English law we have a basic principle that everything that is not forbidden is permitted. If you want to live somewhere where the inverse is the case - where everything is forbidden unless expressly permitted - then feel free to move to North Korea or Saudi Arabia or any other totalitarian dictatorship of your choice.
So if everything is permitted unless expressly forbidden by law, as is the case in the UK, you need to be able to say what it is these people have said and how it breaks the law. You can't just say 'well look at their account', 'in general', 'it was more than that' bla bla without specifying what exactly they have done that's illegal.
You can try those tactics in a debate about ideas (but they're shit tactics so good luck), but when it comes to the law it won't wash at all.
There's a very good legal analysis of the situation Caroline Farrow has been placed in here. It turns out we have rather good case law around free speech and Twitter, thanks to the bloke who joked about blowing up an airport a few years back.