To think Keir Starmer holds a lot of sway?

[TakemedowntoPotatoCity]

Former Director of Public Prosecutions. Now PM.
Following the 'civil unrest' last week, several perpetrators have been not only arrested and jailed, but publicly named and shamed, the speed of which I have never seen before.
Our PM clearly knows the right people to get things rolling quickly.
This, combined with the anti racism protestors, gives me a glimmer of hope for the future. I feel in safe(ish) hands with Keir.AIBU?

🙄

@MrsRobinsonsHandprints can you give some examples of the two tier policing?
Also, you do know that although the Home Office oversees the policing in England and Wales, Chief Constables of individual regional forces have operational control.
The DPP then decides on policy of prosecution but I agree that police and DPP will have discussion with the government of the day.

I should have added you really need examples of two sides being treated differently in similar circumstances

It's really not that difficult @RobinStrike.

Look at how women are treated when it comes to reporting crime. Violent crimes. Sex crimes. Stalking. Intimidation. Domestic violence. Rape and sexual assault of women and girls has been practically decriminalised. Why is that?

There also seems to be a discrepancy when it comes to crimes committed by POC and white males. Have a look at the Stop and Search and the sentencing stats for POC, particularly women and children.

I'm looking forward to PM Starmer dealing with the two-tier policing/justice problem that is harsher on all those who are not white men.🤞

Two tier is rubbish. Sentencing for crime has to take into a huge number of facts and guidance. Getting two cases which are exactly alike is near impossible.

Some of these differences will be clear because of certain actions; for example all these rioters will get a lesser sentence for admitting at the earliest point. Hang out for a while trial and you might be found guilty and get a lot more.

@TooBigForMyBoots Starmer has already said he plans to halve VAWG. Starting with special courts for rape cases, and having specialist officers in each force. So he is already working with DPP and the regional constabularies with that aim.
On the second point I would hope police also improve but I don't know enough about policies to determine what would need to be altered to ensure stop and search was used fairly.
At the moment two-tier policing is not being used in the press and social media in this way but by people who believe the rioters are being given harsher sentences than the men arrested at Manchester airport for assaulting police. The cases are in no way similar. Especially as the cases before the courts now the people have pleaded guilty and can be fast tracked to stop them returning to the streets to cause more trouble. The men arrested at Manchester airport will go before a jury so it will take much longer.
I have hopes that these will improve, but as I mentioned each force is operationally independent so it will be interesting to see how setting priorities from the Home Office can influence policing on the ground. I think it will take time.

Well, yes, of course it can. But, in doing so, that organisation IS curtailing free speech by only allowing the speech it agrees with.

No it isn’t. Free speech simply means you not being prosecuted/persecuted for saying it, and it has limitations as regards hate speech, incitement and conspiracy to commit crimes. A private business can ban who and what it likes and is not affecting the right to free speech at all.

People don't understand that free speech only applies to the laws of the country you live in, i.e. the state is not allowed to persecute you for saying certain things (within the above mentioned framework of hate speech and incitement of violence).

Private companies are not bound by this legislation - they can ban or accept whoever they want, as long as they don't fall foul of equality laws. And as far as I know, being a racist shitbag isn't a protected characteristic.

Few media organisations "only allow speech they agree with". You only have to look at the comments section on any major news site, and of course mumsnet, to see wildly conflicting views on a wide range of subjects. The organisations publishing those views can't possibly agree with all of them.

But yes they set limits. I wouldn't be allowed to churn out the whole of Mein Kampf, and I think that most people would agree with that.

You again!? Do you argue over EVERYTHING!

I work in the media - I literally studied 'free speech' in order to obtain the qualification I needed to do my job!

There have always been rules regarding free speech and what is/isn't allowed. However, in recent years, that rulebook has swiftly been torn up and thrown out to include censoring anything a person/organisation/group disagrees with and/or sentiments that go against a 'preferred' narrative.

As I said upthread to that other poster (ie, not you!), I actually know people who've been voicing the need for unity and tolerance, who've had their FB/IG accounts suspended/restricted.

There is absolutely ZERO reason to silence these sentiments.

You understand how a discussion board works?
I ask in part because despite studying ‘free speech’ you don’t seem to understand what it is. Private organisations can refuse to publish whatever they like. It’s not censorship to do that. It’s not a threat to free speech.
I agree some media outlets tend to heavily favour one side (usually the right wing in the U.K.) and there can be problems as a result. The problems do not include it being a threat to free speech.

@Jumpingthruhoops - there is quite a difference legally between newspapers and old media, and social media in ethos. The first may decide to represent a range of views from a journalistic factual perspective. The second has zero obligations really to it’s users as can literally decide you aren’t wanted. Art 10 doesn’t mean equality of speech, or that you have to be heard.

Some people seem to believe freedom of speech is the same as the right to be published. Not everything is a government plot.

OK love. Thanks for mansplaining 👍

How offensive. It can only be mansplaining if it’s a man doing it. What is it that makes you assume that’s what I am? You’re even more wrong there than you are about free speech I’m afraid.

Offensive is thinking you know more about every single subject than every person on here. No matter what anyone says you will ALWAYS know better.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. 🤷‍♀️

I don’t think that. I comment when I know something a poster doesn’t know or is mistaken about, or on matters of opinion. I’m amazed I’ve made such an impression. I don’t recognise your user name 🤷‍♀️

Well, I recognise your username... and ALWAYS your tone! So you might want to work on that. Have a good evening.

You again!?

Sorry but 🤣🤣🤣
Are you new to the internet?!
Do you know how discussion boards work lol?!

You are the one with the tone. Very aggressive and dismissive. I’ve not been rude to anyone I don’t think. Can’t say the same for you. But, yes. Have a great evening.

Aggressive... yeah, that's usually what people say when they can dish it out but can't take it.

You've been quite rude to me and people on other threads - that's precisely how and why I recognised your username.

Maybe read your posts back and you'll see what I mean.

@cardibach

ignore them. They are well known for being aggressive, poorly informed and intransigent.

Exactly! You'll never get some people to agree he's managed the situation well. I don't think anyone should expect all the problems with the prosecution system to be fixed in less than 6 weeks but he's shown clear leadership on this issue. I'm hopeful for the future too with him in charge.

@cardibach challenges misinformation, factual inaccuracies and lies on this forum. As do many others. She has challenged you on freedom of speech legislation because you clearly do not understand how it applies to private companies.

Seems it's you who can't take it. You are certainly the one taking an aggressive tone - all caps posting is considered very rude.