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?

"people being arrested and jailed for posting on social media"
For incitement of racial hatred & violence.

And who decides what is hatred?

Who exactly?

The point about the woman who posted the false information is where it came from; and there is a quite a big question on that. If there is not another source, she is in very big trouble @hamstersarse and I imagine that is why is she still in custody.

But the statement all round was very troubling. People should not imagine putting “if this is true” will always mean no legal liability applies. It is a lot more complicated than that.

And the law decides by jury trial, so it’s a jury of peers.

https://x.com/cpsuk/status/1821227881575403810?s=46&t=P73CWb5wPJ7_FuwIdMZsTw

Looks like he’s also spent a pot of cash advertising we better watch what we say.

with no definition of what is classed as hatred

it is so sinister it’s BEYOND BELIEF

Added bonus was most of them didn't mask up

I don't know if they genuinely believed there was safety in numbers, or they thought that local police wouldn't recognise them, but they didn't try to hide their faces, which was remarkably stupid

But I suppose keyboard warriors may not have understood that in terms of seriousness in crime that they may have done something worse than attending a riot. What you say online matters

There is a lot of criminal cases which do define hatred. These are not secret - they are available to read

Why are you so passive about this enormous power the government seem to want very badly?
Do you not see anything wrong with it at all?

Beginning to think a few on MN are feeling uncomfortable about sharing the fictitious story.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

The advertisement I posted is as VAGUE as possible to scare people

I stand by my statement, it is sinister beyond belief

This hate speech law also flies in the face of article 10 of the ECHR. It’s an over step.

One because it is the same power that the government had over me two months back, two, because the decision to prosecute is made by a lawyer not the government, and three, a jury may decide I am innocent if there is reasonable doubt. That last one is ordinary people, and protects my liberty.

Nothing new, same system. What is new is rioting.

That woman is absolutely despicable and should be jailed, in my opinion. However, I can't help thinking people were looking for an excuse to kick off anyway. The truth about his identity came out quickly but the rioters didn't care. They still want to smash things up and beat up brown people. Yes, the killer was British but to the racists he's still "one of them", a black man, not truly British.
There's been racism growing for years, particularly islamophobia, which is why people are attacking mosques despite the fact they know full well he wasn't a Muslim.

There are very well known limitations on Artcle 10. For example for national security or the prevention of crime & disorder.
All explained here -

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/20150318foeelegalframeworkkguidancerevisedd_final.docx

Yes it is harsh and needs to be for the deterrent effect. Why do you think Bradford has rioted? Because 20 odd years ago some huge sentences were handed out and memories remain strong and stopped people rioting. Hopefully this will have the same effect

@hamstersarse do you actually think Labour have brought a new law in! Ffs

Nah, @hamstersarse is a huge Tory fan and so it was perfectly fiiiiiine when the Tories had those powers, but not now that we have a government she doesn't like. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Yes all of the Tory shortcomings can now be blamed on Labour. How pathetic.

Oh I see: well that makes sense.

Implementation of law is what matters

Many laws exist that aren’t actively implemented, certainly not advertised

@Otherstories2002 you seem to be suggesting that the fast tracking of the riots cases has materially delayed rape cases, to such a degree that shows negligent disregard for the importance of pursuing convictions in those rape cases.

You seem to tacitly agree that the approach taken against the riot cases - swift, harsher sentences designed to counter and reverse the moment behind the disorder - will have a deterrent effect, and appear to be making an equivalence to rape cases, in other words that fast tracking rape cases would have similar deterrent value.

Your initial, substantive point wasn't that there is some sharing of resources between policing and criminals justice between the paths for cases whereby rioter pleads guilty, and a rapist who pleads not guilty, as obviously that would be such a facile point that nobody would be bothered to make it.

Instead, you were saying that resources had been reassigned from rape to riot to such a degree that any deterrent effect in the rape cases would be reduced. Instead, you wonder why there instead hasn't been a reassignment of resources towards the rape backlog, as you would like to see a similar deterrent to rapists.

The fact is, the transfer of resources to these riot cases is temporary and tiny in the scheme of things, and the intention is to reduce pressure on the system over the medium term. By "nipping it in the bud", there will be fewer cases overall, and therefore more capacity to pursue other cases, such as rape. This is pretty obvious, no?

Meanwhile, the rape backlog is so large, that in order to make any difference there would be MASSIVELY more resources needed. It's just not comparable with the "spike" we have seen for the riots in recent days. Any meaningful improvement to the rape backlog will take a lot more money and a lot more time. For example, they might need to set up a load of new rape courts, which would take time. And, as you have read on this thread, that is exactly what this government are doing.

Finally, rape conviction rates are notoriously low. There are a whole host of specialists required to secure a conviction, from lawyers to police officers. They can't just transfer over PC Plod to the rape cases, we need specially trained, experienced police on these cases, same across the rest of the system. So yes, there very much are, effectively "different" police forces, not across the whole lifecycle of a case, but certainly in the bottlenecks that are actually causing the delays, which is the big that matters. Again, this seems to be obvious to anyone with a grain of sense; I can't believe you're not aware of this.

You seem to have shifted your point from "there aren't two separate police forces, why don't they just transfer police to rape cases" which is obviously just wrongheaded, to "there is some sharing of resources" which is so irrelevant to your initial point that I can't believe you are making it in good faith.

Sorry about the long post, everyone!

A jury.

They are not hidden.

Operationalising the law is something Starmer knew as DPP. He would also have a good knowledge of the criminal law. Did that mean for these riots he had a better ability to assist the police and CPS that say if Sunak or Johnson had been in charge? Yes. But no new laws, and importantly, operational decisions, that is the day to day of what the police do and what the CPS do are independent of government. By necessity.

Implementation of law is what matters

which is executed by CPS, judges and in some cases jury’s right? Not Keir Starmer

@DipDopDooDa well done on that post! I tend to try not to engage with posters like the one in question, because as you say, there isn’t a coherent knowledgeable position that they hold. It’s pointless and gets boring.