Darren Grimes

nickice

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

surrey_commuter

nickice said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

shortfall said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www

I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.

It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.

Is this not just the latest example of the kind of thing that has always been going on? Being interviewed under caution seems pretty small beer compared with covert surveillance of various elected leftwing politicians, the Lawrence family, and environmental campaigners. The outrage over this feels a little partial.

I don't know enough about the above to agree or disagree (though I'm totally against it if any covert action is to protect the police's reputation). This, for me, is not really the police's fault rather than the lawmaker's.

There's no new law here. This is someone within the police choosing to interview Grimes. I don't think procedure is that rigidly set. I think it's notable that the same people are happy with the police 'just following procedure' when it is someone whose politics they disagree with being stopped/questioned in debatable circumstances, but when it's someone with whom they agree, it's an attack on civil liberties/police harassment.

Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?

Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."

Surely the same principle as the people who cheered on Boris to seize power from Parliament to drive Brexit through are the same people who now moan that he shuts pubs early using the same tactics. More importantly they are incapable of seeing that they are setting a precedent for the likes of Corbyn.

I seem to remember a conversation about a bill banning upskirting here being objected to, on procedural grounds, by a Conservative MP. I think someone even suggested that he should put his principles aside for that particular bill.

That would be the bloke who is always first in line to get their name down for private members bills. If he did the same for every such bill then you would have a point. The old perve just saw no reason to make it illegal to photograph up people’s skirts.

nickice

surrey_commuter said:

nickice said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

shortfall said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www

I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.

It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.

Is this not just the latest example of the kind of thing that has always been going on? Being interviewed under caution seems pretty small beer compared with covert surveillance of various elected leftwing politicians, the Lawrence family, and environmental campaigners. The outrage over this feels a little partial.

I don't know enough about the above to agree or disagree (though I'm totally against it if any covert action is to protect the police's reputation). This, for me, is not really the police's fault rather than the lawmaker's.

There's no new law here. This is someone within the police choosing to interview Grimes. I don't think procedure is that rigidly set. I think it's notable that the same people are happy with the police 'just following procedure' when it is someone whose politics they disagree with being stopped/questioned in debatable circumstances, but when it's someone with whom they agree, it's an attack on civil liberties/police harassment.

Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?

Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."

Surely the same principle as the people who cheered on Boris to seize power from Parliament to drive Brexit through are the same people who now moan that he shuts pubs early using the same tactics. More importantly they are incapable of seeing that they are setting a precedent for the likes of Corbyn.

I seem to remember a conversation about a bill banning upskirting here being objected to, on procedural grounds, by a Conservative MP. I think someone even suggested that he should put his principles aside for that particular bill.

That would be the bloke who is always first in line to get their name down for private members bills. If he did the same for every such bill then you would have a point. The old perve just saw no reason to make it illegal to photograph up people’s skirts.

If you read up on it, his reasons are ostensibly quite sensible.

surrey_commuter

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all then all they needed to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Think about it, the publisher/broadcaster of the interview is legally responsible for the content. I would guess that he is being questioned as a broadcaster rather than an interviewer.

kingstongraham

nickice said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

There has to be an actual law in place that he could have potentially broken. My problem is with the law.

What is the law he's supposed to potentially have broken? I don't think it could be any incitement to racial hatred from what was in the interview. Maybe it's "Threatening, Abusive or Insulting Behaviour (Section 5 Public Order Act 1986)" - in which case it's still nonsense.

I have some difficulty in truly believing that the police force is generally a hotbed of left wing identity politics, so I don't know why this overreach.

nickice

kingstongraham said:

nickice said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

There has to be an actual law in place that he could have potentially broken. My problem is with the law.

What is the law he's supposed to potentially have broken? I don't think it could be any incitement to racial hatred from what was in the interview. Maybe it's "Threatening, Abusive or Insulting Behaviour (Section 5 Public Order Act 1986)" - in which case it's still nonsense.

I have some difficulty in truly believing that the police force is generally a hotbed of left wing identity politics, so I don't know why this overreach.

Honestly don't know. I think part III section 18 for David Starkey and to broadcast it must be another section.

Having a cursory look at the law, it'd seem he didn't mean to stir up racial hatred and it's unlikely it would occur.

Police often go for the easy target but I do have knowledge of one prosecution in Scotland where they went to great lengths (looking for a guy for over a year) to charge someone for using a racial slur. I imagine they don't want to be seen to be soft on hate speech (or they have their orders from politicians)

rick_chasey

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

nickice

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

Pross

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all then all they needed to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Did you miss the bit where I said 'presumably if there is a complaint the police have to investigate'? If there was no complaint then I don't think he should be questioned. Also, do you know he was 'hauled in' rather than asked to attend? I've never heard of Grimes before this thread came up so have no idea of his politics and views. However, using you rationale people could get themselves off breaking the law by claiming to be a broadcaster in this age where pretty much anyone is able to broadcast. Do you genuinely believe people should be able to say anything they like without fear of potential prosecution? If not where do you draw the line? I know nothing about this individual case and my replies are about the whole concept of the limits on free speech.

pangolin

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all then all they needed to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

I don't get this false equivalence people are trying to draw between someone doing a live interview, and someone recording a podcast and choosing to publish it. If he was such an innocent he could have added a disclaimer at the start or end of the recording. Or not released it.

Also you seem to have misspelled racist as "old historian".

tailwindhome

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

shortfall

Pross said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all then all they needed to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Did you miss the bit where I said 'presumably if there is a complaint the police have to investigate'? If there was no complaint then I don't think he should be questioned. Also, do you know he was 'hauled in' rather than asked to attend? I've never heard of Grimes before this thread came up so have no idea of his politics and views. However, using you rationale people could get themselves off breaking the law by claiming to be a broadcaster in this age where pretty much anyone is able to broadcast. Do you genuinely believe people should be able to say anything they like without fear of potential prosecution? If not where do you draw the line? I know nothing about this individual case and my replies are about the whole concept of the limits on free speech.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/darren-grimes-david-starkey-police-c69gf98f0

I think you need to read what I write more carefully. Here's what a former Director of Public Prosecutions has to.say about the "sinister" Met. Lord Macdonald said the Metropolitan Police’s pursuit of Darren Grimes, was “deeply threatening of free speech”.

nickice

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

rick_chasey

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

I’m not talking about procedures.

Stop constructing your own straw man of what you think other people say.

Pross

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

nickice

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

I’m not talking about procedures.

Stop constructing your own straw man of what you think other people say.

Checks and balances includes following correct procedures. But while you're here, maybe you could answer my other question.

tailwindhome

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

If I'm honest I'm not sure who's arguing what and why.

nickice

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

shortfall

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen to defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.

rjsterry

shortfall said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.

I think you are seeing something new and coordinated when this is just a series of unconnected events that has been going on for years, just to other people. The only difference is now it is happening to people you identify with to some degree.

shortfall

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.

I think you are seeing something new and coordinated when this is just a series of unconnected events that has been going on for years, just to other people. The only difference is now it is happening to people you identify with to some degree.

With respect, how on earth do you know how long I've been concerned about civil liberties and policing?

Ben6899

nickice said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

You're better than that, Nick. Right?

kingstongraham

shortfall said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen to defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.

Why do you see a connection between Grimes being asked to attend for an interviewed under caution over publishing an interview and the coronavirus bill?

I'm struggling to believe you think we live under an oppressively extreme left wing government.

rick_chasey

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

If I'm honest I'm not sure who's arguing what and why.

He's accusing me of hypocrisy as he's drawing a parallel between an MP objecting to a private member's bill to slow down the process of making 'upskirting' a criminal offence (i was fairly clear in saying the MP was being a c8nt) and the government wholesale using powers to reduce the scrutiny MPs have over a whole manner of decisions.

rjsterry

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.

I think you are seeing something new and coordinated when this is just a series of unconnected events that has been going on for years, just to other people. The only difference is now it is happening to people you identify with to some degree.

With respect, how on earth do you know how long I've been concerned about civil liberties and policing?

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.

I think you are seeing something new and coordinated when this is just a series of unconnected events that has been going on for years, just to other people. The only difference is now it is happening to people you identify with to some degree.

With respect, how on earth do you know how long I've been concerned about civil liberties and policing?

I don't of course. I'm only going on what I see posted here. Police harassment over publishing particular views (if that's what this is) is certainly nothing new.

rick_chasey

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.

I think you are seeing something new and coordinated when this is just a series of unconnected events that has been going on for years, just to other people. The only difference is now it is happening to people you identify with to some degree.

With respect, how on earth do you know how long I've been concerned about civil liberties and policing?

I guess you've felt concerned enough about this instance to start a thread about it, but have never posted threads about other civil liberties and policing issues, so perhaps that's why you're giving off that impression.

nickice

Ben6899 said:

nickice said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

You're better than that, Nick. Right?

What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.

shortfall

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen to defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.

Why do you see a connection between Grimes being asked to attend for an interviewed under caution over publishing an interview and the coronavirus bill?

I'm struggling to believe you think we live under an oppressively extreme left wing government.

I don't see a direct connection, but anyone concerned about freedom should worry about the increasingly authoritarian government using fear to force Draconian laws on us, and also be concerned about the general increase in censorship and intolerance of certain viewpoints be it either through no platforming, shadow banning by Tech giants, or the police getting involved in matters of unpopular personal opinions and views.

rjsterry

nickice said:

Ben6899 said:

nickice said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

Pre-war Nazi-Germany wasn't a police state because the police didn't thoroughly investigate the disappearances of Jews...

You really just made that comparison. I read it twice to make sure.

You're better than that, Nick. Right?

What's the problem? Shortfall is getting criticised for criticising the police for enforcing some unreasonable laws while criticising the police for not enforcing reasonable ones. If not enforcing some laws means we don't live in a police state, I present to you Nazi Germany.

Whether a law is reasonable or not is pretty subjective and immaterial to whether it has been broken or not. In any case the claim here is that a particular element of the Met have gone beyond the law.

shortfall

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

nickice said:

tailwindhome said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

nickice said:

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

Pross said:

Isn't being questioned under caution simply a way to protect everyone? It doesn't mean there's a case to answer or anyone is getting arrested let alone charged. Presumably if there is a complaint made then the police have a duty to investigate and part of that is an interview under caution.

So in your world a journalist/broadcaster can be hauled in for questioning because of the views expressed by his interiewee? I mean Starkey was an absolute @rse and has probably waved goodbye to the rest of his broadcast and print career, and if the Police had to get involved at all all they had to do was to listen to the podcast in question to decide there was no case to answer. But this is all of a piece with your previously expressed views and opinions on the assault on civil liberties we're currently undergoing that you seem to embrace so welcomingly. I find the whole thing absolutely chilling but it wouldn't be for the first time I was out of step with the cakestop zeitgeist. Still, it's only a Tory blogger and a crusty old historian who had it coming anyway, they'll never come after the rest of us will they?

Yeah it is a problem.

I would also be concerned that the government is trying to politicise lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers as well as the wider judiciary.

This is the problem with this kind of governance (ignoring corona) they go after the checks and balances that help “good governance” but are inconvenient.

That’s all well and fine when they inconvenience your agenda. But next time it might not be.

This has been flagged multiple times on this forum.

The irony here is it seems this Darren guy hates “human rights lawyers” but he’ll probably need one now to uphold his right to free speech. *eyeroll*

I guess what I’m trying say is rhetoric like Grimes’ is part of the problem.

Hard to reconcile this with your opinion on the Tory MP objecting to an upskirting bill on procedural grounds:

rick_chasey said:

He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.

Nothing in the upskirt bill had anything to do with reducing the general level of scrutiny did it?

Not a like for like comparison.

The objection was the bill going to a second reading with no debate. Christopher Chope objected for the reason (among others) that there wasn't enough scrutiny.

Any update on my not supporting free speech?

I'll bet a £1 he was cool with the UK EU trade deal not being subject to scrutiny though.

Ask Rick Chasey as he's suddenly become concerned with correct procedure being followed. He wasn't when it was something he liked.

So a bit like Shortfall who complains about the police state except during the BLM protests where he complained the police stood around doing nothing.

I'm concerned both by the erosion of civil liberties and parliamentary procedures and simultaneously by the Police's apparent failure to tackle real crime going on under their noses on the one hand (at some of the BLM protests) whilst behaving like a brutal foreign militia at others (anti lockdown protests). All of these things are real, all have different drivers. Ask yourself who decides policing priorities and who appoints those people? Ask yourself why you're so keen defend the appalling infringements on the basic functions of private family life we have recently seen. Could it be because you're a victim of propaganda? No of course not, you're far too intelligent for that, you haven't been frightened into a mad panic by the state into abandoning centuries old freedoms and rights in their frantic and failed attempts to halt a virus that mostly kills people near end of life with an average age of 82.

I think you are seeing something new and coordinated when this is just a series of unconnected events that has been going on for years, just to other people. The only difference is now it is happening to people you identify with to some degree.

With respect, how on earth do you know how long I've been concerned about civil liberties and policing?

I guess you've felt concerned enough about this instance to start a thread about it, but have never posted threads about other civil liberties and policing issues, so perhaps that's why you're giving off that impression.

I'd have to go through my posting history but one of my many objections to the EU for instance was the European Arrest Warrant and I'm sure I argued against it on here.