Why did the British Police arrest Facebook/Twitter users?

What do you have to do in the US to get arrested for something you’ve said on Facebook or Twitter? In the US, you pretty much have to admit to a crime, incite an immediate lawless action (ie, a riot), or make a direct personal threat. I think we can agree that inciting a riot and directly threatening the life or safety of another person is something that the cops should be involved in. But racist statements?

A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

He was charged with an offence of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.

Presumably the police in (Formerly Great) Britain are intelligent enough that had he said “Let’s go burn down the houses of those Paki scum!” they would have said that he was arrested on suspicion of inciting a riot. Had he said “I’m going to murder the family of that soldier killing, Allah worshiping, camel jockey,” they would have said that he was arrested for making threats. But he was actually arrested for making racist/anti-religious statements. (and yes, I realize that the killers were of African not south Asian descent, but I have no idea what racial epithets the Brits use on black people)

  • Fuck Islam
  • and fuck the Paki scum, too. (apparently “Paki” is as offensive there as “nigger” is in the US)

Both perfectly legal and First Amendment protected statements here in the US. Highly offensive, but protected. But not in England.

That makes us ask, “Why?” It’s not that big a deal to us. We have the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Cult, after all. There are neo-nazis and scum sucking retards of all stripes. (Not that I wish to insult scum-sucking retard-Americans by comparing them to the KKK, WBC, or neo-nazis) And we get along just fine by allowing them to out themselves as the filth that they are by what they say. We consider the First Amendment not only to be a right of all people, but an invitation for assholes of all types to tell us what we should think of them.

Not England. Why not? We didn’t invent the free speech part of the First Amendment all on our own. No, we stole it from them. I’ve said before and I still believe that America is just England, English Common Law, and the Rights of Englishmen turned up to 11. Our big mistake as a colony was to take the ideals of England and act as if the English Government of the time actually believed in those ideals. They didn’t, we did, and so we shot each other until they gave us up as a bad job.

But now, a couple hundred years later, the British ruling class (the political rulers, not the title wearing class) is having the cops arrest people for making “racist or anti-religious” statements on Facebook and Twitter. It’s an “offense against public order.” What an Orwellian phrase that is. Against “public order.” Burning down a building is an offense against public order. Telling someone that they and their entire race and religion are subhuman is more on the order of being a jerk.

While the regular unarmed cops didn’t even try to engage the Woolwich terrorists for 20 minutes until armed police turned up, they had no problem mixing it up with the Englishmen who showed up that night to protest.

Dozens of protesters shouting far-right slogans clashed with police in Woolwich, south London on Wednesday night following the brutal killing of a man in broad daylight.

Click over for video. (Warning: auto play)

So we have two thugs with knives and a pistol and the cops keep their distance, but a few hundred unarmed “Far Right” protesters, and the British police flood the zone. Makes Sense.

It actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it. The British ruling class have been caught trying to replace the population they have with a population that will keep them in permanent power.

There is patchy, though compelling evidence that Labour spoke with a forked tongue, and had a secret agenda. Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Mr Blair, Mr Brown and Jack Straw, has written that Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a ‘truly multicultural country’.

Its chief motive may have been electoral. Migrants, and to a slightly lesser extent their descendants, are much more likely to vote Labour than for any other party. So, according to this theory, the Labour Party was furtively trying to increase its powerbase.

The theory is pretty easy to follow:

Generous welfare benefits + open migration = a client class of residents who will vote their economic interests

It’s exactly what the Labour Party did to Scotland, after all. Why would they do any differently in England at the same time?

From this we can easily see why the British ruling class is adamant that the person who needs cracking down on is the “Far-Right” Englishman who objects to his country being turned into a third world hell hole with full welfare benefits. It’s because those “Far-Right” Englishmen are the enemy and the Muslim immigrants who refuse to assimilate, Radical Islamist or otherwise, are their clients. The British ruling class knows who is voting for them and so cracks down on their political enemies while ignoring the crimes of their political allies.

The Left is all about will to power. They want to be in charge and they don’t care who they hurt to stay there. To some extent, the Right is the same way. In some ways, they are worse. They’d rather be the “loyal opposition” to these far Left loons than actually fight. If they fight, they might lose their preferred positions in society. Can’t have that, now can we?

I see jackboots in Europe’s future. The Golden Dawn Party in Greece, the coming racial/religious/cultural warfare in England, and whatever the heck is going on in Stockholm right now are likely to prove Tam correct. We here in the US are parading around with guns and having arguments over what the EUros would consider trivial and essential gun control requirements, but the dark night of fascism will land on the EUros.

I think that’s because our political class knows that we retain the power, and the personal armaments necessary, to send them all straight to hell if they cross us. The EUro politicians have always kept their subjects docile and disarmed, so those subjects have to run riot in the streets and seize state power for themselves before anyone takes them seriously.

It would be nice if the EUros could figure out some better method of settling their social problems than invading their neighbors and putting religious and ethnic minorities to the sword shower.

13 responses to “Why did the British Police arrest Facebook/Twitter users?

  1. The ruling class realizes that if they allow the peasants to get uppity and start feeling like they can think independently…they might realize that they CAN take care of these newcomers…and that multiculturalism is full of crap. And when they finish with the Islamists….they will start wondering….who was that supported the idea of allowing them so much leeway and privilege.

  2. Isn’t that the same thing Democrats are doing to illegal aliens to increase their voter base in the US?

  3. Pingback: Now they are going to “gag hate clerics” in (Formerly Great) Britain | An NC Gun Blog

  4. Our major papers have disabled their comments section for articles covering the murder of Drummer Rigby. We can read what their hired ‘non-militant’ Muslims write, words of taqiyya, but we cannot respond to them.
    Learn from our mistakes or, like us, suffer the consequences.

  5. Thirteen years ago the London po-po were already putting plainclothes officers in ethnic restaurants to eavesdrop on patrons conversations and nick people making ethnic slurs about the waitstaff behind their back.

  6. Spider,

    Isn’t that the same thing Democrats are doing to illegal aliens to increase their voter base in the US?

    The irony is that the Bo-Bos of the Left are importing a reliable voter base (Muslims in England, Latin American Catholics in the US) that are frothingly socially conservative and opposed to all their social programs.

    High taxes and welfare checks? Si, si puede! Gay marriage? ¡No seas maricón!

  7. KristopherKristophr

    The original reason for the British law was to put an end to sectarian parades, which had been fanning violence in Northern Ireland for centuries.

    The law was far too heavy handed. In fact the one act that put an end to the Protestants “Down croppie, down” parades was more free speech … Catholics started their own parades that satirized the hell out of the Orangeman parades, and embarrassed most of them into giving it up.

    Enter Islam, and a desire by both main parties to either add more entitlement voters, or cheap labor …

  8. Kristopher

    And how on earth did that name change sneak into my posts … very annoying.

  9. KristopherKristophr,
    which Catholic parades would those be? You speak with all the authority of someone who knows nothing about the subject they are pontificating about.

  10. “Telling someone that they and their entire race and religion are subhuman is more on the order of being a jerk.”

    Ah, yes, quite so, quite so. Yet, being a jerk in how something is said has no actual bearing on the truth or lack thereof of what is said, although it may have much to do with the receptivity of others to the message.

    To tell a “Paki” Muslim that his entire race and religion are subhuman is a half truth, the truthful aspect being that concerning religion. It is certainly a defensible position to maintain that a purveyor of half-truths is a jerk, even if the usual sense of “half-truth” isn’t quite in accord with this particular example.

    Of course, none of this matters in The Formerly Great Britain, where truth is no defense, even before they went all wobbly.

  11. Pingback: Now they are going to “gag hate clerics” in (Formerly Great) Britain : LawSuggest.com

  12. Pingback: Why did the British Police arrest Facebook/Twitter users? : LawSuggest.com

  13. Daniel in Brookline

    Hi Sean,

    Many thanks for all that you write and all that you do. Now please excuse me while I go all PC on you.

    I’ve recently had occasion to get to know some people, kids and adults, with Down syndrome. They’re nice folks, and, on the whole, they deal very cheerfully indeed with the lousy hand they’re dealt. I’ve learned not to use the word ‘retarded’, because while it’s technically accurate — the word means “delayed” — it is used almost exclusively as a pejorative, and the recipients thereof don’t like it.

    So I’m going to call your attention to your use of the phrase “scum-sucking retards”. Down syndrome folks don’t have a choice; they’re born that way, and almost without exception, they’re pretty nice about it. Neo-Nazis, KKK klowns, and Westboro Baptist jerks are what they are by choice, and “retard”, applied to them, doesn’t make sense except as a generic pejorative.

    In other words, calling such groups “retards” is both untrue, and an unfair comparison to a not-insignificant group of nice people. The phrase “scum-sucking”, on the other hand, as applied to the abovementioned Neo-Nazis, KKK, and Westboro Baptist demonstrators, is at least metaphorically accurate, and may well be literally accurate too.

    Okay, I’m off my soapbox. If you ever happen to be in the Boston area, let’s get together and go shooting.