Prosecuting people for being offensive is not just ethically wrong, but it's also incredibly wasteful. Among all the terror plots, murders, thefts, & rapes, UK police are already overworked. Forcing them to investigate hurt feelings is only going to make their jobs harder.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Its more that the current crop of police would RATHER waste their time on easier inconsequential nonsense like policing speech than in doing the harder work of policing REAL crime. they aren't overworked, they are choosing to remain UNDERworked.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ShawnMCron
The decision to enforce these laws is not theirs; it's the politicians'.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Are you saying they have ZERO digression? Because the proof is quite clear they do selectively enforce those Politician created laws. <cough> <Telford>
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ShawnMCron
They can choose not to investigate a crime, but only with very good reason. They can not, however, choose to investigate something that has not already been ruled a crime by, say, an Act of Parliament.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I'm not convinced that is a 100% true statement. they have publicly stated that even non-statute "offenses" can constitute a hate crime even if there is no one to take offense. So report it all... seems a VERY broad brush with which to paint.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ShawnMCron
In cases of non-statutory case/common law, each law must be set by some form of judicial precedent before it can be enforced. In either case, police can't just decide that something is illegal, as you seem to suggest.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I don't quite suggest that. Their implication that non statue offenses can still constitute a crime is pushing that barrier though. But they certainly choose which "judicial precedent's" to follow up on, or not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Which means your politicians have failed in codifying your law adequately. Hell, even Moses knew enough to fucking write that one down.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It is written down and codified. I think you're using the US term of "statutory law". Here in the UK, that term specifically refers to laws created by Acts of Parliament. So when police say that they can enforce non-statutory offences, it means little. They still need authority.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.