Freedom of speech...

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Sorry, this was not a direct reference to the particular housewife or your post specifically. More a general principle about the responsibilty for the actions.I meant "you" in a general sense, not saying you were suggesting it. If you see what I mean.

No need to apologise - no offence taken or anything - it might just be my matter-of-fact writing style when dealing with things such as this. Removing emotion as much as possible is important. Doesn't mean one can't be assertive, though. All good, mate

 

[mudman]

She called for a hotel which housed migrants to be set on fire. It's swear-wordy so here's a link instead of me doing copy paste:
set fire to hotels

I don't think she did. What she posted was:

"Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the *******s for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it."

It's a subtle difference, but she wasn't calling for action but saying that she didn't care if someone did. She was convicted because she pled guilty which in my view was a mistake.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Given the number of people immediately imprisoned recently for spreading “Misinformation”, I was quite surprised to read that the BBC can do this without fear of prosecution, or is this incorrect?

The bit in bold is 100% incorrect. Ironically, by saying this you are spreading misinformation. But don't worry - there is no specific offence for doing this - and falls under "Freedom of Speech". Which is a good thing. It also means everybody else can exercise their free speech to educate those with misunderstandings about what is going on.
In truth, nobody has been imprisoned for misinformation on social media. Prosecutions have ONLY EVER taken place when specific laws have been broken. I get it - the right wing press are pushing that lie by continually saying that people have "been imprisoned for misinformation" - it's like a drum beat - but it is a direct and deliberate lie - but hey, right wing press will continue to push this intentional lie and get away with it.

For the specific offences in question - see my detail in previous posts.

Jeremy Bowen is still unrepentant about his fake report about that Hospital car park in Gaza damaged by a Hamas rocket.

View attachment 195749

As for the Press, instead of individuals posting stuff on social media - they are held to a much higher standard by the regulator - who can legally enforce corrections to be made and other sanctions. So what you hear, for instance, on "left wing media" (not that there is much of it in UK - hence why it doesn't "fit" with most other sources) - such as James O'Brien on LBC - if he were to broadcast "lies" then LBC would get sanctioned for it by the regulator. The very fact that LBC does not get sanctioned tells its own story. Print press avoid sanctions by printing "retractions" and "corrections" after the regulator challenges them, but always, always, always in small print and hidden in their back pages so nobody notices.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I don't think she did. What she posted was:

It's a subtle difference, but she wasn't calling for action but saying that she didn't care if someone did. She was convicted because she pled guilty which in my view was a mistake.

You can read the judges sentencing report as well as I can. It clearly states in there that her counsel had advised her to plead guilty, because in their legal opinion, the evidence was enough to convict her for "intent to incite behaviour..."

excerpt of paragraph 12:

"12. In relation to your culpability this is clearly a category A case – as both prosecution and your counsel agree, because you intended to incite serious violence."

While your opinion is that her pleading guilty was a mistake, it would appear to me that a qualified barrister disagreed with your opinion.

 

[Sideways]

Wouldn't it be nice if retractions and corrections had to given the same prominence as the original fals or misleading content. And applied to online media too.
If only....

 

[Spectric]

When did we actually get this right to "freedom of speech " because there has been many periods in our history where saying the wrong thing has had dire consequences whether it was fact or fiction. I suppose without it that many people would get away with dubious behavior and that it does deliver a means to hold people accountable but we should always remember that it is not a good direction to take when you lock people up for what they have said and not what they have done. Maybe the next stage is just thinking it, once the technology becomes available and we head into Orwells domain of the thought police and suppression of free speech has been a tool of many a dictator.

 

[sploo]

Wouldn't it be nice if retractions and corrections had to given the same prominence as the original falso or misleading content. And applied to online media too.
If only....

This. Absolutely this.

It should be mandatory that a front page lie is followed by a front page correction.

I once read that the tabloids don't worry about printing made up stories as the amount of revenue the "entertaining" stories generates is usually more than the cost of litigation. I don't know if that's true, but forcing a paper to use a future front page for a correction not only means they can't hide it, it would rob them of a juicy headline for that day.

Will never happen, but hey ho.

 

[Vulcan]

As already said the report appears to be an interpretation of the BBC’s editorial guidelines and the conclusions are perhaps flawed. I’d expect these guidelines are in any case seeking to adhere to a standard that’s higher than just meeting the level of avoiding prosecution.

If there was a breach of the law, given the deep pockets of the anti-BBC camp, I’d have expected it to have led to some action if the report really had substance.

It’s been suggested that several people died and some synagogues were attacked after Jeremy Bowen’s false report. He still remains unrepentant but was given an assignment elsewhere shortly afterwards …

 

[mudman]

You can read the judges sentencing report as well as I can. It clearly states in there that her counsel had advised her to plead guilty, because in their legal opinion, the evidence was enough to convict her for "intent to incite behaviour..."

excerpt of paragraph 12:

"12. In relation to your culpability this is clearly a category A case – as both prosecution and your counsel agree, because you intended to incite serious violence."

While your opinion is that her pleading guilty was a mistake, it would appear to me that a qualified barrister disagreed with your opinion.

I hadn't but I have now. It does provide some useful extra context including that she had posted some other things that contributed to her prosecution but no further detail so it does still appear to be that she was prosecuted for that one posting.
I also hadn't seen the entire post that is included in the judgement.

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the ******* hotels full of the *******s for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it”

I suppose that it could be argued that the 'While you're at it...' could be construed as a call to arms but I still maintain that it was still part of her opinion.

Have a look at the video I've linked to below. It is a chap who is an actual barrister and so an expert and he gives opinions on the law and he addressed the point of when does opinion cross the line into incitement. It is very interesting and whilst he doesn't give an opinion on the Lucy Connolly case, I think it the explanation shows that what she said didn't meet the criteria. I have no idea why her counsel would advise her to plead guilty but putting that aside, if you look at the actual guidance as given in that can you honestly say that she was inciting violence and or racial hatred or just expressing an opinion.

 

[sploo]

Have a look at the video I've linked to below. It is a chap who is an actual barrister and so an expert and he gives opinions on the law and he addressed the point of when does opinion cross the line into incitement. It is very interesting and whilst he doesn't give an opinion on the Lucy Connolly case, I think it the explanation shows that what she said didn't meet the criteria. I have no idea why her counsel would advise her to plead guilty but putting that aside, if you look at the actual guidance as given in that can you honestly say that she was inciting violence and or racial hatred or just expressing an opinion.

I can't quite make up my mind about Black Belt Barrister. On one hand he calmly explains legal positions and doesn't give his opinions (which is very good, as it's the "truth"; regardless of what side of the argument you're on). On the other hand, a lot of his video subjects do seem to be aimed at attracting Daily Mail readers (the sort of dog-whistle "I'm only asking the question" type stoking of fires).

 

[mudman]

Just wanted to add that re-reading the sentencing remarks, a couple of things spring to mind.

1. The Judge says that

At 8.30pm on the 29th July of this year you used the social media platform, then known as Twitter, to publish the following:

The remark was posted on 29th July 2024 but Twitter became X on 23rd July 2023 so the Judge got his facts wrong. It might be seen to be a small, inconsequential error, but as with accepting free footy tickets, it could be a symptom of a larger lack of attention to detail.

2. The part where you infer Lucy's counsel advised her to plead guilty is this:

In relation to your culpability this is clearly a category A case – as both prosecution and your counsel agree, because you intended to incite serious violence.

I don't agree this shows her counsel advising her to plead guilty, only that he agreed that this was a very serious charge.

 

[mudman]

I can't quite make up my mind about Black Belt Barrister. On one hand he calmly explains legal positions and doesn't give his opinions (which is very good, as it's the "truth"; regardless of what side of the argument you're on). On the other hand, a lot of his video subjects do seem to be aimed at attracting Daily Mail readers (the sort of dog-whistle "I'm only asking the question" type stoking of fires).

I think you are right to some extent, he does seem to have a fair bit of both. It's the one's where he explains legal positions that I like.

There is another, I shall have to find it, where he presents the analysis of an American lawyer from the point of view of the First Amendment rights and it is pretty much that anything goes so long as it isn't a direct call to action.

 

[Jake]

Have a look at the video I've linked to below. It is a chap who is an actual barrister and so an expert and he gives opinions on the law and he addressed the point of when does opinion cross the line into incitement. It is very interesting and whilst he doesn't give an opinion on the Lucy Connolly case, I think it the explanation shows that what she said didn't meet the criteria. I have no idea why her counsel would advise her to plead guilty but putting that aside, if you look at the actual guidance as given in that can you honestly say that she was inciting violence and or racial hatred or just expressing an opinion.

He moves from law and CPR guidance to his own opinion at 8:57 where he just defines stirring up hatred to suit his argument (note he provides no reference to any authority on his points about the specificity of targeting and urge to specific action, which isn't reflected in the law or guidance he was going through before that).

 

[Jake]

I have no idea why her counsel would advise her to plead guilty but putting that aside, if you look at the actual guidance as given in that can you honestly say that she was inciting violence and or racial hatred or just expressing an opinion.

Maybe she had a better barrister than some bloke from his own one-man firm in the sticks who isn't a proper specialist criminal barrister.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I think it’s safe to assume that her solicitor and counsel had access to all of the facts so were best placed to advise her how to plead.

 

[mudman]

He moves from law and CPR guidance to his own opinion at 8:57 where he just defines stirring up hatred to suit his argument (note he provides no reference to any authority on his points about the specificity of targeting and urge to specific action, which isn't reflected in the law or guidance he was going through before that).

You must have watched a different video to me because up to that point he has been going through all of the relevant law and guidance and has explained very well what can be considered to be incitement. He then tells people that they need to do if they are questioned or charged which is essentially that they need to get legal advice.

 

[mudman]

Maybe she had a better barrister than some bloke from his own one-man firm in the sticks who isn't a proper specialist criminal barrister.

As I said above, I don't think the sentencing remarks show that her barrister did give that advice so can we say that she didn't ignore his advice as she wanted to get things over and done with?
And a simple cursory search will show that he is anything but 'some bloke from his own one-man firm in the sticks who isn't a proper specialist criminal barrister'.

 

[mudman]

I think it’s safe to assume that her solicitor and counsel had access to all of the facts so were best placed to advise her how to plead.

Yes, but do you really believe that she was actually intending to incite violence?

 

[Blackswanwood]

It’s been suggested that several people died and some synagogues were attacked after Jeremy Bowen’s false report. He still remains unrepentant but was given an assignment elsewhere shortly afterwards …

A quick Google suggests that the BBC didn’t give him an alternative assignment. It seems he went to Jerusalem to continue reporting on the conflict.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Yes, but do you really believe that she was actually intending to incite violence?

Yes.