| ▲ | pjc50 2 hours ago |
| The police swerved hard into deploying state capacity against exactly the wrong people: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/12/more-women-arres... Meanwhile ignoring the actually violent far right to the point that we had arson attacks in Belfast and a stabbing spree killer in Edinburgh. |
|
| ▲ | gadders 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| And also ignoring that whole Rape Gang thing. |
|
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > to the point that we had arson attacks in Belfast Not to argue against the point you're making but these aren't good examples. Policing in both Northern Ireland and Scotland are fully devolved and operate independently of the government in Westminster. |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | True. The modern far right is both a social media and traditional media driven phenomenon, internationally, and I don't have great suggestions for dealing with it other than "maybe the government should boycott Twitter before they ban sixteen year olds from it". | | |
|
|
| ▲ | black6 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What were the Belfast arson and Edinburgh stabbing in response to? |
|
| ▲ | bbg2401 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The stabbing spree killer in Edinburgh? How many people were killed? |
|
| ▲ | mytailorisrich 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Police has no choice but to arrest people who commit a serious criminal offence on purpose and very publicly. It would undermine their credibility and the rule of law not to arrest them. This is orthogonal with how police should tackle the violence you mention. Edit in response to @pjc50's replay below: The signs are a serious criminal offence. Supporting a proscribed terror organisation is a serious criminal offence according to the law and arrest is unavoidable. Edit 2: What constitutes a "serious criminal offence" is not subjective based on one's personal opinion, it is what the law defines as such... |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The attack on Brieze Norton was a serious criminal offence. The signs are not, no matter how much people want to pretend they are to conflate the two issues. The police always have a choice as to which crimes they investigate. This is why petty theft in London is almost totally ignored. (and the underlying decision to proscribe Palestine action was, of course, taken by Keir Starmer. It is a significant part of why he is out now.) (edit war: "the signs are a serious criminal offence" -- this is why the Americans will be laughing at us about freedom of speech when they wake up on this forum.) I don't see corresponding arrests being deployed against Twitter posters who were supporting the riots in Belfast, including the firebombing of immigrant homes, for example. I guess that's because they're not an organisation with a name, which is the important thing, rather than the actual violence? | |
| ▲ | pjc50 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What constitutes a "serious criminal offence" is not subjective based on one's personal opinion, it is what the law defines as such This was literally a decision Starmer personally made, to put Palestine Action on the proscribed organization list. Without that the signs would not be an offence. | |
| ▲ | OgsyedIE 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How can this be squared with the decisions to not prosecute burglars, drug dealers, rapists and armed gangs, however? They are all people who commit serious criminal offences on purpose in Britain today without facing arrest. |
|
