Pardon my ignorance, but is wearing a shirt with the word Palestine on it and arrestable offense in England?
Palestine Action yes. An activism organization called Palestine Action was classified as a terrorist organization a few weeks ago by the UK government.
Ah, thanks for the explanation
Some people of Palestine Action threw ink on a military plane parked on some airbase which is normally used for the surveillance flights of Gaza that the UK is doing to give the data to Israel, hence they were officially classified by the Home Secretary - Yvette Cooper - as “terrorist group” via a process which has no strict well defined criteria or Judicial oversight at all.
Because of that anybody who supports them in any way (including merelly voicing their support for them or holding a written paper with the name of the group) risks a prison sentence of (if I remember it correctly) up to 10 years.
Hence in the UK wearing a t-shirt with the words “Palestine Action” in it is a terrorist offense with a prision sentense of up to 10 years: it’s all pretty similar to the legislation Putin has to stop people in Russia demonstrating against the invasion of Ukraine, only I believe the prison sentences in Russia are actually lower.
(Britain isn’t quite at the “hold up blank piece of paper” stage like Russia yet, but judging by the copper arresting somebody wearing a “Plasticine Action” t-shirt, the police are already thinking along similar lines - the coppers in Britain are well aware that their job is to “serve the powerful” not “serve the public”)
Britain is a complete total authoritarian clown shown nowadays, though this shit is a pretty natural stage in the evolution of authoritarianism and represssion masquerading as Rule Of Law over there since around Tony Blair’s time.
so weird how we’ve mangled the word terrorism around to mean impeding a military machine or body. maybe this is just my brain turning to worm food but I could have swore it was explicitly when you kill civilians or destroy infrastructure in order to coerce a policy change. but that alteration probably wasn’t intentional or for any specific purpose.
25 years ago, the day I stopped watching TV news- the dramatic talking head told me that terrorists had attacked a US military base in Afganistan.
This guy got de-arrested
Hopefully everyone will buy these t-shirts just to take the piss
I reckon the T-Shirts need some artwork as well to reduce confusion. Maybe some 1980s Plasticine Claymation TV show characters like Gumby and Pokey.
No. It’s supposed to cause confusion. It’s supposed to allow people to legally skirt the law.
About five minutes later, the arresting officer approached him again. “He said: ‘I’ve got good news and I’ve got bad news.’ I said: ‘What’s the good news?’ He said: ‘I’m de-arresting you.’
“And I said: ‘What’s the bad news?’ He said: ‘It’s going to be really embarrassing for me.’ And then I walked free, while all the real heroes are the people that are actually getting arrested.”
The officer seems to understand his mistake at least
The poor copper lost all that time arresting a guy with Plasticine Action on his t-shirt only to have to de-arrest him when he could’ve been arresting an old lady with the words “Palestine Action” written down on a piece of paper for her to be prosecuted and maybe even get a jail sentence.
That mistake was making it hard for him to make his quota of arrests for that week, the poor bloke.
This is why I always imagine it’d be funny to ask a cop “so how many murders got solved this week?” whenever they’re wasting time on mundane shit.
I’ve never had an interaction with a cop where they didn’t make it unnecessarily intense.
Their job is not to solve crimes, their job is to get people convicted, the subtle difference being that they’ll turn non-crimes into crimes (for example, they’ll chose to legally interpret things which can go both ways as crimes which require prosecution, which is why one often sees kids criminalized for childish bullshit) and it doesn’t matter if the person convicted is innocent, all that matters is that somebody got convicted (so, for example, they won’t try and find exonerating evidence).
This partly explains their tendency to take an adversarial posture towards people who aren’t from their group, also partly explained because that posture itself indirectly feeds back on them (people are weary of them because of how act towards the general public, which in turn makes them feel apart and suspicious hence they behave even more so) and partly because they do tend to get exposed far more than most people to the seedy side of humanity all with a judgemental mindset and an aim to see crimes, so even a lot of the stuff they see which most people think is just silly fun (say, most drunkenness), they’ll see as crimes.
Police solve something like less than 2% of reported crimes.
Even a libertarian can see this is fucking stupid, imagine a restaurant that gets 2% of its orders correct and served in a timely manner.
Police do not primarily exist to solve crimes.
They primarily exist as a goon/thug class to protect property and capital, all other behaviors and effects are ancillary.
If Police wanted to actually lessen crime, they’d either attack its root causes and use significant parts of their budgets to fund affordable housing and public schools, or massively reorient toward pursuing white collar crime, which is often of such a huge financial scale that it basically directly impoverishes society at a large scale.
That figure is a little misleading, but I understand how you picked it up because it’s everywhere.
Police “clear” crimes to be progressed for prosecution.
Prosecutors “prosecute” crimes. It’s this that the 2% figure is aimed at. The clearance rates (the job done by the police) is higher.
According to this article[1], 22% of reported serious crimes led to arrests. 4% (of reported serious crimes) led to convictions. They then halve both of those numbers to account for unreported crimes. The article still uses the 2% figure in the headline despite the nuance in the article.
That might sound academic given the overall point you make still stands. I just thought it was worth mentioning.
1: https://theconversation.com/police-solve-just-2-of-all-major-crimes-143878
Ok then, so more technically, and more generously to police from a purely reactionary perspective of ‘they can only respond to reports’… they do an adequate job of clearing 4% of what actually gets reported to them.
I know that cops dont actually prosecute, I made that post before falling asleep, I was a bit loose with language.
Their role in the prosecution process is basically to be witnesses, to gather evidence for the trial.
And, unless I am misunderstanding this… ~82% of the arrests they do actually make … don’t result in convictions, and are thus ‘overarrests’ in some sense… as … you went to all the effort to make an arrest, and it turns out that no actual crime was committed?
Cops have an ~18% chance of making an arrest for a serious crime that actually sticks?
They have an ~82% likelihood that they are overpolicing, like by definition, when it comes to serious crimes?
Apologies if I sounded like I was lecturing there. I got very into the numbers.
I see the 82% figure you mention too. But I feel out of my depth now. An arrest requires probable cause (a low threshold), whereas courts require reasonable doubt (a high threshold). The gap between these two seems to be what should let police work function. Eg: attorneys examine or challenge the charges, plea deals, case dismissal / acquittal etc. But I’m skimming articles I don’t understand at this point.
82% does seem high to me too. But I also see too many cut-and-dry cases on TV. I don’t know what to think.
Israel would never allow us to wear that in Australia
I’ve got a friend trying to move from the United States to England to escape our current shit show, and I’ve been telling him that England tends to do what America does, just with a posh accent to give it an air of legitimacy.
Nowhere is truly safe at this point. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.
I’m currently working out moving to Jamaica. Got a friend there to help, but he says it ain’t all sunshine and cheap pot like the movies.
I’m not LGBT but I usually use that as a guideline of “is this a good place to be?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Jamaica
And its not looking great.
Pick somewhere else.
Super simple and smart way to sort places that care about human rights. Thanks for sharing.
If you think they do it with a posh accent you’ve not been to England lol
I’m mainly thinking of Tony Blair making the same case for invading Iraq that George W. Bush was, just with the accent.
I’m mainly thinking of marshmallows.
