Reform UK discussion

[AlterEgo]

Ah, Reform disappointed at the level of personal abuse he received for saying migrants should be sunk and drowned. That’s just the taste of accountability.

 

[ainsworth74]

and to me, far right is authoritarianism, concentration camps, genocide and racial supremacy ideas. Anything less than that isn't far right to me.

It didn't start with concentration camps and genocide. It was a campaign over the course of a decade of othering, of marginalising, or removing legal protections and raising the cost (financially, legally, socially) of helping those who were targeted for being the source of societies ills. It took years of propagandising, of blame and dismissal. Then it ended in the gas chambers and firing squads.

If a right wing (of left wing for that matter) regime came out today and said that all illegal migrants will be rounded up and shot or gassed starting immediately they would face a likely uprising and civil strife. But they never start there. Not until they have completely and total control of all the institutions, not until they have put anyone who might resist in fear for their own lives and the lives of their friends and family. Not until they've laid the groundwork of hate and othering of the target of their venom and rage.

That's why extremist ideologies are so dangerous. They start off worrisome but seemingly, in the grand scheme, quite benign.

"Oh it's all overblown, they're just playing it up for their base"

"Oh well I suppose it is a bit worrying that some people are snatched off the street and disappear without due process but it's a few isolated incidents and anyway the reports all say that they were guilty of [insert crime] anyway so we're better off that they're locked up"

"Oh well I guess it's not ideal that this judge has been arrested on charges but if they weren't actually up to no good surely the system would step in?"

"I mean they've told us that we're facing a serious attack from illegal migrants and undocumented immigrants, a real threat to public safety, so perhaps suspending some aspects of the criminal justice system is warranted"

"Look, they're a real problem now and we can't just keep having them roaming around, costing the tax payer money and taking up important resources, it's better for everyone if we keep them secure in detention facilities"

And on and on until the inevitable conclusion.

It doesn't start with gas chambers and genocide. It doesn't always have to lead to horror, tragedy, death and loss. But it can do and waiting until women, children, the elderly and infirm are being rounded up, lead into the woods and shot whilst the men are led off to work to death in labour camps is leaving it rather late to sound an alarm and raise concerns with the political direction of travel.

Do I think Nigel Farage is the next Hitler and is going to organise a genocide in the UK? No of course not. But I do think it is dangerous to flirt around with the sort of rhetoric and language that flows from Reform because of where it can lead. I look at America where a few decades of toxic rhetoric from various right wing idealogues have over time helped make thing more and more toxic and extreme and where now yes, judges are being arrested in suspicious circumstances, where people are being snatched off the streets for seemingly holding what are, in normal times, protected views and voicing them, where people are being deported into foreign prisons contrary to court orders and constitutional arrangements and I worry exactly where that might lead.

It didn't start at Treblinka, Sobibor, or Auschwitz.

 

[RailWonderer]

If Labour are less authoritarian than the Tories, which of the laws surrounding restricting protest and civil liberties passed by the Tory government is being rescinded by the current government? Labour is defending them, and expanding their use; they are a deeply centralising power to be viewed with more suspicion on their authoritarian streak than the Tories even were.

The reason for those protest restrictions was to stop climate protestors gluing themselves to trains and lying down on roads. There are certain ways you can protest without disrupting day to day lives of people with jobs and the nation's logistics to run.

It didn't start with concentration camps and genocide. It was a campaign over the course of a decade of othering, of marginalising, or removing legal protections and raising the cost (financially, legally, socially) of helping those who were targeted for being the source of societies ills. It took years of propagandising, of blame and dismissal. Then it ended in the gas chambers and firing squads.

If a right wing (of left wing for that matter) regime came out today and said that all illegal migrants will be rounded up and shot or gassed starting immediately they would face a likely uprising and civil strife. But they never start there. Not until they have completely and total control of all the institutions, not until they have put anyone who might resist in fear for their own lives and the lives of their friends and family. Not until they've laid the groundwork of hate and othering of the target of their venom and rage.

That's why extremist ideologies are so dangerous. They start off worrisome but seemingly, in the grand scheme, quite benign.

"Oh it's all overblown, they're just playing it up for their base"

"Oh well I suppose it is a bit worrying that some people are snatched off the street and disappear without due process but it's a few isolated incidents and anyway the reports all say that they were guilty of [insert crime] anyway so we're better off that they're locked up"

"Oh well I guess it's not ideal that this judge has been arrested on charges but if they weren't actually up to no good surely the system would step in?"

"I mean they've told us that we're facing a serious attack from illegal migrants and undocumented immigrants, a real threat to public safety, so perhaps suspending some aspects of the criminal justice system is warranted"

"Look, they're a real problem now and we can't just keep having them roaming around, costing the tax payer money and taking up important resources, it's better for everyone if we keep them secure in detention facilities"

And on and on until the inevitable conclusion.

It doesn't start with gas chambers and genocide. It doesn't always have to lead to horror, tragedy, death and loss. But it can do and waiting until women, children, the elderly and infirm are being rounded up, lead into the woods and shot whilst the men are led off to work to death in labour camps is leaving it rather late to sound an alarm and raise concerns with the political direction of travel.

Do I think Nigel Farage is the next Hitler and is going to organise a genocide in the UK? No of course not. But I do think it is dangerous to flirt around with the sort of rhetoric and language that flows from Reform because of where it can lead. I look at America where a few decades of toxic rhetoric from various right wing idealogues have over time helped make thing more and more toxic and extreme and where now yes, judges are being arrested in suspicious circumstances, where people are being snatched off the streets for seemingly holding what are, in normal times, protected views and voicing them, where people are being deported into foreign prisons contrary to court orders and constitutional arrangements and I worry exactly where that might lead.

It didn't start at Treblinka, Sobibor, or Auschwitz.

Changing the subject a bit because the gist of the argument on this thread is that Reform will be a disaster while I think Reform will better tackle immigration, energy policy and deregulation. I think mostly, what is in the nation's best interest is not ideological. Denmark's centre left party has for years been tough on refugees, forcing them to sell anything worth over £1k to pay their way, giving them basic food and shelter only with detainment facilities, discouraging them from migrating to Denmark and this has been successful. Danish law supercedes the ECHR but the Danes are a pragmatic bunch unlike UK lawmakers and some politicians who are too caught up in liberal ideology rather than best serving their nation.

As for energy, our total lack of onsite gas storage means we have to purchase it in the winter at a high premium which makes our energy costs so high families pay over the odds on their energy bills and buinesses cannot be internationally competitive. It also doesn't help ease inflationary costs. Net Zero has become a dogma when it should have been a guideline, not followed fundamentally, and that law that legally obliges us to it was myopic and very hurtful. Again, these issues should not be political, but pragmatic.

 

[AlterEgo]

The reason for those protest restrictions was to stop climate protestors gluing themselves to trains and lying down on roads. There are certain ways you can protest without disrupting day to day lives of people with jobs and the nation's logistics to run.

No, you are wrong. Many of the restrictions surround things like Britain’s lack of intervention in the Palestinian genocide. A woman was also prosecuted simply for reminding jurors they can acquit according to their conscience thanks to the longstanding legal tradition of jury nullification.

In any case, protest which disrupts people’s lives is effective protest. It’s a very important part of living in a liberal democracy. Nearly all the rights you have, including your right to post whatever you like on a public forum, were won by people who protested or took disruptive direct action. Britain has extremely draconian anti-protest laws and it does not make us a better country; it inhibits progress and centralises democratic power in government, which in today’s times, as a Reform voter, you should recognise gives them a slimmer mandate than meets the eye. Democracy belongs to everyone and even the act of talking politics on a forum is exercising democracy.

 

[JamesT]

A woman was also prosecuted simply for reminding jurors they can acquit according to their conscience thanks to the longstanding legal tradition of jury nullification.

She wasn't. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9gkwxkwwko

A retired social worker says she is "very relieved" after a High Court judge ruled she will not face legal action for holding a placard outside a court ahead of a trial of climate protesters.

Though that also wasn't under any of the laws surrounding protest, but contempt of court.

 

[SteveP29]

The reason for those protest restrictions was to stop climate protestors gluing themselves to trains and lying down on roads. There are certain ways you can protest without disrupting day to day lives of people with jobs and the nation's logistics to run.

That's the whole idea of protests and strikes though, inconvenience to make people or employers change their practices to stop destruction or workforces being taken advantage of

 

[Bald Rick]

It didn't start with concentration camps and genocide. It was a campaign over the course of a decade of othering, of marginalising, or removing legal protections and raising the cost (financially, legally, socially) of helping those who were targeted for being the source of societies ills. It took years of propagandising, of blame and dismissal. Then it ended in the gas chambers and firing squads.

If a right wing (of left wing for that matter) regime came out today and said that all illegal migrants will be rounded up and shot or gassed starting immediately they would face a likely uprising and civil strife. But they never start there. Not until they have completely and total control of all the institutions, not until they have put anyone who might resist in fear for their own lives and the lives of their friends and family. Not until they've laid the groundwork of hate and othering of the target of their venom and rage.

That's why extremist ideologies are so dangerous. They start off worrisome but seemingly, in the grand scheme, quite benign.

"Oh it's all overblown, they're just playing it up for their base"

"Oh well I suppose it is a bit worrying that some people are snatched off the street and disappear without due process but it's a few isolated incidents and anyway the reports all say that they were guilty of [insert crime] anyway so we're better off that they're locked up"

"Oh well I guess it's not ideal that this judge has been arrested on charges but if they weren't actually up to no good surely the system would step in?"

"I mean they've told us that we're facing a serious attack from illegal migrants and undocumented immigrants, a real threat to public safety, so perhaps suspending some aspects of the criminal justice system is warranted"

"Look, they're a real problem now and we can't just keep having them roaming around, costing the tax payer money and taking up important resources, it's better for everyone if we keep them secure in detention facilities"

And on and on until the inevitable conclusion.

It doesn't start with gas chambers and genocide. It doesn't always have to lead to horror, tragedy, death and loss. But it can do and waiting until women, children, the elderly and infirm are being rounded up, lead into the woods and shot whilst the men are led off to work to death in labour camps is leaving it rather late to sound an alarm and raise concerns with the political direction of travel.

Do I think Nigel Farage is the next Hitler and is going to organise a genocide in the UK? No of course not. But I do think it is dangerous to flirt around with the sort of rhetoric and language that flows from Reform because of where it can lead. I look at America where a few decades of toxic rhetoric from various right wing idealogues have over time helped make thing more and more toxic and extreme and where now yes, judges are being arrested in suspicious circumstances, where people are being snatched off the streets for seemingly holding what are, in normal times, protected views and voicing them, where people are being deported into foreign prisons contrary to court orders and constitutional arrangements and I worry exactly where that might lead.

It didn't start at Treblinka, Sobibor, or Auschwitz.

Post of the year, cap doffed, Sir.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It didn't start at Treblinka, Sobibor, or Auschwitz.

Bravo, for the entire post.

If there was a like button, I’d be bashing it to bits.

 

[dgl]

It didn't start with concentration camps and genocide. It was a campaign over the course of a decade of othering, of marginalising, or removing legal protections and raising the cost (financially, legally, socially) of helping those who were targeted for being the source of societies ills. It took years of propagandising, of blame and dismissal. Then it ended in the gas chambers and firing squads.

If a right wing (of left wing for that matter) regime came out today and said that all illegal migrants will be rounded up and shot or gassed starting immediately they would face a likely uprising and civil strife. But they never start there. Not until they have completely and total control of all the institutions, not until they have put anyone who might resist in fear for their own lives and the lives of their friends and family. Not until they've laid the groundwork of hate and othering of the target of their venom and rage.

That's why extremist ideologies are so dangerous. They start off worrisome but seemingly, in the grand scheme, quite benign.

"Oh it's all overblown, they're just playing it up for their base"

"Oh well I suppose it is a bit worrying that some people are snatched off the street and disappear without due process but it's a few isolated incidents and anyway the reports all say that they were guilty of [insert crime] anyway so we're better off that they're locked up"

"Oh well I guess it's not ideal that this judge has been arrested on charges but if they weren't actually up to no good surely the system would step in?"

"I mean they've told us that we're facing a serious attack from illegal migrants and undocumented immigrants, a real threat to public safety, so perhaps suspending some aspects of the criminal justice system is warranted"

"Look, they're a real problem now and we can't just keep having them roaming around, costing the tax payer money and taking up important resources, it's better for everyone if we keep them secure in detention facilities"

And on and on until the inevitable conclusion.

It doesn't start with gas chambers and genocide. It doesn't always have to lead to horror, tragedy, death and loss. But it can do and waiting until women, children, the elderly and infirm are being rounded up, lead into the woods and shot whilst the men are led off to work to death in labour camps is leaving it rather late to sound an alarm and raise concerns with the political direction of travel.

Do I think Nigel Farage is the next Hitler and is going to organise a genocide in the UK? No of course not. But I do think it is dangerous to flirt around with the sort of rhetoric and language that flows from Reform because of where it can lead. I look at America where a few decades of toxic rhetoric from various right wing idealogues have over time helped make thing more and more toxic and extreme and where now yes, judges are being arrested in suspicious circumstances, where people are being snatched off the streets for seemingly holding what are, in normal times, protected views and voicing them, where people are being deported into foreign prisons contrary to court orders and constitutional arrangements and I worry exactly where that might lead.

It didn't start at Treblinka, Sobibor, or Auschwitz.

Again, all too true. If the population start noticing people going missing then questions will likely be asked, make people believe certain groups are bad apples and will destroy the country, and use them as the cause of any problems and they will just be glad to see the back of them.

 

[The Ham]

There's some grumpyness about the fact that OFCOM are thinking about being stricter about platforms which have MP's on news programs as hosts.

What happens if they won power and their PM was someone who hosted a news program, is it reasonable that they then get to keep their hosting job?

It's easier to say no MP, as that's an easy line to hold. It gets more complex if you pick some other boundary.

The question is, whilst this impacts Reform, would they also be supporting MP's being able to host news if (say) there was a Woke News Channel with Woke Party MP's hosting news programmes?

Alternatively would they be happy to have current members of the cabinet hosting news programmes (and potentially using it for propaganda)?

If the answer to those two is no, then why should a different political wing be allowed to do it?

 

[DarloRich]

It didn't start with concentration camps and genocide. It was a campaign over the course of a decade of othering, of marginalising, or removing legal protections and raising the cost (financially, legally, socially) of helping those who were targeted for being the source of societies ills. It took years of propagandising, of blame and dismissal. Then it ended in the gas chambers and firing squads.

If a right wing (of left wing for that matter) regime came out today and said that all illegal migrants will be rounded up and shot or gassed starting immediately they would face a likely uprising and civil strife. But they never start there. Not until they have completely and total control of all the institutions, not until they have put anyone who might resist in fear for their own lives and the lives of their friends and family. Not until they've laid the groundwork of hate and othering of the target of their venom and rage.

That's why extremist ideologies are so dangerous. They start off worrisome but seemingly, in the grand scheme, quite benign.

"Oh it's all overblown, they're just playing it up for their base"

"Oh well I suppose it is a bit worrying that some people are snatched off the street and disappear without due process but it's a few isolated incidents and anyway the reports all say that they were guilty of [insert crime] anyway so we're better off that they're locked up"

"Oh well I guess it's not ideal that this judge has been arrested on charges but if they weren't actually up to no good surely the system would step in?"

"I mean they've told us that we're facing a serious attack from illegal migrants and undocumented immigrants, a real threat to public safety, so perhaps suspending some aspects of the criminal justice system is warranted"

"Look, they're a real problem now and we can't just keep having them roaming around, costing the tax payer money and taking up important resources, it's better for everyone if we keep them secure in detention facilities"

And on and on until the inevitable conclusion.

It doesn't start with gas chambers and genocide. It doesn't always have to lead to horror, tragedy, death and loss. But it can do and waiting until women, children, the elderly and infirm are being rounded up, lead into the woods and shot whilst the men are led off to work to death in labour camps is leaving it rather late to sound an alarm and raise concerns with the political direction of travel.

Do I think Nigel Farage is the next Hitler and is going to organise a genocide in the UK? No of course not. But I do think it is dangerous to flirt around with the sort of rhetoric and language that flows from Reform because of where it can lead. I look at America where a few decades of toxic rhetoric from various right wing idealogues have over time helped make thing more and more toxic and extreme and where now yes, judges are being arrested in suspicious circumstances, where people are being snatched off the streets for seemingly holding what are, in normal times, protected views and voicing them, where people are being deported into foreign prisons contrary to court orders and constitutional arrangements and I worry exactly where that might lead.

It didn't start at Treblinka, Sobibor, or Auschwitz.

Insert like button here! People, especially Reformers, need to read more history

 

[LowLevel]

Post of the year, cap doffed, Sir.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Harpo]

If there was a like button, I’d be bashing it to bits.

Yes!

 

[Ant1966]

Post of the year, cap doffed, Sir.

+1. Had me in tears.
On a side note, I'm not sure what it says about the state of public discourse on the Internet when the most intelligent, polite and reasoned debate; and the best posts; are on a Rail forum. (rather than, say, BTL on media sites)

 

[DarloRich]

Changing the subject

Funny that.......

 

[RailWonderer]

Funny that.......

I agree with much of @ainsworth74 's post, but disagree at the point he mentions the acts of the US at the moment. I've said this before, the US has been able to hold anybody indefinitely on charges of conspiracy or national security concerns since October 2001 and that was signed under George Bush, not Trump. They can search all communications without a warrant on national security or conspiracy accusations, and that's why they pressed conspiracy charges on the Jan 6ers (the people who marched into the Capitol building on Jan 6th), because they wanted to hold them (until Trump pardoned them) to deter future acts like this and didn't want it to set a precedent.

Secondly, it isn't a binary option between what we have now, and a slipslide into authoritarianism. Other nations have proven that pragmatism and leading in the nation's best interest are apolitical. The far right in Denmark is almost nonexistent, because they have a zero refugee policy and even provide €6000 in DKK for migrants to return to their countries of origin, the ideology that migrants must have the same or more rights as British taxpayers is obscene. Graham King's company Clearsprings has geen granted successive contracts from £1-£7 billion in Treasury finding via the Home Office and is now personally a billionaire, all from terrible policy that is a huge abuse of the taxpayer. The government could order basic prefab facilities and have them installed far cheaper than by throwing money at Graham King and encourage more migrants to live a good life at our expense while we have some of the highest energy costs in the world and struggling local councils.

This is a lovely six page National Audit Office paper from May 2025, I'll sticky in a quick quote

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/home-offices-asylum-accommodation-contracts-summary.pdf

The Home Office’s total spend on asylum accommodation is more than planned and it has few levers to control costs. The Home Office is responsible for supporting destitute people seeking asylum. It provides ‘initial’ asylum accommodation while it determines the need to provide ongoing support and ‘dispersed’ accommodation while it determines asylum claims. It delivers this through seven regional contracts. It originally estimated that the total contract cost would be £4.5 billion over 10 years. However, the current estimated total is £15.3 billion over the same period. The number of people seeking asylum who are accommodated by the Home Office increased from around 47,000 in December 2019 to around 110,000 in December 2024.

Also much of that spending has been post 2019. And migration is only one of many issues Labour are getting wrong - at least the Tories were more on the right page even if they were incompetant - there was a glimmer of hope some of the time.

That's the whole idea of protests and strikes though, inconvenience to make people or employers change their practices to stop destruction or workforces being taken advantage of

No that only builds resentment and animosity and a horrible ambience that things are going wrong. People and employers are not policymakers.

 

[JGurney]

A woman was also prosecuted simply for reminding jurors they can acquit according to their conscience thanks to the longstanding legal tradition of jury nullification.

She was not prosecuted, and there is no such thing as a "longstanding legal tradition of jury nullification" in the UK.
The term 'jury nullification' is an American one, referring to juries returning verdicts of not guilty in cases where it is clear to the jurors that the defendant had in fact committed the offence. It is popular with right-wing proponents of pseudo-law in the USA, especially with racist groups who openly urge jurors to discharge defendants being prosecuted or sued over racist attacks, racist employment practices, etc.

 

[DarloRich]

conspiracy or national security concerns

None of which apply to the people being rounded up. The point also is not simply imprisonment. It is the removal of the right to challenge that detention.

Sadly there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Jan 6ers (the people who marched into the Capitol building on Jan 6th

Insurrectionists hell bent on a putsch. We all know that. Even you.

Also much of that spending has been post 2019

The question you seem unwilling or unable to ask is why.

 

[WelshBluebird]

agree with much of @ainsworth74 's post, but disagree at the point he mentions the acts of the US at the moment. I've said this before, the US has been able to hold anybody indefinitely on charges of conspiracy or national security concerns since October 2001 and that was signed under George Bush, not Trump. They can search all communications without a warrant on national security or conspiracy accusations, and that's why they pressed conspiracy charges on the Jan 6ers (the people who marched into the Capitol building on Jan 6th), because they wanted to hold them (until Trump pardoned them) to deter future acts like this and didn't want it to set a precedent.

But what is happening there isn't "just" the holding people indefinitely or searching communications without a warrant. They are literally deporting people to foreign prisons when there is a court order to say not to do that for that person - and without any kind of due process (so theres no ability to challenge it, or to rectify mistakes etc - essentially they are just saying this person shouldnt be in the country and deporting them, meaning that could happen to anyone. And they are literally arresting judges who make decisions they dont like. If that is not authoritarian and absolutely terrifying then I dont know what is.

 

[weeklycommuter]

at least the Tories were more on the right page even if they were incompetant - there was a glimmer of hope some of the time.

The Governments of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak (Liz Truss was only Prime Minister for 49 days) walked out of the Dublin Regulation that enabled the UK to return to France anyone crossing the English Channel in a small boat. They also introduced a new "points system" of immigration that allowed employers in the public and private sectors to bring in unlimited numbers of people from overseas for work. This led to net immigration of around two million people in the four and a half years of the last Parliament, far higher than in any similar period when the UK was in the EU. Clearly the UK cannot support such a high rate of immigration due to the resulting pressure on housing and public services.

The Tories were definitely not on the right page, immigration would have been much lower if the previous system of a 20,000 a year cap on work permits along with free movement for EEA and Swiss citizens had been kept. Clearly this is what Suella Braverman MP was referring to in the following extract from her speech at her general election count in the early morning of 5 July 2024. Her prediction of many worse nights to come for the Conservative Party was realised in the local elections this month. The Conservative Party lost everything, most of their seats were won by Reform UK.

 

[Horizon22]

Her prediction of many worse nights to come for the Conservative Party was realised in the local elections this month. The Conservative Party lost everything, most of their seats were won by Reform UK.

It was a terrible election for them, but it wasn't that bad for them; they still won around 300 seats, (albeit losing loads) and Reform won nearly 700.

Overall they still have 5x as many councillors as Reform, although whether that is likely to shift.

 

[RailWonderer]

But what is happening there isn't "just" the holding people indefinitely or searching communications without a warrant. They are literally deporting people to foreign prisons when there is a court order to say not to do that for that person - and without any kind of due process (so theres no ability to challenge it, or to rectify mistakes etc - essentially they are just saying this person shouldnt be in the country and deporting them, meaning that could happen to anyone. And they are literally arresting judges who make decisions they dont like. If that is not authoritarian and absolutely terrifying then I dont know what is.

If Americans accept this and Democrat supports don't storm the Capitol or protest in other ways or sue the government from acting extrajudicially to deport these people, then it means Americans by and large accept these actions but probably won't if other people (let's say journalists, businessmen etc) get deported or imprisoned extrajudicially. This judge from Wisconsin hasn't been arrested though without evidence that she was helping an immigrant escape arrest.

People here are being arrested and investigated by police just for harmless social media posts - this country is more authoritarian in my view.

 

[alex397]

People here are being arrested and investigated by police just for harmless social media posts - this country is more authoritarian in my view.

Harmless you say? I’m not sure inciting violence is harmless myself, but we’re all different.

I’ve yet to see an example where someone has been arrested for making a ‘harmless’ social media post. The only examples I have seen where people have been arrested is with dangerous misinformation, calling for violence and celebrating setting buildings on fire with people inside.

 

[AlterEgo]

Harmless you say? I’m not sure inciting violence is harmless myself, but we’re all different.

The ones during the riots which incited violence were deplorable, but lots of people get convicted for sending offensive communications which are just that - offensive. That shouldn’t be a crime. It should be legal to be offensive; even gratuitously so. The line stops at deliberate incitement.

 

[The Ham]

The ones during the riots which incited violence were deplorable, but lots of people get convicted for sending offensive communications which are just that - offensive. That shouldn’t be a crime. It should be legal to be offensive; even gratuitously so. The line stops at deliberate incitement.

The legal threshold isn't offensive, but rather grossly offensive.

grossly offensive communication contrary to section 127(1) is that:

"the [offender] intended his message be grossly offensive to those to whom it related; or that he was aware at the time of sending that it might be taken to be so by a reasonable member of the public who read or saw it".

As such your are free to send offensive communications, you just have to be sure that it doesn't breach the threshold of grossly offensive.

For example someone could call someone an idiot and that's fine (there could of course be other legal implications for calling someone an idiot), but if they were to add in racial slurs then that's when they'll be close to the line if not over the threshold.

 

[AlterEgo]

The legal threshold isn't offensive, but rather grossly offensive.



As such your are free to send offensive communications, you just have to be sure that it doesn't breach the threshold of grossly offensive.

For example someone could call someone an idiot and that's fine (there could of course be other legal implications for calling someone an idiot), but if they were to add in racial slurs then that's when they'll be close to the line if not over the threshold.

The line isn’t clear at all, which is the problem. Posting a message that one thought the Hillsbrough disaster was a “great day” was prosecuted as such. That’s just dumb morbid gloating. And as a Liverpool fan I think it’s sick. However, I don’t think that sort of plainly offensive thing should be within the purview of the criminal law, and particularly so when the communications are made by ordinary people in a closed or private setting. People who use racial or other slurs around protected characteristics are likely guilty of other things than just malicious/offensive communications.

Lots of liberal democracies do fine without this sort of overreach. On principle, the state should roll back its intervention in people being merely offensive to each other. But then again, as we’ve been learning over the last decade, with Brexit and Covid, many British people do not really want to live in a liberal democracy. Perhaps we should stop the pretence altogether.

 

[JGurney]

People here are being arrested and investigated by police just for harmless social media posts - this country is more authoritarian in my view.

Can you cite examples? I have not come upon any.

The line isn’t clear at all ..... a message that one thought the Hilsborough disaster was a “great day” was prosecuted as such. ..... I don’t think that sort of plainly offensive thing should be within the purview of the criminal law,

That sounds clearly enough grossly offensive to me. As well as being offensive, it could potentially lead to a breach of the peace: if the post was made by a supporter of a rival of Liverpool FC, it could provoke outbreaks of disorder between supporters of the two clubs. Preventing disorder is certainly the business of the law.

Lots of liberal democracies do fine without this sort of overreach.

Do they? In what countries would an equivalent claim to the one above about Hillsborough be legal?
ISTR when someone hacked into the PA system of an Austrian train and played a recording of one of Hitler's speeches it was a national scandal and the perpetrators got suspended sentences.

 

[AlterEgo]

That sounds clearly enough grossly offensive to me.

It is. It’s disgusting.

As well as being offensive, it could potentially lead to a breach of the peace: if the post was made by a supporter of a rival of Liverpool FC, it could provoke outbreaks of disorder between supporters of the two clubs. Preventing disorder is certainly the business of the law.


Do they? In what countries would an equivalent claim to the one above about Hillsborough be legal?

The USA would be one. Most liberal democracies don’t penalise mere offence, but they do (rightly) have hate speech laws where vile discrimination on the grounds of protected characteristics is criminalised.

The intent of the law around offensive communications in Britain is merely to criminalise the offensiveness of the communication; incitement (which you mention) is entirely separate and rightly a crime. It’s not relevant that a post on a forum be capable of causing some other bother. All you have to do is cause “gross” offence (or be obscene or indecent or menacing, any of those).

ISTR when someone hacked into the PA system of an Austrian train and played a recording of one of Hitler's speeches it was a national scandal and the perpetrators got suspended sentences.

They weren’t actually brought to trial for that, but for something akin to trespass or criminal mischief. They were a pair of very odd and well known train enthusiasts who had uniforms and played regular pranks and trespass onto trains, and OBB finally had enough of them.

They were made to do an awareness course for the Hitler speech prank part of their repertoire. Both were young adults and got to remain anonymous, as far as I know.

However we are a long way off topic now! It’s another area of British life where a correction will inevitably come in some form, and the great concern is that’ll be an over correction with dire consequences.

 

[DarloRich]

People here are being arrested and investigated by police just for harmless social media posts - this country is more authoritarian in my view.

Despite what your favoured right wing commentators tell you that isn't true. I think you know that. Could you provide an example to support your position?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Despite what your favoured right wing commentators tell you that isn't true. I think you know that. Could you provide an example to support your position?

People are certainly being arrested for social media posts, but by and large these are not "harmless", they contravene laws like inciting racial hatred.