RC

@AughtonNeil I respect that your proximity to this might influence your position on it.

@RSC_1986 I also know a person who did time for rioting outside the mosque the day after Connolly’s tweet you don’t know if the tweet contributed to the riots outside a mosque that had nothing to do with the crime, then listening to a child’s funeral from your garden, then see how you feel

FSU External Affairs Officer @_ConnieShaw was invited onto Matthew Wright’s LBC show to discuss Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy’s comments on the “Open Iftar” in Trafalgar Square. Matthew accused her of “perpetuating racism” when he disagreed with her remarks. He later repeated the doubled-down on Bluesky. Thanks to the official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — we have a de facto blasphemy law via the back door. In less than three weeks, the definition has already been weaponised to stifle discussion, debate and criticism of Islam and its practices. Read more from Connie Shaw below 👇

@AughtonNeil Maybe, but I’m not driven by emotion on this.

@RSC_1986 You can write rambling posts as long as you like, but I still believe you are wrong in your belief, maybe you would feel differently if you personally knew people involved in the Southport tragedy, I spoke to a farther involved 30 of so mins after it happened

Too vague - I understand it’s incredibly offensive, but unless the speaker has the ability to command the murder (e.g. I’ll pay you X pounds to murder that Jewish person or the speaker is commanding a mob and their is a victim in sight) then it should not be incitement. If you want to stop racist violence, pour your resources into going after violence rather than hyperbolic violent rhetoric.

@seerkami @RSC_1986 @hhhakka09 @ukhomeoffice Like "Murder the Jews" that we saw every weekend in London that went totally ignored

Police time will no longer be wasted investigating legal social media posts, freeing up officers to patrol the streets and tackle real crime. By scrapping Non‑Crime Hate Incidents, we are balancing the protection of vulnerable communities while respecting free speech.

@Raven80504432 @dshensmith @SamanthaTaghoy @Rachel_SUTDA @metpoliceuk That’s the trap the UK is in right now. That’s why the only solution in my mind is to get radical on free speech. Just adopt the American standard. Americans are armed to the teeth and they can handle free speech without killing each other over it.

@RSC_1986 @dshensmith @SamanthaTaghoy @Rachel_SUTDA @metpoliceuk I don't think anyone would care if it was an even playing field, but it isn't. Two tier 'justice', two tier policing, two tier everything.

Dear @MetPoliceUK, Below is a video of Zarah Sultana MP, inciting violence against British citizens at a rally in London. “We are the majority. We will defeat them… we will fight them in the streets.” Zarah must be investigated for the following criminal acts: >S.4 Public Order Act 1986 (provocation of violence) >SS.44-46 Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting crime) >S.1 Terrorism Act 2006 (publishing (or causing publication of) a statement, either intending encouragement or inducement or being reckless as to whether it will have that effect — for political or ideological purposes) I look forward to your investigation of Ms Sultana any criminal charges that may arise from her despicable conduct. This is a clear incitement of violence, for political and ideological purposes, against an immeasurable number of innocent British citizens. She is unfit for Parliament, and unfit for public office. Her hateful, dangerous, and wilfully divisive language as demonstrated below proves just that. Sincerely, The British Public

The USA has absolute free speech and robust constitutional protections that people in the UK don’t enjoy. The uk should adopt something like the USA’s 1st amendment and 4th and 5th amendments to balance. To arrest someone in the USA in an early morning raid you need a judge to sign off on it and the warrant must be backed by probable cause that a crime has occurred (4th amendment).

@RSC_1986 @hhhakka09 @ukhomeoffice With how many incidents come from people who were on the fbi's "radar" in america, I think it's best to take every threat as serious and investigated rigorously.

Even without “for all I care” the tweet itself was so absurd that it was clearly not to be taken literally. If you take the tweet literally she calls for deporting all the migrants while rounding up the politicians to throw in a burning hotel. The law as it applies, essentially says she contributed to an environment that causes lawlessness which is incredibly vague and incredibly abstract and it could be used against just about anybody. Had her tweet established a meeting place and asked people to bring hotel burning tools, that would be incitement.

@RSC_1986 @hhhakka09 @ukhomeoffice Interpretation of words, context, punctuation, there’s so many variables to take into account. For instance. I don’t believe what Lucy Connolly said justified a prison sentence. “Not caring” isn’t illegal

@seerkami @hhhakka09 @ukhomeoffice That’s probably reasonable if it’s a real threat.

@RSC_1986 @hhhakka09 @ukhomeoffice Like threatening a mass casualty event lmao.

What hotel was she referring to exactly, and how were they going to round up the politicians to throw them in the burning hotel? Didn’t she also say to deport the occupants of the hotel? If you are going to deport them, wouldn’t that suggest removing them from the hotels prior to setting them ablaze full of politicians. The law should state that Incitement should be limited to speech that causes immediate tangible violence or property damage. Lucy’s tweet would not meet this test because it’s too hyperbolic and vague.

@RSC_1986 @ukhomeoffice well i’m not the law so i can’t give you a perfect definition. but examples such as lucy connolly saying to burn down immigrant hotels while immigrants are in the hotel. not like the bs that police have been sent out for recently like someone being islamaphobic, which is free sp-

@DiehlsaSteph @BuenoForMiami @USAinUKConsular Viewpoint discrimination is a 1st amendment issue. It’s not an individual rights issue in any one case, it’s an anti 1A policy issue.

Changing the subject—you are talking about treatment post VISA issuance and indeed perhaps when inside our sovereign border. The example being objected to pertains to folks that are neither US Citizens nor are they living in/visiting our sovereign territory. Nope. They are foreign nationals, resident in a foreign sovereign, that are applying for a type of Visa that requires an appointment/interview. This is a background check/security assessment and they have ZERO Constitutional rights to assert because foreign nationals have no enforceable “right” to enter our sovereign territory in the first instance! Citizens have right of entry. Borders matter people 👏

@FitzoCrypto @ukhomeoffice It’s not fine because this is technically illegal (vague laws are a major problem as is overzealous prosecutions. This is not covered in the change in enforcement proposed above. They’re only going to stop arresting people for legal speech. Make that make sense.

@RSC_1986 @ukhomeoffice WTFFFF Well according to this new post that's fine What now happens to people who been put in Jail for this crap though

If you limit it to actually causing or likely to cause tangible violence then it becomes reasonable. The problem legally and culturally is a view that incitement to violence includes abstract violence. Under this logic, something that is upsetting could create an atmosphere of violence or lawlessness and therefore gets prosecuted under incitement lenses.

@hhhakka09 @RSC_1986 @ukhomeoffice Even the interpretation of that is subjective.

@FitzoCrypto @ukhomeoffice What about calling someone a [cigarette] for putting you in the hospital? youtu.be/--dJCbVOe54?si…

@RSC_1986 @ukhomeoffice Calling someone a prick is fine Threatening to kill someone isn't

@hhhakka09 @ukhomeoffice Like posting rap lyrics on Instagram? What does inciting violence actually mean?

@RSC_1986 @ukhomeoffice inciting violence

@GarethM79 @DrMarianaClaire @HussainShafiei @metpoliceuk @HertsPolice Most reports are saying it was an implied target… it’s not what she said, it’s that she was the one that said it.

@RSC_1986 @DrMarianaClaire @HussainShafiei @metpoliceuk @HertsPolice Against a named target, AFAIK. She has been charged now so I guess we'll find out eventually.

Why are British Police officers wearing Masks? @metpoliceuk is this the norm now?

Marco Rubio tried to deport college students by revoking their visas for harmless speech criticizing Israel. I am not referring to anybody who engaged in any kind of actual violence or property damage. A woman from Tufts university spent many weeks in a harsh detention center because her visa was illegally revoked. Her visa was revoked because an Israeli activist group (Canary Mission) reported her to the state department over an essay that she wrote in the Tufts student newspaper critical of U.S. / Israel foreign policy. Her view is shared by 10s of millions of Americans. As if there was ever any doubt, the courts have confirmed that this was an egregious first amendment violation and she was eventually released. I bring this up because the same people that want more access to social media are the ones that tried to revoke student visas in retaliation for offending powerful lobbying groups. If this kind of viewpoint discrimination is applied at the border. I think you do have a first amendment question.

This is a requirement for non citizen visitors subject to visa vetting requirements…already, as in the vetting isn’t new as a concept—this is just adapting as society evolves to encompass adding valid new information sources, on the merits, when conducting what is akin to a background check. These individuals can’t claim 1A protections and you can’t delegate yours to them. 😵‍💫🤦‍♀️ We really need a Constitution 101 class/series—like Ted Talk or Schoolhouse Rock style. Because as a nation, we do have some super serious Constitutional issues to attend to, but concerns about entirely lawful vetting rigor/process changes for visitors is not amongst them. 🙄😳

@DavinaDay2 @ukhomeoffice Nobody knows. bbc.com/news/uk-englan…

@ukhomeoffice How do you know which are the legal from the illegal? How are you going to record or deal with ones reported to you instead then?

@LadyVictoriaD @ukhomeoffice Yes, because there is still a cultural problem — too many people have a particular exception to free speech that they want people jailed for violating,

@ukhomeoffice Somehow I don't think this will happen. It will just be labelled different.

@Bashful1010c5 @ukhomeoffice @doctor_rahmeh Stop pointing that this is an empty promise.

@ukhomeoffice So that means that all the Palestinian activists you locked up for social media posts will have their court cases dropped? Dr Radawan will be able to come back and post again because you can’t ban someone from freely speaking on social media @doctor_rahmeh

@ShellSharp1 @ukhomeoffice No, it’s a cultural problem, law problem, and enforcement problem. This is a vague promise to reform the enforcement problem. The biggest obstacle to free speech is culture, and did the UK ever really have free speech.

@ukhomeoffice Does this mean we have free speech back? If so, all you foreigners in the home office will be deported first.

@ukhomeoffice What’s the difference between lawful and unlawful?

New measures announced today, will introduce a new system that will prevent police from recording lawful free speech. Forces will continue to ensure that reports from the public, which may lead to genuine harm, get the right response.