UK Laws Are Not 'Fit For Social Media Age' (independent.co.uk) 45
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: British laws restricting what the police can say about criminal cases are "not fit for the social media age (source paywalled; alternative source)," a government committee said in a report released Monday in Britain that highlighted how unchecked misinformation stoked riots last summer. Violent disorder, fueled by the far right, affected several towns and cities for days after a teenager killed three girls on July 29 at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport, England. In the hours after the stabbings, false claims that the attacker was an undocumented Muslim immigrant spread rapidly online. In a report looking into the riots, a parliamentary committee said a lack of information from the authorities after the attack "created a vacuum where misinformation was able to grow." The report blamed decades-old British laws, aimed at preventing jury bias, that stopped the police from correcting false claims. By the time the police announced the suspect was British-born, those false claims had reached millions.
The Home Affairs Committee, which brings together lawmakers from across the political spectrum, published its report after questioning police chiefs, government officials and emergency workers over four months of hearings. Axel Rudakubana, who was sentenced to life in prison for the attack, was born and raised in Britain by a Christian family from Rwanda. A judge later found there was no evidence he was driven by a single political or religious ideology, but was obsessed with violence. [...] The committee's report acknowledged that it was impossible to determine "whether the disorder could have been prevented had more information been published." But it concluded that the lack of information after the stabbing "created a vacuum where misinformation was able to grow, further undermining public confidence," and that the law on contempt was not "fit for the social media age."
The Home Affairs Committee, which brings together lawmakers from across the political spectrum, published its report after questioning police chiefs, government officials and emergency workers over four months of hearings. Axel Rudakubana, who was sentenced to life in prison for the attack, was born and raised in Britain by a Christian family from Rwanda. A judge later found there was no evidence he was driven by a single political or religious ideology, but was obsessed with violence. [...] The committee's report acknowledged that it was impossible to determine "whether the disorder could have been prevented had more information been published." But it concluded that the lack of information after the stabbing "created a vacuum where misinformation was able to grow, further undermining public confidence," and that the law on contempt was not "fit for the social media age."
This is utter nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Gross Incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)
Either release suspect details for everyone or don't release them for everyone. Releasing information in only certain cases is just stupid and makes the situation worse. This is not a problem with decades old UK laws, its a problem with the idiots in charge not thinking about the consequences of their actions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only place the absence of information is information is in the brains of conspiracy nutbags.
Either release suspect details for everyone or don't release them for everyone.
This may come as a surprise to Americans, but in many parts of the world people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and as such as not subject to the court of public opinion. In sane countries you're not allowed to publish details of people's crimes, even when they are found guilty. The justice system is there to do that job, not your sense of vigilantly justice and bigotry.
Justice has to be seen to be done (Score:4, Insightful)
The only place the absence of information is information is in the brains of conspiracy nutbags.
There is a reason that politicians and others will generally not comment on security matters: if they only denied things when rumours were not true then the absence of a denial becomes evidence of truth. This is not a conspiracy theory but basic logic.
In sane countries you're not allowed to publish details of people's crimes, even when they are found guilty.
That sounds completely bonkers to me and I'm completely unamerican. Once someone has been found guilty there is no presumption of innocence because they are guilty and what they have been found guilty of should be a matter of public record. Indeed, I would argue that having an open justice system where the courts operate in public and can be reported on ensures that not only is justice done but it is seen to be done.
This is critical to everyone having confidence in the justice system. It has nothing to do with vigilantism and everything to do in ensuring that the courts are not being abused by the authorities to unjustly punish people. It may not be a perfect system but having courts held in private with no public allowed to see or report on them is not my idea of a healthy justice system.
Re:Justice has to be seen to be done (Score:5, Informative)
That sounds completely bonkers to me and I'm completely unamerican. Once someone has been found guilty there is no presumption of innocence because they are guilty and what they have been found guilty of should be a matter of public record.
What if you're a child convicted of a minor offence? Should that hang over you for the rest of your life? Even in the most heinous [wikipedia.org] cases there are times when, after much deliberation and adjudication, keeping perpetrators anonymous is deemed to be warranted.
It may not be a perfect system but having courts held in private with no public allowed to see or report on them is not my idea of a healthy justice system.
Forgive me if this sounds glib but seeing and reporting are two different things. We're not talking about the return of the Star Chamber here, just rare cases where people attending the trial are not permitted to name the defendants. If you want to write an article about how Defendant A showed no signs of remorse while Defendant B broke down in tears then by all means do so, just don't give their names.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you're a child convicted of a minor offence?
There are exceptions to every rule and child offences are generally one of those exceptions.
Forgive me if this sounds glib but seeing and reporting are two different things.
Not really. If your press cannot report on matters of public record then you do not have a free press and putting restrictions on the press like that leads to problems in hold the authorities to account. The system ics certainly not perfect and the press definitely do not always act in the best interests of society but I'd argue that restricting the press and preventing reporting on matters of public record is a so
Re: (Score:2)
Once someone has been found guilty there is no presumption of innocence because they are guilty and what they have been found guilty of should be a matter of public record.
Why should it be a matter of public record? What do *YOU* bring to the process of justice? If someone is guilty of a crime they should pay a fine or go to jail. The justice department dishes out punishment and the point of such punishment is that it is as long as appropriate and not longer.
If someone is a threat, they should be locked up. If someone is barred from an activity, a system should exist to support blocking that activity, such as police record lookups. I live in a country where even that will not
Re: Gross Incompetence (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
No, criminals need to be publicly outted. Why do you want to protect criminals? Also, if names are public it's a little harder for the government to just disappear someone they don't like without everyone knowing.
Swivel-eyed conspiracy theories aside...
You're making an assumption that any accused is automatically a criminal. Call me old fashioned but I don't consider anyone a criminal until they've have been convicted by a court of law. At that point, unless the case has been sealed by a judge for a specific reason, the convicted may be named and details released.
Until someone is convicted, they are just accused and not a criminal, therefore should be granted the same protections under the law that you or I wo
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What are you achieving by your "public outing"? We have a criminal justice system that is responsible for dolling out justice. Are you suggesting that this justice is not enough?
Why am I protecting criminals? Because vigilantes like you are bad for society. Not just for criminals, but for me. Because when a criminal has received their legal due punishment, and you continue to punish them (e.g. by denying them a job because of a criminal record) they are more likely to remain criminal and more likely t
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Right-wing suspect: "Mr. Smith, a well-known white nationalist from South Fuckington, had posted several inflammatory and bigoted statements on social media. His phone was accessed by police and an investigation is underway."
Left-wing suspect: "The suspect, whose name is being withheld out of courtesy for his family, is well-known in the community. Police are currently unable to access his phone or social media accounts. We may never know his motive."
Re:This is utter nonsense (Score:4, Informative)
What gets up people's noses here is the selective application of this excuse in politically sensitive cases
The NYT neglects to mention that at the time that he was arrested the attacker was a minor and therefore could not legally be named. That's not selective, it's the law. At least the Independent could be bothered to put that part in... or was unwilling to leave it out.
where the intent is to prevent voters from particular sections of society in certain marginal constituencies from being offended.
Let's assume for a second that Rudakubana was not a black boy born in Wales and raised a christian but was a muslim immigrant instead. Imagine that the police identified him right at the start instead of someone tweeting a picture of a random brown man.
Do you think the rioting wouldn't have happened?
Of course it would. But you can't argue that the police refused to identify a black kid in Southport to avoid offending muslims in Rotherham.
Classic 2-tier justice.
Rudakubana was arrested, charged, found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, which is the second most severe punishment a UK court can hand out. He only missed out on the most severe (a whole life order*) because, again, he was under the age of eighteen when the crimes were committed.
Now, tell me how he got off easy.
* A whole life order means you aren't ever eligible for parole, unless the Home Secretary explicitly grants it. If your conviction is overturned of course you'll be released but other than that you'll be there until a politician comes along who's brave enough to risk letting you out.
Re: (Score:2)
What gets up people's noses here is the selective application of this excuse in politically sensitive cases
The NYT neglects to mention that at the time that he was arrested the attacker was a minor and therefore could not legally be named. That's not selective, it's the law. At least the Independent could be bothered to put that part in... or was unwilling to leave it out.
where the intent is to prevent voters from particular sections of society in certain marginal constituencies from being offended.
Let's assume for a second that Rudakubana was not a black boy born in Wales and raised a christian but was a muslim immigrant instead. Imagine that the police identified him right at the start instead of someone tweeting a picture of a random brown man.
Do you think the rioting wouldn't have happened?
Of course it would. But you can't argue that the police refused to identify a black kid in Southport to avoid offending muslims in Rotherham.
There in lies the problem. It wasn't a lack of information, it was an abundance of disinformation being pushed via social media that caused the riots.
Now we know who the accused was (and one of the papers named him before the judge permitted it) we haven't heard one word of culpability or apology from the rioters, just more excuses trying to gloss over the fact they got it wrong.
The judge was pretty quick to release his name because he was 17 and the severity of the crime. This didn't matter to the ri
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The police, CPS, courts and other actors in the UK criminal justice system frequently release basic details about investigations and cases of all sorts, without prejudicing the carriage of justice. They have also been doing this for ever. What gets up people's noses here is the selective application of this excuse in politically sensitive cases - where the intent is to prevent voters from particular sections of society in certain marginal constituencies from being offended. Classic 2-tier justice.
More sounds like the article writer was hell-bent on blaming the right for the “violent disorder” that occurred.
England needs to hear Summer of Love by BLM. It was smash hit for many cities in America. Brought to you by the tolerant fascist left.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re:The UK has gone full 1984. (Score:5, Informative)
I really can't believe this still gets modded up.
It's just bollocks.
Go on, name two of these lawless areas. Or are you going to tell me that Sharia law applies there?
Re:The UK has gone full 1984. (Score:5, Informative)
Not only are there *no* no-go zones for police anywhere in the UK, the right wing bullshit attempting to spread it is so weak it didn't even make a list of alleged no-go zones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] You know how low-tier bullshit your claim needs to be to not even be worth putting on a list of bullshit claims?
I can only recommend cutting all ties from whomever or wherever you heard that. It's rotting your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving your stupid bigotry aside, you realise No-go zones here have a specific meaning right? Which little girls are members of the London metropolitan police (or any other UK police force?)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This seems
fictional.
And you are stupid for believing something that you could just check by looking at administrative data rather than getting your information from obviously motivated parties.
Re: (Score:3)
most of the EU are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less safe than they were just ten years ago.
What are your criteria? Crime statistics in the EU https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/... [europa.eu]
2010-2022
Robbery -41%
Burglary -38%
Theft -16%
Intentional homicide -24%
Sexual violence +67% -- indeed that one is bad.
Everyone sees it. The videos/stories are totally unavoidable. [...] Hard to argue with reality on the screen in front of you.
Can you please elaborate.
Re: (Score:3)
Refusing to record crime doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means you're corrupt and dishonest.
Can you please elaborate.
People already have [archive.ph]. They get silenced and unpersoned for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh poor man, you've punked yourself. If you would have maybe said 3 years ago you'd have a point. But while crime in most EU countries is up from 3 years ago, it's either the same or lower than it was 10 years go.
Do yourself a favour and become a better liar. There are so many ways of spreading misinformation in ways that are "technically correct". When you put as little effort in as you did, it's so easy to call you out on your bullshit. You have videos, we have data. The UK currently sits at 174th in the
Re: Not just social media (Score:2)
Are you saying this is justice?
Re: (Score:1)
Take TFA with every grain of salt (Score:3)
Keep in mind this is the same government, and same police, that have publicly threatened to arrest a Jewish man for being "visibly Jewish" while openly protecting and condoning violent pro-terrorist pogroms and mobs literally chanting their love of Hitler. They openly engage in a level of two-tiered justice that simply beggars belief.
Re: (Score:2)
While the officer's choice was words was unfortunate, the fact is that the guy was trying to antagonize an anti-genocide protest, in order to them claim anti-Semitism. One of the other men with him was identified as a Mossad agent.
Look, I'm no fan of the police. Have a read of Ian Gould's blog to see just how often they abuse their powers and how many of them have a bad attitude. But in that case, the police probably did prevent him provoking those protestors and causing violence.
Re: (Score:2)
anti-genocide protest? antagonize? mossad agents?! Do you even hear yourself? You're posting on slashdot, not stormfront. We get that you hate Jews but at least pretend you aren't a flat out nazi complete with absurd Protocols of the Elders of Zion level conspiracies about mossad false flags and the like.
These were violent rioters harassing Jews, chanting genocidal slogans like "khaybar ya yahud", literally saying they loved Hitler and Hitler was right all along, and openly calling for the extermination of
Civil Society in General Not Fit For Social Media (Score:2)
Or maybe I should say, Social Media Not Fit For Civil Society. It seems since its inception that the very idea of civil society has begun to fall by the wayside. Hate cults that seemed quaint and worthy only of ignoring a couple decades back are now full-fledged movements. Sometimes they even manage to climb into the political class. And once that happens, kiss civilized discourse goodbye in your country. Case in point, my country, the United States of America. Now, I know Newt Gingrich's hardline against a