
UK police ask blogger to remove UKIP tweets - polemic
http://axeofreason.blogspot.com/2014/05/you-are-not-allowed-to-read-this-blog.html?spref=tw&m=1
======
nemof
here's the poster in question:
[https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/46329913991721369...](https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/463299139917213696/photo/1/large)

for context for non UK folk, the guy posting the story is a green (left of the
center, strong environmental politics), and UKIP who are the current talk de
jour in the UK are a rightwing nationalist party who are more acceptable in
the UK than just blatantly supporting the BNP.

Oh, and if the police got involved, to be frank, assuming it happened like op
said, that's absolute bullshit and basically intimidation. Considering the
reach that tweet/poster image has had, I wouldn't be surprised if someone with
connections within UKIP had pulled some strings to get the police to visit
this guy.

~~~
nailer
The post (if by 'poster' you meant post) is confusing. UKIP say they're
cancelling house building on green belt land, someone else says there's
'numerous refs', the someone else says no source was found. It seems to be
pointing out that the of the claims against UKIP aren't referenced, but it's
being tweeted by a Green Party supporter.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
After digging through his twitter stream, it looks like he took an existing
image and tried to add references for the claims.

~~~
tomelders
He did. But as he mentions in his post, he only references official UKIP
sources.

The unreferenced ones are contentious, but from my understanding of UKIP's
plans, they're broadly correct.

------
tormeh
Police do, and should take peaceful action without any police authority.
Calming things down before they happen and that kind of thing. Seeing as these
officers didn't know what Twitter was, it's pretty probable that someone
called the police and told them that the author was picking a fight on the
internet and might cause trouble.

It basically sounds like a less dramatic type of SWATing.

~~~
wyager
>Police do, and should take peaceful action without any police authority.

Coming to someone's house and bothering them about something political they
said online is not "peaceful".

~~~
robhu
Could you please explain how it is not peaceful?

~~~
freshhawk
You could make an argument that it's technically "peaceful" since it wasn't
violent. But it was clearly threatening, and meant to be be threatening. It's
not like they were investigating any wrongdoing, since they acknowledged there
was none. They were there to send the message that he had an enemy that pulled
the strings of the law. It was intimidation.

It's technically peaceful in the same way that me raising my fist while
staring you in the eyes is technically peaceful, although that's a very
barbaric type of threat while this was a very civilized one.

~~~
robhu
I don't think UKIP 'pulled the strings of the law', I've read a lot of people
say that they had visits from the police because someone (who was not famous
or important) complained that they were acting in a socially inappropriate but
probably not illegal manner (for example). To pull the strings of the law
they'd need to exert some special influence that was not available to the
ordinary person, but that is not the case here.

Raising your fist clearly implies you are going to hit me if I don't agree.
Here the police made it clear there was no crime committed and took no action
when he said he wouldn't take it down.

~~~
wyager
>To pull the strings of the law they'd need to exert some special influence
that was not available to the ordinary person, but that is not the case here.

You're telling me that if I called the police and told them someone was making
fun of me on twitter, they'd visit that person's house and ask them to stop?

~~~
nl
In some jurisdictions - yes, that absolutely happens.

~~~
wyager
>In some jurisdictions - yes, that absolutely happens.

Which?

~~~
seabee
The linked post is by someone in the UK, for example.

------
blakeshall
Anyone have any more information on this? Going off just the post leaves a lot
of questions.

~~~
ed_blackburn
No. But I suspect his local MP will ask the Police to investigate. The officer
who asked the police to pop round will probably be nagged for being naive.
There may be a weak apology and it'll blow over. The damage I suspect will be
for the politician who attempted to misuse a complaint about online bullying
as political intimidation. UKIP won't be affected because they're a protest
party, most people voting for them don't care about their tactics they see
them as a single-issue party.

Edit: fat fingers and predictive text!

------
skimmas
isn't the right thing to do in this kind of situations to say nothing, allow
nothing and ask for the presence of a lawyer?

~~~
sdrinf
If this would've been in the US, absolutely.

The quality of connection between UK citizens, and law enforcement is
significantly different, due to actions on both sides: specifically:

* UK police tends to seek full understanding prior to taking any action

* The standard police unit is _not_ armed, and their legal rights are significantly limited

* In general, their strategy aims for avoiding situations to escalate

This allows for the vast majority of situations to be resolved peacefully, and
in mutual respect. I leave drawing conclusions, and comparisons to the US
armed force to the dear reader.

~~~
Crito
What incentive would the author have to talk with the police (let alone invite
them into his home) in this instance? I understand that the police in the UK
may not be as menacing as they are in the US, but if nothing is in it for him
(and as far as I can tell, nothing was), then why would he allow himself to be
questioned in such a way?

If I have nothing to gain from talking with the police, I never would, even if
I _also_ felt that I had nothing to lose.

~~~
sdrinf
| What incentive would the author have to talk with the police (let alone
invite them into his home) in this instance? I understand that the police in
the UK may not be as menacing as they are in the US, but if nothing is in it
for him (and as far as I can tell, nothing was), then why would he allow
himself to be questioned in such a way?

Incentive boils down to negative externalities:

* In the UK, understanding is attempted by the police; in this case, they probably received a complaint, heard out both sides, and made the judgement call of case having no legal basis. Not hearing the cops out have a potentially significant downside, in them understanding the situation incorrectly.

* In the US, the same level of understanding requires the interplay of a prosecutor, a defense counsel, and a judge (on top of the contestant & defendant), and several man-days of sweat. Talking with the cops can, by law, only weaken your position: anything you say _can only be used against you_.

The cultural trade-off is a question of variance: the UK system presumes low-
variance situations, such that understanding can be built by reasonable
individuals; while the US is geared to being tolerant towards people living on
the edges, at the cost of longer due process.

