seen no evidence Social Media posts are monitored or else half of the peeps using this site would be banged up . Tbh your post reads like the Govt should allow asbestos to be used as a building material , have Arsenic in paint scrap H&S legislation etc and god forbid we do something to stop food producers from weaning our children onto sugar laden food .
So we didn't put someone inside for 3 years for what they wrote on Facebook. I'm happy for them to do whatever they want, but we need to stop the crying when people then can't protest. Everything is about control, one rule always leads to another. Asbetos is nothing to do with the publics general freedom to do what they chose, so to suggest asbestos means you are desperatly seeking reply or incredibly thick....see Arsenic for evidence of your dumbness. I agree on sugar, but it's still a government taxation on choice. Anyway I'm off to buy some arsenic paint now, anyone know a decent hardware store still open these days.
Cops have already been done recently for pulling a taser on someone when there was absolutely no need for it.
the state isn't monitoring Social media someone reported her post to plod . quite often sugar isn't a choice as they whack it into loads of things you wouldn't naturally put it in . Nearly all the things you mentioned were "targeted" as they were considered public heal threats same as asbestos etc . PS vapes aren't banned just "single use" ones
The police who work on behalf of the state, do monitor social media posts, football would be a good example of that. The police even give advice via social media directly to certain groups of fans before away games, so you are wrong. Even if the Facebook woman was reported, it was still punishment for something written on social media, so hopefully the same will apply to people who trash military aircraft. I personally don't care about that woman or the people that stepped on to MOD land, you can bang them all up for as long as you like, people just need to stop crying about it, saying it's authoritarian, tough it's what everyone wanted.... From google: AI Overview Yes, the police monitor social media. They use it for intelligence gathering, investigations, and community engagement. They can monitor publicly available content and may also access private data with legal warrants or by seizing devices. Here's a more detailed explanation: Monitoring Publicly Available Content: Police can view anything that is posted publicly on social media. This includes posts, comments, photos, videos, and other shared content. They can also track trends and conversations related to specific topics or events. Monitoring Private Data: Police can access private data with a warrant or court order. They may also seize devices (like phones) and access social media accounts directly. They can request data from social media companies, who are legally obligated to comply under certain circumstances. Reasons for Monitoring: Intelligence Gathering: Social media provides insights into community sentiment, potential criminal activity, and emerging threats. Investigations: Social media can be used as evidence in investigations, including tracking suspects, identifying witnesses, and gathering information. Community Engagement: Police use social media to communicate with the public, share information, and build relationships. Vetting Processes: Social media checks are part of the police vetting process to ensure officers uphold public trust. Important Considerations: Police must adhere to legal and ethical guidelines when monitoring social media. Balancing the need for surveillance with the protection of individual privacy and civil liberties is crucial. Transparency about social media monitoring practices is important for maintaining public trust.
Like I say, we already have laws to deal with these sorts of incidents. Hate crime covers people openly waving around Swaztikas and making Anti-Semitic chants or whatever the more extreme folk do at these protests. The bloke who was put in hospital is clearly assault or GBH
I agree with all of that, but what I'm saying is that it's a different thing to over surveil than it is to try and shut down protest by criminalising grannies under the prevention of Terrorism act. And nobody is say we should let people trash military aircraft, that's the point I'm making. We already have laws to cover all of these things. Terrorism and the laws that apply to it, should be reserved for the groups that actually want to inflict indiscriminate death on innocent people
Nowt wrong with China, my mate Xi often sends me a small monetary gift for data being so supportive of his country... please log in to view this image
Lol, yeah well that's what I mean. Clearly Marjorie, 68 from Sevenoaks with her 'End the Ethnic Cleansing' placard isn't even on the same level as somebody who could break into a RAF base and spray a can of paint on an aircraft. And she's a million ****in miles away from some radicalised nutter who would gladly blow themselves up along with a bus full of innocent people. Yet the law now puts them all in the same bracket.
You know what the date is today right, so I'd argue she's probably only protesting a mile or two away from exactly where that happened. I doubt they even know the names of those that organised the group nor what funding they have given to radicalised groups. They support them because they got **** all else to do that day, they should just go back home and complain about it on Facebook.
