> Hampshire Constabulary said, after initially visiting the property, officers agreed to return on Thursday.
> When they returned they were prevented from entering so arrested the 51-year-old suspect so they could interview him about the alleged offence.
> He has since been released and will face no further action.
Being released is better than what it could’ve been. The fact he was visited at all is terrifying.
It's funny because on one side the UK is the birthplace of most of how democracies work today, and the oldest continuously running democratic parliament. So it has fairly good credentials.
But on the other hand this system is so dangerous, there is only really one chamber (the other one has no power), no counterpower, no constitution (the precendents thing is a joke, given that they are free to make up their own precedents on the fly), it is free to basically vote whatever it wants with a 50% and 1 vote majority, and that includes wiping out any civil liberty they feel like.
Again hard to call "unstable" a system that has shown to be so stable for so long, but it feels that it is not stable by design.
This sort of policing of offensive content on social media among democracies is basically just the UK + the middle east.
I can't think of any other non-despotic countries dumb enough to do this?
They went over by arrangement with him for a voluntary interview, the guy decided to be an arse about it, which created the conditions under PACE (Policing and Crime Act) that necessitate arrest.
Arrest occurs, mans fucking shocked.
Play stupid games...
Now I will say, the Mal Comms laws are a disaster. But Jesus Christ the Mirror misrepresents this by a mile.
Voluntary interview doesn't seem so voluntary if you can't refuse it (or, rescind the voluntary acceptance of interview) without the refusal becoming a condition for a non-voluntary interview.
They could arrest you to interview, but its agreed they won't.
If you decide to not bother doing the voluntary interview, arrest becomes necessary, and you get arrested.
Arrests can show up on enhanced DBS checks, and are a real pain in the hole to explain to employers down the line. Hence there being a non arrest option.
What doesn't make sense is calling that "voluntary", because it clearly isn't voluntary when the other option is be arrested.
Its a somewhat confusing term, but that's what they call it.
Usually its made clear to you at the time which of those cases its going to be.
"Look, you can come in for an interview at a time that suits both of us, or we will have to go and get you at a time that suits us. Either way, you will be interviewed."
So you're fine that they "could arrest him, but won't" for a retweet of a stupid meme?
Who cares by what laws or twisted logic they justify it.
I disagree with that law itself for a number of reasons (its fucking daft), but the correct procedure was followed here.
If interviewing is required then what is to stop somebody from reporting somebody everyday and requiring the police to go out consistently?
I'm none of the above (thank god).
The police hand it over, is why.
Not just anyone can request a DBS check, but many jobs require one.
A "voluntary interview" may or may not come with the alternative of arrest.
In this particular case, it did.
In some cases, it doesn't.
A voluntary interview may also lead to arrest (eg: if you admit to a crime, they usually arrest you to charge you).
Laws on controversial topics often have awkward corner cases, and one strategy to fight them is to force those corner cases to the surface in a way that wouldn't have happened naturally, so that they can be highlighted for discussion in sympathetic media circles.
Edit: Tangentially related, from Lawrence v Texas with another somewhat manufactured situation:
"The gay rights advocates from Lambda Legal litigating the case convinced Lawrence and Garner not to contest the charges and to plead no contest instead.[29] On November 20, Lawrence and Garner pleaded no contest to the charges and waived their right to a trial. Justice of the Peace Mike Parrott found them guilty and imposed a $100 fine and court costs of $41.25 on each defendant. When the defense attorneys realized that the fine was below the minimum required to permit them to appeal the convictions, they asked the judge to impose a higher penalty. Parrott, well aware that the attorneys intended to use the case to raise a constitutional challenge, increased it to $125 with the agreement of the prosecutor.[30]"
If there's a report, they have a duty to go interview the person, and usually its closed as NFA.
In this case, he arranged for a voluntary interview (which would have leas to NFA), then reneged, which creates the conditions under PACE that necessitate an arrest so interview can be done quickly.
All of which would have been explained to him.
He wanted to get arrested, or had a room temperature IQ. Or both.
As for him wanting to be arrested. So what? He was trying to prove a point that the trans ideology is authoritarian and the police obliged.
The way UK law works can be a bit funny. Not in a good way.
Seeing as most people, including the force's PCC, agree that he should not have been arrested at all, he may have a good shot at it.