UK police ask blogger to remove UKIP tweets | Hacker News Reader

UK police ask blogger to remove UKIP tweets

axeofreason.blogspot.com

93 pointspolemic37 comments

here's the poster in question: https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/46329913991721369...

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.

Unless policy has changed in 5 years, you don't need to pull strings to make the police visit somebody who made tweets you don't like. You just need to make the right noises and be sufficiently offended such that the police will check whether there is a genuine problem or not.

It's pretty scary getting a phone call or visit from the police, but they make it quite clear you're not in trouble, at which point it's mostly infuriating that someone got butthurt enough to trouble you in this manner.

True, but they should not have asked him to take it down.

I can think of scenarios where it would be reasonable for the police to ask someone to stop legal behavior - "please stop pissing off your neighbours" - but this is not one of them.

I was asked to remove offending content too. Like OP they admitted they couldn't make me, but it was implied that it would appease the offended party and make things easier (for them, at least, since it makes it more likely the crank would stop wasting their time).

It certainly wasn't suggested in the way the Mafia might suggest you pay for protection, if that's what you're thinking. There was no sense of authority when they asked it. It sounds like the same thing happened to OP.

Honestly I think it is fairly problematic for them to even relay the request that you take it down. If the aggrieved party has an issue with what you are saying but you are operating within your rights and the law, then the aggrieved party can make the request themselves.

I think that having the police, or a politician (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09...) or any other member of the government relay those requests is out of line.

True. Looking back on it I was pretty mad at the time, especially over what is a civil matter, but it proved to be absolutely inconsequential.

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.

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

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.

ah, he confirmed on twitter last night: https://twitter.com/MichaelAbberton/status/46560706028634521... so I think what happened is that the original image was produced, someone annotated it with unverified info, and Michael Abberton then double checked this and annotated it further with the bold text to note any claims which couldn't be confirmed.

I think that he's confirming that some claims aren't verified because he's being honest, irrespective of party ties.

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.

>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".

Could you please explain how it is not peaceful?

Just because they don't physically beat the guy up or shoot him doesn't mean it's peaceful. When someone in a position of authority uses their authority to try to bully you into doing something, that is not peaceful.

I don't know if there's a difference here between the US and the UK (I'm from the UK, like the Twitter person, I assume you may be in the US).

I don't see how the police did not act peacefully. He would have had the option as to whether to allow the police in or not, and I don't see how them asking questions about what he did is bullying.

The police did state several times that he had not committed a crime, and they were seeking information.

The alternative is you have the police judge you as a timewaster before investigating your claims, instead of after :)

its called political intimidation. thats why its anything but peaceful.

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.

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.

>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?

In some jurisdictions - yes, that absolutely happens.

>In some jurisdictions - yes, that absolutely happens.

Which?

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

> It's technically peaceful in the same way that me raising my fist while staring you in the eyes is technically peaceful

No, technically that would count as common assault which could get you arrested and charged or at least cautioned.

Good point, that wasn't a great analogy. I should have gone with "Nice house, it would be a shame if it burned down" or something similar.

Doesn't sound like bothering to me. Gave him a valuable heads up to someone was trying to stir up trouble for him. The police sounded exceptionally polite to me.

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

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!

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?

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.

On that topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

"In the British model of policing, police officers are citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of their fellow citizens. Policing by consent is the phrase used to describe this. It denotes that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, demonstrating integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so."

Oh, please. Ethical?! I certainly don't consent to kettling and acts such as the brutal killing of Ian Tomlinson.

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.

Not the author but if I were him I would have done the same just because I'm terribly affraid of the police and could imagine it only being worse by not acting as normal as possible.

While I'm perfectly conscious I shouldn't be like this, really bad past experiences with the police force got me into this kind of mental workflow whenever I see a police uniform. I must say being in the UK for the past years is slowly making me change this perception, I do feel much better just knowing they don't carry guns. And whenever I talked to a PC they were always very friendly and interested in what I had to say (which, as you can imagine by now, is a very different experience from the ones I had in some other countries).

| 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.

What incentive? He got a heads up regarding his opponent.

When they come round and ask for a chat you can easily decline to let them in. That's just a personal choice. Personally I would prefer to keep them out becuase of my belief (which may be wrong) about warrants to search.

The reason you talk to them is to get information. "We've had this complaint. We're letting you know." In this case I genuinely have no idea why the police felt it was appropriate to get involved and I would send a complaint in, even though they had been very polite. In other cases they may tell you that some person feels harassed by you. Ignoring what the police say could lead to you being arrested for them to question you about the harrassment; or maybe the other person will get a non-molestation order; or etc.

Tl;dr in England we're policed with our consent and most people kind of feel that policing should be collaborative. Most people don't mind polite chats; it's petty little officious police being obnoxious during a traffic stop that is annoying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com