The Law Is Not On Your Side
Summary
TLDRThe video script discusses the disparity in the UK's justice system, highlighting how the application of laws is inconsistent and politically influenced. It contrasts the lenient sentencing of a man who sent death threats with the harsher punishment of a woman for a less direct threat. The script also critiques the selective enforcement of laws during protests, the misuse of the Equality Act, and the potential for further legal measures to unfairly target certain groups, emphasizing that the authority behind law, not the law itself, often determines outcomes.
Takeaways
- 📚 The script discusses the limitations of relying on the law for protection, emphasizing that the application of the law is more critical than the law itself.
- 🏛️ It mentions several organizations like ADF International and the Free Speech Union that champion rights and liberties, suggesting a complex landscape of legal advocacy.
- 📰 The script contrasts two cases involving different responses to threats, highlighting potential biases in the justice system's application of laws.
- 👮♀️ It critiques the UK's justice system for what is perceived as a two-tier approach to justice, with different outcomes based on the context and perceived identity of the individuals involved.
- 💬 The podcast episode touches on the role of the media, particularly The Guardian, in shaping public perception of legal cases and the context in which they occur.
- 📈 The script references a report by Policy Exchange on the cost and impact of pro-Palestine protests, suggesting a broader economic and social impact of such events.
- 🏙️ It discusses the chilling effect of legal actions on free speech and assembly, particularly in the context of protests and the policing of these events.
- 📖 The script mentions the potential for the misuse of legislation like the Equality Act, suggesting that it can be used to favor certain groups over others.
- 👩⚖️ It points out inconsistencies in how the law is applied, with examples of how certain views are protected while others are not, based on the prevailing political climate.
- 📢 The podcast concludes with a call to recognize that the authority interpreting and applying the law has a significant impact on justice, rather than the law's text alone.
Q & A
What is the main theme discussed in the podcast segment?
-The main theme discussed is the perceived injustice and bias in the application of the law, particularly in the UK, highlighting how the state's application of laws and the justice system can be influenced by political and social contexts rather than being impartial.
What organizations are mentioned as champions of rights and liberties?
-ADF International and the Free Speech Union are mentioned as organizations that champion rights and liberties.
What is 'Islander magazine' and why is it mentioned in the script?
-Islander magazine is a publication produced by the podcast's team, mentioned to promote their work and to announce the release of its second issue, which includes essays from various writers.
Why is the case of Nabil Arif mentioned in the podcast?
-Nabil Arif's case is mentioned to illustrate the perceived two-tier justice system where he received a relatively short sentence for sending abusive messages and a death threat, which the podcast suggests is a lighter punishment compared to others in similar situations.
What contrast is drawn between the cases of Nabil Arif and Julie Sweeney?
-The contrast is drawn to show a disparity in sentencing where Nabil Arif received a 12-week sentence for a direct death threat, while Julie Sweeney was jailed for about 2 years for a less direct threat, suggesting different standards of justice applied.
What is the significance of the Israel-Gaza conflict mentioned in relation to the death threats?
-The Israel-Gaza conflict is mentioned to provide context for the abusive messages sent by Nabil Arif, suggesting it might have influenced his actions and the subsequent leniency in his sentencing.
What is the 'Policy Exchange' report discussed in the podcast?
-The 'Policy Exchange' report is a document discussing the costs and impacts of the pro-Palestine protests in London, including the economic burden on the city and the police, and recommendations for changes in protest regulations.
Why does the podcast criticize the recommendation for a 'Protest Commission for London'?
-The podcast criticizes the recommendation for a 'Protest Commission for London' because it suggests that such a commission, appointed by political figures, would be biased and not truly independent, potentially leading to selective enforcement of protest regulations.
What is the criticism regarding the application of the Equality Act as discussed in the podcast?
-The criticism is that the Equality Act is being selectively applied to protect certain characteristics and beliefs favored by the state over others, particularly highlighting the case of an individual whose English nationalist views were not protected under the act.
How does the podcast segment conclude regarding the role of authority in the law?
-The podcast concludes that the authority applying the law has a greater impact than the law itself, suggesting that the law is not inherently on the side of the people but is subject to the biases and interests of those in power.
Outlines
📚 Legal Challenges and Censorship
The speaker discusses the complexities of relying on the law for protection of free speech, especially in the context of arrests over memes. They highlight the role of organizations like ADF International and the Free Speech Union in championing rights and liberties. Despite some legal victories, the speaker emphasizes that the application of the law is as crucial as the law itself. The discussion transitions into the production of 'Islander' magazine, which includes essays from various writers. The magazine is available for purchase, and the speaker humorously comments on the editor's hard work and personal hygiene. The speaker also mentions new merchandise and the potential for it to become a limited edition.
🔍 Inconsistent Justice and Media Bias
This section contrasts the different legal outcomes for two individuals based on the nature of their threats. Nabil Arif, who sent death threats to Jess Phillips, was sentenced to only 12 weeks in jail, which the speaker finds lenient. In contrast, Julie Sweeney received a much harsher sentence for a less direct threat. The speaker criticizes the media, particularly The Guardian, for its biased reporting that contextualizes the threats differently based on the perceived victim. The speaker argues that the justice system and media are influenced by broader political contexts, leading to a two-tier justice system and biased reporting.
🏛️ Policing Protests and Legal Recommendations
The speaker discusses a report by Policy Exchange on the costs and impacts of pro-Palestine protests in London, highlighting the financial burden on the police and the disruption to everyday life and business. The report includes recommendations for the government to establish a protest commission for London and to amend legislation to increase the notification period for protests and to protect national infrastructure. The speaker criticizes these recommendations as politically motivated and likely to be applied selectively, favoring certain groups over others based on political alignment rather than the principle of law.
🏛️ The Selective Application of the Equality Act
The speaker critiques the Equality Act, arguing that it is used selectively to protect certain characteristics and beliefs over others. They discuss a case where an individual, Mr. S Thomas, claimed discrimination based on his English nationalist views but was denied protection under the Equality Act. The speaker points out the inconsistency in how the act is applied, suggesting that it serves to favor certain values over others, particularly those aligned with the state's preferences. They also mention an attempt to amend the act to protect afro hair, which they view as a frivolous use of the law.
📜 The Return of Non-Crime Hate Incidents
The speaker warns of the return of non-crime hate incidents, which were previously ruled unlawful due to their recording practices by the College of Policing. Despite new legislation and guidance, the number of such incidents recorded has increased. The speaker is critical of this development, arguing that it can lead to unfair treatment and discrimination against individuals based on unfounded claims. They also mention a future scenario where describing someone's hair could be considered a hate incident, illustrating their concern over the potential misuse of such regulations.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡ADF International
💡Free Speech Union
💡Human Rights Act
💡Equality Act
💡Two-tier Justice System
💡Crown Prosecution Service
💡Policy Exchange
💡Non-crime Hate Incidents
💡Public Order Act
💡Equality and Human Rights Commission
Highlights
Discussion on the limitations of relying on the law for protection of rights and liberties.
Introduction of ADF International and the Free Speech Union as champions of rights.
Critique of the application of the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act.
Analysis of the two-tier justice system in the UK with specific legal cases.
Launch of Islander magazine issue two featuring essays from various writers.
Details on the pricing and availability of the new Islander magazine issue.
Announcement of new merchandise and its limited edition status.
Case study of Nabil Arif's sentencing for sending death threats.
Comparison of sentencing disparities between different cases involving threats.
Critique of the Guardian's reporting bias in the context of legal cases.
Discussion on the costs and impact of pro-Palestine protests in London.
Findings from a Policy Exchange report on the policing of protests.
Recommendations from the report for changes in protest regulations and policing.
Analysis of the selective application of the Equality Act in employment tribunals.
Proposal to protect afro hair under the Equality Act and its implications.
Return of non-crime hate incidents recording by the College of Policing.
Call to action for viewers to follow on Twitter for updates on content.
Transcripts
well everyone we often hear how the law
is supposedly on our side I think we
sort of comfort ourselves with that
anytime that you get arrested for a meme
um eventually there are champions of our
rights and Liberties like ADF
International the Free Speech Union who
say don't worry we will win out in the
end and they have someone some important
legal cases but even if you do appeal to
the tools of the enemy like the Human
Rights Act the CHR or the equality act
even if they do net us some wins like
realizing bi logical sex or trying to
reduce the number of thought crimes
recorded by the police um what matters
less than the letter of the law it turns
out is who is applying the law and so
we'll be going through some new examples
today just to show you how much the
state hates you that's basically our job
over here at l.com the other job we have
is producing amazing things like
Islander magazine if you read the first
issue well done you're a man of culture
I see if you missed out on that we have
now issue two that our Intrepid editor
Rory has been working on diligently
sweating away doing all the art getting
all the he has been sweating he stinks
yeah he honks he reeks that mullet is
just dripping anyway um we have essays
we have more essays this time around we
have essays from K we have essays from
RoR nationalists and Nea Pini we also
have new writers like Dave green and
Stephan mullu so if you are curious
about what they've written for this
apocalypse Edition you can go and pick
it up for $14.99 same price as last time
but Mor of money and because we listen
to your feedback this time we are
printing in batches rather than
pre-ordering so it should mean that as
soon as you order links are down in the
description you should get it within 2
to 3 weeks so long as whatever country
you live in doesn't try and stop you
from getting the gloriousness of
Islander at the border we also have lots
of new merch um this is back there and I
pressed the wrong button didn't I there
it is uh the new merch which is all of
these wonderful design t-shirts they're
also limited edition so as soon as
Islander 2 goes out of print in how many
weeks is that do we know
okay four or five weeks so in in about a
month or so uh this is no longer going
to be available so quickly Rush down to
the shop by the way I wasn't listening
to the voices in my head it was my
producer I'm sane I promise anyway let's
quickly move on first example of this uh
some bloke sent Jess Phillips a death
threat I think this is a good example to
contrast the two tiers of Justice in the
UK so we're glad that this man Nabil
Arif I'm sure she'll say he's just a man
a man of nondescript identity from no
particular location whatsoever
moving swiftly on and we're glad Nabil
Arif has been jailed he's only been
sentenced 12 weeks he sent Phillips some
abusive messages beginning from the
Israel Gaza war in October 2023 in one
message he told Jess Phillips hell is
real and you will burn and in the last
email he said that he will burn her till
her skin is no more I mean that's
disgusting it's a death threat he should
get far longer than that I think we we
all agree the prown crown prosecution
service said he was sentenced to only 12
weeks after a call
after a tri at the same court on the
29th of July um and he was made the
subject of restraining order so he
shouldn't ever contact Phillips again
curiously though and I want to note this
at the bottom of this article they
include some details about the Israel
Hamas War they say 1,200 people were
killed in hamas's October the 7th
assault close to 41,000 people were
killed according to the health run
Ministry in the Hamas run territory so
so Guardian just dropped that in at the
end of the article there almost as like
an excuse for why he was making those
claims to contextualize it so see how
this is treated both by the crown
prosecution service and the labor
friendly press because the guardian
basically hting well she was kind of
asking for it yeah quite because
contrast this with the Guardians
reporting on this woman this is Julie
Sweeney for those who don't remember of
church Lon chesher she pled guilty at
Chester Crown Court to sending a
communication to convey a threat of
death or serious harm um she was jailed
for about 2 years and she said something
that is far less a direct threat still
very inadvisable don't do it it's silly
but far less a direct threat than what
the prior gentleman decided to say so
she was part of a Facebook community
group with 5,100 members responding to a
photograph that showed a number of white
and Asian people involved in cleaning up
after Southport she posted it's
absolutely ridiculous don't protect the
mosques and she said this not me blow
the mosque up with the adults in it
again that's a bit extreme stupid
disavow was she with the iment imminent
ability of doing that no was the other
fow more likely to be able to do that to
Jess Phillips certainly we know this
because in Jess Philip's own
constituency there were masked Muslims
that were armed attacking pubs and
publicans uh occupying a roundabout
threatening people in cars which Jess
Phillips herself tried to obv escape for
by the way and so the the sentencing
judge Steven Everett jailed her for 15
months so bit over a year and a half no
sorry just under a year and a half
telling her you should have been looking
at the news and media with horror like
every right-minded person instead you
chose to take part in stirring up hatred
you had a big audience you threatened a
mosque it was a truly terrible threat so
it's not enough to tell this woman that
what she posted was um incitement of
violence he had to give her a little
moral uh beating as well tell her that
here's how you're supposed to think I
know that this will be reported in the
newspapers so I'm going to signal to
everybody reading how they should feel
about things well he says here so-called
keyboard Warriors have to learn to take
responsibility for their language
particularly in the context of the
disorder that was going on around the
country remember that phrase the context
of what's going on broadly more
politically influences the justice
system that is the point they're making
there well and it's also important to
remember that when judge makes state
judges make statements like this they're
not making them for the person that
they're sentencing they're making them
for the newspapers to report on so
everybody can read what you're supposed
to do and to set precedent in law for
future cases that's important thing also
important to note for the guardian
notice something missing at the bottom
of this
article ah it's context about the
Southport Massacre that would have
otherwise explained why Sweeney was so
angry unlike the prior article that ends
with details about Gaza um from the
Hamas run health agency as well very
reputable that tries to contextualize
why AR sent Jess Phillips reprehensible
death threat so again two-tier reporting
to tier justice system so speaking of
the right to protest um policy exchange
have a report out on the pro Palestine
protest you can go and download the
publication in your own time give it a
read if you have the time to read 150
page report I wanted to pull out some
findings from this because we can see
here that the attempt to ameliorate the
justice system and the police and the
criminal prosecution service by
principles and legislation and a mandate
to duly impartially carry out the law is
just going to end up giving them over
more powers to prosecute people like us
so it's not encouraging so there's some
things in here and it says first of all
it goes into the costs associated with
importing this kind of ethn religious
tension that we saw on the pro Palestine
protest the Met police state the costs
of policing the Palestine protest in
London between October 2023 and June
2024 were 42.9 million with
517993 police officer shifts from
offices usually based outside the
Metropolitan Police area uh the 6,339
police officers had rest days canceled
between October and April 20124 all of
which were to be repaid in due course
bear in mind as we've covered repeatedly
on this podcast the the exact kind of
population to go on these Pro Palestine
protests are not net tax contributors so
they are frustrating our Capital City
every weekend of Wednesday more of a
drain exactly so these people are
costing us money anyway and then they're
costing us extra money to agitate for a
foreign war on behalf of prescribed
terror group bear in mind this happened
in the aftermath of October the 7th not
in the aftermath of Israel's response to
the October the 7th so it was a
celebration of what Hamas has done not a
complaint about how Israel responded the
same population as well um same host
paying for it don't want to visit their
own Capital City during these protests
as a Londoner I can agree polling was
conducted by policy exchange and it
showed members of the public choosing
not to engage in a wide range of
activities because of these protests
they didn't they dropped their plans to
travel with small children 71% travel
with an elderly or Mobility impaired
friend or relative 69% visit a tourist
attraction 62% go shopping 58% and eat a
specific restaurant 58% so more costs
economic but also cultural spiritual if
the host population are being
demoralized and chased out of their own
capital city oh yeah I can speak from my
own personal experience I've not been to
London in at the very least over a year
and I have no intention to go back if I
can avoid it why would I go there it
feels like navigating the rubble of the
Tower of Babel at this point it's really
unpleasant it's smelly it's busy it's
expensive I want to get out as quickly
as possible the main headline that came
out of this report that everyone was
reporting on they did an interview with
assistant commissioner to the
Metropolitan Police Matt twist and he
said the following when we look back at
the policing of protest over the last 8
months we know we didn't get everything
right particularly in the early stages
of October we've developed our tactics
since then becoming faster and more
decisive on an occasion we did not move
quickly to make arrests for example the
man chanting for Jihad which was a
decision made following fast time advice
from lawyers and the CPS so guidance
provided by the 700 strong Muslim
activist Network in the home office and
pro-immigration lawyers which usually
have an ethnic and religious bias are
advising the Met not to crack down on
people chanting for inad and Jihad I
wonder why he said we are now much more
focused on identifying reasonable
grounds for arrest acting where needed
and then investigating so in these
circumstances it's very likely arrest
would be made more quickly now oh it's
very likely arrest would be made more
quickly now in the aftermath of another
set of protests which were the
indigenous population protesting and so
now you're going to get much harder on
it isn't that fascinating I I I wonder
if anyone from the post Southport
protest one of Mr Robinson's rallies not
you other one would have chanted from
the channel to the Irish sea Britain
will be free they'd be locked up in
handcuffs but not the other way around
got it also an important detail uh that
they find here so in order to Stage a
protest in Britain you have to give the
authorities six days warning if you want
to do a large scale March the Palestine
solidarity campaign contacted the
Metropolitan Police to inform them of
their intention to conduct their first
mass Palestine protest 10 hours after
the terrorist attack on October
7th right so not protesting the gross
injustices by the Israeli regime just
open ethn religious solidarity and
celebrating murders why were any of
these
allowed letter of the law could have
stopped that any time but it doesn't
that's most important so the recommended
response was that the government should
legislate to establish a protest
commission for
London protest commission for London
involving independent Commission
independent as we always know there is
no such thing there's no such thing as a
neutral process it's always political
appointed by the Home Secretary
following consultation with the mayor of
London independent appointed by the
labor Home Secretary and the labor mayor
of London both of whom endorsed and
oversaw the protests great suggestion
the government should amend section 11
of the public order act 1986 to increase
the notification period for all protest
marches to 28 days but they'll just step
over that or they they want to they'll
let the ones they like go ahead and
they'll ban the ones they don't like
which they do anyway the government
should legislate to require the police
forces must take action to prevent the
interference by protesters with the
operation of those installations of
facilities classified as key National
infrastructure and expand the definition
of NA national infrastructure under the
public order act 2023 to include
Parliament government departments and
the
courts
so they're anticipating some sort of
physical attack on government
parliaments and the courts cuz the only
thing I can think of in recent memory
was the protest outside the ceasefire
debate where they projected from The
River To The Sea on Big Ben but they
knew where the projector was Martin
dobly pointed out the Met police just
shrug their shoulders and didn't arrest
anyone didn't even turn it off so again
choices were made here they could have
done it at any time they also should
make it unlawful for individuals at
protest to wear face coverings so a
couple of years after mandating them
they're now going to make them illegal
again I would feel I don't like face
coverings but I would feel comfortable
with people wearing face coverings if
they weren't a demographic more likely
to commit violence against me for
ideological or impulse control reasons
um Sadi KH also apparently conduct an
equality impact of the protests on
businesses tourism and threats to women
the disabled and the elderly which I'm
sure he'll do completely impartially
just as he did with ules the
commissioner of the Met police must take
all possible steps to ensure all those
that are suspected of committing
criminal offenses at protests are
arrested at the time of the offense so
the police should do their jobs that's
an actual recommendation in the policy
report in modern Britain but as well we
saw with the Southport riots and
protests that went on that the
Metropolitan Police will just Hoover up
anybody if they feel like it depending
on the cause of the protest in the first
place yes but if it inflames Community
tensions at Notting Hill Carnival the
Palestine riots they'll let people go
and sort of lazily try and track them
down comfortably from their desk with a
cup of tea and a packet of biscuits
afterwards and maybe they might perform
some arrests and even then they'll say
oh a small minority will ruining it for
the rest of us how could they there's
also this reminder right provided in the
executive
summary Central to these events is the
claim of a right to protest despite
there being no such explicit and
unfettered right within the ECR or the
Human Rights Act 1998 instead of a right
to protest the following articles are um
allowing people to protest article 11
right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and Association and article 10 the right
to freedom of expression both rights are
explicitly qualified by restri itions as
prescribed by law and unnecessary in a
Democratic Society among other things in
the interest of national security or
public safety for the for the prevention
of disorder and crime protection of
health and morals protection of the
rights of others etc etc so all of these
are nebulous definitions and they just
allow the state to pretend that they're
ratifying and making impartial decisions
on human rights and instead punish their
political enemies and favor their
political friends and the perfect
example of this is the recommendation in
here that the crown prosecution service
must amend its legal guidance on
offenses during protests demonstrations
or campaigns to reduce the likelihood of
suspects not being prosecuted for public
interest reasons that's literally what
the judge said in Sweeney's case that
we're going to teach you keyboard
Warriors a lesson none of that was said
about Arif even though we had the
Palestine marches and we had those armed
Muslims in Jess Phillips's own
constituency there wasn't a need to talk
about Democratic principles or a
chilling effect there just give him few
weeks few months in prison and and keep
them shut up about it again this is what
I found I remembered this you tweet this
out a while ago this is your law Harry's
Law in effect you tweeted out no matter
its intended foreign Target
anti-terrorist technology and
intelligence departments will be
inevitably used to spy on and imprison
white European populations this is
exactly that well if the purpose of a
system is what it does then the purpose
of the UK government is to punish the
British people quite yes perfect example
of this is the equality act um the
equality act that people keep saying we
need to appeal to to get gender critical
wins for example example uh this chap Mr
S Thomas bear in mind um he does use
social media like a boomer in here so I
I I will point that out he went to anlo
employment tribunal about the NHS
claiming that he as a contractor had
been discriminated against for his
English nationalist views so the point
of the equality Act is it's meant
to protect certain characteristics as in
the government's favored ones and
certain beliefs from discrimination in
employment so for example example um
it's intersectionality codified in law
you can obviously actively positively
discriminate against white straight
Christian men but you can't discriminate
against black women for example the
recent win that we supposedly got was
the Maya for stat case where gender
critical AKA believing in biological sex
beliefs are now protected characteristic
under the equality act but it just shows
that even if you try and appeal to the
equality act to get wins they will just
selectively apply it if and where
because this this chap um the judge
ruled said by by the end of the hearing
employment judge Hyde considered the
third question from the list of issues
was more properly posed
as if uh were his anti-islamic views
worthy of respect in Democratic Society
incompatible with human dignity and did
they conflict with the fundamental
rights of others such that they would
prevent the claimant's belief in English
nationalism from being a protected
characteristic AKA did they offend
Muslims therefore can we fire him from
his job and they say to the claimant and
that he identifies his views to the
claimant English nationalism is the
nationalism that ass asserts the English
are a nation and promotes bless you
thank you the cultural Unity of English
people the claimants focuses on national
identity which does not depend on
Ancestry or race rather than comment
descent or race so he's very Boomer
Civic
nationalism England is a set of values
ideals and even that is too far gone for
the equality act so he's not even
arguing for protection on the basis of
ethnicity or racial identity he's
arguing for the protection on the basis
of values and even then they're making
the discrimination against which values
are preferred by the state versus which
values are prescribed by the state
they're saying sorry mate Britain is gay
race communism values exactly so the
decision was this judge hyid observed in
cross-examination before the Leeds
employment tribunal the claimant has
said that Islam in its current form
should be banned from England unless it
were anglicized and toned down to fit
within Society in England so even then
he's being quite generous employment
judge Hyde commented at the hearing
before her the claimant did not dispute
these comments were consistent with his
English nationalism the claimant alleged
his assignment within the NHS trust had
been terminated because of his belief in
English nationalism he claimed this was
belief discriminatory contrary to the
equality act 2010 at a hearing the
employment tribunal heard held the
claimant's belief was not protected by
the equality act the claimant appealed
this decision the appeal is dismissed
the claimants views are of an English
nationalism which believes there is no
place in British Society for Muslims or
Islam itself among the claimants views
are that the Muslims should be forcibly
deported from the United Kingdom these
views are not capable of protection
under the European convention on human
rights as they would offend article 17
which provides that nothing in this
convention may be interpreted as
implying for any state group or person
to Enga to or to any right to engage in
any activity or perform any act aimed at
the destruction of any rights and
freedoms set forth herein at the
limitation to a greater extent that's
provided in the convention the claim is
not prevent not prevented from holding
his views but he is outside of the right
to complain that he has been
discriminated against in relation to
those beliefs in the circumstances
covered by the eqa it's obvious that
he's been discriminated against on the
grounds of belief because this is
happening in the judgment and so what
the equality act exists to do is
designate certain beliefs and certain
characteristics above certain others and
afford them certain legal protections
over the indigenous host population and
I don't necessarily want to use the
equality act for any of this I would
rather the entire thing with scrapped
but the point matters that who applies
the law matters less than the consistent
letter of the law and here's a great
example um melb and some labor
politician for for Birmingham erdington
paulet Hamilton MP are trying to bring
forth an amendment to protect afro hair
under the equality
act no if it was up to me no I mean
again we'd scrap the whole thing if it
was up to me but this is frivolous yeah
well you're in a joke of a country so
actually um our favorite independent
journalist Cony drer has given us a
vision of the future uh you're under
arrest for describing a mixed race
woman's hair as frizzy without an afro
hair Ally license which is a serious
crime it's all in here mate you're going
away for a long time makes me sick there
are people like you walk in the streets
well not for much
longer you think I'm joking I mean this
is I've seen him post a few of these
with this particular gentleman this
particular officer holding up a variety
of books the um second treaties on
government second sex is one of them uh
the The Second Sex um Vindication of the
rights of women it's all in here mate
it's all in here this is why we're doing
this set text by the College of policing
now look I'll wrap this up because um
you think I'm joking I wish I wish want
a joke of a country because this
actually could be possible because IET
Cooper is bringing back non-crime hate
incidents and we say than bringing back
because for of the show Harry Miller in
2021 took the College of policing to
court and it was ruled that the way they
were recording these non-crime hate
incidents was unlawful they were giving
you a black mark on your DBS check not
informing you of who had made the claim
what evidence the claim was and if you
had a claim against you and so you could
be turned down for jobs without ever
knowing why and because there's no
evidentiary standard the people that
were making the claim were treated
automatically as the victims and you as
perpetrators even though they're not
crimes he had found that between 2014
when these were adopted as a result of
the mcferson report and 2020 over
120,000 of these been recorded we now
estimate 250,000 of these have been
recorded and despite sella braveman in
2023 putting in the police crime
sentencing and courts Bill new
legislation and guidance being given to
the College of policing to stop
recording these for frivolous reasons
they went up last
year the law does not matter 30 of the
43 police forces in England and Wales
increased the number of non-crime hate
incidents they recorded So I just want
to reiterate for everyone and you can
find out more about these stats in a
recent episode of my show that I did
there I broke it down for an hour and a
half it's very laborious but hopefully a
useful resource the point of this
segment is to reiterate as Thomas Hobbs
once said autoritas non Veritas faket Le
Authority not truth makes law and the
people applying the law are the
authority that matters more than its
letter it's not on our side I hope you
appreciated that segment from the
podcast to the Lotus Eaters and if you
want to see what else we're putting out
you can see this speech from Carl and if
you want to see all the other work that
we're putting out you can follow us on
Twitter where we post links to
everything thank you very much for
watching and goodbye
[Music]
浏览更多相关视频
Korupsi
Matematica e Diritto
VIDEO CONTOH PEMBELAJARAN ANEKDOT (STAND UP COMEDY)
Sumber Hukum Internasional - Prinsip Hukum Umum
KASUS VINA CUMA GUNUNG ES. PENYAKIT DITUBUH KEPOLISIAN SUDAH KRONIS? BERSAMA ALVIN LIEM
Black And White: Deepfake Technology का शिकार बनने पर क्या करें? | AI Technology | Sudhir Chaudhary
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)