4908 Facebook and Twitter Postings were reported to Police in 2011…’By using offence as the trigger for prosecution, you are putting the power of censorship into the hands of people who may chose to be offended for political gain’

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from dailymail.co.uk See article from huffingtonpost.co.uk

29 police forces have revealed statistics about crimes involving Facebook and Twitter in a Freedom of Information request. In 2008, a total of 556 complaints were made to police about social media postings on these 2 site. This had increased to 4,908 reports last year. The figures also show 653 people were charged for social networking crime in 2011. Greater Manchester Police charged the highest number of people, at 115. Lancashire Police received reports of six threats of murder and there were numerous reports of sexual offences and fraud. But presumably the large part were claims of insult, offence or political incorrectness. Nick Pickles, director of civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: These figures show just how badly some police forces had lost all proportion when dealing with social media. So many arrests was clearly undermining freedom of speech and while the new guidance should reduce the problem, hundreds of people now have criminal records for the rest of their lives when it is far from clear they should do. The law around speech crimes is still in need of a total overhaul as the legislation that led to some of the more absurd prosecutions remains in place. Chief Constable Andy Trotter, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead on communications, said forces must prioritise crimes which cause genuine harm, rather than attempting to curb freedom of expression. Director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer QC announced the new guidelines on how people who post offensive messages on Facebook and Twitter should be dealt with. Hopefully reducing the number of people prosecuted for trivia. Robert Sharp, campaign manager for English PEN, which lobbies on free speech and art internationally, said the prosecutions for hate online had been: All young men between the ages of 18 and 22, they are all from disadvantaged backgrounds, and the things that they have been prosecuted for have been immature and inarticulate. There’s almost a criminalisation of adolescence, and of poor literacy, that’s one issue that seems to have emerged. The communications laws being used are for grossly offensive messages. Offence as the trigger for prosecution is still a big problem. The case that is the most important is that of Azhar Ahmed, he is the only case of an ethnic minority. He posted something silly and illiterate about how soldiers were going to hell. He was prosecuted because far-right activists made a co-ordinated campaign to have him arrested. So by using offence as the trigger for prosecution, you are putting the power of censorship into the hands of people who may chose to be offended for political gain. That’s a big deal for censorship.

BBFC Mentioned in Dispatches…BBFC at meeting to discuss continued persecution of images of legal sex

Read more Extreme Pornography News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk by Myles Jackman

[Re] Simon Walsh’s acquittal at the Kingston Crown Court for allegedly being in possession ofextreme pornography under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. The five images in question depicted anal fisting and urethral sounding, both activities featured in the Peacock Trial. At the time I expressed the view that the CPS, along with the Metropolitan Police and the BBFC needed to review the guidelines. I can report that, post Michael Peacock’s #ObscenityTrial and pre Simon Walsh’s #PornTrial the CPS did indeed meet with representatives from the Met and BBFC. However, I am told that the Peacock Trial was considered to be a singular prosecution and therefore the result of the review process was not to amend the guidelines in any way, shape or form. Therefore more defendants may have to put their lives on hold like Michael and Simon did whilst challenging such intrusive prosecutions. It is my contention that the matter is now beyond the remit of the CPS, Met and BBFC and that the subject requires the scrutiny of the Home Secretary, Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission and that questions should be asked in the House. …Read the full article I guess the BBFC were just told to continue to cut material considered extreme or obscene by the CPS and police. Hopefully they had no part in the decision to continue to persecute people for images or legal and consensual sex.

Police Don’t Need New Laws for Twitter…But it’s us that need new laws to preserve free speech

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  telegraph.co.uk

Twitter should take action as quickly as possible to deal with supposed abuse on its website, according to a senior police officer. Stuart Hyde, chief constable of Cumbria police who speaks on e-crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said it was right for police to intervene in cases of bullying on twitter. Asked if new laws were needed, Hyde told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: No, I think we have got quite a lot of legislation, dating back to the Malicious Communications Acts of 1998 and 2003. There is a lot there that helps us and gives us the power to do stuff. This is a new technology, a new way of communicating, it has grown exponentially. There hasn’t been separate legislation, so we are using legislation that wasn’t particularly created for this, but it works reasonably well most of the time. We are learning from it, there are things that have sometimes gone wrong and I think sometimes it is important that we make sure we provide the service people need. If people come to us and say ‘I am really upset, I’ve been offended, my life has been made a misery and I want somebody to do something about it’, then yes the police should, whenever possible, try to help. I don’t want police officers dragged off the streets to deal with frivolous complaints. Where these complaints are pretty serious, then it is quite right that we should intervene, and we do that. It is important to look at the whole context. It is not just about one tweet, it is a whole range of tweets. Look at what the individual has done — is this a concerted attempt to have a go at one individual in a way that passes the threshold for offences against the law? If it is, then clearly we should intervene and do something to stop it. But Hyde said that police have so far not received large numbers of complaints about abusive Twitter messages.

Likely to Deprave and Corrupt?…Bollox about 1950′s Playboy images being considered obscene by police

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from dailymail.co.uk

When shop owner Lucy Wilkes decided on a window display for her business, she knew it would ruffle a few feathers. Two vintage, kitsch chairs, standing side-by-side, one decorated in pages from Playboy featuring nude women. However, even she was astonished at the level of controversy the display attracted among visitors to her shop The Print Room, in Lewes, East Sussex. She was stunned when police ordered her to remove one of the offending items after a customer complained that it was obscene. Clearly ignorant policemen claimed to Wilkes her vintage furniture contravened the Obscene Publications Act because it is decorated with 1950s Playboy magazines, which features images of topless women. Perhaps the police would have been better advised to cite the Indecent Displays Act or the more usual Public Order Act. It seems the police involved are in need of a little basic legal training. The astonished retailer was forced to hide the seat at the back of her shop and has now draped it with a public health warning. The ironic sign reads: This chair has been deemed inappropriate for public view. Please take care. Designer Laura Diez, who made the chair, insisted her creation was tasteful. She said: I can’t believe anyone in their right mind could actually be offended by this. I used 1950s Playboys which are no more scandalous than the front cover of some men’s magazines which are on show in any newsagents. A Sussex Police spokeswoman said: Police attended a Lewes shop following a complaint from a member of the public regarding an item that was on display in the shop window. The member of public was offended by the images displayed on a chair and the shop owner was politely asked by police to remove it from public view, which he voluntarily did.

Police Distressed by Court Judgement…Police unlikely to be harassed, alarmed or distressed by the word ‘fuck’

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from telegraph.co.uk

The decision by the Court of Appeal to overturn the public order conviction of a young suspect who repeatedly said ‘fuck’ while being searched for drugs, was described as unacceptable by police representatives last night. They claimed the ruling would undermine respect for officers. [They probably meant undermining 'fear' of officers ,who can currently hand out their own brand of 'justice' using the Public Order Act']. Overturning Denzel Cassius Harvey’s conviction, Mr Justice Bean said officers were so regularly on the receiving end of the rather commonplace expletive that it was unlikely to cause them harassment, alarm or distress. Harvey was fined ฃ50 for using strong language while they attempted to search him for cannabis in Hackney, east London. He told officers: Fuck this man. I ain’t been smoking nothing. When the search revealed no drugs, he continued: Told you, you wouldn’t find fuck all. Asked whether he had a middle name, he replied: No, I’ve already fucking told you so. Magistrates at Thames Youth Court found him guilty in March last year after hearing that Harvey’s expletives were uttered in a public area while a group of teenage bystanders gathered around. Appealing against his conviction, Harvey claimed that none of those within earshot, especially the two hardened police officers, would have been upset by his swearing. Mr Justice Bean agreed that the expletives he used were heard all too frequently by officers on duty and were unlikely to have greatly disturbed them. The judge added that it was quite impossible to infer that the group of young people who were in the vicinity were likely to have experienced alarm or distress at hearing these rather commonplace swear words used. Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said: If judges are going to say you can swear at police then everyone is going to start doing it. I’m not saying that police officers are going to go and hide in the corner and cry if someone tells them to ‘F’ off, but verbal abuse is not acceptable and this is the wrong message to be sending out.

Police Victim…Sounds like a jokey video clip has put an end to a policeman’s career

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from menmedia.co.uk

A policeman caught with a supposed extreme animal pornography on his mobile phone has quit the force. Gareth Tench was arrested by fellow Manchester policeman after they found a supposedly grossly offensive 35-second video clip featuring a horse. He was spared jail after being convicted by a jury at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court, but his nine-year police career is over. Tench was being investigated by fellow police over an unconnected allegation when they found the clip on both his personal phone and a folder called chill out on his computer. He admitted receiving the video in July 2006, saying it had been sent as an attachment to a text message. Tench accepted he had watched the clip once, but said he had then deleted the message and with it, he believed, the video. The court heard that when his mobile became faulty, he had data,  including photographs and images, transferred from the mobile on to a laptop, and ultimately to his home computer. The court was told that after being arrested in January 2010, he gave no comment answers to all questions about the video. Tench was found guilty of possession of extreme pornography on his phone. But the jury cleared him of an almost identical charge of having the same clip on his computer because they could not be certain he knew it was there. He was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £1,000 costs. Supt Peter Turner, from the Greater Mancheter Police Professional Standards Branch, said: Possessing extreme pornography is a serious and criminal offence and Pc Tench’s conduct has fallen well short of the high levels of professionalism and integrity expected from all our staff.

Truely Worrying Vision…IWF hand over reporting of internet hate crime role to the police

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

A bit of an alarming concept to have the police running a reporting service. The police seem to continuously side with the complainant without ever considering the merits of the complaint, nor the rights of people caught up in any police overreaction. See article from iwf.org.uk

A new service for reporting all hate crimes online has been launched by the police. The website, called True Vision, is supported by all forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and can be accessed at http://www.report-it.org.uk. All reports of incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK previously reported to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) should now be reported directly to True Vision. The True Vision website provides information about what hate crime is, and includes a new online reporting form. The site also provides links to organisations that can offer support and advice on hate crime related issues. Eve Salomon, Chair, IWF said: We are very pleased to see our law enforcement partners develop a comprehensive reporting service incorporating all forms of hate crime. The Internet industry deserves a great deal of credit for funding an IWF service to receive reports of incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK since 2000 when no alternative system existed. However as new legislation has been introduced to include a wider range of hate crime definitions, the development of one all-embracing direct reporting service is an excellent idea. Having made a significant contribution to providing a public service for many years the IWF is now pleased to hand over responsibility for racial hatred reports to our police partners. We now turn our attention to focus more effort on other areas of our remit and in particular the removal of child sexual abuse content wherever it is hosted in the world. The police believe that the website will help increase the reporting of hate crime by building confidence in victims and offering a range of reporting options for victims who may not wish to talk directly to the police. It also provides links to a number of organisations who can offer support.

Same Old…A history lesson for the new year…nothing changes, especially bad police attitudes

Read more World Sex Sells News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Here’s a bit of new year reminiscing from a policeman. Could have been almost anywhere and at any time in the last few decades. Dealing with the different types of sex establishments that sprung up was no easy task for many reasons. First, the premises did not operate on any license so we could not prosecute them for breaching licensing conditions. They usually had a good lookout system, which warned them of police raids, and they probably had some policemen on their payroll. And as they had many dedicated customers, even if they were closed down, they could reopen under another name and business registration within a very short time. Police resources used to deal with these premises were quite significant and often at the expense of other duties more important to the well-being of the community. Securing enough evidence for a prosecution was easier said than done because the agent provocateur had to go to the premises more than once to gain the confidence of the operator and female server. So prosecution was not such a good option. The next best thing we could do was work on the customers because we believed no customers, no sex shop. Customers who frequented sex shops could be real diehards and unless they were personally troubled, they did not mind the inconvenience of being kicked out while police were inside, only to return as soon as we were gone. So the only way to get at the customers was to involve them in police action but they were not, strictly speaking, suspects. That meant there was little, if anything, we could pull them back to the station for, except to verify their identity. But at the time it was not mandatory to carry an identity card. Harassment, albeit a bit tongue-in-cheek, was the only action we could think of to use. So we decided to bring everyone back to the station who would not provide their address. Every customer on the premises when we visited would be asked for their address and telephone number and those who failed to give them would be taken back to the station for further inquiries. Those who gave them were released after we called their home or had colleagues visit the address given. In both cases their families would know they were in trouble and worse still they were in a sex shop. In fact the story comes from the mid 70′s in Hong Kong. See article from thestandard.com.hk by JS Lam who served with Hong Kong police for 36 years.

Police Arrest First and Don’t Even Ask Questions Later…Police to pay damages for automatically arresting anti-gay preacher without making inquiries first

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

It does seem to be a fundamental unjust characteristic of British policing that the complainant is always considered right. Based on article from christianpost.com

A street preacher has been awarded more than £4,000 in damages after a judge ruled it was wrong for police to arrest and handcuff him for speaking out against homosexuality. Anthony Rollins was preaching in Birmingham city center in June 2008 when a member of the public, John Edwards, took offense at comments he made describing homosexual conduct as morally wrong. According to the Christian Institute, which backed Rollins’ case, police arrived on the scene after receiving a call from Edwards and PC Adrian Bill proceeded to handcuff Rollins without any further inquiry. Birmingham County Court ruled that PC Bill had committed assault and battery against Rollins by handcuffing him unnecessarily. Judge Lance Ashworth QC said in his ruling that the arrest demonstrated a lack of thoughtfulness. He ruled that he had made the arrest as a matter of routine without any thought being given to Rollins’ Convention Rights, which pertain to free speech and religious liberty. After his arrest, Rollins was taken by PC Bill to the station where he was held for three hours but never questioned for his account of events. He was charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act but the charges were dropped before the case came to trial. Rollins decided to sue West Midlands Police after a complaint he made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission about his treatment was rejected.