British Police Arrest At Least 3,395 People for ‘Offensive’ Online Comments in One Year

British police forces arrested at least nine people a day for “offensive” online comments last year.

Figures obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that 3,395 people across 29 forces were arrested last under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it illegal to intentionally “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”, in 2016.

Share
  • Someone needs to look into the incentives the police recieve for prosecuting the non PC crowd. Raises, promotions, perks, etc. Follow the money.

    • BillyHW

      Undoubtedly at the very top there is an HR bimbo following the orders of a rancid homosexual.

      • Watchman

        The British police have been staffed on SJW principles with positions filled via affirmative action, instead of the best person for the job on merit alone.

        • BillyHW

          The very definition of racism, calling itself anti-racism.

        • WalterBannon

          common purpose

    • Brett McS

      And the flip side: Anyone who is not a PC PC is off the promotions list.

  • Old Guy

    Let me fix that headline:

    Here’s what it will read after Islamophobia becomes a crime in Canada.

    British Canadian Police Arrest At Least 3,395 People For ‘Offensive’ Online Comments In One Year

    • terrence22

      Let me fix it for you, OG:

      Canadian Police Arrest At Least 3,395 WHITE MALES For ‘Offensive’ Online Comments In One Year

      • Watchman

        Oh, I think the legislation built around the M-103 ‘islamophobia’ will be used on women too, just there will not be quite so many of them as men.

    • Actually the same sort of surveillance is happening in Canada, but at least it appears that they aren’t going around willy-nilly arresting people. Yet. But agents are in fact poking around and you might even get a “talking-to” at a time and place where you least expect it.

      Even here. I can detail a recent incident but won’t bother. Suffice it to say that if you’re going to say something “outrageous” about Dear Leader Justin, and there’s even a “hint” of violence in your words, make sure you use the subjunctive form in your verbs: i.e.: “could”, “should”, “might”, “maybe”, or anything to indicate rhetoric, metaphor, or humour. The last time I got a “talking-to” the agent was so frustrated after an hour-long debate that he couldn’t “catch” or bait me into saying something illegal, that he took a couple swings at me (I blocked his swings). He was probably trying to provoke a fight so he could get me arrested, but I didn’t swing back. He walked away frustrated yelling and swearing: “I’ll be back — I’m gonna get you”.

      Nothing that worrying, just a heads-up to y’all. And remember, it’s clearly written in the Canadian Constitution and the Magna Carta that you’re only allowed to threaten to assassinate Donald Trump, not Justin Trudeau.
      😉

      • Lightstream

        The western world is has turned into a third world country. So much for Democracy.

    • WalterBannon

      Let me fix it for you, Canadian Police disbanded and leadership arrested for treason following civil war and downfall of liberal fascist govt.

      canada, 2047

  • Observer

    I bet all that police work will do a lot to prevent future jihadi attacks!

    • Editor

      It would be interesting to see an ethnic breakdown of the perpetrators of the offending tweets.

      • Watchman

        And it would be investing to see the ethnic breakdown of those police who arrest and prepare the prosecutor’s brief of those charged with causing ‘annoyance’. Will anyone dare ask Muhammad the policeman to step aside from any involvement in investigating, arresting and charging someone who is accused of annoying a muslim?

        • Editor

          I would indeed be curious to see the stats but I think the orders come from way on high. The British government seems determined to clamp down on internet dissent. Last year’s Investigatory Powers Act (Snoopers’ Charter) and recent “friendly warnings”, on Twitter no less, by various police departments seem to point at a clear, concerted effort. Shining a light on the failed immigration policies and the social malaise it created wil not be permitted.

          • Watchman

            Sounds like a “friendly warning” akin to a Colombian Drug Cartel “friendly warning”; anything slightly less friendly and you are going to wish for a quick death instead.

            Yes, I agree it is the British Government who is leaning hard on the police in order to stave off civil unrest as long as possible (which means in political terms until that politician has retired and has collected their lump sum pension). It can only slow but not stop the inevitable civil unrest, but because of political cowardice they are oppressing the side that has the least power and the side that is least likely or able to fight back. They know they are not going to change the attitude of an immigrant population who pride themselves on their militant attitudes and their unshakeable belief in their own superiority. So they act to repress the native, “nice”, native Britons instead.

          • Editor

            Even the cartels offered at least the choice between “plomo o plata” (lead or silver).

  • Alain

    They were carrying out orders from the Ministry of Truth no doubt.

    • BillyHW

      The Ministry of Islamic Truth.

  • Martin B

    Nine people a day arrested for “causing annoyance” while countless jihadis run loose. If George Orwell was still alive he would go blind and insane.

  • Hard Little Machine

    I challenge anyone in the UK to post the most insane violent bigoted genocidal racist Islamic crazy talk on social media and so much as get a phone call from The Met.

  • Watchman

    Any fascist state has similar rules that are enforced in a discriminatory way to protect one part of the population from everyone else. Even though the laws on paper appear to be fair and neutral the key is in who is charged under these laws.

    Example: In Pakistan, there are laws protecting every religion from blasphemy. In practice only the Sunni muslims are protected. I don’t think a Christian has ever successfully used the laws to protect themselves and it is highly probably that to do so would be to trigger a counter claim of blasphemy against islam.

    This British law which makes it illegal to “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another” sets an bar so low as to be essentially non-existent. Anything you write, anything I write might qualify since it is not based on any concrete standards, nor of any community standards, but only a perception of the person who feels offended. As an accusation is its own proof, no person can defend themselves against such charges.

    Since everyone is guilty if accused then all that remains is for the state to pick and choose those they arrest and charge. I don’t think they would arrest and charge anyone that annoyed Tommy Robinson because he is Tommy Robinson.

    This is Britain today.

    • Justin St.Denis

      Actually, that has always been the British Way.

  • Tom Forsythe

    What kind of faggotry is this? Hang on, someone is knocking on my door.

    • Watchman

      You have annoyed me with your comment. That person at your door is the police is to investigate whether you should be arrested and charged for annoying me.

  • Brett McS

    Amber Rudd and her BFF May are proto-Nazis.

    • WalterBannon

      crypto nazis

  • WalterBannon

    anyone who is not yet trolling British police Facebook and twitter accounts, is not yet fighting the good fight which the oppressed people of Britain can not fight themselves…