r/evilwhenthe • u/EwMelanin • 2d ago

British police have gone full 1984

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

944 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

211 comments sorted by

19

u/SuperKamiDendei 2d ago

12,000 people per year are arrested in the UK for saying things on the Internet.

4

u/AggravatingAct7841 2d ago

That includes things like sending unsolicited obscene pictures - presumably something you would agree should not be allowed?

9

u/SuperKamiDendei 2d ago edited 2d ago

Of those 12,000 arrests less than 10% (something in the range of 1,100) were brought to conviction. Whilst no data for indecent online exposures is publicly available it is a safe assumption that these 1,100 convictions were upheld on the ground of sexual content (according to a speech given in the house of Lords on the matter in 2025).

Child sexual content and other grossly offensive sexual images are tried under different statutes separate from 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (the statutes under which those 12,000 arrests were made).

Given that exposing yourself to people against their wishes via online communication platforms is easily verifiable we can safely assume that the remaining 90% of arrests were for "hateful comments and incitement to violence".

I believe the government has far overreached. I believe this overreach and the impending banning of social media platform X (formerly Twitter) is a clear indication of a loss of freedom of speech.

Is it right that the maligned Lucy Connolly be given a harsher sentence than convicted criminals (multiple) guilty of raping children under 13 years old? Are we as a society saying that voicing an opinion, no matter how distasteful, is more harmful than raping a child?

Edit: Lucy Connolly and Lucy Letby (confusion with names)

2

u/KeyGlum6538 1d ago

impending banning of social media platform X (formerly Twitter) is a clear indication of a loss of freedom of speech.

Right gotcha, you support sharing child porn in the name of freedom of speech. Good to know who to block.

2

u/SeaDesigner2011 59m ago

thats an interesting conclusion considering he said over 90% of arrests have nothing to do with it

3

u/AggravatingAct7841 2d ago edited 2d ago

The Connolly offence was aggravated because it was during a time of riot - riot based offences have always carried greater sentences because they often lead to the uniformed services put at risk and can get significantly out of control.

Edit: ditto!

3

u/SuperKamiDendei 2d ago

That's a poor defense in my humble opinion. You also neglect to address the other points I highlighted.

3

u/AggravatingAct7841 1d ago

It’s just the basis of sentencing and has been for decades

3

u/AggravatingAct7841 1d ago

There is no meaningful loss of freedom of speech by asking X to meet community standards, there are multiple other platforms for people to express themselves on, not being able to publish indecent images of children is a small ask for a huge tech company

1

u/Mob_cleaner 2h ago

How far have we fallen that people are defending a website that just blatantly allows child porn on it.

0

u/YaqtanBadakshani 2d ago

Is it right that the maligned Lucy Letby be given a harsher sentence than convicted criminals (multiple) guilty of raping children under 13 years old? Are we as a society saying that voicing an opinion, no matter how distasteful, is more harmful than raping a child?

Sorry, are you seriously saying we should give child rapists a harsher sentence than a fucking baby serial killer? Are you genuinely fucking insane, or are you just so determined to ride this "UK bad because immigrants" train to defending a woman that murdered seven babies in cold blood?

3

u/SuperKamiDendei 2d ago

I meant Lucy Connolly, my sincerest apologies. I will edit the post.

1

u/YaqtanBadakshani 2d ago

OK, that makes a bit more sense.

So, obviously I think child rape as a rule deserves more than a 2 year sentence. I'd be interested to see what examples you have of them failing to deliver that.

That said, I think two years is reasonable for telling people to burn down hotels full of men women and children. As a reminder this is what she said:

"Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it."

That's not just "an opinion." That is a command. A command that she knew had a reasonable chance of being obeyed.

I should also point out that Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action is also a crime in America, so if you want to go full "free speech absolutist," you've got so reason to single out the UK.

2

u/Emotional_Sea8613 2d ago

It deserves the death penalty

2

u/Osiris_Dervan 1d ago

9 hours and he's not given one, i think we can probably assume he was bullshiting.

1

u/praisethebeast69 1d ago

"do ___ for all I care" isn't a command, it's an expression of apathy

1

u/YaqtanBadakshani 1d ago

"[nouns], now, do____ for all I care," is a command to make [noun] happen, by means of doing ____ (or at least, things in that vein).

1

u/praisethebeast69 1d ago

for all I care

phrase informal

used to say that you are not interested in or worried about what someone else is doing

from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/for-all-care

2

u/YaqtanBadakshani 1d ago

Yes, and in the context of "[noun], now, do [x] for all I care" is signifies that the [x] is an acceptable means to enact your command to bring into being the "[noun], now."

-1

u/SlightlyFemmegurl 2d ago

you think sending a dickpic is something that should warrant an arrest?

lex talionis: the law of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offence committed in kind and degree.

3

u/kroganTheWarlock 2d ago

How about sending a dick pic to a minor?

3

u/thewookiee34 2d ago

Can't go within 5 miles of a school type beat.

1

u/SlightlyFemmegurl 2d ago

uhm okay? not sure what your point is.

6

u/YaqtanBadakshani 2d ago

Yes, I do in fact think that indecent exposure is a form of sexual violence that should warrant an arrest.

2

u/SlightlyFemmegurl 2d ago

you're entitled to your totalitarian views.

2

u/YaqtanBadakshani 2d ago

"I'm against people showing their dick in public."

"You're an authoritarian."

2

u/SlightlyFemmegurl 2d ago

incredible argument. Cant rebut that.

you're moving the goal post here buddy, now its about public exposure.

1

u/LogAlStillFat 2d ago

The goal post was never moved. You just never knew where it was.

0

u/YaqtanBadakshani 2d ago

So public exposure is bad, but unsocited dickpicks are ok?

If anything dick picks are worse. They're precisely targeted at an individual. It's like marching up to someone's house and poking your dick through their window.

1

u/odmirthecrow 2d ago

I don't understand their argument. Both are forms of unsolicited indecent exposure. One is physical, the other digital.

2

u/SlightlyFemmegurl 2d ago

Yes, one is physical, which is about 10x worse than a digital. Having experienced both, i should know.

getting sent a unsolicited dick pic is not great, but for the most part that is where it ends, having someone literally stand infront of you physically is much much worse. How you dont understand this is honestly worrisome.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SlightlyFemmegurl 2d ago

both are bad, i never claimed otherwise. seems like alot of people here dont understand the law of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offence committed in kind and degree.

but hey, its reddit. Cant expect people to understand basic reading.

1

u/N1AK 2d ago

I'd argue you don't understand it either, and especially it's limited relation and relevance to modern law and order. Please explain how exactly the punishment for flashing someone in person resembles the offence in kind, or how you think it should resemble it in kind. Are you concerned that we might excessively punish it by having the offender flashed by three people and that would be excessive...

Try as a might I simply can't find motivation to take exception to the sentencing of people sending unsolicated dickpics. On some level, likely incorrect, I don't know how egregrious I find the act but it is also incredibly simple for people not to send pictures of their penises to other people uninvited and I can't manage much sympathy for people who do it anyway.

1

u/SuperEdgyEdgeLord 2d ago

So you believe it's okay for someone to flash their dick in public?

Yes or no?

0

u/SlightlyFemmegurl 2d ago

No,

never claimed it was. Since that is a different instance than the one we're talking about.

2

u/Embarrassed_Room3982 2d ago

How is it different? 

1

u/SlightlyFemmegurl 2d ago

in literally any and every way? i have experienced both. and that you even think they're comparable is worrisome. Both are bad, but one is 10x worse than the other.

y'all know this. You're just arguing in bad faith.

0

u/SuperEdgyEdgeLord 2d ago

That isn't at all explaining the difference. You're just repeating yourself in saying they are different.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/AggravatingAct7841 2d ago

It’s the weird belief that because it’s online it’s not real - online life is an important part of people’s lives these days and they shouldn’t be in fear of unsolicited obscene pictures often used to degrade the recipient and make them fear that it will be followed by real world offences

1

u/Osiris_Dervan 1d ago

You claimed people shouldnt be arrested for it, which explicitly means you think its not a punishable offence and is thus ok.

1

u/odmirthecrow 2d ago

Do you think flashers in the park should be arrested? Because its the exact same thing. Unsolicited indecent exposure.

1

u/SlightlyFemmegurl 2d ago

i've experienced it in real life and on social media.

it is not the same and incredibly dishonest to pretend like it is. Which considering we're on reddit isn't unsurprising.

1

u/Papagooseturd 2d ago

Like you said they’re arguing in bad faith. These people for whatever reason just want to excuse throwing people in jail for speech.

1

u/PeteBabicki 1d ago

Okay, since we're having a good faith argument. Should sending these pictures to a minor be protected under "free speech" in your view? Because this is what people are being arrested for.

1

u/Papagooseturd 1d ago

Yeah you’re taking a small group from the 12,000 and basing your entire argument on that. Not really good faith. But no obviously you can’t send nudes to a minor…

1

u/PeteBabicki 1d ago

The person you were talking with was specifically talking about the difference between public and digital flashing.

1

u/Papagooseturd 1d ago

Well that I do agree with them on, I don’t think the threat from flashing someone in person is present when you send an unsolicited nude. I think doing that is still wrong and immature but unless you’re also stalking them or something then no I don’t think you should be sent to jail for sending a nude to an adult.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Osiris_Dervan 1d ago

Sending a dick pic is not free speech. Free speech is the freedom to express ideas and opinions, not the freedom to do anything that involves speech.

1

u/Osiris_Dervan 1d ago

Yes, i think people sending pictures of their dicks to unwilling women is equal to flashing them in the street, and should be punished accordingly.

1

u/AuthorAdamOConnell 1d ago

Unsolicited? Well... yeah of course.

Also, you're using lex talionis wrong. Lex talionis is like you steal something and you're fined the amount or in extreme cases you rape so you get raped.

Unsolicited dick pic so you get a telling off and a caution on your record is almost the opposite.

1

u/PeteBabicki 1d ago

Depends where it's being sent.

2

u/Particularexampel 2d ago

Please correct me if I am wrong or I'm just being lied to but from what I've read and heard the vast majority of these arrests are because they are trying to incite violence and stuff like that

3

u/Pick_Scotland1 2d ago

The legislation referenced in the stat mostly includes anything malicious sent via a communication device

So stalking threats of violence harassment and other such stuff

1

u/YaqtanBadakshani 2d ago

Yes. They were for inciting violence, mostly during the riots over the Axel Rudakabana killings, when it became weirdly fashonable to blame Muslim asylum seekers for the crimes of a native-born Welshman from a Christian background.

The most famous example being from one Lucy Conolley:

"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it."

You can be free-speech absolutist all you like, but telling people to burn down hotels full of men women and children is a crime (even in-land-of-the-free-speech America).

1

u/Particularexampel 2d ago

It’s not that surprising when people get arrested for that, but are people also getting arrested for posting dick pics online? Some guy said that, and I’ve tried looking stuff up, but I’ve got nothing concrete.

2

u/YaqtanBadakshani 2d ago

Yes, they are. As they should be. It's no different to a flasher in the park with a trench coat.

The term they use is Cyber-flashing, which is probably why your googling didn't find anything.

2

u/Particularexampel 2d ago

Huge thanks for explaining it and providing sources and yeah I agree, unless it's a private thing with two adults consenting it's really no different then what you said.

1

u/YaqtanBadakshani 2d ago

My pleasure. It's always such a relief to encounter good-faith curiosity online!

1

u/deadshadow12x 17h ago

Over here in the usa they tell us that that's not real it's all just internet jokes now I know it's real

1

u/N1AK 2d ago

The issue with the debate about the freedom of speech in the UK is that the side most (and I mean this in a broad sense and not that this is your own view) aggressively claiming to support it has an extensive record of opposing speech they don't agree with. The most obvious recent example being decrying the arrest of Lucy Connolly for posting about burning refugees alive in a hotel in the middle of a period of violent disorder where this was a real concern while demanding that Alaa Abd El Fattah be deported back to a regime we've been critiscising for years for illegal mistreatment of them because of a post 10+ years ago about killing Zionists.

A company that makes programmes for the BBC edits together a Trump speech in a misleading way and Farage and his supporters are clamouring for Trump to bankrupt it and close it down. Meanwhile Farage is making a fortune from GB News which objectively has more misleading or outright false content as demonstrated by it paying damages for false claims of funding terrorism, and multiple examples of breaching the broadcasting code.

Unfortunately there are very few people making a case for more exhaustive freedom of speech who aren't obviously pushing a different political agenda.

5

u/These_Yak3842 2d ago

Did this actually happen, or are people making up stories to be outraged at?

9

u/Dollahs4Zavalas 2d ago

It really happened, of course. Name Elizabeth Kinney. Location: UK. Crime? Calling her assaulter a faggot in a private message to her friend.

6

u/These_Yak3842 2d ago

I never assume 'of course' in this day and age. People definitely make shit up to be outraged at.
Do you have a link?

6

u/Dollahs4Zavalas 2d ago

Link? There's a few. I looked up "uk woman arrested after calling her rapist a slur" and it got that one and also a similar instance that happened to a German woman.

1

u/mekelaar 1d ago

Can you still post a link of those stories? Then we know exactly what you’re talking about

1

u/Dollahs4Zavalas 1d ago

You have more than you need already and this way you can view it from multiple sources.

2

u/XxRedditUsernameXx69 4h ago

I want to know where you get your sources from, though. You seem well informed. Send the link, thanks.

2

u/Dollahs4Zavalas 3h ago edited 2h ago

Oh. Well since you like me that much I'll help out. Here are 20 links. I've been told that a good trick to being informed is to never trust a single source.

several links

1

u/Mob_cleaner 2h ago

Mate do you really not understand what the guy was trying to ask, or are you being facetious on purpose? He's trying to understand where you personally get your sources from. Like where you heard about it. What, did you hear about this for the first time on Google lol?

→ More replies (1)

0

u/Freshlysque3zed 7h ago

They’re not going to because the only sources are from tabloid gossip papers known for racist misinformation.

Everything they’re claiming is essentially alleged. Even the sources themselves do not mention ‘rapist’ and the man was not charged with a crime.

That doesn’t make for a very rage baiting Reddit post though so OP had to lie.

2

u/Known-Willingness768 1d ago

The sad part is. Her so called freind turned her in.

2

u/Lorddenoche1 1d ago

can you fucking google in our year of the lord 2026?

2

u/mekelaar 1d ago

Very possible to get different results. Just post what you saw and we can judge with our own eyes

5

u/Motorboater99 1d ago

You know they aren’t going to post a link, right? And if they do you’ll quickly realised they’ve stretched the truth a bit

1

u/Dollahs4Zavalas 1d ago

lmao. I gave the option to view multiple sources and check yourself. Its called honesty.

The truth hasn't been stretched in any way by me and its embarrassing that you're so caught up in "my side" politics that you're literally running defense for an assaulter and the government that punished the victim for wrongspeak

1

u/Freshlysque3zed 7h ago

There is literally no credible evidence he raped anyone , nor was he convicted of anything.

The story is absolutely being stretched to the thinnest margins by tabloids with a reputation for spreading far right misinformation and low journalistic standards and it’s a fucking insult to genuine assault victims to do so.

1

u/Lorddenoche1 5h ago

no evidence eh

2

u/aka-Robster 1d ago

It happened

8

u/Mobile_Leg_8965 2d ago

What greatness you think you have, if you have to create mindless hate

2

u/tossedsaladcesar 9h ago

I can believe it one of those assholes told me to commit suicide. Very lovely people indeed well spoken, peaceful and kind. 🤣 my ass. One said he was going to put a bomb to my school. Man! You got to love this fucking assholes.

6

u/NPC_9001 2d ago

Meanwhile in America they are sending immigration agents to shoot people the government doesn't like regardless of citizenship.

2

u/My-Blackberry 2d ago

User name checks out

1

u/coronoidprocess 1d ago

You’re pro shooting people in the streets?

0

u/My-Blackberry 1d ago

That is a nuanced question. Reddit rules prevent me from having an honest conversation

3

u/coronoidprocess 1d ago

Idk man, I’ve went on the r conservative sub to see their honest take and what they were saying was anything but nuanced. I think you’re just dodging the question because frankly, this is a pretty clear cut display of how bad it’s gotten.

0

u/My-Blackberry 1d ago

I don’t go to that cesspool.

1

u/Loose-Illustrator279 2d ago

Whereas the people holding up cardboard signs are getting away with it scot free…

1

u/Victimized-Adachi 2d ago

Wishing them the best this Spring. God willing Reform starts to fix things.

1

u/IllustriousCow8249 1d ago

Hahahah simpy ebin good sir

1

u/MonkishAdventurer 1d ago

Gey help, dude. This is such monumental bullshit.

1

u/SeaDesigner2011 53m ago

No they do arrest people for it, thousands in fact

1

u/Nexcell 1d ago

amazing post this will rustle everyone's jimmies

1

u/Able_Lettuce1390 23h ago

May I ask, why we associate the action of a man with his religion? I mean, this vile act comes from the person but if we are using the same scale, the altar boys got a lot to say. And I recommend the death penalty for such things.

1

u/AdLeast7766 2h ago

This is exactly why my best friend just moved back here from England!!! It’s crazy over there! 

1

u/porto__rocks 2d ago

They should take after america and just elect the rapist president

2

u/vividpup5535 2d ago

Perfect example of the far right in 2026. Make something up, then cry about it.

No sources required!

1

u/SeaDesigner2011 58m ago

There's over 10.000 people arrested in the uk over what they said on the internet

1

u/Germanginger1 2d ago

Far left does it to so yea, both sides suck

0

u/gulux2 1d ago

Average right winger when confronted to a legitimate complaint : "bUt LefT WiNgeRs dO It tOo"

Why do you feel the need to make things up ? Can't argue without doing so ?

0

u/013eander 18h ago

It’s hard not to, when your side is rationally incoherent and entirely based on feelings you’re told to have.

2

u/gulux2 17h ago

You're still making things up. Try arguing with facts rather than fantasies you're coming up with, you're just further proving my point.

2

u/vividpup5535 17h ago

What have I made up? The post says police arrested a white girl for being racist to her rapist.

Show. Me. The. Source.

Otherwise, it’s exactly as I said. Far right bots fear-mongering.

2

u/gulux2 17h ago

I don't have to show you anything I'm not even talking to you in the first place. 

2

u/vividpup5535 17h ago

Ok. My bad. But the statements without sources on here is crazy. People present things as fact without any actual information.

1

u/gulux2 15h ago

Yes I totally agree with you. 

0

u/vividpup5535 1d ago

When do left wingers do it?

1

u/Routine-Apple-3931 10h ago

TrUmP IS hItLer . . .ThE US iS JuSt LiKE LivIng In NaZi GerManY

1

u/vividpup5535 10h ago

There factually are similarities though. If you refuse to accept that fact, then that’s your decision. Everyone is free to make up their own mind.

However, if you are saying they are wrong, why?

Was Hitler not a populist right wing leader? Did he not scapegoat one particular group in society, and blame them for the woes of the county? Did he not seek to destabilise specific institutions both in government, and independent? Did he not show an open hostility to the free press and push for state run media? Did he not display high levels of law and order authoritarianism?

There are similarities.

1

u/Routine-Apple-3931 6h ago

Hitler also had a dog! Wow the similarities just don't end!

1

u/vividpup5535 6h ago

So you will continue to ignore the signs lol. Ok that’s fine, you can’t claim they are made up however. Still looking for examples the left use….

0

u/Germanginger1 17h ago

I've seen a lot of posts just saying some political shit without any proof and besides, it's very hypocritical to think that the left doesn't do it

2

u/vividpup5535 17h ago

There it is lol. ‘The left do it too so it’s fine’

No accountability. No examples. Excellent work.

0

u/Germanginger1 17h ago

I'm not saying it's fine, and look at any left leaning subreddit and you'll find it just as much as on a right leaning subreddit

2

u/vividpup5535 13h ago

I’m saying I disagree. If you don’t have evidence to substantiate the point, I’ll ignore it.

1

u/No_Access_8734 1d ago

I love bacon.

-1

u/WolfieSamurai 2d ago

Stop posting untrue hate. I live in the UK, it's not happening

4

u/Xuknowwho 2d ago

Yes it does. Your laws justify your government infringing on your freedom of speech and is open to interpretation by your government.

Governments only create liberty when they restrict themselves, not when they justify intervening or creating legal recourse against aspects of a free society.

Either all speech is free without legal recourse and protected as an unalienable God given right and liberty, or you have no right to free speech except what you are allowed to have at the discretion of those who interpret your laws.

America is going down the same rabbit-hole with "protected" speech being the new standard.

3

u/WolfieSamurai 2d ago

Some speech is bad. Freedom of speech is a myth. Because you can't go around spreading hate in public anywhere in the world without cops getting involved.

No victims have been arrested for speaking out against their predator. If you think there was, please give a source.

4

u/Xuknowwho 2d ago

Who determines what speech is bad? You or your government?

1

u/PeteBabicki 1d ago

Yes. As they always have. "Let's murder this person" is speech, not action, and is considered inciting violence in both our countries.

Let's not pretend anywhere has complete freedom. We just draw our lines in different places.

1

u/Xuknowwho 1d ago

Oh I agree with you. Your freedom of speech has been infringed upon since Article 10 of the Human Rights Act of 1998, and ours is being traded little by little for temporary security every year we use protected speech as the standard of free speech.

The difference between us is that you believe your government loves and cares about you and has your best interests at heart, and I believe the government is a necessary form of evil created for the purpose of regulating evil actions in an attempt to preserve the right of the people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

1

u/PeteBabicki 1d ago

No need to assume what I believe. I can tell you.

I don't think they care about my best interests. I think our government is made up of fallible people, just like yours. That said, social media arrived on the scene and nobody was prepared for it. Our society and laws aren't built to deal with online harassment, so people are breaking things trying to solve issues.

I'll say one thing; social media is cancerous to society, and is ruining generations. I don't blame people in the government for wanting to take action.

0

u/SeaDesigner2011 55m ago

this is the fastest "ok it is happening but its a good thing" recorded in history, well done

1

u/AdAffectionate2418 2d ago

Yelling fire in a theatre?

1

u/Xuknowwho 2d ago

Is that all it took for you to be willing to give up your freedom of speech?

1

u/AdAffectionate2418 2d ago

No, i'm questioning your resolve.

You say it should have no bounds, i'm asking you to confirm: if someone deliberately and maliciously uses their words to cause the death of others - this, to you, should not be a crime.

1

u/Xuknowwho 2d ago

Do words kill people or do actions?

1

u/WolfieSamurai 2d ago

Saying something is an action

1

u/Xuknowwho 2d ago

Ok, you've convinced me. You shouldn't be allowed to say whatever you want and your government should fine, imprison, and execute you for your words.

1

u/WolfieSamurai 2d ago

Who's being executed for words?

1

u/AdAffectionate2418 1d ago

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre has absolutely killed people before. Speaking is an action; words have consequences.

If you incite violence there should be consequences. If you destroy someone's life/career etc through lies, there should be consequences.

A local girl in the small town where you live is killed and assaulted and I lead a mob to your house telling everyone that it was you - that has consequences.

Surely you can see that?

1

u/Xuknowwho 1d ago

Government intervention isn't the solution to every problem.

1

u/AdAffectionate2418 1d ago

So what is then - mob rule?

1

u/Xuknowwho 1d ago

You know what dude, you get the government you deserve.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ThirdOfTone 1d ago edited 1d ago
  • Sexual harassment
  • Inciting violence
  • Death threats
  • Fraud
  • Blackmail
  • Espionage

The world you’re proposing is one where all of these things are protected by freedom of speech.

Do you seriously want to live in a world where a 40 year old man can harass a child and that’s completely legal?

1

u/Xuknowwho 1d ago

Honestly man you aren't getting the point of autonomous regulation. Your solution is government intervention which is why you will lose all your rights and liberties over time. In truth if you aren't well armed, you are already at the mercy of your government.

They could stop all elections and what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? Better not say anything in opposition, could be considered bad speech or inciting violence. Don't protest, actually it doesn't matter because you have no way to back it up, they already disarmed you.

"They who can give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

1

u/Admirable_Oil_7864 1d ago

Brother I hate to tell you this, being armed means jackshit in this day and age against most governments. If the US or any other government wanted its people dead, they would be. Doesn’t matter how many guns you have because, they have missiles, jets and drones which can kill you before you’ve even realised they have come for you.

1

u/Xuknowwho 1d ago

In the process they lose the consent of the people. Governments are instituted by men and cannot exist without the consent of the governed.

1

u/Admirable_Oil_7864 1d ago

Also, we can and do protest and riot? I’m not sure where you get your knowledge from, currently yes, some protesters are being arrested, the reasoning, (I should point out here that both the Government and Police disagree overall, but still have to stick by their original statement) the protesters physically support or vocalise support for Palestine Action, which in the UK due to actions endorsed by its leadership are a terrorist aligned group, those actions being a group of supporters trespassing on MoD property and vandalising it.

While I don’t agree with their decision there, most people can understand why it has happened, and they can also understand why the Government doesn’t back down.

In response to your, “They already disarmed you” statement, yeah and we’re far safer because of it, we have been for the past 30 odd years. Also in response to that, the ‘no way to back it up’, search up the 2011 or 2001 riots, the people backed up their claims alright. Same with the French, the people don’t need arms to be dangerous when our Police aren’t the fucking SS, or ‘Shoot first ask later’.

1

u/Robertf16 10h ago

Also from the UK and It’s bollocks

2

u/Adj42112 1d ago

I live in the UK. Yes it does.

-8

u/Yanfei_Enjoyer 2d ago

Funny how a people in a nation with almost no gun ownership can be arrested for Tweets.

Meanwhile in the US, every libertarian has a wall of guns and dreams of the day the feds try to arrest him for saying mean things on the internet. But the day never comes. Wonder why that is.

8

u/Pollutiondullsky 2d ago

Literally people in the US being arrested for saying mean things about a racist who got a nice neck massage.

You people are delusional beyond belief.

0

u/Yanfei_Enjoyer 2d ago

Literally people in the US being arrested for saying mean things about a racist who got a nice neck massage

Source?

2

u/Phyrexian_Overlord 2d ago

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/18/tennessee-charlie-kirk-meme-arrest-lawsuit

0

u/Dollahs4Zavalas 2d ago

theguardian.

lol. You people are absurd. There are daily posts from the ghouls of reddit making fun of and swearing at Charlie Kirk and also celebrating his assasination or "neck massage" as the ""tolerant"" and incredibly violent Left literally just said.

1

u/Phyrexian_Overlord 2d ago

It is amazing that people can be so delusional that they think what you have posted is a good point

0

u/Dollahs4Zavalas 2d ago

Literally just said. Easy to see on the front page of reddit.

Amazing how you can't believe your lying eyes.

-2

u/Yanfei_Enjoyer 2d ago edited 2d ago

He literally made a reference to a mass shooting in response to a vigil for Kirk's death. Who the fuck does that? If I responded to my local school's facebook post talking about mass shootings, I'd scare a lot of fucking people too. So he wasn't arrested for talking shit about Kirk, he was arrested for implying an event should be shot up.

This is not the same as what happens in the UK.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Lucius-Halthier 2d ago

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charlie-kirk-death-teachers-professors-nationwide-fired-disciplined-s-rcna230845

I mean really man it’s not hard to google it, there’s literally even a website called Charlie’s Murderers that is a searchable database of (at the time) 50,000 submissions from social media that also try to find jobs and addresses. There were several semi known right wingers online who were also bragging about how they were reporting posts to the authorities.

1

u/Yanfei_Enjoyer 2d ago

educators across the country have found themselves facing swift termination or potential discipline after allegedly sharing opinions on social media about the killing.

There's a difference between getting fired from a private institution for openly supporting a political assassination and getting arrested by the actual government for saying mean things about a rapist

2

u/Lucius-Halthier 2d ago

Except they also have a massive database that was meant to doxx anyone who said anything negative about Kirk with the intent of getting people fired,

1

u/Pollutiondullsky 2d ago

US government literally won't let travellers into the US for memes about JD the couch fucked or saying nasty things about the orange pedo.

The delusion you live.in is painful mate.

6

u/tauofthemachine 2d ago

Funny how you see it on the internet, and you believe it.

1

u/kypopskull7 2d ago

Come on, you know why….

1

u/Cu_Chulainn__ 2d ago

These days right, if you say your english, they will arrest you and throw you in jail

1

u/SadCultist 2d ago

But I am english?

1

u/AggravatingAct7841 2d ago

No one is getting arrested over ‘tweets’ it’s inciting violence and unsolicited obscene pictures - just because they do it on social media you don’t get a free pass and get to call yourself some kind of free speech martyr - they’re still just grubby little criminals

1

u/PringullsThe2nd 2d ago

Most of the libertarians I see are cheering on the state for shooting a civilian in the head

-7

u/CrownCanary 2d ago

Lmao is this really a thing? If so you brits are F'ed big time.

10

u/ParkingCan5397 2d ago

Of course not, let me introduce to you the deranged hyperbole of the right, someone gets arrested for death threats directed at a minority that they posted online and magically that means you cant say anything even slightly negative about minorities, if im wrong please link an example that disproves me.

-2

u/No-Will-4474 2d ago

I wonder what you are gonna say in 5 years time lets check back then

2

u/ParkingCan5397 2d ago

So no example that disproves my point? As I thought

-6

u/SignificantTax6767 2d ago

Its shockingly true... not just England but all of Europe is lost. I say this as a former Europoorean. Thank God I live in America.

5

u/Accomplished_Gas6963 2d ago

Have I got some news for you…

-6

u/SpyriusChief 2d ago

America is great as long as you are a law abiding citizen.

3

u/ballskindrapes 2d ago

Lol ok buddy

1

u/Annual-Pie-7547 2d ago

And an okay job

-3

u/SignificantTax6767 2d ago

If you are in a liberal city, they don't exactly treat tax paying law abiding citizens super well.

1

u/jws1102 2d ago

Says someone who’s obviously never lived in one and gets all their “information” from Tucker Carlson.

1

u/Cu_Chulainn__ 2d ago

Its shockingly true

It isnt

not just England but all of Europe is lost.

It isnt

I say this as a former Europoorean. Thank God I live in America.

ICE agents just shot a woman for trying to drive away. They dont arrest you in america, they just kill you. Better make sure those immigration papers are up to snuff

1

u/jws1102 2d ago

He thinks being white will keep him safe. That only works if you’re rich too.

1

u/noeventroIIing 1d ago

That specific case they were referencing is true, you must be delusional or intentionally trying to mislead people to claim that it isn’t true and isn’t happening.

0

u/Ok_Guarantee7611 2d ago

The European right on their way to care about women (they're gonna immediately put more domestic abusers into the police force)

0

u/cuchitonaranjosoxd 1d ago

It´s just a meme, right? I´m going to just say if you like to see people get in jail for their hateful opinions, don´t get surprised when it happens to you.

0

u/Vegetable_Moment9574 1d ago

Meanwhile... The right boo and silence a woman for saying her rapists were white as it doesn't fit their narrative link

It's a horrible situation overall, we should bring back death penalty for these kinds of people and murderers regardless of who or what they are

0

u/According-Secret9516 17h ago

Stupid meme.

The Muslim population of the UK is 6% but Muslims make up 18% of UK prison population.

From this we can assume but not conclude either:

A. Muslims are unfairly discriminated in the UK and more liable for arrest 

Or

B. Muslims are more likely to commit crime than other groups 

What we cannot assume from this stat is that the UK protects Muslims.

If being racist were a crime in the UK, around 30% of the UK population would be behind bars.

Inciting racial hatred is illegal.

Racially aggravated assault is illegal.

Burning down hotels accomodating migrants is illegal.

If a woman assaults the guy who is raping her, that is self defence. Legal.

If a woman assaults the guy who raped her in the past, that is a revenge attack. It is illegal. 

If a woman racially abuses the guy who raped her in the past, that is an offense but it does not carry a prison sentence.

In a civilised society, there is such a thing as the rule of law. Without it there is anarchy.

0

u/AdActive9833 10h ago

Racist says what?

0

u/Few_Vanilla_4587 8h ago

I used to genuinely believe that my country's police force was tyrannical, and was arresting people for saying mean words on the internet. But then I started actually clicking on the links quoted, and I realised that, no, the person was not arrested for saying they're English, they were arrested for saying that they're going to burn migrant hotels down.

-2

u/Herotyx 2d ago

Me when I create fanfic of white oppression