This was posted by Clare yesterday and I will respond below it.

👇🏼

I just want to jump in here on the arrest of the person for posting an inaccurate tweet.

The attached is, imho, very badly written. As far as I know, and unless there has been a radical change in law in the last few days, it is not a criminal offence to post inaccurate information due to not checking it's veracity.

The law states the following :-

It is an offence to a) intentionally stir racial hatred; b) knowingly publish false information intending to cause non-trivial harm

My understanding is that the person arrested is accused of this statutory definition. Hence why I think the Cheshire Police post is itself disinformation in a way, and as I say, very badly written.

I would welcome the thoughts of Charles Malet on this, ex policeman. He will likely know more than me on the broader context of these offences

Cheshire Police announced on Thursday that they had arrested a woman for offences under s19 of the Public Order Act 1986 and s179 of the Online Safety Act (OSA) 2023. They then tweeted that “It’s a stark reminder of the dangers of posting information on social media platforms without checking the accuracy. It also acts as a warning that we are all accountable for our actions, whether that be online or in person.”

The phrase upon which this arrest hangs is "without checking the accuracy" and how, exactly, such a judgement may be arrived at. Section 179 OSA 2023 says a person commits an offence if a message sent "conveys information that the person knows to be false" and that "the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience". First of all, with regard to a social media post, "it is not necessary for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) that the person intended to cause harm to any one of them in particular (or to all of them)", so we are immediately in the zone of imagined harm, rather than actual or intended harm.

With regard to a "false communication offence", the most significant part comes in s180, which states that "A recognised news publisher cannot commit an offence under section 179." Yes, you really did read that correctly. The BBC, for example, may send a message they know to be false, with the specific intent to cause "non-trivial psychological harm". In other words, state-sponsored propaganda is legitimised in statute by OSA 2023.

Back to Cheshire, it is inferred by police that the message or messages sent, with false information, were sent in the knowledge that the information was false and that the reasons for doing so were both to cause psychological harm and to stir up racial hatred. There is a considerable gulf between "checking the accuracy" of a message and sending one which "conveys information that the person knows to be false". It is not clear whether the alleged offence here is the genesis of an incorrect story, or the promulgation of one, but the critical detail should be whether the suspect believed the information to be true, or not.

The onus is on police to demonstrate intent, by means of an investigation, which would involve an interview. Transmitting information, which subsequently turns out to be false, cannot automatically be presumed to be loaded with the intent to either stir up racial hatred, or to cause psychological harm. However, there is increasing precedent in this area, seen most obviously in the case of Sam Melia, where CPS gave a description of the magnitude of his intent, based on very peripheral and circumstantial evidence. Sending messages which turn out to be inaccurate may be considered reckless, but recklessness is not one of the elements which may make up an offence under s179 OSA 2023.

What, one wonders, would have happened if such a message had been sent, suggesting that the suspect in the Southport killings had been white British, with white British parents?

You know things are going in the right direction when......

Copy of The Light just dropped off by neighbour, inscribed with "thought it was up your street"; a judgement formed after reading it.

If only....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZEav9A801A

Peter Ford, formerly British Ambassador to Bahrain and to Syria, making a clear and simple case about the consequences of creating "wars of choice".

👇🏼

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QDBoEZgqNM

According to the way in which this ONS data on suicides is presented, there appears to have been an enormous decrease in the 60+ age group, during the past 40 years.

Is such a change likely to have taken place? With the enormous push towards "assisted" dying, it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that such statistics have been massaged, though to suggest what, exactly?

2020, and beyond, exposed the enormous corruption in the process by which deaths are recorded and to what they are attributed.

Don't be put off by the graphic, which comes from the Mail. It's just that they've coloured theirs in much better than ONS did.

👇

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2022registrations

A Substack post about the duty of a terrorist Government to intimidate the population, and how the Online Safety Act may help them do it.

👇

https://open.substack.com/pub/charlesmalet/p/niemoller-on-the-bench

My Delingpole interview from last September gives some useful insight into the cultural Marxist agenda.

Covering My Life My Say, Mete Coban, Tony Blair, global ‘philanthropy’, the Great Replacement and how the establishment is desperate to start a race war on the streets of the UK.

https://odysee.com/@JamesDelingpoleChannel:0/2023-09-21_Ben-Rubin:b

Friendly reminder: Messages like this are never the channel owner. This is not Charles. It is a Telegram wide problem. All we can do is block and delete the scammer.

Another scheme which looks designed specifically to attract the abuse it lies open to.

UK Column will NOT go live at 1pm today, due to tech issues, but we hope to have a recorded programme out later.

Preview of news items here.

Do consider supporting us for £5/mth at ukcolumn.org.

UK Column is THE antidote to mainstream propaganda.

Adapt and overcome: UK Column News from today, 14th August 2024. We had a bit of a technical climb to negotiate, but it turned out well in the end. A slightly extended programme, with Brian Gerrish, Vanessa Beeley and Charles Malet.

👇

https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-14th-august-2024

In a number of recent UK Column News programmes, excerpts have been taken from Christopher Story's 2002 book, The European Union Collective. Here is a particularly interesting excerpt on the sovereignty of the UK's head of state. Quite a bit of text, but the last sentence makes it worth reading.

👇

"In November 2000 - after a correspondent who had taken care to prepare his case thoroughly, had written to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair; to the then Leader of the Opposition, William Hague; to the Leader of the House of Lords, who was then Baroness Jay; and to the Lord Chief Justice and other official office-holders and dignitaries - asking: 'Is Her Majesty the Queen Sovereign?', he received either no answer at all, or else a non-committal, weak, diversionary reply. Mr Blair, being unable to answer the question himself, redirected the enquiry to the Home Office, which likewise prevaricated. Indeed, a hallmark of the Blair Government has been its Ministers' arrogant reluctance to answer letters and parliamentary questions. Likewise, Mr Blair has reportedly made a point, on occasion, of 'standing the Queen up' by failing to turn up on time, or at all, for his weekly scheduled audiences.

The position under English law, of course, is that Her Majesty remains Sovereign until the moment of her death, when sovereignty will pass automat- ically to the next rightful heir to the British Throne. However, the Prime Minister's problem appears to be that since, under Article 17 of the Maastricht Treaty, the Queen is a 'citizen' of the European Union, her Sovereignty has been usurped. Those UK Ministers and officials who permitted this scan- dalous state of affairs to develop are accordingly prima facie traitors and ought to be indicted for treason. But so far as President Herzog of Germany has been concerned, his status as a 'citizen' of the EU Collective appears to be entirely acceptable, because the EU is just a 'mask' for emerging 'Greater Germany'.

When, following the correspondent's letters to selected leaders, an attempt was made by Christopher Gill MP in January 2001 to put down a question asking the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty is Sovereign, the Table Office at the House of Commons replied in the following astonishing language: 'Last night you sought to table a question to the Prime Minister concerning the effect of the UK's membership of the European Union on the constitutional position of Her Majesty the Queen. You will recall that I explained I would need to check the admissibility of the question with other colleagues before it could be tabled. It has been pointed out to me that the question as drafted in effect seeks the Prime Minister's view on the interpretation of the law, in this case the Treaties of the European Communities and associated European treaties and UK legislation. It is not possible to table questions to Ministers seeking interpretation of the law, as this is a matter for the appropriate courts, not Ministers'.

It would accordingly appear to be unclear whether Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign - and, by extension, whether any legislation passed by the Westminster Parliament since Britain made the mistake of joining the European Communities in 1972, is valid. For evidently until the matter is decided by 'the appropriate courts', the question of whether Her Majesty is Sovereign and thus able to act as Head of State and hence give the Royal Assent to legislation passed by the Westminster Parliament, remains up in the air. This Kafkaesque situation reflects the fact that, as noted, under the Collective Treaty, all residents of the European Union are its citizens; and the Queen is a resident of the European Union. Therefore, if EU law has precedence over British law, the Queen, being an EU citizen, is not Sovereign. Welcome to a classic example of the fundamentally demented chaos that is bound to result from all revolutionary experiments in political collectivisation."

I had forgotten how racist air could be.

This "study" forms part of the ULEZ book-cooking exercise.

When it comes to research, you really do get what you pay for.

👇

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_pollution_and_inequalities_in_london_2019_update_0.pdf

The vandalism of this wall amounts to criminal damage; there is absolutely no doubt about that.

Here we see another propagandist-in-chief, Justin Welby, straying over the line, as far as the Serious Crime Act 2007 is concerned.

Section 45

Encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed:

A person commits an offence if—

(a) he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and

(b) he believes—

(i) that the offence will be committed; and

(ii) that his act will encourage or assist its commission.

An endless stream of hypocrisy.

From an early participant: "At an online briefing a few days before the intended start, the organisers showed us an artist’s impression of the wall, and told us that, because we didn’t have permission, we would be committing criminal damage and could face a fine or prison. Despite this, I don’t think anyone decided to duck out."

👇

https://www.poppysfunerals.co.uk/blog/the-story-behind-the-national-covid-memorial-wall/

As m(onkey)pox climbs back up the rankings, I am bound to wonder if Jenner saw this coming.