I think you are over thinking this. To me this is very simple, you have a person who because they hold a powerful position believe themselves about the law, and how dare they be held to account. Also as for the police having better things to do. This reminds me of the car driver with no tax or insurance being pulled over, saying the police should let them go and chase rapists and murders instead. Maybe if miss Pearson doesn't want a visit from the police, don't do the crime.
No, nothing like a car driver without tax or insurance, because that is against the law. What Miss Pearson did wasn't against the law and a lot of these comments are purely down to an out of touch persons interpretation. I suppose you think that the nine year old boy should get a visit by the police for calling someone an inoffensive name.
@Steve-s8k The Police had received a report of a crime, and the complainant had provided evidence of an online criminal offence. They have a duty to investigate, and given the circumstances of the evidence being available and the accused both easily identifiable and located, they did so. If the case ends up being NFA'd by the Police after preliminary investigation (as literally thousands of reports are each day in the UK) then so be it. Anyone who works with the Police or Social Care will not be surprised in the slightest by the action the Police took. Its absolutely normal day to day Police work. The only difference is that this journalist and her employer thinks she should not be subject to the law (like 90% of the people the Police talk to for potential offences), and that they can inflame a culture war by inaccurate reporting for their own benefit.
@@nickrails The police have a duty to look at it, see that nothing had happened and then not have wasted their time going around someone's house on a Sunday morning. I could well believe that anyone who works in that sector is not surprised by the police action, because many parts of it are not fit for purpose. These thousands of reports are the very reason that the police are not investigating proper crime.
As a journalist she hasn't a leg to stand on as twitter is considered publishing, as a journalist she should be aware you can't publish hate speech especially aimed at specific individuals.
You can publish hate speech against an individual. It just depends who it is. For example I’ve seen plenty directed at Boris Johnson. No one seems to have a problem with this.
@@antonydavis2764Exactly! Farage gets abused, slandered and threatened every day! The idea this is some ‘far right’ talking point is absurd and tells me just how arrogant the Left are!
Pearson lives in an echo chamber, she wasn't expecting any real world consequences. Most people she is interacting with online will agree with her. A comeuppence wasn't on her radar when she gobbed off with her misreading of the photo.
@@MillieMe05 She's no Navalny and never will be. The arguments re 'free speech' and its limitations discussed in the video are correct and relevant in this case.
@@MillieMe05 this is a long standing offence. It’s been on the books and has been prosecuted for others. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
@ You have more people in jail for speech.than Putin, and not even speech that would be considered bad in other countries. A man died in jail. He killed himself for the supposed crime of calling police names, you have people in jail for prayer. Your country used.to be respected as a free and moderate society. That’ respect is gone. A Your country is not a free country and the worst part is, people like you seem totally oblivious.
If we have to be accurate then when did Pearson mention ' brown' people ? Her comment was based upon open anti semitism that has been observed at the anti israel marches . Now this is might well be the wrong image to make this point on . Why a Pakistani political party has flag waving supporters on the streets of the UK might be a more interesting conversation . Immigration brings the cultures of the world but there is more to culture than food and fashion . It also includes the political ideological and religious alliances and conflicts between those groups .
"Now this is might well be the wrong image to make this point on" - it was definitely the wrong image. There was no evidence the non-police in the photo were "Jew haters".
Except they aren't. People like Alison Pearson just want a free for all where people who share likeminded views can say anything they like, make vicious factually inaccurate claims that stir up hate, free from any consequences whilst threatening to set their lawyers onto anyone who dares to criticise them.
@@joetrent4753 I want a free for all, what is wrong with that? I am sorry, when they conflate defamation with freedom of speech they don't understand the concept. You have the freedom to say things which can be deemed defamatory later, but then you got to go through due process to determine if it was the case or not. And I am sorry, what is a hateful comment to someone is the consequential fact which must be stated to another one, and consequences in civilized society is only given by the state, after due process according to the law. So yes, they should be free from any consequence unless this criteria is met.
If there is a growing perception on the Right that the law is not being applied equitably, then libertarians on the Left really do need to discuss this fully, fairly, openly and candidly with their political opponents. If there is a perception that the cops go after offensive Tweets coz it's easier than investigating burglaries, then this needs to be faced down and addressed online and in MSM.
Professional victim. She has never worked a job outside of being a right-wing gob in the print media. Sorry you're having to face consequences for your actions luv
@@davidb9531 Same here. The right now try to portray themselves as perpetual victims to their readers for votes. They must know this lying tactic unsustainable.
@@Steve-s8k They haven't incited racial hatred and then cried about it when she got held to account. It's almost like one side of the political spectrum is more hateful than the other.
The word "many" is doing a great deal of heavy lifting. Many people have entirely consistent views on free speech, and many of the people highlighting the Gaza marchers were pointing out what they view to be a double standard, Lewis, not that they wanted people to be arrested. Perhaps they think the police should not be going round to people's houses because they say something innocuous about men not being women. Maybe if they are Scottish they maybe think that it was outrageous that Jewish and Muslim faith organisations wanted criticism of religion to be included in Humza's absurd hate crime law. Why play the ball when you can play the man/woman/other, eh guys? It is the usual hobby horse, though, only people on the right are concerned about this, the idea of a non-crime hate incident is not an insult to liberal democratic values, etc etc etc.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech when a journalist is so unprofessional as to release a story where the pictures don't match the commentary.
Yes it was unprofessional but was deleted as soon as the mistake was known and no crime committed. You can't shout crime at every mistake or hurty word.
It’s common sense that the laws about speech are the same online as they are in the physical world,how is this an issue? Surely no discussion needed?✌️❤️🇬🇧
@@JohnHaveaguessGoogle you certainly cannot say whatever you want online (not quite sure if that is what you are trying to infer here) Communications Act 2003: Section 127 of this act makes it illegal to send a message via a public electronic communications network that is considered grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character.
@@dibdab101 even though i didn't refer to section 127 I've known about it and read about the adverse consequences for years...that's why my original comment is correct. The law has made the reality of online/offline speech completely different entities in terms of "freedom of speech". The original commentator seems ignorant of this reality.
@@JohnHaveaguessGoogle sorry but your comment was worded in such a way that I found it difficult to know what you were trying to say and I took it you meant that there are no legal restriction to freedom of speech online, which is claerly not the case. But it is also true to say that the laws are not exactly the same because they are taylored for online communications. Can I ask what you mean by 'adverse consequences'. Again it is quite difficult to know wether you are advocating that such laws shouldn't exist, or that the laws are too vague and being open to interpretation they are difficult to implement properly. Or maybe both. Or neither
The Tories had 14 years to repeal or amend the hate speech legislation (which I think was introduced by Blair in 2006) The latest code of practice that the police works to was brought before Parliament in spring 23 and issued to the police in mid 23 by Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman
So she's libeled everybody in the photo. Of course if anyone had taken her utterance as true and attacked the people in the photo (or anyone who looks vaguely like them) she'd be whining that they didn't mean it.
No! In the UK we don't have "freedom of speech" we have laws against hate speech ect. Only ever in America is there "freedom of speech" but they aren't a part of the old world. We/British empire / Europe / ect does have rules and all ways has. Stop viewing things from the American perspective
@ that is arrant nonsense. There are many platforms available. You have to try really hard to get yourself on the wrong side of the law and here the law is applied without fear or favour. There is a long list of countries where it is not like that. The UK is not on that list.
Mark Urban needs to brush up on his knowledge. Ukraine has already used ATACMS and Stormshadow albeit limited to strikes on it's own territory such as Crimea.
Say what you like. 'Free speech'. However, there are consequences. As a person who earns her living through her words, she must know this. An error was made. Hence, the deletion of the 'tweet'. Own up to the error and apologise. Or take the consequences.
Why would we want to change the laws to allow such behaviour what benefit is that bringing to society? So people can incite racial hatred without hindrance ?
This clearly has zero to do with her being a so called journalist. She's using that to try and justify she can say what she likes when she can't. If I were one of those individuals I'd want her prosecuted
@@GazGaryGazza No the point wouldn't be the same, because most people are not offended by hurty words. It's only people who want to play the victim that constantly want to be offended.
@@Steve-s8kThe elite of this country, and throughout Europe, used to stab and shoot each other to death for "hurty words". There has never not been a right to defend one's honour and reputation.
I’m quite centre-right, almost by temperament rather than politically, but I do still watch this, Novara, Newsnight etc and consider myself pretty normal. I think there is an argument to be had about police involvement and who gets to decide what is incitement, but this particular case would be a dreadful hill to die on, imo. She’s clearly overstepped and should be subject to some form of consequence - a fine of a few hundred, or similar. It may well have been accidental, but it was definitely reckless.
It was not accidental as she was warned about posting it in the first place. Of course she should expect consequences but she and the rightwing media have chosen to misrepresent the facts and turn this into some sort of public scandal.
The reason the Police investigated... because Pearson believed people holding up a Pakistani flag were in fact Palestinians. Having a friendly chat and an informal photoshoot with the police. It was a foolish mistake ... so the police pounced. Now they've told her off, they're dropping the case.
"If there were an allegation of harassment and the police didn't turn up, there would be a lot of screaming 'where were the police?'" - where were the police in this real case? This does not seem a coherent position: that this real allegation was serious enough to warrant police attention but it was not serious enough to investigate until 12 months later. "If something happens in this online forum are we saying it doesn't matter?" - well, apparently this specific case didn't matter did it? It didn't matter for 12 months and today it has been NFA'd.
According to Mr Sopels logic, Donald Trump should sue David Lammy , Sadiq Khan and a whole sorry bunch of protagonists who are only too quick to malign. This could include numerous UK journalists, of course. Fortunately, the less hysterical types amongst us have more common sense and better things to do with our time. And for what its worth, the real issues here are, again, the perceptions of double standards and two tier policing.
@@antonydavis2764 Its not Kafkaesque to expect people to have a basic understanding of the law. There are two relevant pieces of legislation that inform the situation, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) and The Public Order Act (1986). Both of these texts highlight why she was investigated and what the procedure in this case is. In a time when we have search engines and info is a google search away, its beggars belief that people think this is Kafkaesque. You may not like the legislation and feel that Pearson has a right to characterise brown people in that manner, but the evidence doesn't suggest some grand bureaucratic contradiction as highlighted in the works of Franz Kafka.
@@Rob-lw8to according to her she was not informed of the what the tweet was, just that she was being investigated. You need to know the crime so that you can defend yourself.
@ she wasn’t expected to defend herself when the police turned up at her house and agreeing to an interview is not an admission of guilt. If you look at the Police and Criminal Evidence Act - the police are obliged to provide details before the interview, not when the interview is arranged. This is all further highlighted in the press release by Essex Police.
@@zonianfjb search: 'Allison, I know the world is killing you - but where did it all go wrong?' John Crace Then come back and explain why you think it's a lie.
Yes you have to understand what to put on social media and you have to understand that hate speech is not acceptable, you have to follow the limits yourself when it comes to social media, Unfortunately, it limits free speech a bit
Free speech is very, very important. Part of the issue of the these times is that the algorithms are designed to hold our attention for profit and therefore the sensationalised and divisive content reigns supreme. People should be able to speak what they want (with consequences of course) but we do not hold the multi-billion pound/dollar businesses that profit from division to account. The authoritarian leaders that are on the rise have been able to capitalise on this division.
The big problem is people like Pearson want to be able to say what they like without consequences yet they don't want that same 'privilege' extended to people they don't agree with and will call for them to be shut down. That includes anyone who criticises their controversial comments.
How quickly was it deleted ? Maybe it’s more about the freedom not to be investigated for having made a genuine mistake despite it having been quickly corrected ?
Missing from the free speech/journalists getting in trouble discussion is a specific reference to Asa Winstanley and Richard Medhurst. They're two left wing journalists who focus on Palestine and in recent months both have been arrested/detained under the terrorism act. If the concern is journalists facing repurcussions for what they say, these two instances are much more significant than Alison Pearson.
Inciting racial hatred is a crime. Her tweet was certainly worthy of investigation, subject to resources. The police waited a YEAR to investigate this and did so by politely interviewing her. Where is the problem? C9nversely, Pearson lied about the alleged offence and started a firestorm based on lies. You are either for law enforcement of the law or not. And inciting racial hatred is absolutely against the law. Period
And there are thousands of other tweets that are never investigated that would be classed as racial/religious hatred and the fact is we live in a 2 tier state
Not guilty, shame so many lefty tossers pre-judged her including those pathetic individuals whose overblown ego's allow them to brand themselves with supreme arrogance, "the news agents!"
People always bring up this "crowded theatre" phrase when the issue of free speech is raised and I just don't get it. Surely if you genuinely believe there is a fire in a crowded theatre, you have every right to shout out "Fire!"
@@alansmith4748 What on earth are you talking about? They are talking about situations where people are crying wolf for no reason, which would create chaos and bring a crowd in danger. Not when there is an actual fire...
@@AH-te5gs I can only repeat what I've already said. If you genuinely believed there was a fire in a crowded theatre then of course you'd shout fire". Jon Sopel made no mention of "crying wolf for no reason", which is why I didn't feel the need to comment on that particular phrase.
In relation to free speech the argument would go; if you genuinely believe in something then you should have the right to say it, just as if you genuinely believe there is a fire you have the right to shout fire
It just shows how out of touch these two clowns are. They might be pleased that someone from a different political spectrum is on the receiving end but when free speech goes completely, they will be the ones stifled as well.
It's a common misconception that shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't protected by the First Amendment-a myth that originates from a hypothetical used in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1919 Supreme Court opinion in Schenk v. United States. Holmes wrote that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Not only was this a purely hypothetical example used to explain Holmes' opinion, but the ruling itself was largely overturned 50 years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Right wing press: free speech should be protected. Man in street: Churchill was pretty awful to Welsh miners. Right wing press: YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT!
All three participants in this discussion have P.O.V.s - naturally - but they've presented them alongside a number of well articulated caveats, making their opinions seem well thought through. I've racked my brains trying to remember anyone on the right ever adding a caveat when spouting off . I've failed utterly. And regarding the "It's only a tweet!" sneer from that lot, one word: Lineker. Shame? They couldn't spell it.
There's a recently published book by Trevor Birney, I think, talking about psni intimidation of journalists making a documentary about one of the many atrocities.
@badgertheskinnycow when stalker was writing his report he was astonished that the police were doing that. The psni were supposed to be a break from the ruc traditions, but apparently not.
I found this absolutely ludicrous. The tweet is at best mildly offensive and I am astonished at the stretch which has to be made to perceive it as hate speech and inciting violence. What is wrong with people...have we all gone a little mad? I am intelligent enough to recognize hate speech when I see it. What a waste of police time and brain cells listening to this pointless podcast!!
As a supporter of ReformUK when I need to hear the opposing view point of the left I'll tune in to the more considered views of NovaraMedia and not this comedy sketch show
I am not sure. Maybe Biden's team said your ability to negotiate the deal you promised requires pressure now. Maybe the same argument Lord Cameron used
A pretty meaningless phrase, Everybody, in every land, has the freedom of speech, just not the freedom from consequences. People in Russia, China and N.Korea, for example, all have the freedom to say whatever they like, nobody can stop them, unfortunately the consequences aren't that great
@@danstirling7386 It has always been the case that freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequence. If you insult me, it's a consequence that I can take offense. The only people who don't realise or accept this are people who want carte blanche to insult people. In other words, bullies.
Journalists have a responsibility to get their facts right. Or at least to not distort them to inflame public opinion. Mail and Telegraph hacks have different view though.
I didn't know of Pearsons history at all - In the time I've known of her (maybe 4/5 years maximum) I've ALWAYS found her to be a truly horrendous woman....
“It’s free speech when they like the thing that’s being said”. That’s a fair criticism but I think it can be attributed to both sides of our political landscape. That’s why free speech is important; people should be free to say things that we don’t like. We don’t have a right to stop speech we don’t like. It’s too dangerous to give anyone that kind of power and ultimately it leads to citizens not being able to say things that the powerful don’t like. I think it’s wrong for the police to be questioning people on their speech, I think it was wrong of the conservatives to bring in those anti protest laws, it was wrong to bring in the internet safety bill. Whoever’s doing it, it’s always wrong.
Is Maitlis on drugs? We have seen with our own eyes that speech laws have been incrementally restricted over the last 20 years under the guise of ‘protecting’ people from having their feelings hurt - and those of us who warned of the consequences of privileging certain groups and making subjective ‘perception’ of ‘offence’ subject to police investigation without right of reply - have been proved right. We ARE moving towards a police state. The government has no right to police thoughts, speech or opinions. Actions are where the state can step in. That’s it. And the little snarks about ‘he’s a conservative? Noooo’ are pathetic because the conservatives are barely distinguishable from Labour. They are the establishment. A hive mind. The people know it, see it and feel it. The very concept of a non crime hate incident is so ridiculously Orwellian it beggars belief. Maitlis is a disgrace to journalism. The state is not there to nanny us, or tell us off, or demand we think the way they want us to. GET BACK IN YOUR LANE!
The line should be as small and thin as possible. Bad manners and hurty words are unpleasant but nothing to do with the police or the government! Period!
The right are often correct at it's base, the failings of society for the working class. Their direction tho only supports the ruling class. But they aren't ruling class... Well 99% of them xD
These podcasts are becoming so dull with only one side of arguments ever taken by the panel. Echo chamber backslapping is not journalism let alone entertaining.
This is all about the Palestinian question, whether you're pro or anti... and about nothing else. And we all know what this 'Palestinian issue' is really a subterfuge for. Who you're really 'pro or anti'.
There are about 1.7m people in Northern Ireland. There was a time when people in Northern Ireland were subject to exclusion orders, banning them from Little Britain, a kind of inyernal exile, like being sent to Siberia.
"I tawt I taw a puddy tat." My cat found that tweet offensive. Well, hello? G20 happened today, where more than twenty of the most powerful leaders in the world met. Did they decide anything? Not according to the Newsagents. Journalistic navel gazing is the order of the day.
First they came for J K Rowling, then they came for Allison Pearson. People of this country need to stand for free speech, before we are sent to the Gulags.
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" trope has been defunct law for over 70 years. The controlling decision for FA Jurisprudence is Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 1969.
Luckily, the US Supreme Court is irrelevant in the UK or EU. It has no say over our rights, reproductive or otherwise. Trump doesn't get to stuff our Supreme court, ECHR or Legal system with his hand picked cronies...
Not in the U.K. We don’t allow paramilitary groups to March around in militia uniforms carrying guns and chanting about Jews. And we are better for it. Get with the idea about who these people are and what national law they are talking about or get back in your bro-cave.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
I think you are over thinking this. To me this is very simple, you have a person who because they hold a powerful position believe themselves about the law, and how dare they be held to account. Also as for the police having better things to do. This reminds me of the car driver with no tax or insurance being pulled over, saying the police should let them go and chase rapists and murders instead. Maybe if miss Pearson doesn't want a visit from the police, don't do the crime.
No, nothing like a car driver without tax or insurance, because that is against the law. What Miss Pearson did wasn't against the law and a lot of these comments are purely down to an out of touch persons interpretation. I suppose you think that the nine year old boy should get a visit by the police for calling someone an inoffensive name.
@@Steve-s8k- stop acting like a 9 year old.
@@Shaggy-839two Thanks for the valuable input. I can see exactly who you voted for.
@Steve-s8k The Police had received a report of a crime, and the complainant had provided evidence of an online criminal offence.
They have a duty to investigate, and given the circumstances of the evidence being available and the accused both easily identifiable and located, they did so. If the case ends up being NFA'd by the Police after preliminary investigation (as literally thousands of reports are each day in the UK) then so be it.
Anyone who works with the Police or Social Care will not be surprised in the slightest by the action the Police took. Its absolutely normal day to day Police work. The only difference is that this journalist and her employer thinks she should not be subject to the law (like 90% of the people the Police talk to for potential offences), and that they can inflame a culture war by inaccurate reporting for their own benefit.
@@nickrails The police have a duty to look at it, see that nothing had happened and then not have wasted their time going around someone's house on a Sunday morning.
I could well believe that anyone who works in that sector is not surprised by the police action, because many parts of it are not fit for purpose.
These thousands of reports are the very reason that the police are not investigating proper crime.
As a journalist she hasn't a leg to stand on as twitter is considered publishing, as a journalist she should be aware you can't publish hate speech especially aimed at specific individuals.
And there's the lying part . . .
You can publish hate speech against an individual. It just depends who it is. For example I’ve seen plenty directed at Boris Johnson. No one seems to have a problem with this.
@@antonydavis2764 Hate speech is specific to race, gender, etc., not just having a go at a random person
@@g-r-a-e-m-e- just pointing out that to the OP who said you can’t be hateful towards specific individuals.
@@antonydavis2764Exactly! Farage gets abused, slandered and threatened every day! The idea this is some ‘far right’ talking point is absurd and tells me just how arrogant the Left are!
The right were happy for the teacher that held a picture of a coconut to be dragged to court
…. And she got let off
Don’t be surprised if people start to use your own bs against you
Exactly because most of these judges now have gone through the universities and have too much political bias
Pearson lives in an echo chamber, she wasn't expecting any real world consequences. Most people she is interacting with online will agree with her. A comeuppence wasn't on her radar when she gobbed off with her misreading of the photo.
You are totally clueless. The UK is no better than Russia.
@@MillieMe05 She's no Navalny and never will be. The arguments re 'free speech' and its limitations discussed in the video are correct and relevant in this case.
@@MillieMe05 Russia assassinates people for daring to be a part of political opposition, you are very silly
@@MillieMe05 this is a long standing offence. It’s been on the books and has been prosecuted for others. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
@ You have more people in jail for speech.than Putin, and not even speech that would be considered bad in other countries. A man died in jail. He killed himself for the supposed crime of calling police names, you have people in jail for prayer. Your country used.to be respected as a free and moderate society. That’ respect is gone. A Your country is not a free country and the worst part is, people like you seem totally oblivious.
If we have to be accurate then when did Pearson mention ' brown' people ? Her comment was based upon open anti semitism that has been observed at the anti israel marches .
Now this is might well be the wrong image to make this point on . Why a Pakistani political party has flag waving supporters on the streets of the UK might be a more interesting conversation . Immigration brings the cultures of the world but there is more to culture than food and fashion . It also includes the political ideological and religious alliances and conflicts between those groups .
"Now this is might well be the wrong image to make this point on" - it was definitely the wrong image. There was no evidence the non-police in the photo were "Jew haters".
Liable in a free society is a civil matter. Cops showing up is something else.
This may be your finest episode for its rigorous analysis of a contentious issue. Keep it up. 👍
Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour! Nonetheless I commend your sentiments! 🙂
Loved seeing her sour face when trump got re elected
They really believe we cannot see them advocating for censorship?
Except they aren't. People like Alison Pearson just want a free for all where people who share likeminded views can say anything they like, make vicious factually inaccurate claims that stir up hate, free from any consequences whilst threatening to set their lawyers onto anyone who dares to criticise them.
@@joetrent4753 I want a free for all, what is wrong with that? I am sorry, when they conflate defamation with freedom of speech they don't understand the concept. You have the freedom to say things which can be deemed defamatory later, but then you got to go through due process to determine if it was the case or not. And I am sorry, what is a hateful comment to someone is the consequential fact which must be stated to another one, and consequences in civilized society is only given by the state, after due process according to the law. So yes, they should be free from any consequence unless this criteria is met.
If there is a growing perception on the Right that the law is not being applied equitably, then libertarians on the Left really do need to discuss this fully, fairly, openly and candidly with their political opponents. If there is a perception that the cops go after offensive Tweets coz it's easier than investigating burglaries, then this needs to be faced down and addressed online and in MSM.
Perception? Are you actually blind or purposefully ignorant?
@@jaisriram295 - are you asserting that such a perception exists, or the opposite, or something else entirely?
Well said.
Professional victim. She has never worked a job outside of being a right-wing gob in the print media.
Sorry you're having to face consequences for your actions luv
I actually used to quite like her as an arts reviewer on late review, now she's just repellant
@@davidb9531she’s brilliant
Same can be said of these two journalists, never had a job outside of their left-wing echo chamber.
@@davidb9531 Same here. The right now try to portray themselves as perpetual victims to their readers for votes. They must know this lying tactic unsustainable.
@@Steve-s8k They haven't incited racial hatred and then cried about it when she got held to account. It's almost like one side of the political spectrum is more hateful than the other.
The word "many" is doing a great deal of heavy lifting. Many people have entirely consistent views on free speech, and many of the people highlighting the Gaza marchers were pointing out what they view to be a double standard, Lewis, not that they wanted people to be arrested. Perhaps they think the police should not be going round to people's houses because they say something innocuous about men not being women. Maybe if they are Scottish they maybe think that it was outrageous that Jewish and Muslim faith organisations wanted criticism of religion to be included in Humza's absurd hate crime law. Why play the ball when you can play the man/woman/other, eh guys? It is the usual hobby horse, though, only people on the right are concerned about this, the idea of a non-crime hate incident is not an insult to liberal democratic values, etc etc etc.
I hope this RUclips channel pays well these journalists are just activists and the silent majority is starting to become very not silent.
The gaza protest Lewis keeps referring to, isn't it just ppl complaining that the police are not enforcing the laws equally?
Yes he does go on about it, but the vast majority of those ppl aren't saying anything contentious
Police should investigate crime - yes, that’s the story, they were.
No they were harassing a member of the public for thoughts and words,.rather than actual crime.
@@robertsandison2298 No they were following up police procedure. Btw, inciting racial hatred IS a crime.
The police are useless, can't solve real crime would rather sit on their fat arses scrolling Internet for nasty words
This should be sold as a masterclass in psychological projection. They are hypocrites trying to call other people the same.
The Gestapo agents!
The shoutout to the Lawyers was perfect 😂
She is not making any friends!
Free speech is overrated and should be outlawed. I would write more but there’s a knock at my door.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech when a journalist is so unprofessional as to release a story where the pictures don't match the commentary.
Unprofessional? It was premeditated misinformation.
Do you know how many people are in jail for tweets. Putin has a better record than the UK.
@@AH-te5gs Clumsy.
Yes it was unprofessional but was deleted as soon as the mistake was known and no crime committed. You can't shout crime at every mistake or hurty word.
@@Steve-s8k When did I shout it was a crime?
It’s common sense that the laws about speech are the same online as they are in the physical world,how is this an issue? Surely no discussion needed?✌️❤️🇬🇧
It's common sense that you're epically incorrect.
On the physical world you don't get arrested for what you say.
@@JohnHaveaguessGoogle
you certainly cannot say whatever you want online (not quite sure if that is what you are trying to infer here)
Communications Act 2003:
Section 127 of this act makes it illegal to send a message via a public electronic communications network that is considered grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character.
@@dibdab101 even though i didn't refer to section 127 I've known about it and read about the adverse consequences for years...that's why my original comment is correct.
The law has made the reality of online/offline speech completely different entities in terms of "freedom of speech".
The original commentator seems ignorant of this reality.
@@JohnHaveaguessGoogle
sorry but your comment was worded in such a way that I found it difficult to know what you were trying to say and I took it you meant that there are no legal restriction to freedom of speech online, which is claerly not the case. But it is also true to say that the laws are not exactly the same because they are taylored for online communications.
Can I ask what you mean by 'adverse consequences'. Again it is quite difficult to know wether you are advocating that such laws shouldn't exist, or that the laws are too vague and being open to interpretation they are difficult to implement properly. Or maybe both. Or neither
The Tories had 14 years to repeal or amend the hate speech legislation (which I think was introduced by Blair in 2006)
The latest code of practice that the police works to was brought before Parliament in spring 23 and issued to the police in mid 23 by Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman
They liked it very much when it meant they could lock up Just Stop Oil protesters.
Great reporting on waste of space Pearson. Jon Sopel is quality. Highly recommend his book unpresidentedz
"News agents" really. More like a substandard corner shop.
And what is the standard corner shop? GB News?
I thought it barely constituted reporting. In fact it didn't, it was just opinion. There was nothing investigative about it.
So she's libeled everybody in the photo. Of course if anyone had taken her utterance as true and attacked the people in the photo (or anyone who looks vaguely like them) she'd be whining that they didn't mean it.
No! In the UK we don't have "freedom of speech" we have laws against hate speech ect. Only ever in America is there "freedom of speech" but they aren't a part of the old world. We/British empire / Europe / ect does have rules and all ways has. Stop viewing things from the American perspective
Hate speech laws were invented by communist Russia
Et cetera = etc.
Yes in England you are permitted to say only what the government allows.
Joke country.
@ that is arrant nonsense. There are many platforms available. You have to try really hard to get yourself on the wrong side of the law and here the law is applied without fear or favour. There is a long list of countries where it is not like that. The UK is not on that list.
CLOSE ALL SOCIAL MEDIA DOWN NOW
Mark Urban needs to brush up on his knowledge. Ukraine has already used ATACMS and Stormshadow albeit limited to strikes on it's own territory such as Crimea.
Whether what she tweeted is a crime or not, the question has to be asked, why would somebody say that out loud. You'd have to be mentally unhinged.
Say what you like. 'Free speech'. However, there are consequences. As a person who earns her living through her words, she must know this. An error was made. Hence, the deletion of the 'tweet'. Own up to the error and apologise. Or take the consequences.
Kier starmer comment unhelpful as police don't make the law they just enforce it. Keir can change the law if he wishes.
Parliment can change the law, not Starmer.
The Tories had 14 years to change the legislation. The latest update was issued in mid 23 by Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman
Why would we want to change the laws to allow such behaviour what benefit is that bringing to society? So people can incite racial hatred without hindrance ?
@@edenmurphy4295who incited racial hatred in this example? Do you know what incitement means?
Folded arms the wringing of hands the crossed legs....
The self righteousness...
Reminds one of a housewifes knitting circle....
This clearly has zero to do with her being a so called journalist. She's using that to try and justify she can say what she likes when she can't. If I were one of those individuals I'd want her prosecuted
I want you prosecuted. You offended me.
@@zonianfjb If I called you a jew hater or an islamaphobe then you'd have the same point I made but I didn't so you don't so go away x
Exactly.
@@GazGaryGazza No the point wouldn't be the same, because most people are not offended by hurty words. It's only people who want to play the victim that constantly want to be offended.
@@Steve-s8kThe elite of this country, and throughout Europe, used to stab and shoot each other to death for "hurty words". There has never not been a right to defend one's honour and reputation.
I’m quite centre-right, almost by temperament rather than politically, but I do still watch this, Novara, Newsnight etc and consider myself pretty normal. I think there is an argument to be had about police involvement and who gets to decide what is incitement, but this particular case would be a dreadful hill to die on, imo. She’s clearly overstepped and should be subject to some form of consequence - a fine of a few hundred, or similar. It may well have been accidental, but it was definitely reckless.
fair play for listening to view points you may not agree with!
It was not accidental as she was warned about posting it in the first place. Of course she should expect consequences but she and the rightwing media have chosen to misrepresent the facts and turn this into some sort of public scandal.
The reason the Police investigated... because Pearson believed people holding up a Pakistani flag were in fact Palestinians.
Having a friendly chat and an informal photoshoot with the police.
It was a foolish mistake ... so the police pounced. Now they've told her off, they're dropping the case.
Thank you News Agents for explaining current affairs so clearly.
I cannot imagine not listening to your prog.
More sarcasm! Stop it please!
She is not a journalist. She is a columist. They do not have the same standards.
"If there were an allegation of harassment and the police didn't turn up, there would be a lot of screaming 'where were the police?'" - where were the police in this real case? This does not seem a coherent position: that this real allegation was serious enough to warrant police attention but it was not serious enough to investigate until 12 months later.
"If something happens in this online forum are we saying it doesn't matter?" - well, apparently this specific case didn't matter did it? It didn't matter for 12 months and today it has been NFA'd.
According to Mr Sopels logic, Donald Trump should sue David Lammy , Sadiq Khan and a whole sorry bunch of protagonists who are only too quick to malign. This could include numerous UK journalists, of course.
Fortunately, the less hysterical types amongst us have more common sense and better things to do with our time.
And for what its worth, the real issues here are, again, the perceptions of double standards and two tier policing.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
So why are thousands allowed to publish hate speech towards Jews on X everyday from the UK but face zero consequences 😂
If there isn't freedom from consequences, in what sense is it freedom?
Calling something "Kafkaesque" is a cliche at this point - its used by people who don't care to understand how our bureaucracy works.
@@Rob-lw8to maybe you need to understand the term before writing it off as a cliche.
@@antonydavis2764 Its not Kafkaesque to expect people to have a basic understanding of the law. There are two relevant pieces of legislation that inform the situation, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) and The Public Order Act (1986). Both of these texts highlight why she was investigated and what the procedure in this case is.
In a time when we have search engines and info is a google search away, its beggars belief that people think this is Kafkaesque. You may not like the legislation and feel that Pearson has a right to characterise brown people in that manner, but the evidence doesn't suggest some grand bureaucratic contradiction as highlighted in the works of Franz Kafka.
@@Rob-lw8to according to her she was not informed of the what the tweet was, just that she was being investigated. You need to know the crime so that you can defend yourself.
@ she wasn’t expected to defend herself when the police turned up at her house and agreeing to an interview is not an admission of guilt. If you look at the Police and Criminal Evidence Act - the police are obliged to provide details before the interview, not when the interview is arranged. This is all further highlighted in the press release by Essex Police.
@ come in for a police interview but we can’t tell you why. Er, ok.
I believe everything they just spouted . It must be true , there hand jesters & postures are so believable . Hilarious
X was exactly the same before Musk and to suggest otherwise is just being disingenuous by these 2
How do you recognise a “Jew Hater” from a photograph?
On the right its basically being used in the same sense as the P word.
Just look at the colour of their skin, so say the right, and they must have the freedom to say it
John Crace in the Guardian wrote a brilliant piece on Alison Pearson’s journey towards the position she takes now.
"John Crace in the Guardian wrote a brilliant piece" - you could have lied more convincingly than that!
@@zonianfjb search: 'Allison, I know the world is killing you - but where did it all go wrong?'
John Crace
Then come back and explain why you think it's a lie.
@@zonianfjbEdgy...in 2016.
Yes you have to understand what to put on social media and you have to understand that hate speech is not acceptable, you have to follow the limits yourself when it comes to social media, Unfortunately, it limits free speech a bit
Free speech is very, very important. Part of the issue of the these times is that the algorithms are designed to hold our attention for profit and therefore the sensationalised and divisive content reigns supreme. People should be able to speak what they want (with consequences of course) but we do not hold the multi-billion pound/dollar businesses that profit from division to account. The authoritarian leaders that are on the rise have been able to capitalise on this division.
The big problem is people like Pearson want to be able to say what they like without consequences yet they don't want that same 'privilege' extended to people they don't agree with and will call for them to be shut down. That includes anyone who criticises their controversial comments.
How quickly was it deleted ? Maybe it’s more about the freedom not to be investigated for having made a genuine mistake despite it having been quickly corrected ?
Aren't the police there to prevent crime also?
Missing from the free speech/journalists getting in trouble discussion is a specific reference to Asa Winstanley and Richard Medhurst. They're two left wing journalists who focus on Palestine and in recent months both have been arrested/detained under the terrorism act.
If the concern is journalists facing repurcussions for what they say, these two instances are much more significant than Alison Pearson.
Inciting racial hatred is a crime. Her tweet was certainly worthy of investigation, subject to resources. The police waited a YEAR to investigate this and did so by politely interviewing her. Where is the problem? C9nversely, Pearson lied about the alleged offence and started a firestorm based on lies. You are either for law enforcement of the law or not. And inciting racial hatred is absolutely against the law. Period
And there are thousands of other tweets that are never investigated that would be classed as racial/religious hatred and the fact is we live in a 2 tier state
Not guilty, shame so many lefty tossers pre-judged her including those pathetic individuals whose overblown ego's allow them to brand themselves with supreme arrogance, "the news agents!"
Hundreds die in theater blaze, nobody shouted fire says witness.
People always bring up this "crowded theatre" phrase when the issue of free speech is raised and I just don't get it. Surely if you genuinely believe there is a fire in a crowded theatre, you have every right to shout out "Fire!"
@@alansmith4748 What on earth are you talking about? They are talking about situations where people are crying wolf for no reason, which would create chaos and bring a crowd in danger. Not when there is an actual fire...
@@AH-te5gs I can only repeat what I've already said. If you genuinely believed there was a fire in a crowded theatre then of course you'd shout fire". Jon Sopel made no mention of "crying wolf for no reason", which is why I didn't feel the need to comment on that particular phrase.
In relation to free speech the argument would go; if you genuinely believe in something then you should have the right to say it, just as if you genuinely believe there is a fire you have the right to shout fire
My only argument is that the analogy of a fire in a crowded theatre is a nonsensical one, because you do have the right to shout fire.
It just shows how out of touch these two clowns are. They might be pleased that someone from a different political spectrum is on the receiving end but when free speech goes completely, they will be the ones stifled as well.
Can't even count 🤦🏾♂️. Troll.
It's a common misconception that shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't protected by the First Amendment-a myth that originates from a hypothetical used in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1919 Supreme Court opinion in Schenk v. United States.
Holmes wrote that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Not only was this a purely hypothetical example used to explain Holmes' opinion, but the ruling itself was largely overturned 50 years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
This took place in the UK
@@robinmcewan8473
Exactly the UK is not America. They don't have the money, freedom or intelligence of America.
Right wing press: free speech should be protected.
Man in street: Churchill was pretty awful to Welsh miners.
Right wing press: YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT!
You're having a debate with imaginary people. Get help.
@dmmw125 🤣
allison pearson is not above the law.
What law did she break?
Didn’t you follow the discussion? Start at the beginning.
@@stephenbevan2320clearly you didn't. She didn't break any laws.
Oh she’s broken plenty.
@@stephenbevan2320name one.
Can Pearson expect jail-time for this?
Dawn-Butler!
Who ever said the British cannot produce great comedy anymore?
Hope you guys are planning a Christmas special!
Thankyou The News Agents for providing a space for rationale discussion. Not many left.
You just mean somewhere that reflects your views.
what kind of journalist cant get the most basic research of facts right?
The Newsagents.
The ones that even get fired by the BBC like these 3.
Some people like liars.
They even vote for them - especially if they are posh Eton W⚓s.
@@sonofsomerset1695 They didn't get fired, they chose to leave.
Listening to both sides of this argument you end up spinning around and have no idea who to believe.
Can't put up a Christmas tree in Soviet Union??? Cromwell?
A lot of hand movements in this video
Get rid of hate speech laws. The USA is much more liberal in this regard.
No thanks.
The USA is not a shining beacon in this regard.
@ I’d love the equivalent of their first amendment in the UK.
@@maejohl
The USA is a rich, prosperous country full of people who love freedom.
The UK is poor and unfree. You're welcome to it.
Biden could have a legacy in Gaza.
It’s still freedom of speech.
And she said what she wanted. Where's the problem?
@@EdwardLindon police should not be showing up to your home.
All three participants in this discussion have P.O.V.s - naturally - but they've presented them alongside a number of well articulated caveats, making their opinions seem well thought through. I've racked my brains trying to remember anyone on the right ever adding a caveat when spouting off . I've failed utterly. And regarding the "It's only a tweet!" sneer from that lot, one word: Lineker.
Shame? They couldn't spell it.
Another issue is that these seems to be quick wins, that can be used to bolster Police stats …
There's a recently published book by Trevor Birney, I think, talking about psni intimidation of journalists making a documentary about one of the many atrocities.
You missed out the bit where you say 'What about?'.
@badgertheskinnycow when stalker was writing his report he was astonished that the police were doing that. The psni were supposed to be a break from the ruc traditions, but apparently not.
I found this absolutely ludicrous. The tweet is at best mildly offensive and I am astonished at the stretch which has to be made to perceive it as hate speech and inciting violence. What is wrong with people...have we all gone a little mad? I am intelligent enough to recognize hate speech when I see it. What a waste of police time and brain cells listening to this pointless podcast!!
These clowns are fabulous when they begin to see reality. One of the best comedy podcasts around. Great script writers 😂😂
As a supporter of ReformUK when I need to hear the opposing view point of the left I'll tune in to the more considered views of NovaraMedia and not this comedy sketch show
@@marpot100 what's the problem? Some people are in the middle and this does nicely
@@marpot100 Let’s be honest, the best political comedy show is coming out of Reform with Lee “Del boy” Anderson.
Where do you go for your reform gush? The Farage gazette?
The only grown up left wing social media group. I agree with them rarely but they very, very professional.
@@geraldbutler5484 FoxNews !
I am not sure. Maybe Biden's team said your ability to negotiate the deal you promised requires pressure now. Maybe the same argument Lord Cameron used
Emily and John(sic)... check out the body language.
and the faces...
what happened to the ability to laugh StrapLine ?
Elon should just move all the X servers to the US.
Problem solved!😁
Or just convince Trump to apply punitive sanctions for it's outrageous electoral interference.
Freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences.
If there are consequences for speech, you’re not really free to speak.
A pretty meaningless phrase, Everybody, in every land, has the freedom of speech, just not the freedom from consequences. People in Russia, China and N.Korea, for example, all have the freedom to say whatever they like, nobody can stop them, unfortunately the consequences aren't that great
Muppet, that's exactly what freedom of speech means.
By your defintition they have free speech in North Korea, China and Russia.
The UK jails ten times more people for speech than Putin does. I hope you are proud. Your country is done.
@@danstirling7386 It has always been the case that freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequence. If you insult me, it's a consequence that I can take offense. The only people who don't realise or accept this are people who want carte blanche to insult people. In other words, bullies.
Directed by Fred Quimby?
Journalists have a responsibility to get their facts right. Or at least to not distort them to inflame public opinion. Mail and Telegraph hacks have different view though.
Just conservative ideology: law is there to protect the in-group who are not bound by it, and to bind the out-group who are not protected by it
I didn't know of Pearsons history at all - In the time I've known of her (maybe 4/5 years maximum) I've ALWAYS found her to be a truly horrendous woman....
But very clever and brighter than you.
@ What a very low bar you set for people. Jog on you simp.
“It’s free speech when they like the thing that’s being said”. That’s a fair criticism but I think it can be attributed to both sides of our political landscape. That’s why free speech is important; people should be free to say things that we don’t like. We don’t have a right to stop speech we don’t like. It’s too dangerous to give anyone that kind of power and ultimately it leads to citizens not being able to say things that the powerful don’t like.
I think it’s wrong for the police to be questioning people on their speech, I think it was wrong of the conservatives to bring in those anti protest laws, it was wrong to bring in the internet safety bill. Whoever’s doing it, it’s always wrong.
So its OK to lie about a photo and call innocent people 'Jew haters'?
No, that’s not okay.
"We" have always had laws against false and defamatory speech. I don't know what halcyon days of perfect free speech you have in mind.
The comment is laughable that Biden respects international law. Should have said selectively.
Is Maitlis on drugs? We have seen with our own eyes that speech laws have been incrementally restricted over the last 20 years under the guise of ‘protecting’ people from having their feelings hurt - and those of us who warned of the consequences of privileging certain groups and making subjective ‘perception’ of ‘offence’ subject to police investigation without right of reply - have been proved right. We ARE moving towards a police state. The government has no right to police thoughts, speech or opinions. Actions are where the state can step in. That’s it. And the little snarks about ‘he’s a conservative? Noooo’ are pathetic because the conservatives are barely distinguishable from Labour. They are the establishment. A hive mind. The people know it, see it and feel it. The very concept of a non crime hate incident is so ridiculously Orwellian it beggars belief. Maitlis is a disgrace to journalism. The state is not there to nanny us, or tell us off, or demand we think the way they want us to. GET BACK IN YOUR LANE!
If there was any doubt of this then the case of the man found guilty of praying , that is thought crime needs mentioning
Boycott X
Pearson really is vile.
This is hate speech. Comrade, delete at once.
@@Hgh_hhb nah
@@Hgh_hhb Er, no, it's free speech 😉.
And not guilty.
@ nobody ever said she was, she’s sold you a pack of lies.
Dishonesty is at the core of wrong wing politics.
How is this drama relevant to everyone else? Dumb ignorant view desperately relying on hysterical reaction, utter nonsense. Hot air ✌️❤️🇬🇧
Because people will have read those over the top misleading headlines and believed Alison's faux-victimhood story.
The line should be as small and thin as possible. Bad manners and hurty words are unpleasant but nothing to do with the police or the government! Period!
The right are often wrong.
The right are often correct at it's base, the failings of society for the working class. Their direction tho only supports the ruling class. But they aren't ruling class... Well 99% of them xD
The upshot seems to be that she has misled her employer about the circumstances. Give her the seven years and have done with it.
These podcasts are becoming so dull with only one side of arguments ever taken by the panel. Echo chamber backslapping is not journalism let alone entertaining.
Please do point to a totally impartial news site/newspaper/podcast that we can all read or listen to instead.
This is all about the Palestinian question, whether you're pro or anti... and about nothing else.
And we all know what this 'Palestinian issue' is really a subterfuge for. Who you're really 'pro or anti'.
It’s very simple. Get rid of the non-crime hate incidents. Get rid of the concept of hate speech in law, fully enforce laws on incitement.
It wasn't treated as an NCHI.
I keep wondering why you insist on hammering the final nails into the left wing/establishment coffin yourselves ? Yossarian I guess. its odd tho
Whatever happened to honesty, responsibility and statesmanship?
There are about 1.7m people in Northern Ireland. There was a time when people in Northern Ireland were subject to exclusion orders, banning them from Little Britain, a kind of inyernal exile, like being sent to Siberia.
Were these the gobshite ones that dress like Charlie Chaplain and are allergic to dinosaurs?
"I tawt I taw a puddy tat." My cat found that tweet offensive.
Well, hello? G20 happened today, where more than twenty of the most powerful leaders in the world met. Did they decide anything?
Not according to the Newsagents. Journalistic navel gazing is the order of the day.
This is yesterday's podcast. Who is the navel gazer now?
@@AH-te5gs Yesterday was the photo-shoot. Today they released a joint communique. Where's the analysis?
First they came for J K Rowling, then they came for Allison Pearson.
People of this country need to stand for free speech, before we are sent to the Gulags.
Remind what happened to Rowling? Yeah, absolutely nothing.
She got attention and got richer, and grew a bro-troll fan base , which must be nice for her, something for her to pet.
JK Rowling will be remembered as a hero. Brave woman.
The law gives your speech protections.
The law also gives people protections from your speech.
Are two concepts too much for your brain to cope with?
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" trope has been defunct law for over 70 years.
The controlling decision for FA Jurisprudence is Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 1969.
I don't know what UK law says on this but it is a US trope, it is untrue, a canard in fact, and Sopel used it like a fact.
This isn't America though
@@hayleyxyzthe trope Sopel used is an American trope.
Luckily, the US Supreme Court is irrelevant in the UK or EU. It has no say over our rights, reproductive or otherwise. Trump doesn't get to stuff our Supreme court, ECHR or Legal system with his hand picked cronies...
Not in the U.K.
We don’t allow paramilitary groups to March around in militia uniforms carrying guns and chanting about Jews.
And we are better for it.
Get with the idea about who these people are and what national law they are talking about or get back in your bro-cave.
It seems that it was whipped up hate
by Pierson herself.
A witch hunt? Are they saying she's a witch?
Does she weigh more than a duck? 🧙♀️⚖️🦆