418
British journalist could face years in prison for refusing to hand over his passwords to the police
(www.ilfattoquotidiano.it)
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
418 points (98.4% liked)
UK Politics
3192 readers
52 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok so here are the problems with your argument:
No, he doesn't. Or at least I've seen no compelling evidence he does.
No, I didn't.
If you don't see the contradiction there idk what to tell you.
Well this is great, you didn't object to him supporting terrorists, which is the entire point of the law (to support or encourage others to support), and why the cops want to search his phone. What a breakthrough.
When you use the quote tool (>) you're supposed to actually quote the person. What you have done here is called a "misquote". Do you understand the concept? Because if you do you will know that it instantly discredits your argument. In this particular case it goes even further and makes your argument unintelligible. It's impossible to respond meaningfully because it's nonsense. Either it's a strategy or an oversight. Either way, not a good look I'm afraid.
Anyway, your second paragraph. Are there no possible ways for a person to get arrested that you wouldn't object to? Do you think laws are automatically ethically correct and perfectly applied in every case?
Lmao, all that yapping because you contradicted yourself within the same breath. Or are you gonna sperg out about how comments don't involve breathing now? My use of the quote tool is fine, don't blow a blood vessel because you look like a fool in your last comment.
Ofc there are unjust laws, usually enforced by people Medhurst cheers for. In this case I'm sure many human rights lawyers are incensed about this UK law, but usually the course correction for laws like this is a bad material consequences and a subsequent rewrite. So unless you have examples of sympathetic victims of this law I don't care.
It's a shame you can't engage in good faith; you might have learned something
You can't even admit a blatant contradiction, you don't get to talk about good faith. Also wtf would I learn from you? How to avoid making autists scream and shit their pants with the quote tool?
Anything else? You done? Get it allll out.