Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

[ChicagoBlue]

The fact he's got a stage name says it all.

A fully paid pantomime villain.

Exactly, yet, for some stupid reason, everyone wants to buy a ticket and give him a Tony Award for Best Actor in a Lead Role!

“HE’S BEHIND YOU!!!”

Quandary!

 

[Blue and true]

The issue was whether it was only by invoking the Terrorism Act powers that they stopped him to find out he was breaking the law... (See above).

And if they invoked schedule 7 to stop him, then it was lawful stopping; at least, that's what I believe the court will decide.

Just because a sub-section of a law is open to wide interpretation doesn't mean it is unlawful; and that's exactly what the prosecution have put forth. In fact, a quick search determines that "these powers can be exercised without reasonable suspicion".

This scumbag always claims victimhood; it's never, ever, his fault.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

"these powers can be exercised without reasonable suspicion"

That’s a scary phrase in anyone’s book, but hey, ho, it’s snagged a bad un, so open me up another cold one and let’s drink to our “success!”

 

[ChicagoBlue]

This scumbag always claims victimhood; it's never, ever, his fault.

When it is, let’s hope they’ve dotted the I, crossed the t, and he gets his just desserts…and by the looks of the multiple dragnets that intersect, it’s hard to see this fish escaping the net!

Beers all round!

 

[I'm With Stupid]

My biggest issues are he seems to have been targeted (rightly or wrongly, and I realize he brought it on himself), and I vehemently disagree with the use of a Terrorism Act to conduct what I believe to be a warrantless fishing expedition to take your phone and search it.

Why do you believe that? Because those are the exact words his defence used to describe it?

As for your list, there are good reasons for contempt of court laws, unless you think it's inappropriate for child rape victims to risk being identified, and their rapists go free on a technicality because their right to a fair trial isn't respected by the 'media' as he likes to claim he is. I assume you don't, but that's what he was done for, not just saying what 'those in power' don't want people to hear.

 

[babyape]

Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

Was he arrested for any of those offenses? Did he do his time? He’s a bad un…I get it and you’ll get no argument from me, but THE REAL PROBLEM is people want to listen to his views. Why? What’s the root cause of that discontent? Instead of addressing those issues, should we create ever more dragnet laws to sweep up ever more “fringe” beliefs?

The country is going in the shitter and the big distractor is “We’ve got to stop these far right assholes from speaking out about what they believe is a fundamental problem in the country, because, well, it’s just not cricket!”

Knock yourself out!

How long is THAT piece of string?

Not as long as your posts.

You said he was a criminal because he says things people in power don’t like. Then listed all the crimes that try to fit that argument. Missing out the ones that don’t. Assault, fraud etc.

I was merely adding in his many other crimes. Just so we have all the facts.

 

[Blue and true]

That’s a scary phrase in anyone’s book, but hey, ho, it’s snagged a bad un, so open me up another cold one and let’s drink to our “success!”

I quite agree, but it also allows for a less restrictive remit for the officers. In other words, a suspect doesn't just need an assault rifle on their person in order to warrant suspicion.

It's only really scary if you believe all border officers will invoke the law gratuitously; which in this instance, they haven't.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Tommy Ten Names

A skidmark on the kecks of humanity.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Why do you believe that? Because those are the exact words his defence used to describe it?

I used the words because that’s what it sounded like from the reports I read here and elsewhere. I have no idea what his counsel said.

As for your list, there are good reasons for contempt of court laws, unless you think it's inappropriate for child rape victims to risk being identified, and their rapists go free on a technicality because their right to a fair trial isn't respected by the 'media' as he likes to claim he is. I assume you don't, but that's what he was done for, not just saying what 'those in power' don't want people to hear.

I’m not saying contempt isn’t a real thing, only that WE…ALL OF US…give him the oxygen that feeds him.

Where speech is concerned, I think society should take a stand for or against. Either supply or deprive the platform, the oxygen, the outlet, whatever is feeding the beast, rather than the Government legislating words we can and cannot say.

He is an odious person. Of that, there is no doubt. However, if we ALL turned away when he spoke, how long would he speak, and to whom?

The problem is that often Governments create problems, society reacts, and then the same government seeks to legislate dissent of their actions.

I’m saying we ALL have a part to play, but I don’t want MY part to be supporting the curbing of my right to free speech, no matter how odious the words or the man.

The REAL problem, as I stated earlier, is WHY is he resonating with so many disaffected people, generally white uneducated males of a certain age?

THAT is a big problem for society.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Not as long as your posts.

You said he was a criminal because he says things people in power don’t like. Then listed all the crimes that try to fit that argument. Missing out the ones that don’t. Assault, fraud etc.

I was merely adding in his many other crimes. Just so we have all the facts.

I didn’t actually omit them because I wasn’t saying he committed them, I was highlighting the problem I’m trying to address, which is freedom of speech and where it begins and ends. It is starting to end a lot closer to “Hello!” than I’d like.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I quite agree, but it also allows for a less restrictive remit for the officers. In other words, a suspect doesn't just need an assault rifle on their person in order to warrant suspicion.

The phrase was “without reasonable suspicion.” Ergo, WARRANTLESS suspicion, assault rifle over his shoulder or not!

It's only really scary if you believe all border officers will invoke the law gratuitously; which in this instance, they haven't.

Nope. It only takes one to ensnare you, or me, or Joe Bloggs down the street. Now, it’s on YOU to get yourself out of the snare.

It’s not even the person, although one might be easily swayed into it by the extraordinary powers vested in them, but the words that allow it.

I’m talking about warrantless search, without reasonable suspicion of specific crime, then going on a fishing exhibition.

In America, I have 1A, Freedom of Speech, 4A, Security against unreasonable search and seizure, and 5A, No self incrimination (which reading my phone or listening to my voice memos might do).

I cherish those rights and feel bad you don’t have them in Britain. The State is becoming all encompassing and oppressive…to some.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Not as long as your posts.

Ignore at your leisure, please.

 

[BridgyDids]

I used the words because that’s what it sounded like from the reports I read here and elsewhere. I have no idea what his counsel said.



I’m not saying contempt isn’t a real thing, only that WE…ALL OF US…give him the oxygen that feeds him.

Where speech is concerned, I think society should take a stand for or against. Either supply or deprive the platform, the oxygen, the outlet, whatever is feeding the beast, rather than the Government legislating words we can and cannot say.

He is an odious person. Of that, there is no doubt. However, if we ALL turned away when he spoke, how long would he speak, and to whom?

The problem is that often Governments create problems, society reacts, and then the same government seeks to legislate dissent of their actions.

I’m saying we ALL have a part to play, but I don’t want MY part to be supporting the curbing of my right to free speech, no matter how odious the words or the man.

The REAL problem, as I stated earlier, is WHY is he resonating with so many disaffected people, generally white uneducated males of a certain age?

THAT is a big problem for society.

So if we ALL start ignoring your shite, Will you fade away, or will you create a new username and crack on again?

 

[meltonblue]

The phrase was “without reasonable suspicion.” Ergo, WARRANTLESS suspicion, assault rifle over his shoulder or not!



Nope. It only takes one to ensnare you, or me, or Joe Bloggs down the street. Now, it’s on YOU to get yourself out of the snare.

It’s not even the person, although one might be easily swayed into it by the extraordinary powers vested in them, but the words that allow it.

I’m talking about warrantless search, without reasonable suspicion of specific crime, then going on a fishing exhibition.

In America, I have 1A, Freedom of Speech, 4A, Security against unreasonable search and seizure, and 5A, No self incrimination (which reading my phone or listening to my voice memos might do).

I cherish those rights and feel bad you don’t have them in Britain. The State is becoming all encompassing and oppressive…to some.

The online world has made the concept of freedom of speech a lot more complex, at the same time some people are trying to over simplify it for their own benefit, particularly certain individuals in the US (I don’t mean you there!).

 

[Blue and true]

The phrase was “without reasonable suspicion.” Ergo, WARRANTLESS suspicion, assault rifle over his shoulder or not!



Nope. It only takes one to ensnare you, or me, or Joe Bloggs down the street. Now, it’s on YOU to get yourself out of the snare.

It’s not even the person, although one might be easily swayed into it by the extraordinary powers vested in them, but the words that allow it.

I’m talking about warrantless search, without reasonable suspicion of specific crime, then going on a fishing exhibition.

In America, I have 1A, Freedom of Speech, 4A, Security against unreasonable search and seizure, and 5A, No self incrimination (which reading my phone or listening to my voice memos might do).

I cherish those rights and feel bad you don’t have them in Britain. The State is becoming all encompassing and oppressive…to some.

That's a good post, but I won't digress into the constitutional differences of our respective countries, what I will confidently state is that this arsehole hasn't been unfairly treated.

Of course, if we are caught in a snare, it is incumbent on ourselves to get out of the snare; but I will echo the ID card thread, if you have no wrongdoing to hide, it's easy enough to get out of the snare. You need to ask yourself how many other stories you have read about schedule 7 being used at all, nevermind gratuitously; then recognise who is being accused in this particular instance. Boy crying wolf springs to mind. Again, do a quick Google search; I'm no lawyer, but reading the fine print it's hard to discern any unlawful aspect, in this instance, of this sub-section being invoked.

I don't think the country has become an oppressive dystopia, even though people like Tommy Robinson want us to think it has.

 

[BrianW]

It's funny, I live in the UK and don't feel oppressed at all, despite being white, male and old.

This is not Zimbabwe or North Korea, no matter what some folk make out. And the present government has not changed the law in this area at all; it's what they inherited from the freedom-loving Tories. I seem to recall one of the Tory Home Secretaries (was it Patel?) bringing in draconian legislation against protestors and the RWNJs clapping like seals as they thought it would only ever apply to 'lefties', not 'common sense' people like what they are.

Having said that, I would join a demonstration tomorrow without any fear if I felt so inclined. Since I'm not in the habit of hurling missiles at police officers or shouting incitement to murder, I think I'd be OK.

 

[rabby]

It's funny, I live in the UK and don't feel oppressed at all, despite being white, male and old.

This is not Zimbabwe or North Korea, no matter what some folk make out. And the present government has not changed the law in this area at all; it's what they inherited from the freedom-loving Tories. I seem to recall one of the Tory Home Secretaries (was it Patel?) bringing in draconian legislation against protestors and the RWNJs clapping like seals as they thought it would only ever apply to 'lefties', not 'common sense' people like what they are.

Having said that, I would join a demonstration tomorrow without any fear if I felt so inclined. Since I'm not in the habit of hurling missiles at police officers or shouting incitement to murder, I think I'd be OK.

Christ mate it doesn't matter what government brought in what legislation,this is not about party politics.
Anyway you don't need to step outside and hurl missiles at the police,a mildly offensive tweet should be enough to have you down the local nick for a few hours grilling.

 

[BrianW]

Er - sorry, but it is about party politics.

If the 'right people' were being oppressed, the RW would not give a fuck. Not a single, solitary fuck. What they despise is their 'out groups' getting what they see as protection.

Anyway, when the Tories get in again, I'm sure they'll repeal all that 'oppressive' legislation. Right? The moral is, when making or supporting new laws, never assume that the government will always be to your liking, because that is not guaranteed at all.

I don't tweet (gave up Twatter a while back as it's full of fuck wits) but I post mildly offensive stuff all the time. No copper has ever even told me off. Inciting violence or hostility to minorities is not 'mildly offensive'. It breeds violence. Rather like telling someone their wife is an ugly whore. I mean that's free speech, maybe opinion, but if you go there you'll likely get a punch in the gob.

 

[Blackley_Blue]

It's funny, I live in the UK and don't feel oppressed at all, despite being white, male and old.

No but Gary Neville thinks your a ****.

 

[rabby]

Er - sorry, but it is about party politics.

If the 'right people' were being oppressed, the RW would not give a fuck. Not a single, solitary fuck. What they despise is their 'out groups' getting what they see as protection.

Anyway, when the Tories get in again, I'm sure they'll repeal all that 'oppressive' legislation. Right? The moral is, when making or supporting new laws, never assume that the government will always be to your liking, because that is not guaranteed at all.

I don't tweet (gave up Twatter a while back as it's full of fuck wits) but I post mildly offensive stuff all the time. No copper has ever even told me off. Inciting violence or hostility to minorities is not 'mildly offensive'. It breeds violence. Rather like telling someone their wife is an ugly whore. I mean that's free speech, maybe opinion, but if you go there you'll likely get a punch in the gob.

It really isn't,you're choosing to make it about party politics,you seem unable to separate you're own bigotry from the discussion of the erosion of individuals rights and freedoms.
Theres hundreds of videos online of police knocking on people's doors cos someone was called a fat bastard or whatever,it's bollocks.
The fact you've not been visited obviously means it not happening doesn't it.