News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I hate the cops as much as everyone but thats not what the ruling says at all.
The case was thrown out not because the cope were doing anything illegal, but because their instructions to the protestors were so unclear they couldn't be considered a lawful order.
As well as the fact that the incompetent cops didn't take statements from anyone so there's no evidence to prove they violated section 14.
Honestly part of me suspects the cops might have did it on purpose because they were ordered to stop it but didn't really want to. But that's probably giving them too much credit honestly, incompetence is the most likely answer.
oopsy woopsy we made a little fucky boingo that dragged you through the criminal justice system through no fault of your own and at no cost to us, all because of an unknown mix of malice and incompetence
oh well 🤷
Well there is a law that they were in theory breaking.
A shitty authoritarian law, but still a law.
And the whole point of the criminal justice system is to interpret cases like these and interpret the law and decide if someone is culpable. This is what happens when you have a properly separated system where cops are not judge joury and executioner, so while cops need to have some understanding of the law, its not their job to make those finer interpretations when cases could or could not be illegal. It might seem dumb in this case, but if cops have that power it would allow them to selectively enforce the law and you would have them saying "oh I didn't arrest the rapist because of this [nonexistent] technicality that makes it not a crime"
your argument is that the police need to be allowed to act with as much malice or incompetence as they like because if there was more oversight in the system they could choose to not arrest rapists?
you're saying that more oversight would lead to the police having more freedom to enforce the law as they see fit?
No. And I would rather you didn't purposefully misinterpret what am saying for the sake of trying to "win" a pointless internet argument like a redditor would.
you're the one attempting to reframe "there should be more oversight on the police's actions" as "the police should be granted more power to interpret the law as they see fit"
Nah
Yep.
The UK gvmt have been increasingly cracking down on the right to protest. For example, during the proclamation of Charles coronation (royal officers go to towns and read an official proclamation out loud) a man who said (direct quote) "Not in my name" was arrested on a public order offence and dragged through the system until the CPS said they weren't going to take it any further.
At every turn the current Tory gvmt have urged the Police to be heavy handed with public order 'offences' and sort it out later.
Plausible deniability would certainly be a fun one. But as much as I am pro climate action, cops should generally be neutral. Otherwise it would be very hypocritical if cops acted on different kind of views that I don't agree with. Either way, the system kinda worked as intended here. That's a good thing.
Canada's RCMP are still acting like attack dogs for whichever government speaks (civic, municipal, provincial or federal).