@nobadlines@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome No, Tabby, that isn't what it means. It means there is 20% less knife crime happening than there was before. There will be many reasons for the reduction, but an ineffective policing response seems unlikely to be one of them.
@nobadlines@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome I literally quoted the 20% reduction in knife crime, so not sure how that's ignoring it. I'm surprised you think that's a pitiful reduction, but perhaps you've achieved better.
@nobadlines@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome Also: I'd be interested to hear how you're in a position to judge the tweet "deomonstrably did no harm"? And - at the risk of revisiting old ground - two officers asking the woman questions hardly amounts to a "full scale investigation".
@nobadlines@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome I don't think a 70+ % reduction in ASB over 8 years is pitiful. Nor a 20% reduction in drug-related knife crime. I'm not pretending everything in the garden is rosy. But your point seemed to be that the police weren't investigating other crime types, which is demonstrably false.
@nobadlines@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome The OP references action on drug-related knife crime, gangs, ASB and domestic abuse - and its results.
Earlier, you complained that the tweet being investigated was a year old. Now you seem to suggest the police were too eager to act. Which is it?
@nobadlines@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome It has nothing to do with whether I or "the powerful" approve of it. It's whether it is lawful - a judgement to be made by the courts on the basis of statute enacted by a democratically elected legislature. It is for the police to investigate the complaint, as they are doing.
@nobadlines@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome The rule of law is the cornerstone of democracy. The police responded to a complaint in line with the law. That law was enacted by parliament, the elected representatives of the people, and placed limits on freedom of speech in order to protect others' freedom to live in safety.
@PeterHarry567@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome I think we probably have very different views on what is needed to instil confidence. I appreciate being able to have a civil debate, however. It's a shame that this is increasingly rare.
@PeterHarry567@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome Someone complained, and the police investigated. No system is perfect - I could point to lots of judgements I disagree with too. But I'd rather the police act on complaints than hold back because the person in question has a public platform to criticise them.
@Florence_Of_A @dez_parker6@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome Not sure what your echo chamber reference relates to. The police investigate offences under the law. No law, no offence. Except in this case, there is - incitement to racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986.
@dez_parker6@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome And if you genuinely believe that some of the responses on this thread don't constitute vitriol, then I think you and I are reading very different tweets.
@dez_parker6@Hirst4EssexPFCC@ConHome Dez, I'm sure I say plenty of things other people don't like - as evidenced here. The law places limits on feedom of speech where that freedom is incompatible others' freedom to live in safety. If my speech puts others in danger, I wouldn't expect special pleading.