She should have nicked less than £200 worth of goods from a shop. The police would never have turned up.

If the comments quoted are the full extent of what was posted, then yes it's a massive over-stretch of the police to do anything but disregard this entirely. To be clear, the only things I think warrant legal involvement are threats of physical harm (either direct or indirect threats, and including incitement to activity that could cause harm), libellous reputational damage (it is BETTER for the person making the comments to be given an early warning to stop and delete these) or excessive harassment - i.e. flooding with comments or DMs relentlessly. Or where relevant, doxxing.

The quoted comments fall well short of any of those (and the threshold is actually higher when it's about someone in public office).

I'm just glad people actually got around to posting the part of this that we can actually discuss and not just the "This is terrible!!" paper headlines. Maybe we're getting somewhere.

most people just googled it to find out

for some reason you were the only one who did not

:conf:

I'm trying to encourage some proper debate and discussion on this debate and discussion forum. I know it's a tough concept for you to wrap your head around and less than 10% of the forum actually want it, but it's nice to encourage good things in the face of adversity. We're not all bitter, reactive old trolls yet :hee:.

When people post threads for discussion they should at least attempt to give the relevant information for it to be a decent discussion and not just the usual outrage circle-jerk. "Going and googling it if you actually want facts" just encourages more lazy, banal tooth-gnash thread posting in future.

No?

[I''m trying to encourage some proper debate]

Yes good of you.

aye

its called backtracking

Thank you arista :hee:

i would say the reason was obvious. The police can add this to their statistics. It's a lot easier to go and have a chat with her than chase down a real criminal