“IT marketing consultant arrested after posing with gun on LinkedIn,” The Telegraph reported Friday (hyperlink requires electronic mail tackle for entry). “Jon Richelieu-Sales space says he was ‘put via 13 weeks of hell’ after getting back from US vacation.”
The photograph was taken on a buddy’s property in Florida, Richelieu-Sales space relates, and he instructed visiting West Yorkshire Police investigating its posting that he may present them proof. They declined, however did provide a bit of recommendation:
“I used to be instructed to watch out what I say on-line and I want to know the way it makes individuals really feel.”
Officers returned to his residence and arrested him for “possessing a firearm with intent to trigger worry of violence and an extra allegation of stalking associated to {a photograph} of a home that appeared on his social media.” He bailed out however was rearrested later and charged with violating bail circumstances.
Finally, the bail fees had been dropped, as had been the firearm and “stalking” fees, “however … was charged with a public order offence regarding a special social media put up… of displaying ‘any writing/signal/seen illustration with intent to trigger harassment/alarm or misery.’”
That cost was additionally dropped. However extra lasting harm seems to be to Richelieu-Sales space’s employment prospects. As per the story, his telephone and computer systems have been seized.
It appears there’s extra to that story, however what that’s has not been revealed. In any case, all the fees West Yorkshire Police have thrown on the man haven’t held up and it’s powerful to see how any of what was alleged might be thought of against the law within the first place, a minimum of to anybody who values freedom greater than management of the hive thoughts.
What is obvious is somebody with motives of their very own, understanding full nicely that their complaining to police may consequence on this man’s lack of freedom (or worse) took benefit of the disarmed snitch tradition inspired by authorities with the intention to destroy his life. And Richelieu-Sales space’s takeaway in the end reveals a topic mentality that the system counts on:
“Anyone ought to be allowed to say something they want, so long as it’s not hateful.”
Actually? And who’s the arbiter of that, as a result of the best way the UK authorities has been censoring speech and imposing their “requirements” towards freedom of speech, on social media and in public coverage debates is past Orwellian, significantly because it pertains to LGBTQ points, the unfold of Islam, and importation of “migrants” all through “this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.”
Per the West Yorkshire Police:
It’s an offence to make use of threatening behaviour or phrases that are meant to fire up non secular hatred or hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. The regulation covers the spoken phrase and written materials, together with performs, recordings, visible photos or audio sounds.
They don’t simply imply to implement it towards hapless topics:
“London’s Metropolitan Police chief warned that officers won’t solely be cracking down on British residents for commentary on the riots within the UK, however on Americans as nicely.”
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley issued the next world menace:
“We’ll throw the total power of the regulation at individuals. And whether or not you’re on this nation committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from additional afield on-line, we’ll come after you.”
And in the event that they catch you, neglect the Sixth Modification assured proper to a trial by jury, not that one comprised of topics judging the actions of a citizen can be a lot assist. Per BBC:
“Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively prohibit the traditional proper to a jury trial by solely guaranteeing it for defendants dealing with rape, homicide, manslaughter or different circumstances passing a public curiosity take a look at. An inner authorities briefing, produced by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for all different Whitehall departments, confirms plans to create a brand new tier of jury-less courts in England and Wales.”
The federal government propaganda organ didn’t see match to say that Lammy’s dad and mom got here to the UK from Guyana, or to query whose pursuits might be most served if jury trials had been denied to these prosecuted for difficult engineered demographic change.
None of that appears to hassle English broadcaster and all-around media wanker Piers Morgan, who, when suggested by Tucker Carlson that the ancestral inhabitants in England was on its option to changing into a minority, with all of the cultural implications and restrictions that imposing Third World methods makes inevitable, replied, “So what?”
Morgan, like the federal government he shills for, is a helpful fool on each speech and weapons.
“Simply because the 2nd Modification shouldn’t defend assault rifle devotees, so the first Modification shouldn’t defend vile bigots,” Morgan tweeted, after Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson defined his faith-based objections to the LGBTQ phenomena in a GQ interview.
And it’s not simply “assault weapons” Morgan requires banning in America, however handguns, too, identical to they’ve carried out within the UK. Not that the authorities who impose which have an obligation to guard, and even to reply.
Again in 2007, I wrote a column for GUNS Journal beginning with the quote, “A TERRIFIED 80-year-old needed to wait 24 HOURS for cops after a hammer fiend smashed her home windows and threatened to kill her.”
Thames Valley Police claimed “officers had been on MORE IMPORTANT calls” [emphasis in original reporting by The Sun]. Not solely did a test of stories story reveal no different emergencies, when pressed for data on their ineffective response, their the Orwellian-titled “Freedom of Data Officer” replied “Your request for data has now been thought of and I’m not obliged to provide the data you’ve gotten requested.”
Again in 2015, I wrote one other column for The Fact About Weapons, recalling an effort by People in World Warfare II to gather and ship weapons to the UK so residents may defend their homeland towards Nazi invasion.
“Would You Ship a Gun to Defend a British Residence?” the article requested.
Understanding what we all know in the present day, would you?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of a number of journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun proprietor rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The Warfare on Weapons: Notes from the Resistance,” is a frequently featured contributor to Firearms Information, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Fb.
