British People Now Face Jail If They Post ‘Offensive’ Content Online

British people face jail if they post offensive content online

More serious than terrorism?

British citizens can now face up to six months in jail if they post ‘offensive’ content on social media, under Orwellian new rules proposed by the government.

Despite the fact that violent crime rates have skyrocketed 44% in the last year, the government want police to focus their resources on punishing ‘online trolls’:

Social media users who share or comment on racist or anti-gay postings will face jail under rules proposed yesterday.

Advice for judges and magistrates recommends harsh punishments for those found guilty of stirring up hatred against racial, religious or sexual minority groups.

Among those jailed should be people who post comments or share online hate speech because they have been reckless as to whether they stir up hatred, say the proposals from the Sentencing Council.

Those found guilty of hate trolling by commenting or sharing social media should typically receive a sentence of six months in jail. reports: “Hate trolling” means sharing politically incorrect facts. The lunatic leftists controlling Britain want to throw right-wingers in prison for 6 months not just for posting such “hate,” but for merely commenting on it or sharing it.Anyone who is convicted of orginating hate speech that threatens anyone’s life or which is widely distributed should expect three years.

Even someone whose words or material were judged as hateful, but were not considered to have threatened life or reached a big audience, is likely to be punished with a year in jail.

[…]The council’s proposals say the most serious hate offences include speeches given by public figures with the aim of stirring up hatred, online content inciting violence towards racial or religious groups, and websites that publish abusive and insulting material to a worldwide audience over a long period.

Aggravating factors include activity ‘in a particularly sensitive social climate’ or delivered to an impressionable audience. 

Using multiple social media platforms also makes an offence more grave.

George Orwell would have been laughed at had he put ideas like this in 1984 — yet here we are.

As a reminder, just one century ago the British empire was still dominating the world. Their empire was referred to as “the empire on which the sun never sets.”

Now Britain is being reverse colonized and their government is focused on jailing people for sharing or commenting on offensive social media posts.

A chance to leave mass incarceration behind


A chance to leave mass incarceration behind

We have to work with conviction towards a future where the shadow of the prison no longer distorts and corrupts life chances of our people, writes the University of Auckland’s Tracey McIntosh

The decision to not build a mega-prison at Waikeria as proposed can be seen as an act of political courage. It demonstrates a determination to rethink and rework our Criminal Justice System which will require a whole-of-society approach with significant challenges.

The potential to create a world-leading system that has an emphasis on decarceration rather than incarceration, that brings greater levels of community safety, supports communities and helps whānau to flourish, is extraordinary.

And the fact is, decarceration is critical for Māori.

The mass incarceration we have in New Zealand is largely Māori incarceration. This is devastating for Māori whanau, communities and the broader nation. The inter-generational reach of the prison is long and, as I have noted elsewhere, colonises our future. There is good reason and evidence to doubt the effectiveness of incarceration as a means of responding to complex social problems.

We need to be clear that our problems would not be addressed if we closed Waikeria, and indeed all prisons, tomorrow and did nothing more.

Decarceration cannot be conceptualised solely as just opening the prison doors or putting forward alternatives to prison that just replicate our current prison mentality and shift it to outside of the wire. We do not want to see an expansion of alternatives that are closely related to incarceration, as this is confinement by other means and the opportunities to fully integrate, participate, heal and contribute will be severely limited.

Māori incarceration will need to be addressed by ceding penal power and adequate resourcing to iwi and community. This ceding of power and move away from current crown contractual relationships is an expression of tino rangatiratanga, and allows iwi to have a far greater stake and accountability in this sector. It would open a space for transformational iwi politics and strengthening of Crown relationships by involving very different people, groups and communities to address the complex and often messy issues that we face.

It would also remove the reliance on correctional solutions to social problems and create truly innovative evidence based, culturally informed spaces to address social harm. US academic Allegra McCloud’s focus on preventive justice and Canadian legal reformer Ruth Morris’s transformative justice demonstrates that there are ways we can conceptually imagine community safety and justice security differently to present thinking. These are just two conceptual positions and the ability to think beyond the prison will allow the development of a range of models suited to our situation. Drawing on the expertise of those who have experiential knowledge of incarceration will be critical.

The well-being of all communities can be enhanced by enabling greater levels of social solidarity, empowering people in their personal and community lives, enhancing social infrastructure and establishing opportunities for dignified work and alternative livelihoods.

We should not be restricted by thinking about community safety solely organised around criminal law enforcement, confinement, surveillance and retributive punishment.

However, achieving the ideal of decarceration will not be a short-term exercise. It requires a shared social consciousness and will, including political will, for change. And while Corrections sits at the end of the system, much of the work will need to be done at the beginning of the system to disrupt the drivers that have led to such a devastating incarceration rate in a country of considerable abundance.

While we must act now to effect generational change in the short and mid-term, the pressures on Corrections will be significant. The large Corrections workforce will need to be well-supported to help facilitate the move toward decarceration rather than incarceration. One of the biggest changes in Corrections over the last decade is a move away from training people to lock people up to training them to unlock people. I have witnessed the difficulties associated with over-crowding from a prison and staff perspective and do not wish to minimise the nature of the challenges.

However, the need to address this is urgent, but it must also be recognised that creating a world where prisons are a thing of the past, and where we have a greater sense of community safety, won’t happen overnight.

For me, as Māori, one of our greatest strengths is our commitment to mokopunatanga: a recognition that our focus must be on the lives of our grandchildren and their grandchildren. We have to work with conviction towards a future where the shadow of the prison no longer distorts and corrupts life chances of our people today and the mokopunatanga of the generations ahead.



Peter Says:

Maybe so, but that will be up to the Courts. But Parliament will have to change the laws first. Changes to cannabis laws would have a significant effect  on prison numbers..

Urgent changes needed to better support NZ veterans – report

The government accepts urgent changes are needed to better support NZ Defence Force veterans and their families.

Remembrance poppy and medals on a veteran at the 50th commemoration of the Vietnam War held at Pukeahu National War Memorial, Wellington, in August.

Remembrance poppy and medals on a veteran at the 50th commemoration of the Vietnam War held at Pukeahu National War Memorial, Wellington, in August. Photo: RNZ/Kate Pereyra Garcia

An independent review, published this week by Auckland University Professor Ron Paterson, is critical of the Veterans’ Support Act, making 64 recommendations.

The Act came into force completely two years ago and Professor Paterson received about 200 submissions and hearing from about 700 people at public meetings, before he came up with his findings.

Professor Paterson said the Act didn’t put veterans, or their families, first.

“The veterans themselves are having to jump through a whole number of hoops… it’s not a very user-friendly system,” he said.

Professor Paterson said there were significant delays in receiving support because of inadequate levels of resourcing.

“They (veterans) feel they are being sent from pillar-to-post… they’re also having long waiting times sometimes for decisions… some of whom are old, or some of whom are younger veterans, but who are suffering from PTSI – post-traumatic stress injury… and they actually get more traumatised by the process they have to go through,” he said.

Read more:

Self-driving cars will still crash with humans behind the wheel, study says

by Barry Park
a car driving down a street in front of a house© Provided by Bauer Media Pty LtdSelf-driving cars will only be safer when they don’t need to hand control back to a human, the most comprehensive study yet of the technology suggests.As long as they do, self-driving cars can never reduce the road toll to zero, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study, compiled by its International Transport Forum and released overnight, has warned.

Instead of spruiking the zero road toll mantra, the OECD study suggests a more realistic scenario is saying they will help reduce the number of deaths and significant injuries on our roads.

“Claims of a more than 90 percent reduction in road traffic deaths resulting from automation eliminating crashes linked to human error are untested,” the study says. “It seems likely that the number of road casualties will decrease with automation, but crashes will not disappear.

“In certain circumstances, more crashes may occur among ‘average’ drivers that are not prone to risky behaviour. This is particularly likely in circumstances where drivers must take over from automated driving in emergency situations,” it said.

The OECD said the lack of experience and data on self-driving cars made an assessment of the safety benefits of the technology difficult to judge.

a car parked on a city street© Provided by Bauer Media Pty Ltd“It is further complicated by the lack of a common framework for such a safety performance assessment and by rapid changes in its object: a self-driving car is, after all, a combined hardware and software system whose critical performance characteristics can change radically with software upgrades,” it said.

“Vehicle automation strategies that keep humans involved in the driving task seem risky. A shared responsibility for driving among both automated systems and humans may not render decision making simpler, but more complex. Thus, the risk of unintended consequences that would make driving less safe, not more, could increase.”

a car parked on the side of a road© Wheels StaffIn the OECD’s view, humans retained “an advantage” over single-sensor autonomous systems in many of the driving situations investigated. It said sharing the driving task between humans and robots had “so far confounded efforts to ensure safety”. Instead, carmakers should aim to avoid machine-to-human handovers, or at least limit the handovers to when there was a high risk of death or serious injury.

The report also notes that passengers in autonomous cars will need to know just how foolproof the autonomous system developed for the vehicles were, suggesting the current five-level rating system that ranks from partial driver assistance to full automation won’t work for “non-technical audiences” – or most people.

a car parked in a parking lot© Provided by Bauer Media Pty LtdThe report also hints that because they will need to be more cautious while painting a digital picture of the world – and potential hazards – around them, autonomous cars will likely need to move much slower than the ones with a human behind the wheel, especially if cyclists and pedestrians come into the mix.

One solution, it hints, is to ban human-driven cars from autonomous-only zones

Winners and Losers – NZ 1976 TV series

Winners and losers series image.jpg.540x405

Launched on 5 April 1976, this television series heralded a new age in Kiwi screen drama. Indie talents Roger Donaldson and Ian Mune based their tales of success and failure on New Zealand short stories, after managing to negotiate funding from various government sources. Then the pair took the series to Europe, proving there was strong overseas demand for Kiwi stories. Winners & Losers became a perennial in local classrooms. In the backgrounders, Mune recalls the show’s origins. There are also pieces on its place in local screen history, and its restoration in 2018

Sheryl Sandberg Deems Ardern a Political Prodigy

Sheryl Sandberg Deems Ardern a Political Prodigy

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg gives her opinion on New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who has been named in Time magazine’s list of 100 ‘Most Influential People’, alongside other leaders including London mayor Sadiq Khan, Canada’s Justin Trudeau and royal couple Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

“Just 11 countries out of almost 200 are led by a woman. Let that number sink in. That’s how hard it is for a woman to rise to lead a nation,” Sandberg begins.

“Last October in New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern did it.

“She was already a political prodigy. In 2008, she was elected the youngest member of the New Zealand Parliament. Now she’s the youngest female prime minister in the world. At a time when conservative politicians are ascendant across Europe and the US, she’s proudly progressive – with a raft of plans to fight economic inequality, address climate change and decriminalise abortion. She wasn’t supposed to win: she entered the election late, and her party’s approval ratings were low. Then a wave of ‘Jacindamania’ swept the land.

“And she’s expecting her first child this year.

“In a world that too often tells women to stay small, keep quiet – and that we can’t have both motherhood and a career – Jacinda Ardern proves how wrong and outdated those notions of womanhood are. She’s not just leading a country. She’s changing the game. And women and girls around the world will be the better for it.”

Original article by Sheryl Sandberg, Time, April 31, 2018.

The Union’s Secret Rebels: The Story of Gettysburg’s Five Rebellious Double Crossers Who Returned as Foreign Invaders

The Civil War is called the war in which brother fought against brother. But few knew of the “Gettysburg Rebels”: the five privates from that very town who moved south to Virginia in the 1850s, joined the Confederate army, and returned home as foreign invaders for the great battle in July 1863.

I talk about this story with Tom McMillan, author of Gettysburg Rebels: Five Native Sons Who Came Home to Fight as Confederate Soldiers. It is the story of Gettysburg’s five native sons who abandoned their hometown ties to join the Southern cause. But that’s not to say they forgot their families altogether. At least one of these soldiers receive a leave of absence to cross enemy lines at night and visit his family…while in full Confederate uniform.

Willing to relinquish familial ties, Henry Wentz, Wesley Culp, and the three Hoffman brothers kept their hometown connections hidden from Confederate leaders—a decision that would ultimately determine the fate of the Confederacy.

We discuss

• The background of Gettysburg’s five traitors

• Why the men decided to leave Gettysburg to join the Confederate Army

• How the men returned home to fight against family and friends



Gettysburg Rebels: Five Native Sons Who Came Home to Fight as Confederate Soldiers