Suella Braverman Warns of “Orwellian” Policing
The Home Secretary criticises the recording of “non-crime hate incidents” and urges police to prioritise catching criminals instead of engaging in virtue signalling. New guidance advises officers to use common sense when dealing with online disputes and to avoid stifling freedom of speech. The Express has more.
The belief police are more interested in virtue signalling than catching criminals is “utterly corrosive” to people’s confidence, Suella Braverman warned last night.
The Home Secretary blasted the “Orwellian” recording of “non-crime hate incidents” – including those who defend a person’s biological sex.
She said forces must now focus on catching burglars, fraudsters and yobs ruining lives. Ms Braverman spoke as new guidance for police to use common sense when dealing with online spats came into force today.
Only comments posing “a real risk of significant harm” or that a future crime will be committed will now be noted by officers.
Ms Braverman told the Daily Express last night she would do all she could to “remove unnecessary burdens that keep the police from fighting crime”.
She said: “The recording of so-called ‘non-crime hate incidents’ has understandably struck lots of people as Orwellian and wrong.
“Victims of crimes like burglary, anti-social behaviour and fraud will rightly feel that the police should focus more on catching the perpetrators who have caused them misery, rather than wrongly getting involved in lawful debate.
“The perception, however unjustified or unrepresentative, that some police are more interested in virtue signalling than they are in protecting the rights of the law-abiding majority is utterly corrosive to public confidence in policing.”
The new guidance advises officers to look for a common sense reason not to record an incident if the complaint is trivial, irrational or malicious. And the fact someone is offended does not mean an online row should be recorded.
Police chiefs will also be told recording online spats or offensive letters or texts “should be done in a way that does not stifle freedom of speech or create a chilling effect that may inhibit an individual’s ability to engage in legitimate debate”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
For those who might be interested, this article’s image was generated using AI. The police officers aren’t real, and if you look closely enough you can see the cracks — the shoulder numbers aren’t actually numbers, they’re in some weird non-existent lettering. But it generally seems pretty good to me. You’ll probably be seeing much more AI-generated imagery all over the place in the coming months — it solves a lot of problems for small news outlets like us.
We can tell it’s not real because all 4 are white men who look physically capable of arresting someone who resists.
LOL. Yes, that does give it away! Incidentally, I’ve already come up against the software’s woke bias, and it occasionally refuses to generate images. I thought it might be entertaining to generate an image of a Pride march with the demonstrators carrying rifles, but it wouldn’t let me. Pitchforks and cricket bats yes, rifles no.
Haha, actually they look all set to break into their TikTok dance routine to me! Either that or they’re Stripagrams 🙂
I find all this A.I business a bit freaky tbh.
Is this Morgan Freeman? Think again…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxXpB9pSETo&t=10s&ab_channel=DiepNep
Here you go. More acceptable in the modern police force, I’m sure you’ll agree. But there’s still a huge ethnicity problem.
Did you ask for one to have a tiny head?
Not specifically, no. I’ve done one with just the phrase “multi-ethnic” added. I hope you’ll appreciate the results (and no, I didn’t specify children should be part of it — they look a bit “child soldiers” to me):
Neither are “multi-ethnic”.
Can any of them stop crime? If so, set them on!
“You can leave your hat on”
🤣 Camp as Christmas, but still not a patch on Zelensky in his stilettos. There wasn’t enough bleach in the house to sanitize that image from my brain!😨🙈
The new Full Monty TV series? No longer security guard uniforms.
Yes …. and none of them are flashing. Can’t possibly be genuine.
The Roddenberry Archive has been doing some astonishing work with AI and CGI of late.
If you look at the short films 765874, Memory Wall and Regeneration, you can see how far the latest technology with holographic capture and cloud rendering can go. The actress in the films is a lookalike of actress Laurel Goodwin from the original Star Trek pilot and the actor used to play a certain Vulcan is a combination of 3D-printed prosthetics touched up with a little CGI! The work is stunning.
That’s very impressive, but of course that must require a lot of skill and effort — even with AI to help. And there are lots of limitations on what can be done with the software we’re using, but it’ll improve.
Does that make them copyright free Ian? Or is there a royalty bank account somewhere in the name of Mr A I Bot?
I’m no lawyer, but I think the answer is that the images produced are probably copyrightable by the user of the software (i.e. us, in this case) in most cases, however it’s certainly possible that specific examples of generated images would or could be derivative of copyrighted works, and hence the user could get into trouble. For example, if you used a copyrighted image as part of the AI prompt (which you can do), then the resultant output would, I think, often infringe unless you could claim a fair dealing / fair use exception applied. There’s potentially a lot of scope for freedom with prompts that produce images merely “in the style of” a copyrightable artist, but even then it’s highly questionable. Publisher beware!
Further on this, consider the following two examples. Let’s first suppose for the sake of argument that Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, or a photo thereof, is copyrighted. I used such an image as the input prompt, with just “sunflowers” as the textual part of the prompt, and it produced the first set of images below. Reproducing/publishing that would surely be copyright infringement, although in this case I can claim fair dealing because of the context. The second set of images was produced using the prompt “Sunflowers in the style of Van Gogh”, and it’s suddenly a lot less clear whether it’s derivative of any specific copyrighted image or artwork – especially given we don’t know how the AI generated it. A court case involving this issue might bring up questions like whether the AI was trained using copyrighted images or artwork, and if not then it would be hard to prove infringement. Another factor would be that we can’t know, in any useful or meaningful sense, how the AI decides to produce its output, or how influential any given training image was or is (even if it was copyrighted). You’re then talking about the machine equivalent of “If someone saw Van… Read more »
Thank you for the detailed explanation, It’s certainly going to require some test cases I think, for the copyright ownership to be made clear, or as clear as it can be – the will alway be scope for lawyers to get involved Im certain of that.
They sound more convincing that the real police! They’ll probably stop more crime?
On the subject of AI, but not images, when I first heard about ChatGPT a couple of months ago, I thought it was super ‘smart’, but, as many people soon realised, it falls far short of that expectation, at least the free version. There was a question on ITV’s quiz show, The 1% Club, a few weeks ago, which more than 60% of the population could answer correctly, and more than 70% of the remaining contestants in the studio answered correctly within 30 seconds. Here is the question: “Amy, Priya and Olivia are not related. Amy and Priya only have brothers, and Olivia just has a sister. Amy is the oldest child in her family, and Priya and Olivia are the youngest in theirs. Which of the girls has an older brother?” I asked ChatGPT this exact question, and it failed to give the correct answer twice, before eventually getting the correct answer with some help from me. Here is the first answer ChatGPT gave: “Based on the information given, we know that Amy and Priya both have at least one brother, while Olivia only has a sister. Additionally, we know that Amy is the oldest child in her family,… Read more »
Try “talking” to ChatGPT about a woke subject such as climate change and you’ll soon see it’s not at all smart. It will come up with standard responses such as extreme weather is becoming more common or sea ice is vanishing at an alarming rate. When you give it data to show this isn’t the case it will agree that the data shows no increase in hurricane strength, for example, but when you then ask it if this means hurricanes aren’t becoming stronger due to climate change it will simply say that scientists agree that climate change is/will lead to more powerful hurricanes. It’s only as “intelligent” as the people who programmed it and told it what to train on. If these people are fully signed up to the woke agenda then it’s obvious why ChatGPT turns out to be as thick as pig sh*t.
I know! Try asking it, “How is it possible to distinguish a trans woman from a man pretending to be a trans woman?”! It sounds like it has been programmed by an ultra woke politician.
Something the home secretary could add to this laudable effort: Make sure the police understands that crimes are also crimes when the perpetrator was English while victim wasn’t. Judging from a plethora of experience, at least Thames Valley Police absolutely doesn’t share this opinion.
I don’t believe you’re German: you never misuse the word “since”.
Vastehich jetzt nit …
There should be no such thing as a ‘non-crime incident’ of any kind. If it’s not a crime, the police have no business getting involved.
Thanks for the bleedingly obvious.
Where was she and the ‘big brains’ during the Rona Fascism, where the plod turned into the Vaxx-Gestapo?
Following ‘The Science (TM)’ just as she was told to do.
Why didn’t all these MPs coming out of the woodwork and claiming to have been anti-lockdown resign the whip? Why didn’t ministers and secretaries of state resign and stand in front of cameras condemning the brainwashing and lies? Why didn’t they take down the dictatorship and terrorism (because that’s what it was) perpetrated by Matt Hancock? Because they did what they were told and hang the public!
Our government has declared war on the people of this country. And it won’t change via any fake election.
This is how the irish throw stones around in an area called the Burren in Co Clare! Reminds me of roman herring bone walling?
Sorry, didn’t mean to detract from the theme, but I think you might appreciate it!
Thanks very much Dinger. That’s a wonderful piece of dry stone walling.
So how then should we respond to this “war on the people of this country”?
Well here we have yet more evidence that the death jabs do not protect you from hospitalization and death from Covid and are evidently screwing up people’s immune systems. This time a study involving military veterans in the U.S. Clear as day that the more jabs you get the more they tank your body’s natural defenses so that you can’t fight off the virus like your unvaxxed counterparts. Funny that, being as this is the age range that the hyped up, much lauded clot shots were supposed to protect most of all. All the health care staff that were mandated in various countries to take these novel injections to protect the vulnerable, who seemingly are doing better if they remained unjabbed themselves. Crime of the century. 🙁 Wonder how many jabbees have serious buyer’s remorse round about now; ”You would think that right in the midst of the deadly COVID pandemic, many lives of those older persons would be saved by safe, effective, science-backed COVID vaccines, right? Every TV program told us this last year, so it must be true! (note my sarcasm) Guess what? It was the opposite! The category in the above table with the least hospitalizations and deaths is… Read more »
‘The Home Secretary criticises the recording of “non-crime hate incidents” and urges …’.
How about ‘orders’, not ‘urges’.
The 5th columnists in the blob have grabbed power.
Expose.
Identify.
Indict them.
Sack woke Chief Constables.
Yes, I noticed that. It’s clear the elected MPs appointed by the largest elected party have no actual power.
I’ve been involved in the software industry all my career. I actually value resources that I can access that do not use beyond the normal web tools because they are demonstrably authentic. This move – by Mr Rons? – to use AI does not sit well with me. On a site like this we need authenticity, not pretty pictures.
incidentally, I saw that Ian Rons had recently been made honorary president of the daily sceptic – as a subscriber, I would appreciate knowing why and something about his background, as I find his approach to issues can be rather unpleasant (cf Calvin Robinson.)
The push for all things AI is part of the official narrative to which Mr Rons is rather attached. Like you I find this trend uncomfortable & creates a dissonance between an article pursuing truth with the fake image associated with it.
I was unaware of that move. Like you I found his treatment of Calvin Robinson distatsteful. What ever your opinion there is absolutely no need to resort to personal insults to make a point. Indeed if one resorts to insults instead of furthering a debate/discussion then one has lost the argument as one has nothing to add.
“Suella Braverman Warns of “Orwellian” Policing”
Warns! WARNS???
When I was working, a boss was The boss! They paid your wages! When he/she said “jump”, you asked “how high?”
And bollocks with the ” Oh you’ll be called a bully crap!” Suella, order them to police properly ,now, or just become another in the long line of toothless officialdom! accepting a nice wage with no real commitment!
In the Army when a superior said, ‘jump’, you did not question, you jumped. If it wasn’t high enough you soon found out.
🤣👍
I thought the point of politicians was to decide policy not whine at public officials.
Next thing we know the police will be prosecuting a football supporter for wearing an offensive meme at a cup final.
Constable Savage! Arrested a man for walking around with an offensive wife.
97% of scientists agree that fans are causing global warming.
I laughed when I heard on GB NEWS (maybe on Farage) that “Police now police everything except crime”. At first you laugh, and it would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. But what is it that is actually being policed with these virtue signalling priorities? It turns out that it is government policy that is being policed. The 5 main political agenda’s are Race, Gender, Equality, Diversity and Climate. ——–It is easy to see that burglary isn’t in the top 5, but swear at a minority person and your feet won’t touch the ground. Because it interferes with multi-cultural dogma.
So change the laws. The very concept of “hate” speech is offensive, as it means that “all equal in the eyes of the law” (the secular derivative of “all equal before God” no longer applies. That victim status has been enshrined in law as in need of special treatment.
A truly conservative government would have had the Equality Bill off the statue books as a priority. Rather than reinforcing it as they have done.