Who’s going to win? An over-promoted Politically Correct PC or the US First Amendment to the Constitution?

boxing ring arena vector design. Vector illumination

 

Ladies and Gentlemen. Roll up, roll up for the fight of the century. In the Freedom corner we have tech boss and spaceflight aficionado Elon Musk, a man who has not only done much to bring down the cost of getting cargo to orbit but has turned X (formerly Twitter) from a walled garden controlled by the Left into a place where there is considerably more freedom of speech than there used to be.

In the Unfreedom corner we have Sir Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He’s the chief officer of London’s main police force and is head of a force that, by way of its kid gloves handling of pro-Hamas hate marches over the last ten months, even when the marchers are shouting for ‘jihad’ or calling for a genocide against Jews, has often been accused of two tier policing. Sir Mark’s police force, or should it be ‘farce’, also employed, as an ‘advisor’ a man from the London Muslim Communities Forum who was caught out leading a genocidal chant against Israeli Jews. The Met tolerated this man right up until antisemitism campaigners and others pointed out to the Met their advisor’s actions.

They also have had other ‘advisors’ from the Islamic community who have ‘helped’ the Met to talk down the cries of ‘jihad’ that emerged from the mouths of some of the pro-Hamas hate marchers. It appears that these advisors have told the Met to say that the word ‘jihad’ didn’t always mean violence (yeah right and I’ve got a lovely London situated bridge to sell you) but instead meant an individual’s spiritual struggle. Wasn’t there was another guy who entitled his book ‘My Struggle’, geezer with a toothbrush moustache, I wonder what happened to him? When it was revealed that the Met were employing advisors who might have a vested political or religious interest in talking down the meaning of jihad, it cemented in the public’s mind the clearly two tier way that the Met under Sir Mark were policing London.

When Sir Mark goes on the TV or into the Press and claims that there is no two tier policing then we know he’s lying. A lot of people from a lot of different communities, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Ex-Muslims and many others have all the receipts they need to show that Sir Mark manages his force in a clearly two tier way. We saw the batons come out for White British protestors out on the streets of the capital following the slaughter, allegedly by the offspring of a migrant, of children in Southport and contrast it with the extremely low key policing of the pro-Hamas hate marches. We’ve reached a situation where with regards to the Met, although there might be some excellent, impartial and effective police officers in that force, the same cannot be said for the Met’s management, which looks thoroughly and completely bent.

Sir Mark Rowley is the very model of a modern British police chief. His world is made up of DEI meetings, issuing vacuous statements about how great diversity is, taking orders from Greater London Mayor Sadiq Khan (who is also the Police and Crime Commissioner for London) and deciding policing priorities. Unfortunately sometimes those policing priorities don’t seem to stretch to catching burglars, which the Met are very bad at. The Met are however very keen to put resources into trying to catch those who vandalise the ‘Pride’ crossings of the sort that have in recent years erupted like an unpleasant rash on London’s streets. Bad luck if you’ve been burgled as the Met have ‘Pride’ crossing vandals to catch.

Sir Mark Rowley is, in my view, an over-promoted politically correct police constable. He’s the sort of senior officer that you get when you select for promotion based on how good they are at mouthing platitudes about diversity and whether they are on board with ‘the latest thing’ that exercises the minds of the middle class Left and identity politics groups.

This arrogant man, who will not admit the failings of his force, nor why it is failing, will not therefore be the man to sort out these problems. He is also an ignoramus who is infected with a massive amount of hubris. We can clearly see it from the video below, where he threatens with arrest under the UK’s draconian ‘hate speech’ laws, those from overseas who are making social media comments, sometimes quite spicy ones, about the rapidly declining state of the UK.

His comments come in the wake of Elon Musk’s comments on the dire state of Britain, in which he said that the UK looked like the sort of place which borders on civil war. Sir Mark, as did much of Britain’s midwit intelligentsia and commentariat, had a fit of the vapours and engaged in a fair bit of pearl clutching, following Mr Musk’s comments about Britain looking like a civil war adjacent society.

Sir Mark’s comments implied that British police officers should arrest people like Elon Musk who are outside of the UK, for their comments about British politics and also implied that such individuals should be extradited to the UK from the USA. I was gobsmacked by this comment. I’ve seen some dim cops in my time who are ignorant of the law, but I never expected so senior an officer to be so ignorant of extradition law. As Black Belt Barrister explained on a video linked HERE, for there to be an extradition from the United States to the United Kingdom there has to be a situation where the offence is an offence in both nations. For example, murder or rape or robbery are all crimes that are offences in the United States, as well as being offences in the United Kingdom.

However, Britain’s nasty, oppressive and selectively enforced ‘hate speech’ laws are not considered as laws that have their equivalent in the United States. These laws are part of Britain’s shitshow legislative deck of cards along with the 2010 Equalities Act and Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. It’s highly unlikely that any American citizen would face any risk of being deported from or extradited to the United Kingdom for mocking the British government, or drawing attention to the dire state that Britain finds itself in or making fun or expressing disapproval of those who are considered as ‘protected classes’ in the UK. It is also unlikely that anybody, least of all Elon Musk, would be extradited to the UK and face prosecution for commenting about the prospects or not of British society degrading into a civil war situation.

Sir Mark Rowley is bullshitting us. Britain’s shitty ‘hate speech’ laws and communications laws do not apply in the USA. Either he knows this and is just gobbing off to try to frighten Britons into not noticing Britain’s descent into madness and speaking about it, or he really is that ignorant of the law that his force is supposed to enforce. I don’t know what is worse, Sir Mark lying to Britons or really being so stupid that he thinks that the Communications Act Sect 127 or any of the other speech oppressive laws that Britain has, would apply to Americans in their own country. These laws don’t apply to our American friends and quite rightly so, they fought a war with Britain in the late 18th century in order that UK laws did not apply to Americans.

If Sir Mark Rowley thinks that his side can win a fight between Britain’s oppressive speech laws and the United States First Amendment to the Constitution, then he’s very much mistaken. Everything that Elon Musk has posted on X regarding the current travails of Britain and the oppressive and biased way that the Labour government is dealing with them is considered as coming under the protection of the First Amendment. The comments of Elon Musk and those of the great number of his fellow Americans, about what is happening in the UK, including the increasing number of offensive but funny memes that are being made, are protected political speech in the United States. Sir Mark Rowley and those like him can fume and foam all they like about Americans who are, quite rightly in my view, taking the piss out of the state of Britain and the state of how Britons are governed and policed. But their Constitution and especially their First Amendment to it means that, unlike British subjects, Americans can say what they damned well want about Britain’s current problems.

I’ve been heartened and often amused by the massive number of Americans who took to X to mock the government, mock the failing policy of top down imposed multiculturalism or mock our two tier policing, judicial and political systems. Like a digital ‘Liberty Ship’, Americans have stood up, virtually crossed the Pond and spoken up about what’s going on in Britain. In many cases they are saying the stuff that Britons might like to say, but are worried that they will end up in gaol for saying. Well done the American commentators on these issues, it almost makes this Briton want to put his hand on his heart and start singing ‘Oh say can you see…’

Elon Musk has done nothing wrong here and those that are in the wrong are those who wish to see him and his voice silenced.

7 Comments on "Who’s going to win? An over-promoted Politically Correct PC or the US First Amendment to the Constitution?"

  1. To answer your question, obviously Elon so long as he resists the urge to make crass insults. Rowley and Starm-Fuhrer aren’t even in the same division.
    What will make it even more delicious is watching them huff and puff and throw their toys at anyone who doesn’t take them as seriously as they take themselves.
    Unusual to see you posting on a Saturday

    • Fahrenheit211 | August 11, 2024 at 5:50 am |

      I posted after Shabbat went out at nightfall but this subject is so important I felt I needed to comment on it.

  2. “When I was young P.C. meant Police Constable
    Nowadays I can’t seem to tell the difference”

    Written 30 years ago by known Leftards the Manic Street Preachers…how prescient.

    Another one from those golden days of youth…

    S*M*A*S*H

    “Whoever’s in power I’ll be the opposition”

  3. Sheikh Anvakh | August 11, 2024 at 9:48 am |

    What is most important to remember, is that without Blair’s caveat ridden Human “Rights” Act that actually removed them, virtually none of this creeping Gestapo-isation would have been possible. He, the Campbell SpAd corrupted civil service and the more malevolent section of the the legal profession knew exactly what the endgame was. The results are here to see.

  4. Sheikh Anvakh | August 11, 2024 at 9:56 am |

    I find it instructive that we are currently misruled by Human Rights lawyers, the two most prominent players being Kier Stalin and Napoleon Khan. Both seemingly using Blair’s caveat ridden Human Rights Act, knowing exactly how to use it to exercise ultimate power to “ration” our god given rights and freedoms. It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

    The never repeated 1978 TV series “1990” starring Edward Woodward scared the hell out of me. It’s happening now, but 34yrs late.

  5. Sheikh Anvakh | August 11, 2024 at 10:00 am |

    What is most disturbing, is that in over 14yrs, the so-called “conservatives” never repealed any of that Blairite police state crap. Probably too arrogant and stupid to realise that under a future Labour regime, they would be used against them and us, or as we’re now slandered as “far right”.

  6. 👍

Comments are closed.