Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

For their opinions?
6
@davidmcculloch8490 Yes. But have any of these people been guilty of it? They sympathise with the rioters to varying degrees, but I don't know if any one of them has offered direct encouragement. Do you have an example that might stand up in court?
4
@gio-oz8gf I just don't think we were given any example of incitement which would stand up in court. Sympathising with the rioters is not the same as inciting them.
4
@roseanncampbell3168 No it isn't. It's an opinion. To incite violence you have to use a direct form of words, not merely express opinions with which people might disagree. The hate and division is already there anyway. Pretending it isn't won't make it go away.
4
@DoubleDragon539 Is that a criminal offence? Hard to prove I'd imagine.
3
@DoubleDragon539 Violent thugs are driven to violent thuggery by a complex series of motives, often accumulating over a period of time and often quite incoherent. There is a very large section of the British working class which feels - with considerable justification - that not only are its needs being overlooked but that the government and the police are favouring a new population of immigrants over them in various ways. In order to be guilty of inciting violence you would have to add something to the mix - such as a specific suggestion. Expressing sympathy does not do this.
3
 @DoubleDragon539 Such as? I think we're treading on very dangerous ground to suggest that the honest expression of political or journalistic opinion should be made criminal.
2
@DoubleDragon539 Indeed not. But examining the causes might be more profitable than seeking to find people to blame. I find it quite patronising and offensive that many people think that these angry people can't come to their own conclusions without being tutored by political figures.
2
@DoubleDragon539 No it isn't.
1
@DoubleDragon539 They are not the same. I have every sympathy with the rioters, as do very many people, If I publish this expression of sympathy I am not "enabling" the riots. The riots are going on anyway.
1
@roseanncampbell3168 But they're not inciting anything. In order to prove incitement you would have to prove that without statements made by a defendant the riot would not have occurred.
1
@christinerees50 It's both actually.
1
@robbiegrant4977 What incitement? Agreement isn't incitement. The incitement has to come first.
1
@markhackett2302 Hardly. Soccer hooligans are different to people who organise armed jihad.
1
@markhackett2302 No. Their actions.
1
@Cam-mo7gq There are no fascists any more. It is a word without meaning, designed merely to focus the minds of the ignorant.
1
@Alanturner-c5x Actions have consequences too. People in deprived working class areas arrive at the own conclusions simply by looking about them. It is an insult to their intelligence to assume they need the words of a politician to tell them what to think and what to do.
1
@Cam-mo7gq Fascism is a spent force. The word is now simply used by ill-informed lefties to describe opinions with which they disagree. It is virtually meaningless.
1
@wleon4068 Understanding is not encouragement. The situation merits peaceful protest but none of those named has ever called for violence. Like me, they can understand the frustration that leads to it, however.
1
Sympathising with the rioters is not the same as inciting them.
1