What caused the U.K. Riots | JACK'D
Nick Griffin gives his assessment of what happened in the U.K. over the past week.
2 Likes
Riot police deployed in Southport as large crowds throw bricks outside mosque
'Everyone is being set against each other': Calvin Robinson on UK riots
1 Like
U.K. riots: Two men have been jailed for an attack on "pro-EDL" protesters
Two men have been jailed for an attack on "pro-EDL" protesters. Sameer Ali, 21, of West Park Drive, Leeds, and Adnan Ghafoor, 31, of Spen Bank, Leeds, both admitted affray earlier. The pair claimed they attacked the men after being subjected to racist and Islamophobic abuse.
1 Like
Mass Arrests/ Incarceration Starting In UK For Disorder, Posts & Masks, Outrageous Prison Sentences
The U.K. riot arrests are making J6 look like child's play or a precursor for broader use. J6 occurred on January 6, 2021 when Trump followers were publicly invited by Trump to attend a protest at the U.S. Capitol Building. The protest turned violent (there is a lot on alt-media explaining it as a set-up) and numerous patriots were jailed. Others were later tracked via their cell phones and harrassed, questioned and/or jailed by federal agents. There is an article (below) from that time about how technology is used to track people. Interestingly, with all the technology, the world would be a safer place, one would think, but that is not the case. It is less used to track criminals and more used to enforce the tyranny.
Article: How law enforcement is using technology to track down people who attacked the US Capitol building
After rioters flooded the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, there was an immediate call for those who overran officers on the scene and swarmed the House and Senate floors, as well as congressional members’ personal offices, to be identified, arrested and prosecuted. The coordinated law enforcement response to this incident is massive.
As researchers who study criminal justice, we see that law enforcement agencies are accessing large amounts of information via technological sources to investigate the attack on the U.S. Capitol building. High-definition security cameras, facial recognition technology, location services acquired from cellphones and third-party apps, and accessing archival evidence on social media are all used to identify perpetrators of crimes and tie them to specific places and times.
While watchdog groups have raised legitimate concerns about the use of government and private-sector surveillance technology to identify people who might commit violent acts at some future point, there is much less concern raised about the use of technology to identify, arrest and prosecute individuals once these crimes have occurred.
Facial recognition technology
In the days since the breaching of the Capitol, information has flowed continuously to law enforcement with names and/or images of suspected participants in the unrest. Facial recognition technology can be used to compare images obtained by law enforcement – particularly those images taken from the network of security cameras within and outside the Capitol complex – to positively identify persons of interest.
Facial recognition systems work by matching a face in a video or photo with a face in a database that is associated with a person’s name and other identifying information. Beyond using public records, law enforcement agencies have been turning to private companies to access large databases of identified faces. A growing body of evidence shows the large amount of data some companies have been collecting from social media and other publicly available sources, as well as from CCTV systems in public spaces around the globe. Law enforcement agencies can simply purchase the services of these companies.
The technology exists to identify individuals participating in violent encounters in public spaces in real time using the soon-to-be-completed national ID database. This could result in some extremist groups going off the grid to avoid identification.
Sourcing information from social media
Investigators are being aided by many of the participants in the events of Jan. 6 themselves who posted accounts of their activities on social networks. In addition to the participants who breached the barricades of the Capitol, many bystanders documented the happenings. Social media companies are assisting law enforcement in accessing content that may be useful to locate and prosecute specific individuals.
Some of the earliest subjects who were arrested after the events of Jan. 6 were previously known to law enforcement agencies around the nation, their involvement confirmed by social media postings. Reports have emerged that individuals and groups already under surveillance by law enforcement agencies nationwide via their activity on social media, including suspected white supremacists on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist, were contacted by officers before the individuals traveled to Washington to attend the “Stop the Steal” rally.
Information from social media is also assisting authorities in determining the extent of planning among individuals and groups that were involved.
There is some disagreement within the law enforcement community about the pros and cons of restricting the ability of extremists to communicate on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Parler. The benefit of restricting extremists’ access is hindering communication in the hopes of preventing similar attacks. There is emerging evidence that extremist groups are moving their social media conversations to password-protected sites and to the darknet, where an individual’s anonymity is protected. This migration might hinder extremist groups in recruiting and propaganda efforts, but it’s not clear if it has an effect on the groups’ organizing.
The downside of driving extremists to less-visible online platforms is that it makes it difficult for law enforcement to gather information needed to bring cases against those who participate in criminal incidents. Their virtual footprints become harder to follow.
Location tracking
Identifying a person – particularly someone not previously known to law enforcement – is just one piece of evidence needed to issue an arrest warrant. Empirical information that puts the suspect at the location of a crime when that crime occurred often provides the corroboration courts need to issue a warrant.
The vast majority of participants in the Capitol unrest carried mobile devices with them and had them powered on, which makes it possible for law enforcement agencies to determine the movements of the cellphone’s owner. Even if users have location services, cellular data and Wi-Fi disabled, law enforcement has access to technology that can determine the location of a device at a specified time.
But location data is useful only when coupled with other evidence of a subject’s involvement in a criminal incident, such as photos and video. For instance, it is doubtful whether simply being in the vicinity of the Capitol during the unrest is sufficient. Location data may not be precise enough to discern whether a device was on someone’s person behind previously established barricades outside the Capitol building or if that device was inside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s private office, particularly with thousands of mobile devices clustered in one small geographic space inside structures that can obscure signals.
Tips from the public
One aspect of criminal investigations that has not changed with the rise of technological surveillance is the value of information provided by eyewitnesses and associates of individuals suspected of perpetrating crimes. In the days since the storming of the Capitol, many tips have come into law enforcement from friends, relatives, ex-spouses, neighbors, co-workers and others who indicated they either saw images of someone they knew participating in the unrest on television or on social media, heard them boast of their exploits or heard from a third-party that they had participated.
The FBI, especially, took advantage of the constant media attention on the unrest at the Capitol to ask the public for tips and information, and had established a hotline to gather this information within hours of the incident. It certainly helps criminal investigations when perpetrators are willing to be recorded and photographed, and when they provide their names, ages and hometowns to reporters.
Technology expands the reach of law enforcement investigations, and, combined with tips from the public, makes it more difficult for participants in mob actions to become lost in the crowd. However, these technologies raise the question of whether they can and should be used in the future to prevent these types of large-scale violent incidents from occurring in the first place.
1 Like
GB News understands that Met Police have ruled out a connection to terror.
Girl and woman stabbed in broad daylight attack in Leicester Square
Almost every judge identified as being involved in the rapid prosecution and incarceration of individuals who participated in the Southport riots has a history of letting convicted pedophiles walk free with no jail time.
x.com
JUDGE ANDREW MENARY
Sentenced William Nelson Morgan, 69, to 32 months in prison for refusing to move out of the way of police officers.
Menary previously let a pedophile who collected baby rape videos walk with no jail time because his lawyer said he had "good character." x.com
JUDGE JOHN TEMPERLEY
Sentenced Billy Thompson, 31, to 12 weeks in prison for emojis which incited racial violence.
Temperley previously let a pedophile who had been stashing child abuse images walk free because he had "displayed remorse." x.com
JUDGE FRANCIS LAIRD
Sentenced Charlie Bullock, 21, to 18 months in prison for throwing rocks at a line of police.
Last week, Laird let a pervert who had a collection of over 700 toddler and animal rape videos walk with no jail time because he "showed remorse." x.com
JUDGE PAUL SLOAN
Sentenced Leanne Hodgson, 43, to 2.5 years for “shouting racist abuse” at a police officer.
Sloan had previously let a pedophile caught with 10,000 images of schoolgirls walk free because he hadn’t looked at the images frequently enough. x.com
JUDGE NEIL RAFFERTY
Has denied bail to even those arrested with viewing the riots remotely.
Rafferty previously let a man convicted of raping his “vulnerable” niece walk free because he was “remorseful.” (Keep hearing that word) x.com
JUDGE MARK BURY
Sentenced Brandon Kirkwood, 20, to 2.5 years in prison for pushing a “large wheel bin” at police.
Bury recently let a pedophile walk free with a recommendation to “go get some fresh air” instead of collecting child abuse images. x.com
JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON
Sentenced Kenzie Roughley, 18, to 2 years in jail for kicking a CCTV van and goading police.
Richardson previously let a pedophile go after he targeted a vulnerable 13 year old girl for sexual abuse because he would “suffer comprehensibly in prison.” x.com
JUDGE ROBERT LINFORD
Sentenced David McGuire, 45, to 2.5 years in jail for spitting on police officers.
Linford previously let a pedophile go with a community sentence after he was caught with child sexual abuse images because he had a “constructive view of the future.” x.com