A blogger who tweeted a fact-check of 10 UKIP election assurances might have thought his slightly harmless tweet might win him a few retweets at best. In its place, it gained Michael Abberton a social call from the police officers.
A reproach was made by Cllr Peter Reeve, UKIP’s local government spokesperson and national nominating officer.
Mr Abberton was told by two Cambridgeshire police officers that they were certain he had not broken the law, however, requested he erases the tweet in any event. Nevertheless, acknowledging that they could not coerce him into doing so.
The tweet in question was tongue in cheek poster of 10 Great Reasons To Vote UKIP, such as scrapping maternity leave and paid vacations. Mr Abberton insists he did not even make the poster himself, but simply attached links to the party’s own material that upheld the poster’s declarations.
Cllr Reeve told HuffPost UK that he had reported Green Party constituent Mr Abberton to the police for electoral duplicity. On account of his post not containing an official proclamation that it was Green Party material, required by the Electoral Commission.
Apparently electoral cheating is an exceedingly pressing matter, by reason of the poster is deemed to tell us who produced the poster, and who issued it, so they can be prosecuted if expedient. But Mr Reeve stated. “I didn’t call the police over a tweet. I called them over electoral fraud.
At first, there was reproach from a family member of one of UKIP’s candidates in the south west, who believed it was endorsed UKIP material. Plus it was considered that Mr Abberton was mimicking UKIP’s flyers, and it’s misrepresenting us.
Representations that Mr Abberton put forward, are not UKIP’s views, and the links that Mr Abberton did were to debase candidates.
When questioned as to if such an unmistakably private tweet should have to convey such precise phrasing, Reeve stated: “This man is an active member of the Green party, he has said he is numerous time and for him to promote this leaflet without the official wording is illegal.
“The Electoral Commission is very clear that makes no difference whether it is in print or a tweet.”
Reeve stated UKIP was still contemplating prosecuting Abberton for his tweet. “We have also informed the branch of the police which deals specifically in electoral fraud.”
Mr Abberton wrote on his blog that the police had explained that he hadn’t broken any law. There was no charge to acknowledge and it really wasn’t of police interest.
The police officer at that point requested him to take it down, nevertheless Mr Abberton pointed out that the picture had now been retweeted numerous times, and he had to explain to one of the police officers what twitter was and how it operated. They said that they couldn’t coerce me into taking it down in any event.
The police officers requested for Mr Abberton not to mention the visit on Twitter on account of it looking possibly biased in light of the forthcoming election and the police force need to look impartial, however, they couldn’t stop him from doing so, as he had Freedom of Speech.
They were questioned if they understood how it must look, and one shrugged. The other seem to be embarrassed.
Mr Abberton then claimed he received an aggressive tweet from a UKIP member, who was aware that the police officers had been to visit.
Cambridgeshire Police were called with a grievance regarding a message on a shared media at roughly 12.40pm on Friday.
Inquiries were made as to if any misdemeanors had been carried out under the Representation of the People Act, however, none were disclosed and no additional activity was taken.
Unquestionably police officers do not attend people’s homes and announce that they can’t tweet about these things. This is not 1930s Germany.
Nevertheless, there are tremendous concerns regarding this matter because Mr Abberton had the prerogative to willingly reveal his beliefs, and there doesn’t appear to have been a law that he may have broken, and there doesn’t seem to have been a reason why two police officers were sent to Mr Abberton’s residence to inquire into his tweet which criticised UKIP’s policies, Mr Abberton was simply exercising his Freedom of Speech.
There for what reason was two police officers sent to Mr Abberton’s house to look into his tweet, and under what authorities did they have to request Mr Abberton eliminates his tweet and for what reason he should he not tweet about their visit?
This police activity is both troubling and shocking, that an evidently general grievance from a political party about not liking what was said about them could have directed police to visit Mr Abberton, which many would find frightening. This is a remarkably grave occurrence that demands instantaneous inquiry.
Copious amounts of people put things on twitter about one thing or another, in which they expose their views on an everyday basis. This is what Twitter is all about, embracing other social networking sites such as Facebook. Also if UKIP do not like what is being spoke about them, then maybe it’s not the people who write on there that should be brought to justice, but the social networking sites themselves, as they are permitting this to be published onto their sites.
People write and print what they perceive is unfair, and a few do not invariably recognize that it might be prejudicial, and maybe some should keep an unbiased representation on things, however, social networking sites gives people a tremendous reach on what they want to write, and how they write and print it.
By creation people are questioning creatures, and not everyone wants to be followers or arse-lickers, they would by choice talk about subjects that they think are wrongful and not lawful, and they believe that it’s fitting that they do so, either by social networking sites or by way of the media.
Why should we not have Free Speech, well, why not? Maybe it’s because those that don’t want us to have Free Speech have something to conceal, or they just don’t want the public to know the truth, or the truth to get out there for everyone else to see.