Thread by @AndrewPRLevi

Some say they’re the #FarageRiots.

Others say the #MuskRiots.

Some say neither.

I’m not sure we yet know the whole truth about these men’s possible involvement, potentially as inciters to or participants in violence or even terrorism.

There are legitimate questions.

A 🧵/1.

To be guilty of terrorism in England, you don’t have to be physically present (see CPS guidance ⬇️). Similar considerations apply to some other crimes relevant to the current violent disorder.

“I was only tweeting” or “I was just asking questions” are far from safe defences. /2.

For the likes of Mr Musk or Mr Farage one might think their respective, prominent positions could protect them from criminal charges and severe consequences.

One might.

If one thought the AG, DPP, courts, police etc in England to be corrupt, weak or both.

If not, not. /3.

I tend toward the “not”.

If Mr Musk, Mr Farage or others who have been similarly unwise (IMHO, of course) in their approach to the very serious crimes which have been incited, assisted and committed in England over the last days, have any sense, they’ll prepare accordingly. /4.

In fact, their very prominence could be a major aggravating factor in any relevant crimes they may have committed.

If you own perhaps the most influential social media site, have over 100 million followers, and enormous wealth, your tweets aren’t just ordinary musings. /5.

If you’re an MP and a widely, nationally quoted politician (even if with a mere 1 million or so followers) your public messaging carries a different weight and quality than a random posting from a frustrated but obscure acolyte of yours. /6.

In short, while people like Mr Musk and Mr Farage have no doubt (you’d think, wouldn’t you?) been careful not to slide into serious criminality, if they’ve slipped up, their high profile and importance - decry those as you might - open them to particularly grave consequences. /7.

Which is where it gets rather interesting.

And where, because none of us is the DPP carrying the responsibility for any charging decisions, as concerned members of the public we are mainly confined to asking legitimate questions on the basis of what we’ve seen. /8.

Can it really be, I’ve heard it asked, that apparently making a call for civil war in England - indeed doing so at a time when a widespread wave of serious violent crimes is occurring - does not represent manifold transgressions of England’s criminal law, on incitement, say? /9.

I can’t answer that definitively. But I do think the question legitimate.

Similar considerations apply to appearing implicitly to threaten violence if measures you assert should be taken aren’t - indeed doing so at a time of high tension which you in turn so heighten. /10.

It is also, one must reasonably assert, legitimate to ask what hope we can have that Mr Musk, Mr Farage, or a number of other well-known figures, will abide by guidelines, rules or even civil law requirements relevant to the above mentioned circumstances and considerations. /11.

Some might argue we can have none.

It seems legitimate to ask whether that’s true, bearing in mind the past behaviours we have all observed. I’d say yes. But I’m just seeking the truth here, you understand.

It’s important, because it goes to the heart of national security. /12.

If - and we can legitimately raise the question of whether this is correct - there is little or no point in attempting by voluntary or similar means to prevent involvement in potential, relevant serious crime by Mr Farage or Mr Musk, we face a stark choice, do we not? /13.

We couldn’t just let such crime happen. Could we? Attempts at voluntary compliance would be futile? Wouldn’t they? So we’d be led to a clear conclusion. Wouldn’t we?

Actions. Not words.

Criminal charges. Not cosy meetings.

Setting the narrative. Not being led by the nose. /14.

Which brings me to a further question.

I think it a legitimate one.

Which after all, is the extent of what we’re doing here: asking such questions, seeking the full truth. /15.

If, whatever else they may also be, current disturbing events turn out indeed in significant part to be the #FarageRiots and the #MuskRiots, isn’t it legitimate to ask whether it’s imperative for our national well-being, perhaps survival, to “lock them up”? /16.

And isn’t it legitimate not to ask but to insist that the full force of the law be applied, without fear or favour, to Mr Farage and Mr Musk, and likewise in any other similar cases?

And to note that serious terror offences carry a minimum sentence of 14 years? /17. End