Logical fallacy. The concept is called “low hanging fruit.” A crime like writing something on the internet involves almost no investigation and the evidence is very simple to gather- in fact it can be discovered and gathered by machine. Meaning that you might be able to make arrests in 5,000 cases of that in less time than it would take to make a single arrest in a more complex case.
There are other fallacies at work too.
1. “Met Police” police the greater London area. The number of people arrested for online comments is across all of England. We do not know how many of those arrests were by London police.
2. The headline says “not possible to investigate all crime.” Investigation and arrest are two different things. Even a rookie officer can perform arrests, investigation requires a certain skill set, and some crimes require a disproportionate amount of investigation. Petty theft is an example- say your lap top is taken from your car. You could watch hours and hours of camera footage just to find the moment of the crime, and then if you do not get a clear picture be at square one, and even with the criminals face you must now find them- it takes the same effort to locate a murderer from a photo as it does to find a guy who nicked your car radio. Which would be a better use of resources of police could only look in to one?
3. The assumption here is that the time spent on those cases of online speech could have been spent elsewhere. That fails to account for the fact that time isn’t a bank. Say you work 8 hours a day, sleep 8, and need 3 for eating, hygiene, and commuting or other chores. That leaves 5 hours a day, 73 a week. A bachelors degree can be attained in 120 hours work. How many degrees do you have? Is that analogy flawed? Yes it is. That’s the point. It isn’t that simple is it?
So wether one supports the English, UK, or London police and or legal system, or believes they are doing a good job, what we have here is faulty logic and not really an argument for anything. To put it in perspective, in the United States, many people are happy that Federal agents were sent to defend federal property or monuments from vandalism. But.... how many open cases do federal agencies have on murder, missing children, sex trafficking, legitimate terrorist plots akin to 9/11? About a week ago someone tried to assassinate the president. So.... well.... there’s only so much police to go around.
1. “Met Police” police the greater London area. The number of people arrested for online comments is across all of England. We do not know how many of those arrests were by London police.
2. The headline says “not possible to investigate all crime.” Investigation and arrest are two different things. Even a rookie officer can perform arrests, investigation requires a certain skill set, and some crimes require a disproportionate amount of investigation. Petty theft is an example- say your lap top is taken from your car. You could watch hours and hours of camera footage just to find the moment of the crime, and then if you do not get a clear picture be at square one, and even with the criminals face you must now find them- it takes the same effort to locate a murderer from a photo as it does to find a guy who nicked your car radio. Which would be a better use of resources of police could only look in to one?