What did Elon Musk say at far-right UK rally and did his remarks break the law?

"This is a message to the reasonable centre, the people who ordinarily wouldn't get involved in politics, who just want to live their lives. They don't want that, they're quiet, they just go about their business. My message to them: if this continues, that violence is going to come to you, you will have no choice. You're in a fundamental situation here. Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die, that's the truth, I think."

"There are two main statutes that apply to public pronouncements that encourage or incite violence in England and Wales. The first is the Public Order Act 1986, section 4 of which applies to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour directed towards a person. But crucially it must carry the threat of provoking immediate unlawful violence. The second is the Serious Crime Act 2007. It has provisions, which also cover Northern Ireland, that relate to encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence."

"Jonathan Hall KC, the UK independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and independent reviewer of state threat legislation, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Musk's comments would not have broken the law. Politicians use martial language all the time, don't they? Hall said. I mean, metaphors such as fights and struggles are pretty normal. And he was talking about it contingent"

Downing Street condemned Elon Musk for using dangerous and inflammatory language at a nationalist protest organised by Tommy Robinson. Musk called for a dissolution of parliament and warned the "reasonable centre" that violence was imminent and that people must "either fight back or... die." Two main UK statutes potentially apply: Public Order Act 1986 section 4 requires a threat of provoking immediate unlawful violence, and the Serious Crime Act 2007 covers encouraging or assisting offences but requires belief the offence will occur and that the act would encourage it. No racial group was referenced, and an independent reviewer said the remarks would not have broken the law.

Read at www.theguardian.com