Do we still have freedom speech in the UK?

Do we REALLY have Freedom of Speech in the UK

A message to Starmer: Get back to policing the streets and borders – not the tweets and recorders!

In a creepy, fawning gesture, flip-flop Starmer told President Trump that we still have freedom of speech in the UK. And he’d never lie, right?

Well, JD Vance told the Munich Security Conference earlier this year that the right to freedom of speech is in retreat across Europe and singled out the UK.

(Times News, March 2024): Keir Starmer clashes with JD Vance on UK free speech

Meanwhile, back in Blighty…

Here are just a couple I grabbed:

Liverpool (April 2025): A man is arrested at home by FOUR policemen for sending out an X post

Borehamwood (Jan 2025): Couple arrested by SIX officers for criticising the the leadership in their daughter’s school in a parents’ WhatsApp group

There were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property. Then released becuase there was “insufficient evidence” to take any action.

The county’s Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), Jonathan Ash-Edwards, said this “shouldn’t have become a police matter.” He added that “the public should be able to express their views without worrying they’ll get a knock at the door from the police.”

Croydon (Jan 2025): A man tells a Labour councillor that woman don’t have a willy – and SIXTEEN (16) coppers turn at at his house to arrest for it – and four of them were CID!

Took them about 16 years to get their heads from up their arse, but the Supreme Court – and ECHR – agree it’s biological sex at birth that matters, that women do not have willies, and that a piece of paper saying you ‘identify’ as a women doesn’t get you a free pass into the girls changing rooms.

Naturally Labour ministers are up in arms over this and want it reversed. From this I must assume they still don’t know what a women is and want men to be allowed to perv in women’s toilets and changing rooms. No wonder Labour don’t want an investigation into grooming gangs, eh!

It should also be noted that Starmer – a defence lawyer – refuses to support this law or call out his ministers for plotting against it!
Facebook: Isabel Oakeshott says Keir Starmer’s silence on the Supreme Court’s gender ruling “is not sustainable”.
“The Supreme Court has made its judgement and you, as Prime Minister, respect the law.”

(TalkTV) Man arrested by SIXTEEN police officers for offending Labour councillor

Christian woman arrested for silent prayer receives compensation from police.
So, let’s add thought police to the list! Straight out of Tom Cruise’s Minority Report!
But let’s say nothing of Muslims throwing down their prayer mats…

That too a huge part of the problem – like everything else in Starmer’s Britain, thought policing, NCHIs and hate crimes are two tier. One tier (gloves off) for white ‘criminals’, and softly softly, run away for all other minorities. But the police and government refuse to admit this, so it never happens.
Okaayyy then.

This next one is a dozy.
So good that – obviously – the mainstream press wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole. A number of Tory MPs reposted, but only Newsweek ran it.

I believe Turning Point UK caught it first, sharing it on Facebook and Instagram: An elderly, partially deaf gentleman ask someone to ‘speak up’. This was interpretted as ‘speak English’ and the local police came over to read him the riot act for his ‘hate crime’.

Imagine any other country – any other at all – sending their Gestapo round because you asked someone to speak the native tongue, let alone to speak up ‘cos you’re a bit deaf!

Copper: “I heard that Starmer says pensioners don’t vote Labour, that pensioners are a drain on the country ‘cos they don’t work. That we can ‘ave you. You racist gammon.”

Or something like that.
Who knows what actually goes through their tiny minds.

I’d be ashamed to wear the uniform, tell the chief inspector to do one, but that’s me, I’ve got a backbone! These braindead clowns can’t think for themselves. The law is the law!

The law is the law. “I AM THE LAW”

Police officer warns couple of hate crime for saying, ‘Speak clearly’

Am I in the wrong to be so insulting to our fine police force?

Back in the day, my cousin’s grandad was stationed outside #10 Downing Street, rose through the ranks to become chief inspector over Greater Manchester. Another cousin married an officer. One of my mum’s best friends was an officer. One of my best friends was an officer.

Common theme: WAS. The police used to be respected, mostly.

Now?
If it’s white folk kicking off, they run in, mob-handed, batons flailing. Not as bad as Spanish and French riot police, but working on it. Starmer labels everyone left of Stalin ‘far-right’, and pokes the judicial system to toss as many as possible in jail (as political prisoners), so as to ‘send a message’.

But ethnics rioting? They run away! Every time!
When I was a kid they had a name for people like that, officers like that: shithouses.

Now?
It gets worse. The old guy trying to hear the person clearly? That’s a crime. Imagine when the bloody police themselves can’t even speak English!
It beggars belief!

The Telegraph I want to discriminate against white candidates, says police chief

MSN: Police force ‘encouraged people with no GCSEs and English to apply’
“A whisperblower told TalkTV: ‘It didn’t matter if they couldn’t speak English or had never sat an exam” adding that it was all about getting ticks in boxes, and that ‘they recruited heavily for Muslim communities’.

But asking them to ‘speak up, or speak English – in England – is a hate crime.
It’s racist, or something, expecting your own police force to speak your own language.

Can’t find it now, but there was an AI video of hundreds of coppers – on foot – overtaking cars and a bus, chasing down some miscreant who’d offended a local Labour councillor. Would have fitted perfectly here!

Your right to hold your own opinion (or not!)

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.

This includes the right to express your views [via] the internet and social media

There are clauses and caveats about protecting the rights and reputations of other people (fair) and protect health or morals (mmm… open to (mis)interpretation).

What there is NOT, as far as I can tell, is a clause saying, but “If you offend someone with the truth they can report you and send 16 coppers round your house to intimidate you and steal your shit.”

But, they are Starmer’s boot boys now, so maybe they think they can. Just one goose step closer to a police state!

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act (1998): Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Equality and Human Rights Commission: Article 10: Freedom of expression

gov.uk: Human Rights Act 1998, UK Public General Acts 1998, c. 42, SCHEDULE 1,PART I, Article 10

Being shady bastards though, they do like to look for loopholes in their own rules they can try try to exploit, to see what they can get away with.

Enter ‘hate crimes’

CPS: Hate Crime

The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:

“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.”

There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.

These crimes are covered by legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.

CPS: Hate crime

WHAT!?

To reiterate, it can be a ‘hate crime’ if you use words like resentment and dislike.

So if you are at the front of the queue for social housing and the council builds say 23 new houses and gives them all to migrants that arrived in the country a month ago and you post something like, I dislike the fact all these asylum seekers got the new houses. It’s just not right. I resent that I got pushed to the back of the queue for them.

Well, expect at least four coppers pulling open the tent ‘door’ because, my dear, that’s “hate speech”. HOW DARE YOU hate them taking a house that – rightly – should have gone to your family.

Morally and factually you would be completely right.
Within the (1998) Freedom of Speech act, you are legally safe.
Under the revised ‘hate speech’ law (for which you can blame the Tories) and revised interpretations of this (which are down to Starmer), well, the ground just got sticky.

They say the law is an ass, but under Starmer, they are [this comment has been redacted by the thought police]

As Ricky Gervais say, “Just ’cause you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right. You can’t legislate against stupidy“.

There is actually a term covering this, probably several, but ‘cognitive dissonance‘ covers it well enough. It point to the sad fact that the majority of people (like the easily offended) would rather live with an easy lie than an uncomfortable truth.

Thus, when Starmer was fawningly pawing at President Trump, telling him we ‘still have free speech in the UK’ he was… being disingenuous.

Side note: In the common vernacular, ‘disingenuous’ means lying throught your back teeth.

How it’s going

From CPS’ own figures: around 14,000 people a year are dragged in and arrested for ‘hate crimes’. Of these 86% are convicted.

Police victim: Well, that’s just like, your opinion man, I just said…”

Police officer: “You wanna taste this baton, punk? Just confess and you’ll keep your feckin’ teeth”

Lucy Connelly: “They’ll do it it. They threaten or do anything they can to get a conviction (if you are white).”

Warden, rattling the bars: “Shut it, you. Political prisoners must be seen and not heard! Starmer’s orders”

NCHIs: Non Crime Hate Incidents

This, as far as I can tell, is when you’ve done absolutely nothing wrong – but the police can come round and harrass you anyway, because they can!

Because a succession of governments set it up without thinking, without understanding, and allowed it to balloon out of control until a power-hungry authoritarian in the form of Starmer – who, it turns out, had a hand in it along the way – grabbed the reigns and yelled, “**** YES!”
And here we are…

Anyway, NCHI’s seem more or less the same as hate crimes, just not enough to get the CPS involved.

Not enough to jail you – but enough to – even if you are innocent – to place a black mark on your record, presumably to ‘teach you a lesson’.

See, it’s on your record now. You are a hateful person. You offended someone!
(They might have had blue hair and no sense of humour, but they reported you, so police – who aren’t allowed to tell them to stop wasting police time and to grow the **** up – come round to hassle you, ‘cos actually, they agree. That’s how lefty indoctrination spreads).

So, if you are going for a job that requires a police check – and it’s generally left-leaning organisations like councils, schools, the police, etc that want these – well, they can see you are not suitable. Nope. You are a bad person.

It is Orwellian and it’s happening all across Europe.

Definition of a Non-Crime Hate Incident

“Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) are recorded by the police to collect information on ‘hate incidents’ that could escalate into more serious harm or indicate heightened community tensions, but which do not constitute a criminal offence.”

Definition of a Non-Crime Hate Incident

11. A non-crime hate incident (NCHI) means an incident or alleged incident which involves or is alleged to involve an act by a person (‘the subject’) which is perceived by a person other than the subject to be motivated – wholly or partly – by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic.

… were the characteristic is protected under ‘hate crime’ legislation rule or perceived characteristics (or lack thereof!).
e.g. race, religion (of lack of religion), sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity

(Noting that the last one falls on it’s face a bit ‘cos, according to the supreme court, women aren’t born with dangly bits)

…there may be instances where a force deems it necessary to record an incident involving a different characteristic that is not covered by hate crime legislation

(It does drone on a lot like this, until we reach this bit next:)

3. Necessary Considerations – Proportionality, Common-Sense Approach, and Least Intrusive Method

(Given police make thousand of these a year, I’m guessing they ignore that bit of the law when it suits them!)

…safeguards were needed so that “the incursion into freedom of expression is no more than is strictly necessary”. … is proportionate, (and) made in accordance with a ‘common sense approach’

(So, coppers harassing you for being hard of hearing (itself a disability, so a hate crime by the police)… not common sense
16 coppers turning up on your doorstep, taking your shit and arresting you – for telling the truth… not a proportionate response.)

That’s up to point 11, it carries on to 25.

Home office (June, 2023): Statutory guidance: Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data
(Applies to England and Wales)

Fun fact:
The purpose of NCHI recording ia to monitor such incidents, build up a picture, stop shit building up sort of thing. That’s the plan, the idea. Preventative.
But, apparently only one police force in the country actually analyses the data, and even that is carried out in a lackadaisical, half-arsed way.

Some years ago I was in hospital, in a really bad way. Every day, actually several times a day, they’d take my blood and test it.
Which they did. For weeks.
Until shit got real.
Here’s the thing…
They were told to test my blood, so they did.
But they weren’t told to look at the test results – so they didn’t.

Daily Telegraph (April 2025) We don’t know if non-crime hate incidents help fight crime, police admit

To me, then, the reason is not to predict trouble, but to suppress freedom of speech. To cow the natives.

Is Starmer pushing us towards civil war?

According King’s College War Studies professor David Baetz, there is, from a historic perspective, a step-by-step guide of how to cause civil unrest, how to incite a civil wars – and Starmer is – this panel suggested – following every single step in the book! The group, including Matt Goodwin, suggested that the UK isn’t quite there yet, but France and Spain are ready to boil over and if – when – they do, we may not be for behind.

Political elites are doubling down their speech repression, trying to put a stopper in an explosive tide of popular discontent.

(Youtube) European Civil War?, a view From The Danube #

The essential take is you can only push people so far before they revolt.
This is why – historically and still – the ‘ruling elite’ are terrified of the working class: we outnumber them 1,000 to 1, or something. By a LOT, anyway.

It’s an interest talk and also covers things like normalcy bias and the belief that nothing bad is going to happen (when every indication says otherwise), and preference cascade (the point at which so many people realise ‘It’s not just me…’ and can kick off, when an uprising in the feelings of a nation cause their behaviour to change dramatically).

A preference cascade then is when about 80% of the population – especially via social media – get tired of being treated like a third-class citizen and, almost as one, declare, “I am tired of this shit and I’m not taking it any more”

I dunno about you, but I think we are all getting close to that stage – and that is why Starmer and the government and it’s politsiya are stomping all over freedom of speech.

Spittle flying, they are building up to scream in our faces,
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION OUR AUTHORITY! Back in your kennel, dogs!

You will respect my authority

Remember that line from Southpark?

Cartman masquerades as a deputy and the power goes to his head…

He pulls a guy over for speeding, out comes the nightstick…

Well, under a new Crime and Policing bill in the works, the bill, police, local authorities and a number of other bodies will be empowered to ask courts for ‘respect orders’

I saw this mention on Facebooks (Politics page) and tracked it to Sp!ked: The UK’s free-speech crisis is about to get so much worse. The Crime and Policing Bill could unleash terrifying new censorship powers.

If I’m reading this right, the law will give police and authorities cart blanche to shut down and silence anything they – or the government – don’t like.

From the Spiked article (by Andrew Tettenborn, professor of commercial law):

“These orders are potentially so draconian and wide-ranging that they could well end up being used for very different purposes – including silencing anyone who says anything online that the authorities disapprove of.

…[they] prohibit someone from doing or require them to do ‘anything described in the order’.
… if the court thinks, [it] is likely to cause.. distress to any person’.

They don’t need to warn you.
The order can be issued indefinitely and can carries an unlimited fine or two years in prison.
They can force you to delete the offending content – which could be years of research.
They can force you to never refer to the subject concerned online again
They can force you to off social media altogether – forever.
They might even be able to force you to hand over your passwords for every one of your internet-enabled devices.

“This law could be used to attack practically anyone who criticises or makes life difficult for their elected officials.
(example given is a councillor telling a critic to “pipe down indefinitely or face possible imprisonment.”

The Crime and Policing Bill could even be abused by central government to silence dissent.
(Easily, I would say.)

We’ve always seen how Starmer made political prisoners of hundreds over the Southport riot – riots he caused by his silence and lies.

We’ve seen a couple arrested by six cops for disagreeing with the school in a whatsapp group.

We’ve seen 16 – SIXTEEN – cops arrest a bloke for tellnig a Labour offical that (in his opinion) women don’t have willies, something the supreme court agrees with
(But Starmer and the front bench don’t! God only know what horrors lurk must in their underwear then!

Based on past record, it is a 100% absolutely certainly that insanely draconian interpretations and rulings will spew out of control if this bill passes into law!

“I’m not doing anything wrong, officers”
*Out comes the batons*
“You will respect my authority”

The new Crime and Policing Bill appears to be Yvette Coopers baby and is currently at the committee stage. It is already 332 pages long, with 137 sections.

I’ve only glanced at fragments of it and it makes my head spin. Why do this have to vomit such shite? Have they never heard of the Plain English Campaign!?

It’s there right on page one, boots of the neck of the commn place: You will respect my authority

Power to make respect orders

(1) A court may make an order under this section … if the court considers it just and convenient to make the order for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour.

(Remember it’s up to the cops to decide what they consider anti-social behaviour and the local courts (not even the CPS!) to decide if it’s ‘convenient’ to silence someone.
Yer, and that can’t be misused by a power-hungry authoritarians like Starmer!)

(a) prohibit the respondent from doing anything described in the order;
(b) require the respondent to do anything described in the order.

You get the idea. Imagine a telephone book of the drivel!