The British state is crushing free speech
When US vice-president JD Vance criticised the ' infringements on free speech ' that are rapidly coming to define the UK's international reputation, few were more offended than Sir Keir Starmer. The Prime Minister – who in his previous role as Director of Public Prosecutions oversaw the unsuccessful prosecution of the Twitter joke trial – insisted that Britain was 'very proud' of its 'free speech'.
He would have done better to caveat his statement with 'politically approved'. A string of cases have shown that free speech in Britain is under severe threat from an overbearing state, with little apparent appetite in Westminster to rein it in. The most recent entry in a long and dispiriting series has seen a retired special constable wrongly arrested and jailed for a social media post condemning anti-Semitism.
Shocking body-worn footage shows officers searching the home of Julian Foulkes, 71, pointing to 'Brexity' material on his shelves, prior to his being held in a police cell for eight hours then released with a caution.
This latest incident – as with the hounding of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson, the investigation of Labour MP Ian Austin for calling Hamas 'Islamist' and the police visiting writer Julie Bindel without explaining which tweet had triggered their visit – follows a familiar and worrying pattern. In each case, the initial legal wrong has to date been redressed; the chilling effect of the investigations remains.
The thought that a loosely worded comment could result in massive legal bills, the shame of arrest, a stint in jail and potentially a criminal sentence is understandably exerting an unwelcome force on public discourse, limiting necessary criticism and discussion.
Some in Westminster may see this as a feature rather than a bug. Over time, the meaning of 'policing by consent' has shifted from the support of a singular British community, to the buy-in of multiple communities with conflicting interests and opinions. And as the set of overlapping interests has narrowed, so too the model of policing has shifted to managing and suppressing 'community tensions' rather than protecting and upholding the rights and liberties of the individual.
This is a poor model. Rather than instructing police officers to act as glorified social media moderators, we should free their time to work on serious crimes, and free the public to engage in frank conversation without the creeping fear of an early morning knock on the door. As things stand, Britain's dismal record on free speech deserves every criticism Mr Vance had to offer. If we dislike this, we should work to fix our laws rather than object to being shown a mirror.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
More than nine of out ten of the Tory rank-and-file want Kemi Badenoch to purge 'wets' from the party in order to meet the challenge of Nigel Farage and Reform UK
More than nine out of ten Tory supporters want Kemi Badenoch to mount a purge of 'wets' in the Tory party in order to meet the challenge of Nigel Farage, new polling has found. According to a survey by the Popular Conservatism group, known as PopCon, 92 per cent of Conservative members and voters agree that there should be a 'big shake-up' in the party, including 'getting rid of the wets who aren't really Conservative' and 'getting rid of the MPs who are big state, pro-EU and arrogantly elitist'. The poll offers support for Ms Badenoch, with 93 per cent agreeing with her vow to abandon Net Zero targets. A total of 91 per cent want to quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), while 89 per cent want to reverse Sir Keir Starmer 's EU deal. Despite the party languishing in the polls, Ms Badenoch receives backing for her approach. However, 42 per cent of her supporters want her to establish a formal relationship with Reform. Separate polling published today by Lord Ashcroft in The Mail on Sunday reveals that voters do not think Sir Keir is sincere when he promises to cut immigration.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Keir Starmer's failure to tackle the people smugglers betrays Britain's vulnerability
SIR – If Sir Keir Starmer cannot defend our shores from people smugglers (' Why Britain faces its worst ever summer for migrant crossings ', report, June 3) then he frankly has no chance of defending the country against a modern, well-trained and equipped opponent. Until the Prime Minister stops the arrival of thousands of illegal migrants to the south coast, nobody will believe a word he says with regard to the defence of this country. Ian Grice East Haddon, Northamptonshire SIR – The United Kingdom has a massive housing shortage, congested roads and a looming water shortage. How does the Government think that the huge numbers of illegal migrants landing on our shores will do anything other than exacerbate these problems? Nobody has been building a town the size of Torquay each year to keep up with this population explosion. This comes on top of high legal migration. If more workers are needed, we must help the existing millions of young British adults into work instead of writing them off. Duncan Hartley Solihull SIR – The massive expansion of the number of illegal migrants crossing the English Channel this year is apparently down to the increased number of days with suitable weather for crossings. The incontestable follow on from this statement from the Home Office is that the only remedy the current Government has for this issue is to pray for bad weather. If there was any other viable policy on offer, surely the Government would have drawn our attention to it. Andrew Beale Hoveton, Norfolk SIR – We pay huge amounts of taxpayer's money to France, only for its police force to stand idly by watching overloaded boats setting off for Britain (' France agrees to intercept migrant boats for first time ', report June 5). Even if this situation does change, surely this money would be more effectively spent if it were paid directly to the people smugglers, on condition that they seek an alternative form of employment. Richard Hall Egginton, Derbyshire
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Reeves considers energy bill subsidy for manufacturers
Rachel Reeves is scrutinising proposals to provide a £1 billion annual subsidy to manufacturers after being warned that Britain faces rapid deindustrialisation if she fails to reduce energy costs. The chancellor is considering lowering energy costs for industry amid fears that they are holding back investment and the country's competitiveness. The plans include a scheme by which taxpayers would compensate manufacturers when the price of electricity rises above a fixed level and the companies would pay the government when the price falls below the agreed level. Several European countries have adopted a similar model, including France, Denmark, Greece and Hungary. The proposal has been seen by Sir Keir Starmer, Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, and Reeves. A source close to Reynolds said industrial energy prices were a 'live issue', while a No 10 source confirmed that measures to lower costs were under 'serious consideration'. Reeves is preparing for Wednesday's spending review and the subsequent publication of the industrial strategy for eight key areas of the economy that the government has promised to promote to bolster economic growth. Industry argues that the price it pays for energy is double that paid by European competitors and four times that of America, which is leaving Britain at a disadvantage. It affects not just the country's existing steelmakers, ceramic industry and chemical businesses but also attempts by the government to attract new technologies, such as energy-hungry data centres. In a document seen by The Sunday Times, the industry lobby group Make UK warned the government: 'If we do not address the issue of high industrial energy costs in the UK as a priority we risk the security of our country. We will fail to attract investment in the manufacturing sector and will rapidly enter a phase of deindustrialisation.' Rain Newton-Smith, chief executive of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), warned the chancellor last week that high energy prices were an 'anchor on our ambition, a crack in our economic security and must be fixed'. The plan being drawn up by Make UK, which it calls a contract for difference, would cost £1.1 billion a year for five years from 2027 to provide a guaranteed energy price. But the organisation argues this 'upfront cost' should be considered in the context of its estimates that it would generate a medium-term boost for the economy of about £3 billion a year — or 0.1 per cent of gross domestic product — and also provide more tax revenue. It claims the policy is politically expedient for the government as it would help the red wall constituencies in the Midlands and northern England where Labour is vulnerable to the threat posed by Reform. The biggest energy-intensive companies already receive a subsidy through the British Industry Supercharger scheme, which was set up by the Conservatives in 2024 and which the Financial Times reported last week could become more generous under plans being considered by ministers. But this does not benefit many industrial companies, which still say they are struggling with high energy prices. When she appeared at an event hosted by the CBI last week, Reeves told the audience of business leaders: 'We know that one of the questions that we need to answer is how we're going to make energy more affordable, particularly for some of our most intensive energy-using businesses where the price differential with other countries is just too acute for many to be competitive. That's a question we know we need to answer and we will answer in the industrial strategy in a few weeks.' Other ideas being presented to the government include stepping up drilling in the North Sea, which is likely to create tensions with Miliband. Solving the energy situation is regarded as a crucial plank of the industrial strategy, which the business secretary put out for consultation six months ago to look at eight sectors: advanced manufacturing; clean energy; the creative industries; defence; digital; financial services; life sciences and professional and business services. The result of the consultation had widely been expected to be published alongside Reeves's spending review but it is not now expected for another two weeks. It is understood that the delay has been caused by a desire to resolve the issue of industry energy costs. Stephen Phipson, chief executive of Make UK, said: 'If we don't want to lose the big corporates we have to get competitive and the government is going to have to make tough choices.' Jakob Sigurdsson, chief executive of the FTSE 250 Lancashire chemical business Victrex, said the industry was not 'asking for handouts' but needed a government policy to ensure it was viable. His energy bill is £12 million — double what it was before Russia's invasion of Ukraine pushed up oil prices — while profits are £60 million. 'When you look at it from a global perspective, for the price of power we're paying four to five times the price for electricity that a Chinese company would be paying,' he said, with a similar situation compared to the US. 'It's a cost disadvantage for us so a sound energy policy and how we deal with pricing mechanisms is paramount,' he said. 'This is not going to be solved through incremental changes. There needs to be a bold energy shift.'
