It's no longer hyperbolic to ask if Britain is still a free country
Foulkes' horrendous treatment was as absurd as it was illiberal. The offending tweet that led six police officers to his door was actually condemning anti-Semitism. He accused London's 'pro-Palestine' hate-marchers of being 'one step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals' – a reference to a recent anti-Semitic riot at an airport in Dagestan.
The subtlety was apparently lost on Kent's finest, who cuffed Foulkes, held him for eight hours and began ransacking his house as if he were a drug kingpin.
Last week, Kent Police apologised and wiped the caution from Foulkes' record. But to chalk this up as some kind of hapless error risks normalising this new breed of authoritarianism – even more so than it already has been.
Being slammed in a cell for hate speech is really not nothing. Foulkes feared he'd never be able to visit his daughter abroad again. He feared his neighbours would think he was a paedophile, as cops hauled out laptops in evidence bags. No free nation can allow this state-led harassment of innocent people, merely for expressing their opinions on the internet, to become routine.
But it has. A recent Times investigation found that at least 30 people a day are being arrested for saying 'grossly offensive' things on the internet. According to Greg Lukianoff – president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in the US – this means that Dear Old Blighty is already, easily, arresting more people for speech crimes today than America did during the first Red Scare. It's no longer hyperbolic to ask if Britain in 2025 still qualifies as a free country.
Were we just going after genuine hate-speakers, that would be bad enough. No one should be arrested for an opinion, no matter how odious. But it's obviously gone far beyond that now.
As two parents from Borehamwood found out recently, even criticising your daughter's school too vigorously can lead to a knock at the door. YouTube comics have been convicted for off-colour jokes. Lying social-media attention-seekers have been convicted for being lying social-media attention-seekers. This really isn't normal. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
The establishment appears to have imbibed the paternalistic notion that censorship begets harmony. That involving the police in even the most minor social-media squabbles is essential, lest widespread unrest ensue.
This oozes contempt for the public, of all backgrounds – as if white Brits are only ever a few spicy tweets away from a pogrom and minorities would rather be protected from offence than violence and burglary.
Well, the treatment of Foulkes and many more reveals that censorship only begets more censorship. Our decades-long experiment in policing 'hate' has ended up with pensioners being handcuffed for criticising anti-Semites. Yet more proof that we cannot trust the state to decide what is right, good and true – and that speech codes, however tightly drawn, can balloon to include totally innocent, even righteous, speech.
So it's time for a people's revolt against our supposed betters – against a distant establishment that thinks it has the right to dictate what we can say, think and do. Very Brexity, I know. But they surely can't arrest all of us.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Ice cream seller, 41, who was stabbed to death is pictured for the first time: Woman and man arrested after 'murder'
A man who was stabbed to death in the middle of the street has been named by police as 41-year-old Shazad Khan. The Metropolitan Police were called to reports of a stabbing in Monks Park, Wembley, at around 6.10pm on Tuesday. Mr Khan was treated by London Ambulance Service paramedics but, despite their best efforts, he was pronounced dead at the scene. His family are being supported by specialist officers. A 26-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of murder, while a 31-year-old woman was detained at the scene on suspicion of conspiracy to murder. They both remain in police custody. A blue forensics tent has been erected on the street following the stabbing on Tuesday Detective Chief Superintendent Luke Williams, local policing commander for north-west London, said: 'Our thoughts remain with Shazad's family and friends at this unimaginably difficult time. 'This incident will rightly cause concern across the community, but intelligence at this stage leads us to believe there is no wider threat to the public. 'Detectives are conducting a thorough and fast-paced investigation, and locals can expect to see an uptick in police presence in the area. 'Anyone with any information – particularly dashcam or doorbell footage from the time of the incident – is urged to speak to us as a matter of urgency.'
The Guardian
3 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Labour-run councils consider legal challenges to close asylum hotels
Labour-run councils are considering legal challenges to close hotels housing asylum seekers after a landmark ruling prompted officials to consider increasing the use of former military sites as emergency accommodation. Wirral and Tamworth councils said they are exploring high court injunctions to remove claimants after the Conservative-run authority in Epping Forest won a temporary high court injunction to remove people from the Bell Hotel. The developments come after the Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the government is looking at alternative options if there is a flurry of successful challenges from councils. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, is determinedto stick to her plan after the Epping ruling and its consequences, a source said. 'We have a plan and we're sticking to it to close asylum hotels by the end of the parliament. This is one narrow court judgment that happened yesterday. We're not being knocked off course, this is our manifesto commitment,' the source said. Ministers are reluctant to disclose the details about alternatives to asylum hotels because of concerns that it could be used as a recruitment tool for the far right, a government source said. Cllr Paula Basnett, the leader of Wirral council whose boundaries include the Wallasey constituency of the immigration minister Angela Eagle, said the council is actively considering 'all options' to close a local hotel. She added: 'Like many other local authorities, we have concerns about the Home Office's practice of placing asylum seekers in hotels without consultation or regard to local planning requirements. 'We are actively considering all options available to us to ensure that any use of hotels or other premises in Wirral is lawful and does not ride roughshod over planning regulations or the wishes of our communities. 'Wirral has always been proud of its record in supporting families and those fleeing conflict, but it is unacceptable for the government to impose unsuitable, short-term arrangements that disrupt communities and bypass local decision-making. 'If necessary, we will not hesitate to challenge such decisions in order to protect both residents and those seeking refuge.' Labour councillor Carol Dean, leader of Tamworth borough council, said they had explored similar legal avenues in 2022 when the Home Office first started using a local hotel, but did not end up pursuing them. 'The situation at Epping Forest represents a potentially important legal precedent, and we are carefully assessing what this might mean for our circumstances here in Tamworth. 'We fully recognise the UK government has a statutory duty to accommodate people seeking asylum. However, we have consistently maintained that the prolonged use of hotel accommodation may not represent the best approach,' she added. Conservative-run Broxbourne Council in Hertfordshire has said it was taking legal advice 'as a matter of urgency', while Tory-run East Lindsey district council in Lincolnshire said officers are investigating and 'will take appropriate action'. Reform UK-led councils, West Northamptonshire council and Staffordshire county council, also said the authorities would look at the options available after the high court ruling. On Tuesday, Reform UK leaders Nigel Farage and Richard Tice indicated that councils run by the party will consider their own legal challenges. However, a number of these do not have responsibility for planning permission, which may limit their ability to launch legal bids. Other authorities have ruled out legal action, with the leader of Labour-run Newcastle city council saying she was 'confident' the council could end the use of hotels without going to court. Karen Kilgour said: 'We recognise that people seeking asylum include families, women, and children, many of whom have faced unimaginable trauma. 'Newcastle has a proud history of offering sanctuary, and we stand ready to play our part – but it must be done in a way that works for our city and supports the dignity and wellbeing of those who come here.' Mr Justice Eyre granted the Epping injunction after hearing the local council's complaints that planning law had been breached in changing the site's use. Epping district council also cited disruption caused by the protests and concerns for the safety of the asylum seekers themselves. The hotel has been at the centre of violent far-right protests since an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. Since 2020, there has been greater reliance on hotels to house asylum seekers, with 32,345 being housed temporarily in England and Wales at the end of March this year. Labour has promised to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by 2029 by cutting small boat crossings and building new accommodation. Asked on Times Radio about possible housing options for anyone removed from hotels, Jarvis said on Wednesday that the government is 'looking at a range of different contingency options'. These are understood to include placing people removed from hotels in Wethersfield Air Base in Essex and Napier Barracks in Kent. Figures from the end of March show that almost a third of asylum seekers that receive government support were housed in 'contingency accommodation' which is flats and houses. The statistics, from the National Audit Office (NAO) and other official sources, says this amounts to about 32, 300 people, a reduction of 42% compared with its 2023 peak. But the current government and its predecessors have also been forced to use disused military bases to house refugees, with the two most high-profile being Wethersfield Air Base in Essex and Napier Barracks in Kent. Despite ministers coming under heavy criticism for the conditions refugees have been forced to endure, this Labour government is set to expand the use of both bases. It comes after the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, pledged to stop using taxpayer-funded hotels by 2029 in her Spending Review, in a drive to save £1bn. The Home Office aims to achieve this by moving refugees into cheaper sites. In April of last year, Cooper said Wethersfield is neither 'a sustainable solution' nor provides 'value for money for the taxpayer'. But an internal Home Office memo dated 24 July, seen by the Guardian, shows there are plans to put people in Wethersfield despite it being at maximum capacity. It states: 'While the site's regular cap is 800 an additional 445 bed spaces may be used temporarily during peak demand. There are no plans to exceed 1,245.' In March, the high court found the previous government's use of Wethersfield to be unlawful after three men likened their conditions to a prison. Napier Barracks, which was due to be handed back to the Ministry of Defence in September, will instead continue to house migrants into 2026.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The millionaire Marxist who became a political problem for the BBC
Sally Rooney once argued that writers have more influence than they deserve. 'Novelists are given too much cultural prominence,' she said in an interview with The New Yorker in 2018. 'I know you could point out they're really not given a lot of prominence but… it's still too much.' And yet, surely, a prominent voice and an outsized cultural heft were exactly what Rooney was banking on when she wrote a piece in The Irish Times last weekend saying that she would be using funds generated by the sale of her books and their BBC adaptations to support Palestine Action, which has been proscribed as a terrorist group in the UK. 'If the British state considers this 'terrorism', then perhaps it should investigate the shady organisations that continue to promote my work and fund my activities, such as WHSmith and the BBC,' was one of the 34-year-old's many controversial lines. A self-proclaimed Marxist, Rooney has frequently been outspoken on abortion rights, housing reform and climate change. But it is her stance on Palestine that has garnered the most coverage. In 2021 she made headlines around the world after rejecting an offer from an Israeli publisher to translate her third book, Beautiful World, Where Are You, into Hebrew (despite the company already having translated her first two) owing to her views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Until now, the Ireland-based author's interventions have not hindered her career. But given the immediate backlash to her most recent pronouncement – which means she could now face legal proceedings should she travel to the UK – has she finally overstepped the mark? Some certainly appear to think so. The Campaign Against Antisemitism has denounced Rooney's actions as 'utterly indefensible', accusing her of clearly stating her intent to channel money 'towards a group that… terrorised the Jewish community'. 'Platforms and publishers profiting from her work must urgently review their relationship with her, as they now risk enabling the flow of funds to a terrorist organisation,' the group said in a statement earlier this week, adding that it intended to pursue private prosecution if the pro-Palestinian writer travels to Britain and authorities fail to take action of their own. For those connected to her work, Rooney's stance clearly presents something of a conundrum. On the one hand, she is one of the most revered and most profitable novelists of her generation, and the darling of the Left-leaning publishing scene – on the other, alienating a significant proportion of the market is rarely a move any finance department favours. One publishing insider says Rooney's agents' 'hearts will be sinking'. A top London literary agent goes further still: 'If an author wrote a piece saying they were planning to fund Hamas, we would be appalled. This is a ridiculous state of affairs. I have had authors who have turned down prizes because they disagree with the sponsors, but I have never heard of a situation where someone is actively supporting an illegal organisation – she's implicating a lot of people without realising it.' The agent believes Rooney's British publishing house, Faber & Faber, will be forced to make a statement. 'I imagine they will want to take an agnostic view on this, as it is a no-win for them. If they support this, there may be legal issues, but if they say nothing, they are allowing it to be unchallenged that they are taking money… and giving it to someone funding an outlawed organisation.' Rooney's net worth is reported to total at least £10m, owing to her runaway success in recent years. At just 24 – then a Trinity College Dublin graduate and European champion debater – she was taken on by the prestigious Wylie Agency and over the past decade she has been lauded with a string of awards. In the UK and Ireland alone she has sold more than six million copies of her four novels, Conversations with Friends, Normal People, Beautiful World, Where Are You and Intermezzo, which have been translated into 40 languages and adapted into some of the 2020s' most beloved television shows. In other words:Rooney may be a Marxist, but she is also thought to be one of the richest young writers in the world. Today she still lives in the west of Ireland, a few miles from where she grew up, and remains close to her parents. Both are committed socialists, and Rooney has spoken about how she worries that her own dazzling career borders on the frivolous. 'There is a part of me that will never be happy knowing that I am just writing entertainment, making decorative aesthetic objects at a time of historical crisis,' she once told the Irish Independent. 'But I am not good at anything else.' Perhaps that sense of concern has motivated her forays into hot-button issues. Whatever her motivations, at home, Rooney's stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is a popular one: Ireland is – by and large – very pro-Palestine (and has not proscribed Palestine Action). But in the UK and the US, where her major publishing houses are based, she is causing problems not only for herself but for people associated with her work. This includes editors and producers, and may yet see A-list actors such as Paul Mescal and Daisy Edgar-Jones, who had break-out roles in the BBC adaption of Normal People, drawn into the controversy. Like Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe from the Harry Potter franchise – who stood against JK Rowling and her stance on the trans debate – they can be expected to face uncomfortable questions about where they themselves stand on this subject in the days to come. As for her relationships within the industry, Rooney will receive a lot of support in part because of her sales record. 'If Sally Rooney were a failure then the question would be different,' says literary agent David Godwin. 'But publishing houses, like all businesses, are always tinged with self-interest – they're shameless in many ways, and she sells so many copies. I can't imagine a situation where they wouldn't publish her. That gives her a lot of freedom.' Still, he agrees that most executives would prefer her not to be quite so open about her beliefs. ' When it comes to Palestine, publishers are much more frightened these days,' he says, 'and they are more inclined to stay far away from controversy. Publishing was once very individualistic and authors were left to say what they wanted, but things are more corporate now and people are conscious of what could create a backlash.' Equally, others note that Rooney isn't the most profitable writer on the circuit – and that she can't always expect unwavering support from publishers. 'She sells a lot of books, but she's not the biggest author out there,' says another literary insider. 'She's the biggest author for Faber, and she's culturally significant, but there are many authors in front of her in terms of sales. Richard Osman sells far more books than she does.' More than the response from readers (one agent claims most of her fans will already be aware of her beliefs and so are unlikely to suddenly stop buying her books), her editors will be concerned about Rooney's ability to promote future works. 'I would be worried about whether she would be able to travel to the UK easily,' says one. 'A book tour is an essential way of getting sales up – can she legally come here now?' And then there is the question of America, where entering the top 10 means earning millions of dollars but where the debate over the future of Israel is even more fraught than it is in Britain. Jessa Crispin, a US-based author and the editor-in-chief of the literary webzine Bookslut, says Rooney may ultimately emerge unscathed. 'Sally Rooney is one of the few writers who sells enough worldwide to have a real power to make a stand within publishing,' she says. 'She makes her publisher a lot of money, it seems, so if she doesn't want to be published in Israel or translated into Hebrew, they will want to go along with that to keep her happy.' And luckily for Rooney, the publishing industry on both sides of the Atlantic tends to be far more Left-leaning than the general public. 'I think her readership is probably with her,' says Christian Lorentzen, a US-based writer and critic. 'I think she's brave and admirable and righteous on this question, and it might even increase her sales, but I do not think at all that she's acting cynically. She's an idealist and it's to her credit.' Television and film, however, is a different story. For authors, that's where the real money usually lies – and Rooney must be aware that Hollywood takes a stronger view on this debate than most booksellers. 'The likes of Netflix and other corporate people will evaluate the risk versus the reward of working with her from now on,' says Mark Borkowski, a British PR executive and author with an interest in reputation and crisis management. 'By doing this she sacrifices a lot of potential relationships in Hollywood – which is very supportive of the Jewish cause. From now on, she will be fairly Marmite in terms of deals, which will shrink her commercial ecosystem.' As for the BBC – which is closely linked to Rooney after adapting two of her novels and which she singled out in her editorial – it may well pause before collaborating with her in the future. 'The BBC will obfuscate on this topic for a long time,' says Borkowski. 'I would think that they are pretty uncomfortable because it puts them in the firing line.' Some have even argued that there might be room for legal action against the corporation. 'By providing financial assistance to an organisation which clearly intends to commit criminal damage in the UK, she is likely to be guilty under UK law for knowingly assisting the commission of criminal offences,' says Jonathan Turner, the chief executive of the legal advocacy organisation UK Lawyers for Israel. 'I think the BBC and sellers of her books could also be liable for assisting criminal offences by Palestine Action, as well as offences under the Terrorism Act 2000, for transferring funds that may be used for the purposes of terrorism.' The BBC, which now finds itself facing calls to pull Rooney's dramas from iPlayer, has itself said: 'Matters relating to proscribed organisations are for the relevant authorities.' The corporation is not thought to be working with Rooney on any projects at present. As for the author herself? Rooney may yet ride out this storm – but at 34 she has a long career ahead of her and, by taking such a controversial stance, has made herself more vulnerable. 'She will have made some enemies by doing this,' says one agent. 'Let's just say that this is not the time to put out a bad book.'
