Latest news with #JulianFoulkes
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- General
- Daily Mail
Retired policeman wrongly arrested over 'thought crime' X post wins £20,000 payout
A retired policeman who was wrongly arrested over a social media post warning of a rise in anti-Semitism has won £20,000 in compensation. Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham, was detained at his home by six officers from Kent Police - the very same force he had given ten years of his life to - after he questioned a supporter of pro-Palestine demonstrations on X in November 2023. In the context of a rise in protests at the start of the Israel-Hamas war - and reports of an anti-Semitic mob storming a Russian airport - Mr Foulkes tweeted an activist: 'One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals…' Mr Foulkes was later handcuffed on his own doorstep by uniformed officers equipped with batons and pepper spray. Officers searched his home and made comments on his 'very Brexity' book collection, before detaining the 71-year-old for eight hours. This month, Kent Police confirmed the caution was a mistake and had been removed from Mr Foulkes's record. In a letter sent to Mr Foulkes' solicitors, the force has now repeated an apology from the chief constable Tim Smith for the 'distress caused by the actions of his officers'. It also confirmed Kent Police would agree to an out-of-court settlement after Mr Foulkes launched a legal challenge for wrongful arrest and detention. The letter, sent by a lawyer for the force, read: 'I am instructed to accept the offer of early resolution without recourse to litigation by payment of compensation in the sum of £20,000 plus your client's reasonable legal fees in full and final settlement of all prospective claims arising from his arrest on Nov 2, 2023.' Mr Foulkes told The Telegraph that although he was 'naturally pleased' that Kent Police had apologised, it was 'never about money'. 'For me, it was a simple matter of right and wrong and I now need to see that the full investigation I have been promised takes place and necessary actions are taken to prevent any recurrence,' he said. Previously, Mr Foulkes spoke to MailOnline to reveal he had accepted an offer from the Free Speech Union to fund a lawsuit against Kent Police for wrongful arrest and detention. He said: 'This is absolutely an Orwellian-style thought crime. It's absolutely ridiculous because I sent a tweet which was reasonable in the circumstances and it was a tweet based on events I'd read about just the previous day and in the previous week. 'It was taken out of context and I really can't go through all the failings of Kent police - as much as I'd like to - but it's been quite astonishing to me especially as I served with them for 10 years.' Kent Police misinterpreted his tweet as being anti-Jewish but has since removed the caution from Mr Foulkes' record as well as his biometric data that was stored in police files. Mr Foulkes said previously: 'I sat on it for nine months or so wondering what to do - whether to go public but decided it was best to speak out. 'Career-wise it's not going to hurt me. At my age, I've got no plans to work again so that's not something that affects me. 'In practical terms the worst thing was the injustice and that's the thing I wanted to tackle because there's right and wrong - and I knew they were wrong. 'I got the right result in getting the caution overturned and it's not something Kent Police - indeed any police force do very often.'
Telegraph
4 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
Pensioner receives police payout over ‘thought crime' tweet
A retired special constable has been given compensation of £20,000 after being wrongly arrested over a social media post warning about rising anti-Semitism. Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham, Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers after replying to a pro-Palestinian activist on X. Kent Police officers searched his home and commented on his 'very Brexity' book collection. The force detained the 71-year-old for eight hours, interrogated and issued him with a caution after officers visited his home on Nov 2 2023. Earlier this month, Kent Police confirmed that the caution was a mistake and had been deleted from Mr Foulkes's record. Tim Smith, the force's chief constable, later phoned Mr Foulkes personally to offer an apology for the 'ordeal he endured'. Now, in a letter sent to Mr Foulkes' solicitors, the force reiterated Mr Smith's apology for the 'distress caused by the actions of his officers' . It also confirmed Kent Police would agree to an out-of-court settlement after Mr Foulkes launched a legal challenge, supported by the Free Speech Union (FSU), against the force for wrongful arrest and detention. The letter, sent by a lawyer for the force, read: 'I am instructed to accept the offer of early resolution without recourse to litigation by payment of compensation in the sum of £20,000 plus your client's reasonable legal fees in full and final settlement of all prospective claims arising from his arrest on Nov 2 2023.' Mr Foulkes told The Telegraph he was 'naturally pleased that Kent Police had been swift to follow their apology with compensation'. 'However, this was never about money,' he said. 'For me, it was a simple matter of right and wrong and I now need to see that the full investigation I have been promised takes place and necessary actions are taken to prevent any recurrence.' On Friday, Kent Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) over the incident. Mr Foulkes added: 'I have been very fortunate in receiving superb assistance from the FSU and I would like to thank them once again for their help and support.' Police body-worn camera footage captured officers scrutinising Mr Foulkes's collection of books by authors such as Douglas Murray, a Telegraph contributor, and issues of The Spectator, pointing to what they described as 'very Brexity things'. Mr Foulkes's X post replied to an activist threatening to sue Suella Braverman, the home secretary at the time, for calling pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London ' hate marches '. In the post, sent two days before police visited his home, Mr Foulkes wrote: 'One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals…' Mr Foulkes's X post was referring to news reports of an anti-Semitic mob that stormed an airport in Dagestan, Russia, looking for Jewish passengers. On Nov 2, six officers arrived at Mr Foulkes's home, armed with batons and pepper spray. He was arrested, fingerprinted, photographed and swabbed for DNA. After his home was searched, the retired special constable was locked in a police cell for eight hours and interrogated on suspicion of malicious communications. Fearing that further escalation could impact his ability to visit his daughter, who lives in Australia, he accepted a caution despite having committed no offence. Matt Elkins, director of Legisia Legal Services, who helped get Mr Foulkes's police record deleted, said while the compensation was welcome as this had 'never been about money but about correcting an injustice '. He said: 'The police don't always admit they're in the wrong, so I think Kent Police should be acknowledged for their prompt mea culpa. 'The compensation is, of course, a good starting point, but I hope this is just a first step towards some deep introspection from the police, and some constructive changes.' 'End of the beginning' Dr Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel for the FSU, said: 'The [FSU] is pleased to see that Kent Police has done the right thing and apologised to Julian, with due compensation. 'This is, however, merely the end of the beginning – we now need to see a full and credible investigation into the outrageous violations of Julian's basic freedoms. 'Kent Police must ensure that the distress to Julian, and the cost to the taxpayer, result in lessons learnt and a realisation that policing by consent requires a police service worthy of the consent of free citizens.' Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said it was 'disgraceful' that Mr Foulkes had been 'investigated and harassed in the first place'. He added: 'Police should be catching real criminals, not wasting time on non-criminal social media posts. 'This has happened again and again and the officers responsible for this shocking incident need to be held responsible. ' Police chiefs need to get a grip and end this nonsense.' Mr Philp also called on the Government to support his proposed amendment to Labour's Crime and Policing Bill, and 'abolish non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) '. The amendment will seek to block police forces keeping records on individuals who have not broken the law but are accused of expressing views or behaviour deemed offensive. The Conservatives previously said they were putting forward the amendment because it was 'clear the use of NCHIs has spiralled out of control'.
Telegraph
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Suella Braverman: Arrest of ex-special constable over tweet is ‘national embarrassment'
The arrest of a retired special constable over a tweet warning about rising anti-Semitism is a 'national embarrassment', Suella Braverman has said. Last weekend, The Telegraph revealed that Julian Foulkes, 72, from Gillingham, Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six Kent Police officers in November 2023 after replying to a pro-Palestinian activist on X. Mr Foulkes, who volunteered with the force for a decade, had his home searched, and was detained for eight hours, interviewed and cautioned. It was only on May 6, 18 months later, that Kent Police admitted the caution was a mistake, removed it from his record, and apologised. On Friday, the former home secretary invited Mr Foulkes to Westminster to commend him for speaking out. Sitting across from him in her Parliamentary office, Mrs Braverman told Mr Foulkes that she wished she had been able to prevent his ordeal. 'The police seriously erred in this instance, and I think it's caused a national embarrassment because their overreach, their overzealous approach, is a symptom of a deeper problem within policing, which is political correctness,' she said. ' The shorthand is 'woke policing', and this is a real attack on free speech,' she told the former special constable, 'and unfortunately, you're not the only case'. During her time as home secretary Mrs Braverman attempted to crack down on these practices, her concern was – and still is – that police were being distracted from fighting crime. In September 2023 she ordered an investigation into officers who were 'pandering to politically correct causes' such as taking the knee at Black Lives Matter protests. This intervention came just two months before Mr Foulkes was arrested, an event she said showed that her attempted reforms had failed. 'I do think that the police have still got a major problem when it comes to being overly politicised, and chief constables are directing their rank and file officers to pursue cases which are totally unmerited and shouldn't warrant police action,' she explained. 'So it has been because I wasn't able to go further, I do think, yes, the problem still exists.' The MP for Fareham and Waterlooville said she had entered the Home Office with a plan to fix 'woke policing' but that Rishi Sunak, the then prime minister, and police chiefs had been obstructive. 'I tried many ways to try and fix it. It's a very deep, deeply entrenched problem right up to the top of policing,' she said. 'I don't actually think it's rank and file. It's the police chiefs who have signed up to a Left-wing agenda, frankly, and that informs a lot of the police instructions and actions that they take on the ground.' Other measures Mrs Braverman imposed included guidance to limit the investigation of non-crime hate incidents, which have been criticised for restricting free speech. But speaking to The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman admitted that 'none of that worked'. 'It's very hard for ministers and indeed police and crime commissioners to get a real and substantial change in policing, as my experience bears out,' she said. 'I was very vocal about my intentions. The police still did what they wanted to do because they didn't get the message from the Home Secretary of all people.' 'Virtue-signalling' She accused the National Police Chiefs' Council, the College of Policing and a 'large majority' of chief constables of adopting a 'virtue-signalling agenda'. Mrs Braverman said she would have 'very much liked' to go further in her reforms but was blocked by No 10, leaving her feeling 'powerless'. 'I've got to take responsibility, but no minister can act unilaterally. And you can have the best plans. You can have the best argument for your plans. You can be the most charismatic, intelligent minister. If the Prime Minister doesn't want it to happen, it's not going to happen,' she said. 'I wanted to scrap the College of Policing. I wanted to scrap non crime hate incidents. I wasn't allowed. I wasn't given permission to do that.' She continued: 'I remember feeling quite powerless actually as Home Secretary, I used to tell my officials this very often, 'I'm Home Secretary, I'm getting the questions, and I'm getting the challenge for poor performance, but I have no levers whatsoever, really, to try and change direction. So there's a fundamental weakness in the system.' While 'very much' supporting the operational independence of police, she said that the current arrangement needed a rethink because forces use it as protection 'from challenge or scrutiny or accountability'. Mrs Braverman was ultimately sacked in 2023 following a public row with Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner, over his refusal to ban a pro-Palestinian march on Armistice Day. 'Eager' to make arrest She told Mr Foulkes that it was ironic the police were 'very, very eager' to arrest him over his social media post warning about anti-Semitism, 'but when thousands of people were marching through the streets on Armistice Day, chanting anti-Semitic slogans, celebrating terrorism, they suddenly became very meek and mild and didn't have enough resources or powers'. Mrs Braverman said her struggle to reform the system from within had convinced her that real change may now only come from people like Mr Foulkes speaking out. 'It is high-profile cases like yours, which will have an effect, because it's so shockingly unacceptable the way you were treated that dispassionate, objective observers will, I'm sure, come to the conclusion that there's been a real mistake here by the police. And if you pull that thread, you can see the broader problem.' Mr Foulkes told Mrs Braverman that he was one of many disillusioned Tory voters who had switched to Reform UK. He said he always sensed her initiatives were being 'thwarted' from within as home secretary, and it was the fact that in 14 years 'nothing seems to have got done' that led him to defect. 'You probably know we want you on board in Reform,' he told Mrs Braverman, noting the fact her husband Rael had already made the switch must make for 'interesting conversations around the dinner table'. But Mrs Braverman politely dismissed any suggestion she might switch allegiance , saying: 'I've been voting with the Conservatives this week and I'll continue to do so.' Lord Herbert of South Downs, chairman of the College of Policing disputed Mrs Braverman's portrayal of the organisation, saying: 'This is a grievously distorted view of the college which has been shared by no other Home Secretary. 'The college was set up by a Conservative government, has the support of police chiefs, and is now strongly focused on leadership, standards, and performance in policing. A professional body for the service to deliver on these critical issues is needed now more than ever.' A Kent Police spokesman said: 'A review, led by the force's Professional Standards department, is under way. The force has apologised to Mr Foulkes for the distress caused and for the way it was investigated.' The NPCC and Mr Sunak have been approached for comment.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Our cretinous police must answer for their tyrannical behaviour in court
After I wrote about the VE Day celebrations last week, rather a lot of people said how glad they were that their fathers, their mothers, their wonderful Uncle Joseph who fought so bravely and died aged 22, did not live to see what Britain has become. A prime example of that dear country changed beyond recognition popped up just a few days later in the story of Julian Foulkes. As you may have read, wiping the disbelief from your eyes, 71-year-old Mr Foulkes was arrested and handcuffed at his home in 2023 by six officers from Kent Police – the same force Julian served for 10 years as a volunteer. His 'crime', ahem, was to post a lightly satirical response to a pro-Palestine protestor on Twitter who was complaining about Suella Braverman's characterisation of 'hate marches'. Mr Foulkes had, quite rightly, become concerned that his Jewish friends no longer felt safe since the October 7 Hamas massacres and he was simply drawing attention to the danger of rising anti-Semitism in the UK. You would have to be very stupid or politically motivated to see Julian Foulkes's tweet as in any way threatening, I think. It most certainly did not approach the threshold for a criminal investigation, as far as I can see, let alone justify half a dozen officers barging into his pleasant Gillingham home. (Ironically, Kent Police thought Mr Foulkes's tweet was attacking the Jews, when it was doing the exact opposite.) 'It felt to me like probably how I would feel if my house was burgled. That my home and my castle had been violated,' said Mr Foulkes, who started to cry at the memory of an officer rifling through treasured mementoes of his daughter who was tragically killed 15 years ago by a hit-and-run driver. After being taken to the police station and held for eight hours, Mr Foulkes accepted an unconditional caution. Although he knew he hadn't done anything wrong, he was terrified that, if he refused, he would end up with a criminal record which might prevent him travelling to visit his other daughter in Australia. Losing access to his surviving child would have been too devastating, he said. I'm afraid this is part of a sickening pattern whereby, after a total absence of common sense in decision-making, the police nudge an accused person to accept a caution so they can log a result without the effort of a court case. Here we go again, folks. Yet another in the long-running series of 'thought crime' farragos. Readers will know about my own visit from two Essex Police officers on Remembrance Sunday in connection with a tweet deleted a year earlier. My tweet, not by coincidence I think, had also drawn attention to anti-Semitism and what I perceived to be the two-tier sympathies of police. Compared to Julian Foulkes I got away very lightly. Officers did not enter my home or arrest me, although the experience was still humiliating and deeply upsetting. You feel like your character is being assassinated while you are trapped in a sticky web of police investigation that manages to be both bonkers and sinister. In response to my article about what had taken place, Essex Police doubled down, triggering something called Gold Command, which is normally used for terrorist incidents and other national emergencies which don't generally include national newspaper columnists, although we can be annoying. In Mr Foulkes's case, we have the bodycam footage which police recorded as they searched his home, including his wife's underwear drawer. (Solicitors for Essex Police have demanded I agree not to tell anyone if I see the video of my visit. I cannot accept that block on my freedom to speak so I have refused to look at it. My solicitor will challenge this.) Most revealing is seeing the Kent officers's arrogant conviction that there is nothing remotely over the top about them all being there in force (as if it was some kind of drugs bust), even when the accused (accused of what exactly?) has rightly pointed out it is ridiculous. Disgracefully, a female officer mutters darkly about the contents of Julian's bookshelves, which feature a hardback by the international bestselling author Douglas Murray (highly recommended!), some copies of The Spectator (ditto) and what she calls 'very Brexity things'. Now, that I find deeply suspicious. How did the youngish police officer know who or what Douglas Murray and The Spectator are? Most people her age wouldn't have a clue. Had she perhaps received training about 'far-Right' material in which mainstream Conservative reading habits are considered evidence of extremism? Either way, that WPC had no business making an impertinent and judgmental remark about the largest democratic vote in British history. Such bias is profoundly worrying in a police force which only retains public confidence because it is sworn to conduct itself without fear or favour. At the very least, this search which caused such distress to Mr Foulkes appears to me to have broken the police's own rules. PACE Code B outlines the restrictions on premises searches. 'Searches must be proportionate and only conducted to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of the search, and the search must not continue once the object of the search has been achieved or the officer in charge is satisfied that what is beng sought is not on the premises... the number of officers involved should be reasonable and necessary.' Is there anyone outside the numbskull precincts of Kent constabulary who believes that sending six – count them! – officers to arrest a mild-mannered pensioner was in any way proportionate, reasonable or necessary? Given the non-offence nature of the offence, a letter through the door might have been a bit much. After The Sunday Telegraph made the Orwellian treatment of Julian Foulkes front-page news, Kent Police issued an apology saying that a subsequent review of his case had concluded that 'the caution was not appropriate in the circumstances and should not have been issued. Kent Police apologises to Mr Foulkes for the distress caused and how the report was investigated. We have expunged the caution from his record and are pleased to facilitate this correction... a further review of the matter will now be carried out to identify any learning opportunities.' This may come as a shock to Tim Smith, Chief Constable of Kent, but blameless members of the general public are not there to provide 'learning opportunities' for his unthinking subordinates. No apology could begin to atone for the frankly sinister, state-sponsored assault on Mr Foulkes's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. Yes, even we 17.4 million Brexity people are legally entitled to hold our own opinions and to express them without government interference! One of the biggest shocks since my encounter with Essex Police has been finding out how officers are often entirely ignorant of Britons's crucial rights in this area. They are unfamiliar with the case law which, again and again, sees the higher courts find in favour, not only of free expression, but of the right to cause offence 'without which free speech is not worth having,' as one wise judge remarked. 'Free speech is clearly under attack,' Julian Foulkes told The Telegraph. 'Nobody is really safe… the public needs to see what's happening and be shocked.' He's right. It is deeply shocking that the free country that hundreds of thousands of mainly young men gave their lives to preserve 80 years ago has fallen under this dark shadow of authoritarianism. (As I told the two police officers at my door back in November.) But we need to do more than be scandalised. This latest victim of outrageous police over-reach is showing the way. With the invaluable help of the Free Speech Union (currently performing a vital role protecting the public from the police), Julian Foulkes will now sue Kent Police for wrongful arrest and can expect a substantial payout. In the course of that legal action, we hope to learn more about the chain of command that led to his cruel and unfair arrest while unmasking the warped ideology, sanctioned at the highest level, that lay behind it. I hope that Mr Foulkes will also make formal complaints about the chief constable, his officers, and anyone else involved in his case. A custody sergeant will have been presented with the grounds for arrest and made the decision to authorise detention. A custody sergeant can legitimately say 'No' if the grounds are flimsy – so he or she will have some explaining to do. The case of Pal v the United Kingdom (concerning an unnecessary police action against a freelance journalist) highlighted the need for an investigating officer to record the grounds and justification for interfering with a person's human rights under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act and the privacy intrusion under Article 8. Were such decisions documented in the shameful harassment of Julian Foulkes? Over to you, Chief Constable Smith. Kent Police may have to hand the case to the Independent Office for Police Conduct where, I am told, they could be investigated for possible misconduct. Only when chief constables and those under them start being punished and sacked will they think twice about behaviour which is abhorrent to most of the decent people who pay their salaries. In general terms, policing the law, as one senior officer told me, is increasingly secondary to a form of progressive social engineering which prioritises 'protected characteristics' at the expense of the majority British population. By virtue of religion and race, the Jews whom Julian Foulkes championed but was so wrongly accused of attacking, should be a 'protected characteristic'. Unfortunately, my source tells me 'they're widely regarded among too many police forces as white supremacists'. Well, at least that explains why a Jewish reader who complained to Essex Police about a virulently anti-Semitic tweet was told to go away because 'feelings were running high at the time' of his tweet, while mine, also posted at a time when feelings were running high but in support of Jewish people, was afforded no context and police came to my door. If this induces feelings of helplessness, there is cautious cause for optimism, I think. Recently, we saw how trans activists, who demanded free speech be cancelled and society re-arranged in their image, were stopped in their tracks by a court judgment. If it is true that police have become a law unto themselves, and a threat to good men like Julian Foulkes, then the law itself must be used against them. Let justice prevail. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Our cretinous police must answer for their tyrannical behaviour in court
After I wrote about the VE Day celebrations last week, rather a lot of people said how glad they were that their fathers, their mothers, their wonderful Uncle Joseph who fought so bravely and died aged 22, did not live to see what Britain has become. A prime example of that dear country changed beyond recognition popped up just a few days later in the story of Julian Foulkes. As you may have read, wiping the disbelief from your eyes, 71-year-old Mr Foulkes was arrested and handcuffed at his home in 2023 by six officers from Kent Police – the same force Julian served for 10 years as a volunteer. His 'crime', ahem, was to post a lightly satirical response to a pro-Palestine protestor on Twitter who was complaining about Suella Braverman's characterisation of 'hate marches'. Mr Foulkes had, quite rightly, become concerned that his Jewish friends no longer felt safe since the October 7 Hamas massacres and he was simply drawing attention to the danger of rising anti-Semitism in the UK. You would have to be very stupid or politically motivated to see Julian Foulkes's tweet as in any way threatening, I think. It most certainly did not approach the threshold for a criminal investigation, as far as I can see, let alone justify half a dozen officers barging into his pleasant Gillingham home. (Ironically, Kent Police thought Mr Foulkes's tweet was attacking the Jews, when it was doing the exact opposite.) 'It felt to me like probably how I would feel if my house was burgled. That my home and my castle had been violated,' said Mr Foulkes, who started to cry at the memory of an officer rifling through treasured mementoes of his daughter who was tragically killed 15 years ago by a hit-and-run driver. After being taken to the police station and held for eight hours, Mr Foulkes accepted an unconditional caution. Although he knew he hadn't done anything wrong, he was terrified that, if he refused, he would end up with a criminal record which might prevent him travelling to visit his other daughter in Australia. Losing access to his surviving child would have been too devastating, he said. I'm afraid this is part of a sickening pattern whereby, after a total absence of common sense in decision-making, the police nudge an accused person to accept a caution so they can log a result without the effort of a court case. Here we go again, folks. Yet another in the long-running series of 'thought crime' farragos. Readers will know about my own visit from two Essex Police officers on Remembrance Sunday in connection with a tweet deleted a year earlier. My tweet, not by coincidence I think, had also drawn attention to anti-Semitism and what I perceived to be the two-tier sympathies of police. Compared to Julian Foulkes I got away very lightly. Officers did not enter my home or arrest me, although the experience was still humiliating and deeply upsetting. You feel like your character is being assassinated while you are trapped in a sticky web of police investigation that manages to be both bonkers and sinister. In response to my article about what had taken place, Essex Police doubled down, triggering something called Gold Command, which is normally used for terrorist incidents and other national emergencies which don't generally include national newspaper columnists, although we can be annoying. In Mr Foulkes's case, we have the bodycam footage which police recorded as they searched his home, including his wife's underwear drawer. (Solicitors for Essex Police have demanded I agree not to tell anyone if I see the video of my visit. I cannot accept that block on my freedom to speak so I have refused to look at it. My solicitor will challenge this.) Most revealing is seeing the Kent officers's arrogant conviction that there is nothing remotely over the top about them all being there in force (as if it was some kind of drugs bust), even when the accused (accused of what exactly?) has rightly pointed out it is ridiculous. Disgracefully, a female officer mutters darkly about the contents of Julian's bookshelves, which feature a hardback by the international bestselling author Douglas Murray (highly recommended!), some copies of The Spectator (ditto) and what she calls 'very Brexity things'. Now, that I find deeply suspicious. How did the youngish police officer know who or what Douglas Murray and The Spectator are? Most people her age wouldn't have a clue. Had she perhaps received training about 'far-Right' material in which mainstream Conservative reading habits are considered evidence of extremism? Either way, that WPC had no business making an impertinent and judgmental remark about the largest democratic vote in British history. Such bias is profoundly worrying in a police force which only retains public confidence because it is sworn to conduct itself without fear or favour. At the very least, this search which caused such distress to Mr Foulkes appears to me to have broken the police's own rules. PACE Code B outlines the restrictions on premises searches. 'Searches must be proportionate and only conducted to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of the search, and the search must not continue once the object of the search has been achieved or the officer in charge is satisfied that what is beng sought is not on the premises... the number of officers involved should be reasonable and necessary.' Is there anyone outside the numbskull precincts of Kent constabulary who believes that sending six – count them! – officers to arrest a mild-mannered pensioner was in any way proportionate, reasonable or necessary? Given the non-offence nature of the offence, a letter through the door might have been a bit much. After The Sunday Telegraph made the Orwellian treatment of Julian Foulkes front-page news, Kent Police issued an apology saying that a subsequent review of his case had concluded that 'the caution was not appropriate in the circumstances and should not have been issued. Kent Police apologises to Mr Foulkes for the distress caused and how the report was investigated. We have expunged the caution from his record and are pleased to facilitate this correction... a further review of the matter will now be carried out to identify any learning opportunities.' This may come as a shock to Tim Smith, Chief Constable of Kent, but blameless members of the general public are not there to provide 'learning opportunities' for his unthinking subordinates. No apology could begin to atone for the frankly sinister, state-sponsored assault on Mr Foulkes's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. Yes, even we 17.4 million Brexity people are legally entitled to hold our own opinions and to express them without government interference! 'Free speech is clearly under attack' One of the biggest shocks since my encounter with Essex Police has been finding out how officers are often entirely ignorant of Britons's crucial rights in this area. They are unfamiliar with the case law which, again and again, sees the higher courts find in favour, not only of free expression, but of the right to cause offence 'without which free speech is not worth having,' as one wise judge remarked. 'Free speech is clearly under attack,' Julian Foulkes told The Telegraph. 'Nobody is really safe… the public needs to see what's happening and be shocked.' He's right. It is deeply shocking that the free country that hundreds of thousands of mainly young men gave their lives to preserve 80 years ago has fallen under this dark shadow of authoritarianism. (As I told the two police officers at my door back in November.) But we need to do more than be scandalised. This latest victim of outrageous police over-reach is showing the way. With the invaluable help of the Free Speech Union (currently performing a vital role protecting the public from the police), Julian Foulkes will now sue Kent Police for wrongful arrest and can expect a substantial payout. In the course of that legal action, we hope to learn more about the chain of command that led to his cruel and unfair arrest while unmasking the warped ideology, sanctioned at the highest level, that lay behind it. I hope that Mr Foulkes will also make formal complaints about the chief constable, his officers, and anyone else involved in his case. A custody sergeant will have been presented with the grounds for arrest and made the decision to authorise detention. A custody sergeant can legitimately say 'No' if the grounds are flimsy – so he or she will have some explaining to do. The case of Pal v the United Kingdom (concerning an unnecessary police action against a freelance journalist) highlighted the need for an investigating officer to record the grounds and justification for interfering with a person's human rights under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act and the privacy intrusion under Article 8. Were such decisions documented in the shameful harassment of Julian Foulkes? Over to you, Chief Constable Smith. Kent Police may have to hand the case to the Independent Office for Police Conduct where, I am told, they could be investigated for possible misconduct. Only when chief constables and those under them start being punished and sacked will they think twice about behaviour which is abhorrent to most of the decent people who pay their salaries. In general terms, policing the law, as one senior officer told me, is increasingly secondary to a form of progressive social engineering which prioritises 'protected characteristics' at the expense of the majority British population. By virtue of religion and race, the Jews whom Julian Foulkes championed but was so wrongly accused of attacking, should be a 'protected characteristic'. Unfortunately, my source tells me 'they're widely regarded among too many police forces as white supremacists'. Well, at least that explains why a Jewish reader who complained to Essex Police about a virulently anti-Semitic tweet was told to go away because 'feelings were running high at the time' of his tweet, while mine, also posted at a time when feelings were running high but in support of Jewish people, was afforded no context and police came to my door. If this induces feelings of helplessness, there is cautious cause for optimism, I think. Recently, we saw how trans activists, who demanded free speech be cancelled and society re-arranged in their image, were stopped in their tracks by a court judgment. If it is true that police have become a law unto themselves, and a threat to good men like Julian Foulkes, then the law itself must be used against them. Let justice prevail.
