The short answer to that is: “a country where free speech is demonstrably under threat”.
Clearly, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not consider free speech to be under threat in the United Kingdom. Questioned recently in the Oval Office on a visit to President Trump, he was asked by a woman from the press about Vice-President Vance’s comments on free speech in the United Kingdom. Addressing European leaders at the Munich Security Conference in Germany in mid-February, Vance said: “In Britain, and across Europe, free speech I fear is in retreat”. Keir Starmer’s response left many free speech advocates in the United Kingdom open-mouthed; he said: “we’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom and it will last for a very long time…in relation to free speech in the UK, I’m very proud of our history there”. Keir Starmer’s claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
One of the most high-profile recent cases involved The Daily Telegraph and the award-winning journalist Allison Pearson. Pearson was investigated and interviewed in relation to a hate crime, for a long-deleted tweet from over a year before the Essex police arrived at her door. The tweet criticised the police for posing with “Jew haters”, when she mistook the flag in the background of a picture for one associated with an antisemitic organisation. On realising her mistake, she deleted the tweet. The investigation was dropped but, had she been found guilty, she could have spent up to 15 months in prison. The waste of police time and the anxiety caused by such an investigation seems not to have dawned on Essex police, who have now exonerated themselves in an exercise described by Pearson as “marking their own homework”.
Lifelong Newcastle United football fan and season-ticket holder Linzi Smith found herself banned from attending football matches at her home stadium (St James’ Park), after she expressed gender critical beliefs on social media. Essentially, in accordance with the best knowledge biology can provide, she believes that a man cannot become a woman. In addition to being banned, it transpires that she was being followed and spied on and a dossier, including information on where she walked her dog, was provided to Newcastle United football club. The irony of the fact that the club is majority owned by a Saudi investment company has not been lost on commentators. Linzi remains banned since October 2023 and, with the help of the Free Speech Union and a Crowdfunder, she is in the process of taking legal action against the club.
Welsh massage therapist and former Royal Marine and Free Speech Union member Jamie Michael was arrested and charged over a YouTube video, in which he advocated forming groups to protect children against attacks by Islamic extremists. He also made less than complimentary references to illegal migrants and those who welcome them. He was subsequently kept in jail for seventeen days unable, due to the nature of his alleged crime, even to phone his wife to inform her where he was. The ludicrousness of the charges brought against him was demonstrated by the fact that it took the jury little over a quarter of an hour to clear him.
One of the most remarkable twists in the assault on free speech, is the fact that you can be arrested and charged by the police without saying a word. You do not need to obstruct anyone or wield an offensive banner; all that is necessary is to practice ‘silent prayer’ within the ‘buffer zone’ of an abortion clinic. The ‘Orwellian’ analogy in relation to free speech matters is used too frequently. But arresting someone for praying silently, with no other manifestations of intent, really deserves the epithet.
The original offender, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, was finally acquitted in February 2023 and in August 2024, the wrongful nature of her arrest was acknowledged by West Midlands Police, who paid her £13,000 in compensation. The question remains: how could the police and courts have acted this way initially, and why have further arrests and fines occurred for the same offence? In October 2024, Adam Smith-Connor, a British Army veteran, prayed silently near an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. Found guilty of doing so in a buffer zone, he was conditionally discharged and ordered to pay £9,000 in prosecution costs.
The above cases are relatively high-profile, making headlines in both the mainstream and alternative media. However, on an almost daily basis, someone falls foul of the ‘thought police’ at their workplace. There is seemingly no limit to where someone can be caught out or what their ‘offence’ might be. For example:
- Nurses: Female nurses have been suspended simply for expressing that they did not wish to share a changing room with a man who identifies as a woman.
- Teacher: A schoolteacher was dismissed for refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a pupil whose gender identity differed from that pupil’s biological sex.
- Train Guard: A train guard lost his job for making a joke about an “alcohol free caliphate.”
There are numerous free speech-related incidents. For instance, some individuals have received lengthy prison sentences for mild social media comments related to the Southport killings and subsequent riots. Meanwhile, violent criminals have faced comparatively lenient treatment such as Mike Amesbury MP, who was filmed repeatedly punching a constituent while he was on the ground. Such anomalies have earned the Prime Minister the nickname ‘two-tier Keir”. Given these examples, it would be enlightening to hear the Prime Minister explain his recent comments to Donald Trump and JD Vance in the Oval Office.
Of course, much is accounted for by labelling every transgression related to criticising United Kingdom government policy, expressing concern about immigration, the rise of Islamic extremism or querying the wisdom of gender realignment in young children as ‘far-right’. This sleight of speech confers sanctity on those who are fighting it, and opprobrium on any who defend it or deny that their legitimate criticism is not inspired by far-right views. Once someone is labelled far-right they are fair game for the police and the courts, which increasingly appear to align with social justice and intersectionality policies.
At the heart of many free speech incidents is the execrable existence of non-crime hate incidents. A unique confection of the College of Policing in England, these have been the cause of many incidents of police in England arriving, as they did at the door of ex-policeman Harry Miller, to ‘check his thinking’ after he tweeted something gender critical. Miller’s case went all the way to the Court of Appeal. He won, the judge referring to the actions of the police as akin to those of the Stasi in former East Germany. Then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, ordered the police in England not to record further non-crime hate incidents; tens of thousands having already been recorded, but they continue to record them.
The mystery, therefore, remains of how Sir Keir Starmer can be ‘very proud’ of the United Kingdom’s record regarding free speech. Evidence to the contrary is copious, and the outcome of cases brought against people, even the ones who appeal successfully, is considerable distress at the least. Those whose appeals or tribunals fail lose employment, income and friends.
Regarding free speech and its suppression in the United Kingdom, Sir Keir Starmer ‘sees no ships’. But it is abundantly clear that the kind of country that needs a Free Speech Union is a country like the United Kingdom.
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Great article as always from RW but with one caveat, does anybody really believe that KS genuinely believes that there is free speech in the UK? KS and his ilk believe in ‘selective free speech’ that is freedom to speak their ‘beliefs’ using their ‘enforced acceptable language/vocabulary’. Evidence aplenty demonstrates that free speech isn’t acceptable on an increasing number of subjects and KS & Co. know this.
There should be no need for a FSU in a civilized nation and people should be adult enough to feel able to say things like ‘I don’t agree’, ‘I don’t like your language’ or ‘I have evidence, if you’ll listen, that that is not the case’. Instead people pretend to be onboard with the latest thing, use the preferred terms and self-police themselves for fear of litigation or investigation or social ostracisation.
It’s easy to blame Comrade Starmer for the lack of free speech in the UK but don’t forget, many of the laws restricting what we are allowed to say and do were introduced by the Tories.
All UK Governments, going back to year?, have to greater or lesser degrees controlled acceptable free speech and so KS is only the latest to attempt this – but his reaction to the Southport Riots might indicate a ramping up of enforcement.
Free Speech in the UK has long been under assault. “Sir” and his Stalinist cohorts are now eager to finish it off. These are the most dangerous of times and the Free Speech Union is unfortunately a necessity for any individual willing to express any opinion that disagrees with Newspeak.
in relation to free speech in the UK, I’m very proud of our history there…..
Because FOS in the UK IS history.