## The Dangers of Policing Speech: A Call for Free Expression in the UK In a thought-provoking discussion, the speaker raises critical questions about the role of police in regulating speech and expression in the UK. The case of Brody Mitchell, who faces potential criminal charges for a political comment made at a university freshers' fair, serves as a focal point for this debate. The speaker emphasises that while the law protects freedom of expression, there is a growing trend of policing words that may offend, leading to a culture of self-censorship among young people. This situation is exacerbated by the involvement of institutions that should focus on actual crime rather than subjective feelings of offence. The speaker highlights the legal framework surrounding free speech, referencing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards expression, even if it shocks or disturbs. The assertion that being offensive is not a crime is reiterated, stressing that the threshold for criminality should not be based solely on someone’s feelings. The discussion points out that the current climate encourages individuals to self-censor, fearing repercussions for expressing their views, which undermines the very essence of a free society. Moreover, the speaker notes recent government initiatives aimed at reducing police involvement in non-crime hate incidents, which have been deemed a misuse of police resources. The College of Policing's new approach is seen as a positive step towards ensuring that police focus on genuine criminal activity rather than petty disputes. However, the speaker warns that the ongoing cases, like Mitchell's, illustrate the punitive nature of the current system, where the process itself can be damaging to individuals’ freedom of expression. In conclusion, the speaker calls for a clear distinction between lawful expression and criminal behaviour, urging that the police should not intervene in matters of speech unless there is a legitimate threat or harassment involved. The overarching message is a plea for the preservation of free speech in the UK, encouraging open dialogue and the rejection of a culture where individuals feel compelled to silence themselves out of fear of police action. ## Video transcript ## Introduction There is a serious question at the heart of this clip, which I will show you shortly. It is far bigger than any individual case: at what point should the police stop policing actual physical crime—where there is a person and something has physically happened—and instead start policing expression, words, and interactions that someone else finds offensive? Before I proceed, I need to clarify two points. Firstly, I am speaking generally about the law on freedom of expression and the proper limits of police involvement. I am not telling you what to think or conclude about this particular case, as it will rely on specific facts and any charging decisions made by the CPS, if necessary, and the courts. Secondly, I will link the original video below for credit and because I will play it for you. I encourage you to watch the source material and form your own opinion, but please refrain from drawing conclusions until you have done so. ## Context of the Case The post I am referring to is from Brody Mitchell. He states: "They tried to shut me down. One Tal Ke Keier J at a freshers' fair police interview room. Now CPS deciding on criminal charges." He mentions that Katie Hopkins called the Keier a "tea towel" and that Boris Johnson referred to it as an "Arafat dishcloth," which I confirmed to be true. There were no arrests in those instances. Boris Johnson made various comments during his tenure, many of which were criticised, but he refused to apologise. Ultimately, these were just comments. Mitchell continues, "Yet here I am, sat waiting, potentially facing charges for words." He explains that a Palestine activist wanted him banned from campus, which escalated to police involvement. He concludes, "This isn't justice. This is weaponising institutions because you don't like someone's opinion. Young people are self-censoring, walking on eggshells. No one has a right not to be offended. UK police should focus on real crime. Stop policing people's words." ## The Video Now, I will play the video for you. Afterward, I will discuss the broader implications. --- In September, at a university freshers' fair, I made a one-off political comment. Was it rude? Yes. Was it illegal? Come on. I literally said on GB News that it was no different from telling someone their outfit looks like it’s from a charity shop. It’s a jab, not a crime. Fast forward to January, and I found myself in a police interview room under caution over words. Now it’s April, and the police have sent my case to the CPS to decide if I should be criminally charged. Let that sink in. My lawyer said it clearly: at worst, this is puerile name-calling. The law protects speech that offends, shocks, or disturbs, especially political speech. That is meant to be the most protected speech we have. So, what is going on? This isn't about justice; it’s what happens when someone gets offended and decides to escalate it through the university and then through the police. This is a massive overreach. Young people are watching this and thinking they need to watch everything they say. They are walking on eggshells, self-censoring, and staying quiet because one wrong sentence could lead to a police station visit. That is not normal. No one has a right not to be offended. Please focus on actual crime. Stop policing words, because if this crosses the line into criminality, then anyone in Britain could be next. ## Legal Implications This raises a legal issue of growing importance and prevalence in this country. We appear to be in a territory where free speech, offence, and complaints are being pushed too far. This is extremely dangerous. The law in this area is not complicated and should not be overcomplicated. Freedom of expression is protected by Article 10 of the ECHR. The Strasbourg court has repeatedly made it clear that this protection extends to all ideas and expressions, whether favourably received or regarded as harmless, as well as those that offend, shock, and disturb. Our domestic courts have upheld the same principles. Comments that are protected include those that are favourably received and those that offend, shock, and disturb. Free speech includes the right to abuse another by way of expression, and this has been the case for a long time. Even if we set the ECHR aside, the principle of free speech is much older and deeper. In any free society, adults are entitled to express their views in ways that others may dislike or find offensive. Contrary to what the police have previously stated, being offensive is not an offence. If speech is only protected when it is polite and universally approved, then it is not freedom of expression at all; it is merely permission. We live in a free and democratic society, meaning you are free to say anything unless there is a law that curtails it. Unless there is a law against saying certain things—which there is not—this is an unlawful erosion of free speech. ## Recognised Limits That does not mean anything goes. There are recognised limits regarding threats, harassment, incitement, and menacing communications. Genuine criminal abuse, where messages instil fear of immediate unlawful harm, is a different matter. However, the crucial point is that the threshold for criminality is not simply that someone has been offended or upset and reported the matter to the police. Offence is not a legal test, and making a complaint is not a legal test. Many viewers will understand what I mean. I bet many of you have typed something online—a comment, a reply, a post—and then deleted it. You chose not to post it, not because you thought it was unlawful, but because you were worried someone might report it, leading to police involvement. This is a troubling state for a supposedly free country. When ordinary people start to self-censor out of fear of persecution, that is a chilling effect. Police involvement in such cases must be redlined. Just last month, the government announced that non-crime hate incidents—where no crime is taking place, but someone is upset—should be scrapped. The Home Office stated that the system has led to police policing petty squabbles, and officer time should be freed up to fight actual crime. ## Conclusion The College of Policing announced a new approach, which is a significant step forward. For years, there has been concern that police have been drawn too far into recording and responding to lawful expression simply because someone perceived hostility or took offence. As many comedians say, offence is taken, not given. If someone takes offence, that is their issue, not a criminal matter unless it amounts to harassment or stalking. The government’s move to scrap non-crime hate incidents is a positive development. However, we still see situations like this one, which dates back to January, and we are now in April. The process itself is the punishment. Waiting to see whether the CPS decides to take action is punitive in nature. This affects everyone, as people become hesitant and fearful, less willing to speak plainly and freely. This is not a free and democratic society. As I mentioned, I am not commenting on this particular case, as I do not want to prejudice the CPS's decision. However, I can say that comments made online that others might find unpleasant or offensive should not be pulled into the criminal sphere. If they are, the line between lawful and unlawful speech becomes dangerously blurred, and people become terrified of what they are permitted to say. This is not just about one tweet or post; it is the cumulative effect of many such incidents. As a free country, we should not tolerate this. I am pleased the government is moving towards removing non-crime hate incidents, but this should extend to instructing the police not to police these comments. Let me know your thoughts in the comments, but please avoid discussing this particular case. Have you ever self-censored out of fear of police involvement? Thank you for watching.