The Speech Police
How free expression is being strangled in modern Britain or how Keir Starmer continues to gas light us.
I. Context and Scope: From Liberty to Caution
Britain, once the crucible of liberal democracy and robust public discourse, now finds itself caught in an increasingly complex web of restrictions, regulations, and informal pressures around speech. Although violence and incitement to terrorism remain serious concerns, the reach of the state has extended well beyond those boundaries—into the realm of personal opinion, humour, moral judgement, and cultural critique.
Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs): Over 120,000 recorded since 2014, these are complaints that don't meet criminal thresholds but still go on police records, affecting jobs, travel, and more.
Hate Crime Convictions: In the year to December 2024, over 14,600 prosecutions occurred, with an 86% conviction rate.
Online Speech Policing: Police make around 30 arrests per day for online posts—double the rate from 2017.
Jail Time Estimates: Though precise numbers are difficult to pin down, the net incarceration is likely to be huge which is of course is life changing or even ending for those caught in the trap but also massively expensive for the country in terms of police/court/prison costs and lost productivity of the individuals concerned.
II. Laws That Curtail Expression
Multiple UK statutes are being used to prosecute or suppress speech that is merely offensive, provocative, or politically inconvenient:
Communications Act 2003, s127 – Targets "grossly offensive" electronic communication. Max penalty: 2 years’ imprisonment.
Malicious Communications Act 1988 – Covers distressing communications. Max penalty: 2 years.
Public Order Act 1986 – Criminalises causing “harassment, alarm, or distress” or stirring up hatred. Max penalty: 7 years for racial/religious hatred.
Online Safety Act 2023 – Targets "illegal fake news" and threatening posts. Max: 2 years + fines.
Buffer Zone & PSPO (Public Spaces Protection Order) Laws – Fine or criminalise protests or speech near sensitive zones.
Counter-Terrorism Legislation – Supporting proscribed organisations (even rhetorically) can carry up to 14 years.
III. Speech That Isn’t Violent, Yet Still Criminalised
Increasingly, speech that does not incite violence or terrorism is being prosecuted or logged by police.
Examples of Non-Violent Statements:
“I’m sick of paying for these scumbag parasitic illegal immigrants.”
“Britain was a white Christian country and it should be again.”
“I saw a bunch of LGBT types. They were utter freaks and shouldn’t be allowed out in public.”
“I live next door to Pakistani Muslims and their house stinks. Uncivilised invaders.”
“Keir Starmer has a penchant for Ukrainian rent boys.”
“We would be a wealthy country if we didn’t give away our wealth to parasitic foreigners.”
“I’m fed up with seeing bloody rainbow flags everywhere. Tolerance of deviancy is one thing—promoting it is quite another.”
“You’d have to be a complete retard or a Guardian reader to think men can become women.”
Most of these statements, though distasteful, express opinions or social grievances—not threats. Yet under current law, any of them could trigger criminal charges, NCHIs, or workplace consequences.
Real-World Case Studies:
"Check your thinking": A man was investigated for a transphobic tweet and told by a police officer, "I need to check your thinking."
Schoolyard insult: A 10-year-old boy investigated for calling a peer “retard.” Logged as a non-crime hate incident.
Accent as offence: A man mimicking an Indian accent at a curry house triggered a police report.
Anti-immigrant rhetoric: Lucy Connolly tweeted in the immediate aftermath of the horrific Southport murders by the “Welsh choir boy” Axel Rudakubana, "Mass deportation now... set fire to the fucking hotels." She was jailed for 31 months despite no direct threat and almost immediately deleting the post.
Nazi dog video: Mark Meechan ("Count Dankula") fined £800 for posting a video where his dog appeared to perform a Nazi salute.
Britain First leaders: Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen jailed for harassing Muslims with provocative slurs.
IV. Chilling Effects on Society
The cumulative effect is not simply legal—it's psychological and cultural:
Self-censorship: People avoid speaking publicly about race, gender, immigration, or religion.
Academic silencing: Professors drop controversial topics or resign due to complaints.
Employment fears: NCHIs are visible on background checks, deterring employers.
Perceived bias: Almost everyone believes the laws disproportionately target white, working-class, or politically incorrect voices.
Erosion of trust: Citizens lose faith in police, universities, and the judiciary.
Andrew Doyle noted in The Washington Post:
“Ambiguous terms like ‘grossly offensive’ are being used to justify thousands of arrests annually … damaging employment prospects.”
V. Recommendations and Remedies
Statistical transparency: Publish full sentencing data and NCHI impacts.
Reform NCHIs: Either abolish them completely or at the very least limit their visibility and duration.
Legal clarity: Define “offensive,” “harassment,” and “hate” more narrowly.
Safeguard academia: Reinforce protections for controversial teaching.
Protect satire and opinion: Create stronger exceptions for humour and editorial commentary.
Challenge vagueness: Bring judicial reviews against catch-all applications.
Repeal most of these laws: Have a single law which simply prohibits incitement to violence, promoting terrorism and promoting discrimination.
A constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech: Much like the American First Amendment.
VI. Conclusion: A Nation Muzzled by Ambiguity
The laws intended to protect Britain from hate have grown into instruments that constrain free thought. In attempting to shield the vulnerable, we risk infantilising the populace and empowering the state to act as arbiter of permissible opinion. The consequences—self-censorship, mistrust, social division—are already visible. Britain must now ask itself: does it want a society of quiet compliance or one of open, if sometimes uncomfortable, dialogue?
In the past Britain has depended on the Common Law principle that everything is allowed that isn’t specifically illegal, this was an effective principle but has been utterly subverted by multiple vaguely drawn laws where the offence is defined by the feelings of the “victim”. J.D. Vance and President Trump were quite correct to call this out as a major problem for the UK. Unfortunately the instincts of this government are for more restrictions as they work to outlaw “Islamaphobia” and introduce blasphemy laws by stealth.
Speech, like democracy itself, must be loud, messy, and free, in the Britain of today it is cowed, uncertain and fettered.
A Personal Reflection: It is no longer paranoia to wonder whether opinions once deemed common sense—or even just disagreeable—might now be cause for investigation. Many citizens, myself included, are uneasy that things we've said in good faith, out of frustration or conviction, might now be logged, flagged, or pursued. This is not the mark of a confident liberal democracy. It is the hallmark of a nation afraid of its own people.