After seeing NUMEROUS video of UK police showing up at doorsteps like the gestapo, arresting or citing or intimidating people who are simply practicing free speech, I don’t think anyone should support the government with a pathway to de-anonymize the web. Even if you support the current government, such powers will be used against you at some point.
If you're looking for evidence of the UK gov's authoritarian tendencies, you don't need to go looking at videos on Youtube, just look at the number of arrests of peaceful protestors who were given charges under terrorism legislation for holding up banners or wearing T-Shirts mentioning "Palestine Action" (ref https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hund...).
Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"
They're supporting a specific group that went into a military base and damaged military equipment (that was irrelevant to palestine/israel), those people going out with those T-Shirts know exactly why the group was proscribed and are seeking to be arrested, why are we shocked they got arrested, they wanted it.
Put it this way, the UK managed to get through the troubles, which had a lot of events far more serious than what Palestine action have done, without needing this level of policing of free speech.
The point I was making is that successive UK gov's are tending towards authoritarianism, the current one included.
If you're trying to convince Brits not to enact these policies "you guys made it through The Troubles" is a really bad argument unless you're very unfamiliar with the body count and terror and the public perception of that period in British history. (it included some fifty thousand casualties and sixteen thousand bombings)
An advocate of these policies would quite literally argue that not getting into something like The Troubles is the point and a lot of people would agree if that was what is on the horizon.
Can't say as I agree there. I was in the UK at the time (lived here all my life) and I'm fairly familiar with the horrors of the time.
My point is we were able to get through something like that, which was very serious, without needing to proscribe free speech in the way that's being done now for some people putting paint on planes.
So if we didn't need it for something that serious, we don't need it for this.
Maybe those people are trying to make the point that if the government can, without public scrutiny, declare any organisation as terrorist and then arrest anyone who wears t-shirts mentioning that organisation - then the government has way too much power.
... "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
No. It's. Not.
But even if you disagree with the dictionary and me. These kind of nuisance resistance acts have happened countless times in the past without serious punishment.
They're taken for what they are. It's only recently, as we move towards something darker, and laws created for actual terrorism begin to be used against the citizens.
Perhaps you're the kind of wanker who welcomes that.
That’s because Palestine Action are a proscribed group.
Whether or not the proscription was correct is irrelevant, the current law means that you commit the same offence showing support for IS or the Terrorgram Collective.
The police can’t simply ignore one proscribed group over another as that leads to all manner of weird and wacky outcomes.
The legislation which causes anyone expressing support of a proscribed group is the authoritarian thing I'm talking about. The Terrorism Act 2000 as implemented is the problem.
Having a law that means merely expressing support of a group, leads to criminal charges is not something I think should be in place in any country that pretends to support freedom of speech.
That's an argument for arresting and imprisoning a bunch of people for criminal damage, not an argument for proscribing an entire organisation and limiting their free speech.
The argument here is not the PA should be let off scot free. The argument is that proscribing them as an organisation is a massive and authoritarian overreaction to their actions.
Is that inaccurate? Unless the goal was to strike terror into the hearts of some insurance companies, in what way does the scale of the damages affect whether this organisation should be proscribed? Should we be proscribing Bernie Madoff next?
"chuck some paint" is a deliberate misrepresentation.
It misleadingly describes the scale, coordination, and intent. It uses a minor detail to trivialize an act explicitly intended to reduce military capacity.
Is there any scale of paint chucking that can realistically represent a terrorist threat? Is there any scale of paint chucking that should lead to proscription? Because that's the key point here. It's not "can they be prosecuted for paint chucking?" (yes, obviously), or "can their paint checking escapades have serious costs or ramifications?" (sure, lock them up!) it's a question of whether their actions constituted such a grave threat to the safety of the United Kingdom that the only way of dealing with that was to make it illegal to even support their group.
If we as a country are so at risk from paint chucking that we're resorting to proscription as our tool of defence, then we have some serious issues.
Although PA was bundled in with two other organisations in the vote, the vote did pass 385 votes to 26, so it seems there was broad support across MPs, not just the cabinet.
I'm actually very pro israel and i agree with you on this. It's "two tier" kier at his finest. Labour have demonstrated they have no problem using the police and judiciary to go after anyone who causes them problems. And they somehow convince themselves they have the moral high ground from which to lecture everyone else. Even conservatives with all their indifference and contempt for the British public were never so dishonest.
The last one that made the rounds here ended up being carefully cut to give a specific impression (and the initial presented commentary straight up lies), and when the "full story" came out it turned out to be a lot less "simply practicing free speech" than implied.
But retractions never get the same visibility, and it's already made the impression they wanted the post to make.
Might not be what you're referring to, but: a couple of months ago a user posted this comment [0] claiming the linked video showed police offices arresting and threatening to jail an old grandmother in the middle of the night, simply for "liking facebook posts the gov doesn’t like"
Needless to say there were no arrests, no jail time, not even threats of jail time, it was 1:30pm, the woman was 54 years old, and she had posted comments calling for a councillor's resignation.
There's an argument in there about whether councillors have a bit too much influence on local police behaviour. But it gets drowned out by hyperbole, embellishment, and an over-eagerness to link it all up to a nation-wide conspiracy.
In many cases the “free speech” genuinely is racial hatred bordering on incitement.
But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast.
> But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast.
Care to name some?
The vast majority of cases I've looked into end up being a lot more than the initially presented "They Were Arrested For Saying Bad Words On The Internet!" story pushed on the internet.
In fact, I can't remember a single one where there wasn't a lot more, but that's not really more than anecdote.
A number of people have been arrested, charged and convicted for things that were very obviously jokes - tasteless jokes, offensive jokes, but still just jokes.
There are many more cases of harassment by the police or arrests, the most recent example that comes to mind being Graham Linehan. These are clearly not as bad as prosecutions, but still create a chilling effect.
I agree. There has been over-reach, especially between 2005 and 2016. The Robin Hood airport incident is a good example. But I'm not convinced we're sliding into authoritarianism. Or at least, if we are sliding into authoritarianism then it's more likely because of restrictions on protest (e.g. Serious Disruption Prevention Orders) rather than policing of social media.
It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent).
The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do tend to use them sparingly.
> It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent).
You cannot be arrested for sending “any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive”. That’s not what the law says. You can be arrested for spreading hate speech, inciting violence, sending illegal media or harassment online.
All of the arrests mentioned in this thread in relation to these acts have been campaigns of intimidation, harassment and calls to violence, not simply saying something “insulting or offensive”.
In the UK political expression of free speech is protected by the ECHR, which overrides both those acts (look carefully who wishes to abolish the ECHR).
> All of the arrests mentioned in this thread in relation to these acts have been campaigns of intimidation, harassment and calls to violence, not simply saying something “insulting or offensive”
This is false. But even if it weren’t, it would be unjust. Determinations like “hate speech” are subjective, and have no place in law concerning speech. Without free speech, there is no democracy.
There’s a big difference between being free to criticise the government and those who define and enforce laws, and being free to say anything to or about another citizen without repercussion, even if it may cause them harm.
The people mentioned here who were arrested due to violations of the communications acts are definitely the latter. The people arrested in peaceful protests for being associated with Palestine Action or Just Stop Oil are the former.
>In the UK political expression of free speech is protected by the ECHR, which overrides both those acts
This is categorically untrue. Not only is the ECHR worded specifically to allow individual countries to curtail free speech ("any law, deemed by the local democratically elected government as ; necessary in a democratic society, and for a legitimate aim"), but parliament always had sovereignty to pass into law exemptions to the ECHR, which we have done on multiple occasions.
Yes, this is why the government needed to label Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. It needed special measures because it did not in fact have the authority to arrest protestors, even though some people found what they were saying offensive.
The police are overreaching massively. They are making 30 arrests a day and "interview" many more.
We do not rely on the ECHR to protect our free speech. If we did the UK would no longer be a democracy. I'm offended by the suggestion that our democracy and society is so fragile that without them we would have no rights. Expect a police raid very soon.
I think you're being disingenous. There is clearly an unprecedented and systemic effort to police social media. Even if the posts did actually violate the law doesn't change my point or address my concerns. This is not what the police should be doing.
I honestly don't know if that's true or not. But I haven't seen any compelling evidence to support it. The figures being lobbed around by the likes of Tommy Robinson are deeply harmful to the debate because they are both a) completely wrong and b) misleadingly quoted. You can lookt the actual stats here: https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclos...
We're talking on the order of a few hundred arrests per year for section 127 of the Communications Act and 1500 per year for the Malicious Communications Act, which includes stuff like racial harassment, domestic abuse, pedophilic grooming, and a whole host of things that I would hope you agree should be illegal.
The latter part at least is true. Sending "grossly offensive" messages is illegal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Section 127:
> a person is guilty of an offence if he—
> (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
> (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
I suspect the former is also true, but am not well-read in that area
If this concerns you I would advise not looking into pretty much any UK law which is full of subjective terms and ways to interpret them. The law isn’t an algorithm nor should it be. Just because you can’t understand how it works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
Sorry, that was a low shot, and not meant truthfully, but I just couldn’t resist making an offensive comment when the topic was “you can be arrested for offending someone”.
There's no value in making insults for the sake of being insulting protected speech, but in the UK if you're making ECHR Article 10 protected speech that someone happens to find insulting or offensive then that's not a crime. It's unhelpful to permit insults as free speech to prevent some hypothetical future abuse, since all modern dictatorships pay lip service to free speech and instead lock up their political opponents for embezzlement or mortgage fraud or whatever.
Go watch the videos and look up what was said. Most of them are clearly normal non violent free speech, but just politically not aligned to the current government’s platform. I’m not saying all are just doing free speech but am confident about most.
In my experience, when someone has an extreme opinion and says "just watch this video", it's largely a waste of time. Video is too easily game-able as a medium.
What is actually going on with that? It feels like over the last 2 years the British police have decided to see what it's like being the stasi. Most of the msm are faithfully avoiding mentioning how authoritarian the police have become. The odd thing is they are not even necessarily propping up a political regime, although again it feels like they are getting some of their instructions directly from kier starmers mind, but they are arresting people for being mean on twitter. It's really odd and no matter what side of the political divide you are on you should be disturbed.
