Anti-Abortion Campaigner Championed by White House Found Guilty of Breaching ‘Buffer Zone’ by Holding Sign Saying “Here to Talk, if You Want”
Anti-abortion campaigner Livia Tossici-Bolt, whose case was championed by the White House over free speech concerns, has been convicted of breaching a ‘buffer zone’ outside an abortion clinic and ordered to pay costs of £20,000. The Mail has more.
Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, was found guilty at Poole Magistrates Court after holding up a sign which read “Here to talk, if you want” near a Bournemouth abortion clinic on two days in March 2023.
The retired medical scientist was convicted of twice violating the Public Spaces Protection Order outside the facility, which is run by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS).
She has been sentenced to a conditional discharge for two years for two charges of breaching a ‘buffer zone’ outside the abortion clinic.
District Judge Orla Austin also ordered Tossici-Bolt to pay £20,000 towards court costs and a £26 victim surcharge.
The case attracted the attention of the US State Department and US Vice President J.D. Vance.
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour (DRL) – which sits within the US State Department – said one of its advisors had met Ms Tossici-Bolt and was “monitoring” her case.
In a statement on X before the verdict, it said: “It is important that the UK respect and protect freedom of expression.”
During a speech at the Munich security conference in February, US Vice President Vance highlighted the case of Adam Smith-Connor, who was convicted last year of breaching the same council-enacted buffer zone, suggesting it showed “in Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat”.
Asked about Tossici-Bolt’s conviction, a Number 10 spokesman said generally that while “the right to protest is a cornerstone of our democracy” people don’t have the right to “harass” others.
Quizzed on whether free speech still exists in Britain: “The UK has a very proud tradition of free speech over many centuries.”
District Judge Austin said while she accepted Tossici-Bolt’s pro-life beliefs “were truly held” the case “is not about the rights and wrongs about abortion but about whether the defendant was in breach of the PSPO (Public Spaces Protection Order)”.
The judge added of the defendant: “She lacks insight that her presence could have a detrimental effect on the women attending the clinic, their associates, staff and members of the public.
“I am satisfied so that I am sure that the defendant did fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement of the PSPO, namely she failed to leave the safe zone on both March 2nd and March 3rd 2023 when asked by an authorised officer.”
The judge said that the costs fee of £20,000 was a “proportionate” contribution to the £64,709.59 requested by the prosecution which was presented by a KC and junior at the two-day magistrates’ court trial.
Police officers had told Tossici-Bolt to leave after a woman said she felt intimidated and harassed by her presence.
She refused, claiming she was given no legitimate reason for doing so.
She also rejected a fixed penalty notice that was issued to her.
Worth reading in full.
In what way is standing there quietly holding a sign offering to talk harassing anybody? Harassment has become a catch-all term for unwanted behaviour, as though we have the right to dictate how the people around us may behave – or at least we do if we are classed as ‘vulnerable’.
Dissent will not be tolerated and people must be protected from seeing all possible signs of disapproval or being confronted with alternative ideas or courses of action. You may have free speech, just as long as no one can hear you when it might matter most.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Do illegal immigrants, drug dealers and MPs when charged have to pay towards the prosecution costs.
How could such high costs be incurred for such a simple case.
Certainly these sick perverts caught with images of child sex abuse never ever pay such huge costs;
”Fox was given an 18-month suspended prison sentence, 200 hours’ unpaid work, and 30 days’ rehabilitation. He was given a five-year sexual harm prevention order and he must register as a sex offender for 10 years. He was ordered to pay £150 costs.”
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/pornography-addict-stash-indecent-pictures-10072449
““She lacks insight that her presence could have a detrimental effect on the women attending the clinic, their associates, staff and members of the public”
That some might feel guilty for vaporising the unborn, that is free speech, get over it. There are plenty of women who would love to adopt.
Imagine how sick a society is, to persecute a woman, who peacefully with biology and science at her side, opposes the liquidation of a human….to protect the death factories of moloch and satan.
We are a mentally ill civilisation.
You have free speech, so long as it’s just about mundane things like chocolate etc.
and don’t dare say anything that goes against government mantras.As the protesters and social media sharers have found to their cost, of having their lives destroyed, and in the case of the man who hung himself killed, whilst drug dealers and seriel criminals are given bail. The former are no danger to society but 2 tier kier is sending a message. which says basically if you deal drugs, mess with kids, rape you can get a free pass on bail, but disagree with my government and I will ruin your life.
Should have held up a sign calling for gee-had. Police would have rolled out the (blood?) red carpet for her.
if projection of that slogan is somesuch didn’t get the criminals arrested, why this lady? Need more evidence for f two tiers…?
Absolutely scandalous. Two tier justice in the extreme.
£26 victim surcharge?
Okay, who exactly is the victim here? I would suggest the lady protestor is a victim of an over zealous state apparatus, and a total miscarriage of justice.
Freedom of Speech my arse!
The problem here is the PSPO and so-called Buffer Zone, and the shill that reported her, she wasn’t forced into a conversation or heckled or shamed!
Exactly. “a woman said she felt intimidated and harrassed by her prescence” – nonsensical.I am assuming this quivering scaredy cat didn’t tell Livia how she felt, being a self righteous coward.
Anybody wandering around town centres such as Oldham, Rochdale, Ashton could rightly claim to feel intimidated and harassed as they navigate the hordes of scruffy, heavily tanned barstewards wandering about in their pyjamas whilst being trailed by pill-boxed women in black shrouds. The reality is that attempting to lodge a complaint about these situations would only result in arrest and probable jail time followed by death threats.
Modern Britain where Britishness is a crime.
I think you will find Bradford may be even worse especially if you witness the end of the school day as the girls in their headscarves and trousers are followed by the boys in dresses and white scull caps. These are now 3rd or 4th generation immigrants who are not British.
Hitchens on free speech
“. In a February 2007 article for Slate discussing the controversy over the Danish cartoons that depicted the prophet Muhammad, Hitchens argues that the West — he provocatively describes it as the “civilized world” — needs to abandon this “idiotic masochism.” For Hitchens, death threats, fatwas, and other forms of organized violence must not be regarded as acceptable responses to insult or offense, and the West has a duty to remind the Islamic world of that fact. More importantly, the West has a duty to protect the right of free speech and the public spaces in which it takes place, as well as ensuring that discussions about Islam are not informed by a kind of unspoken cultural censorship. To that end, writing about his friend Martin Amis’s controversial book “The Second Plane” Hitchens writes that “it is much worse than pointless, in the face of genuine worry about the spread of real bigotry and awful violence, to try to pin the accusation of prejudice on those who are honestly attempting to ventilate the question, and to clarify it.” It is safe to assume that Orwell would share this concern”
Irrespective of a person’s views on abortion, you either support freedom of speech/expression or you don’t. However, the article mentions she was convicted ”twice” of violating the order, so why didn’t she adhere to the first warning, because she would have been told the punishment she would receive if she carried on, presumably? Also, unless I’m missing something, why couldn’t she have just exercised her right to freedom of expression and held her sign *outside* of the buffer zone? She could have engaged with any willing women at that point, surely… My sympathy does start to wear thin when people just plough on regardless, just to prove a point, because they know they’ll be able to raise the money via crowd-funding. And predictably, here she is; ”On April 4th, the Poole Magistrates Court convicted me for supposedly violating Bournemouth’s abortion facility “buffer zone”. I committed no wrongdoing – I simply held a sign stating: “Here to talk, if you want”. Yet, I have now been found “guilty” and ordered to pay £20,000 in prosecution costs by May 31st. This places me in an extremely difficult position, so I am very grateful for your support and prayers. Consensual conversation is now a… Read more »
“Also, unless I’m missing something, why couldn’t she have just exercised her right to freedom of expression and held her sign *outside* of the buffer zone?”
Presumably it was her intention to dissuade women from having abortions. The best way to do so would be by standing near an abortion clinic, not further than 150 metres away from one.
“My sympathy does start to wear thin when people just plough on regardless, just to prove a point.”
It is surely possible that pro-life campaigners are not so much trying to “prove a point” as prevent the slaughter of defenceless (and, from many religious perspectives, sacred) unborn lives.
If it was her intention to dissuade women from having abortions then she’s blatantly breaking the law. If this law came into force last October, and if there is clear signage to mark out a so-called ‘buffer zone’, then a person is doing something illegally with full knowledge. And as this lady was convicted twice, ”she failed to leave the safe zone on both March 2nd and March 3rd 2023, when asked by an authorized officer”, then my sympathy runs dry, I’m afraid. Why did she go back after being warned? If police told me to stop doing something because I’d incur a 20,000 quid fine if I didn’t, I’d flaming well comply, because I don’t have 20 grand lying around the house. I’m afraid it doesn’t matter if you like a law or not, or if it doesn’t sit right with your morals, a law is a law. Break it and face the consequences, and she knowingly and deliberately broke it. This law also came into place due to reports of staff members being targeted for harassment just trying to access their place of work, so I think many, including patients using the facility, must have been relieved when… Read more »
I am aware of the stance the legal system takes against transgressions, thank you (and I will say that I’m glad I never required your services as a defence lawyer when I was “blatantly breaking the law” and “just proving a point” by engaging in anti-lockdown activity during the 2020-22 period).
For what it’s worth, I have some appreciation for people who break asinine or downright unethical laws in order to highlight the stupidity of them. For one thing, it raises awareness of those laws so that people do not break them in ignorance (why would anyone suspect that standing silently near an abortion centre could be illegal?), and for another, it highlights the plight of those who have broken them in ignorance, and are suffering the consequences in silence.
I fail to see why being pro-choice must necessarily mean being anti-freedom of expression, but my poor brain is incredibly overly-simplistic.
This law is hardly comparable to the unlawful restrictions enforced during the scamdemic. I’m not even saying I agree with these abortion clinic laws necessarily. With regards to my original post, I’m just wondering why this lady carried on regardless when she knew she’d be prosecuted. Does she think because she’s a Christian she’s above the law? She could’ve reached women other ways. Printed out leaflets and pinned them to various noticeboards, left some in the GP surgery ( women need the referral from their doctor. They can’t just walk into an abortion clinic or contact them directly ) if it was allowed, put adverts in free papers. She could’ve left a contact number and women could ring her up if they chose to. Women don’t need guilt-tripped or influenced by people outside a health care facility that they’re well within their rights to access. And remember, not everybody’s religious, so coming at somebody from some religious zealot, do-gooder angle is really not going to be terribly effective for most.
And that link wasn’t specifically for you but as a reminder for anyone. The very first point on the list is applicable to this lady.
To keep my answer as short as possible, the only way to fully understand Christian thought is by reading the Bible and perhaps some interpretative theology (C. S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” is an excellent starting point). If you haven’t got the time for the Bible, I would chiefly recommend becoming well-acquainted with the Ten Commandments and the Gospel texts, and maybe some of the more philosophical works such as Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Job. You ask if Tossici-Bolt believes herself above the law (and for the sake of this argument, we are both assuming her to be Christian, as most pro-life campaigners seem to be). As a Christian, it would be the opposite—she would believe in a higher law and a higher judge which transcend those artificially created by man, and she would believe in an eternal soul, the fate of which would be of some greater importance than £20,000. The book of Romans preaches compliance with man-made laws, but when man creates laws which are diametrically opposed to God’s, the Christian cannot very well continue to be a servant to both masters. I will not venture to say that they should veer towards one or the other, but you will… Read more »
It is absolutely comparable.
Then we agree to disagree. Well, I do, anyway.
“…right to protest is a cornerstone of our democracy” people don’t have the right to “harass” others.” Said with a straight face no doubt.
If the lady was just standing holding her placard, not shouting or directly
approaching women, then I can only conclude that the complainant was not fully happy with her choice, in that someone just holding placard could drive her to such behaviour, if she was confident and fully believed in what she was doing, then there would have been no reason to feel harassed.
I wonder when will one of the end of the world is nigh preachers be similarly treated because a weak minded person feels harassed
The basic problem is the unbelievably stupid law, the insanity of which this person’s clearly highlighted.
When I tried to comment in the Telegraph about the contrast between the treatment of Livia Tossici-Bolt and the treatment of the woman convicted of killing her newborn baby, my comments were removed three times. I wonder why?
To ask the question is to answer it.
What’s happened to the judiciary in this country have they lost all sense of proportion or are they under orders?
The clue is in the “She lacks insight…” comment.
I doubt that many judges have been involved in pregnancy counselling, but this one knows all about the matter anyway because judges do not lack insight. Ever. In fact, the judiciary shares the insensitivity of our educated class, for in 30 years of being in such situations as a GP, I lost count of the remarks like the mother who told me, when her daughter was requesting abortion, “I had an abortion myself 20 years ago, and there isn’t a day since when I haven’t regretted it.”
Why did such people go through with it then? As with gender transitioning, the acute stress of the situation was endorsed by pressure from families and friends, and “the system” creating a smooth assembly line towards the abortion clinic.
Few people were given space to step aside from the immediate panic to reflect, “if they wanted.” “Choice” should mean “informed choice,” and it doesn’t, post 1967. When I offered that space as a GP, it was valued by women even when their decision was unchanged, and even more when it was changed.
If she was charged with trespassing I would respect the CCP and the judge. Because signs are offensive sometimes but hers is a passive plea!!!
unlike the thousand of hateful marchers every weekend!!! Yet 2T police do nothing against them. That is the problem today.
Not even a plea – an offer.
What if I wanted to talk to someone about the weather? She was offering to talk, not to lecture about abortion rights.
My local park has a bench with a sign on it saying that anyone sitting on the bench was happy to talk …. installed after the Covid Tyranny so that the lonely/depressed/anxious/ elderly etc could always find someone to have a conversation with.
What’s the difference?
This isn’t LAW, it’s bullying and silencing.
I’m pro abortion & pro free speech. A legal buffer zone was in place. Bolt had the right to hold her placard outside the zone; she had (and still has) the right to express her anti abortion views and wave her message outside the zone. This isn’t a free speech/authoritarian issue. It’s a matter of Bolt positioning her arrogant and determinedly intrusive moralising where she shouldn’t.
“She lacks insight that her presence could have a detrimental effect on the women attending the clinic, their associates, staff and members of the public.”
I suggest the judge lacks insight that offering to have a voluntary conversation between adults could not possibly have a detrimental effect on anyone. This mentality is truly warped. All credit to DS for flagging this up because, as usual with abortion, the media are ignoring it.
Adam Smith-Connor, convicted for THINKING.
Livia Tossica-Bolt, convicted for OFFERING CONSENUAL CONVERSATIONS.
Let that sink in.