Police Used “Orwellian” Powers To Gag Firefighter in Free Speech Row
Former Staffordshire firefighter Robert Moss was slapped with an “Orwellian” gag order by police after criticising his bosses online, but, with help from the Free Speech Union, a court has struck it down. In the Telegraph, Toby, our Editor-in-Chief and the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, warns of a growing trend of police overreacting online:
On the face of it, Staffordshire Police’s efforts to gag a critic of the Staffordshire fire and rescue service are quite shocking. Robert Moss, a former firefighter and Labour councillor, was arrested last month under suspicion of having committed an offence under the Malicious Communications Act. That in itself was quite heavy-handed, given that his alleged “crime” was to have criticised the fire service’s management in a private Facebook chat.
But the really sinister thing – which Mr Moss’s barrister describes as “Orwellian” – was that his bail conditions included a gagging order, stopping him from saying anything more about his former employer, either online or offline.
Thankfully, with the help of the Free Speech Union (FSU), the organisation I run, he managed to get this order removed and he’s now free to say what he thinks about his former employer. He is still under investigation, but I’d be amazed if he’s charged with a criminal offence, given that it’s not against the law in this country to criticise someone in authority. Not yet, anyway.
The reason I’m not shocked by this case is because it fits a pattern of the police over-reacting to social media posts, often at the behest of people who feel they’ve been unfairly criticised.
Earlier this year, the FSU helped Julian Foulkes, a retired special constable who had his home in Kent raided by six police officers after he got into a spat with a pro-Palestinian activist on X. After commenting on the 71 year-old’s ‘Brexity’ books, the officers arrested him, confiscated his electronic devices, took him to the station in handcuffs, locked him in a cell for eight hours, then interviewed him under suspicion of having committed a Malicious Communications Act offence, only releasing him after he agreed to accept a caution.
With the FSU’s help, Mr Foulkes managed to secure a pay-out of £20,000 from Kent Police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, as well as an apology from the Chief Constable.
Julian Foulkes got a pay-out of £20,000 from Kent Police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment
We are trying to get comparable compensation from Hertfordshire Police for the arrest of Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, two parents whose home was raided by six officers from Hertfordshire Police following ‘disparaging’ comments in a WhatsApp group about the management of their child’s school, as well as critical emails they’d sent to the headteacher. They were detained in front of their young daughter before being fingerprinted, searched and left in a police cell for eight hours. Like Robert Moss, they were interviewed under suspicion of having committed a Malicious Communications Act offence.
According to custody data obtained by the Times, the police are currently arresting more than 30 people a day over ‘offensive’ posts on social media and other platforms. In total, police are detaining around 12,000 people a year under suspicion of committing just two speech offences, up from about 5,500 in 2017.
At the FSU, we received a surge in requests for help following the investigation into Allison Pearson for a year-old tweet and the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, who wrongly blamed the murder of three schoolgirls in Southport on an illegal immigrant in an intemperate social media post. Several dozen people have been prosecuted for various speech offences in connection with the Southport attacks, including one man who spent eight weeks in jail for sharing a meme suggesting a link between migrants and knife crime, a case that was singled out in the US State Department’s recent report on the erosion of free speech in Britain.
Of the people who are arrested for speech offences, only a fraction end up being convicted. For instance, in 2023 fewer people were convicted for breaching section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act and section 127 of the Communications Act than in 2017, when the number of arrests was much lower. This suggests the police are being over-zealous in their pursuit of thought criminals, with the data revealing that only about one in 20 of those arrested under suspicion of committing these two offences end up being sentenced.
But that‘s scant comfort to those who find themselves under police investigation, particularly when the bail conditions interfere with their right to freedom of expression. In many cases, when the police decide to take no further action the nightmare isn’t over since the episode is then logged as a “non-crime hate incident”, with the FSU estimating that more than a quarter of a million of these have been recorded since 2014. These can show up on enhanced criminal record checks, preventing people getting jobs as teachers or carers or securing a firearms licence.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the police need a “reset” when it comes to online speech offences. They should stop policing our tweets and focus on policing our streets.
I am sure we are all please with each success in defending freedon but what arewe to think and do about the continued attack on us by the elites. They have unlimited resources and they will not back down this side of a General Election.
After that they will only back down after the most determined and skilled pressure from an elected government.
This is disgusting. How many officers to arrest a man for allegedly saying a ‘bad word’. UK police are a bloody disgrace;
“Hampshire police arrest a local Portsmouth patriot for hurty words a week after he had a heart- attack. Locals report a left-wing activist called the local man a slur, the man repeated “You can’t call me a ****” and the police arrested him for that. Even when concerned people ask the officers to go steady with him they dont care.”
How can they justify this? It’s like even if he’d replied “you can’t call me THAT” they’d still have gone for him. Don’t they get that people are really concerned about their behaviour and many are less and less inclined to be helpful to these eejits.
thechap
7 months ago
I was taught in my police career that ‘The police are the people, and the people are the police.’
I now believe ‘The police are the State, and the State are the police.’
The Police have made themselves the enemy of freedom-loving people. It has to be dismantled and the whole thing rebuilt and started again.
Within No5 of the ‘The Nine Principles of Policing’ it states the police must be: ‘constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws’
The problem is they take ‘law’ to just mean mandated legislation and disregard that common law takes president.
The really telling part of this affair is Staffordshire Police’s own justification: they told Robert Moss that his “right to freedom of expression had to be limited to maintain public safety and order.” That wording is lifted straight from Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. On its face, that sounds lawful — Article 10 does permit restrictions on speech. But the problem is application. If the underlying objective was not a genuine public safety concern, but rather silencing a trade union critic of the fire service, then the police have essentially admitted to using the language of Article 10 as a pretext. That is no longer “balancing rights,” it is weaponising police powers for an ulterior purpose. And that is exactly where the common law offence of misconduct in public office comes into play. The offence arises where: A public officer, acting as such, Wilfully neglects their duty or misuses their powers, Without reasonable justification, In a way so serious that it amounts to an abuse of the public’s trust. If, for example, digital communications ever emerged showing the fire service and police colluding to “shut Moss up,” the elements would be met. Police officers and the… Read more »
Peter Sutton
7 months ago
I think the FSU needs to start suing individual arresting officers and individual police chiefs in cases like this.
Only when individuals (as opposed to the taxpayer) have to pay for their overreach will this nonsense stop.
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.
I am sure we are all please with each success in defending freedon but what arewe to think and do about the continued attack on us by the elites. They have unlimited resources and they will not back down this side of a General Election.
After that they will only back down after the most determined and skilled pressure from an elected government.
This is disgusting. How many officers to arrest a man for allegedly saying a ‘bad word’. UK police are a bloody disgrace;
“Hampshire police arrest a local Portsmouth patriot for hurty words a week after he had a heart- attack. Locals report a left-wing activist called the local man a slur, the man repeated “You can’t call me a ****” and the police arrested him for that. Even when concerned people ask the officers to go steady with him they dont care.”
https://x.com/jomickane/status/1956783294160257167
How can they justify this? It’s like even if he’d replied “you can’t call me THAT” they’d still have gone for him. Don’t they get that people are really concerned about their behaviour and many are less and less inclined to be helpful to these eejits.
I was taught in my police career that ‘The police are the people, and the people are the police.’
I now believe ‘The police are the State, and the State are the police.’
The Police have made themselves the enemy of freedom-loving people. It has to be dismantled and the whole thing rebuilt and started again.
The police have certainly lost the support of the people. I can’t see this ending nicely unless the authorities come to their senses.
To what senses do you refer?
Within No5 of the ‘The Nine Principles of Policing’ it states the police must be: ‘constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws’
The problem is they take ‘law’ to just mean mandated legislation and disregard that common law takes president.
http://eubrainwashing.blogspot.com/2011/06/nine-principles-of-policing.html?m=1
The really telling part of this affair is Staffordshire Police’s own justification: they told Robert Moss that his “right to freedom of expression had to be limited to maintain public safety and order.” That wording is lifted straight from Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. On its face, that sounds lawful — Article 10 does permit restrictions on speech. But the problem is application. If the underlying objective was not a genuine public safety concern, but rather silencing a trade union critic of the fire service, then the police have essentially admitted to using the language of Article 10 as a pretext. That is no longer “balancing rights,” it is weaponising police powers for an ulterior purpose. And that is exactly where the common law offence of misconduct in public office comes into play. The offence arises where: A public officer, acting as such, Wilfully neglects their duty or misuses their powers, Without reasonable justification, In a way so serious that it amounts to an abuse of the public’s trust. If, for example, digital communications ever emerged showing the fire service and police colluding to “shut Moss up,” the elements would be met. Police officers and the… Read more »
I think the FSU needs to start suing individual arresting officers and individual police chiefs in cases like this.
Only when individuals (as opposed to the taxpayer) have to pay for their overreach will this nonsense stop.