Police face lawsuit after former officer arrested over ‘thought crime’ tweet, reports the Telegraph:
A retired special constable is preparing to sue Kent Police after being arrested over a social media post warning about rising anti-Semitism.
Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham in Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers from the force he had served for a decade after replying to a pro-Palestinian activist on X.
The 71-year-old was detained for eight hours, interrogated and ultimately issued with a caution after officers visited his home on Nov 2 2023.
On Tuesday, Kent Police confirmed that the caution was a mistake and had been deleted from Mr Foulkes’s record, admitting that it was “not appropriate in the circumstances and should not have been issued”.
So long as the consequences of police misbehaviour are born by the taxpayer, not the police, why should they care? Words are cheap. They’ll settle out of court, promise not to do it again, and do it again.
Police body-worn camera footage captured officers scrutinising Mr Foulkes’’s collection of books by authors such as Douglas Murray, a Telegraph contributor, and issues of The Spectator, pointing to what they described as “very Brexity things”.
He voted with the majority. They could tell he was a wrong’un.
This is why I think that Reform has a decent shot at winning significant votes at the next GE, such as at the expense of Labour and wet Conservatives.
The police commissioner of Kent is Matthew Scott. He was re-elected last year and is a member of the Conservative Party.
I suggest people write firm and polite letters expressing their opinions to Mr Scott, and his colleagues.
He can be contacted here: https://www.kent-pcc.gov.uk/get-in-touch/contact-us/
Everything I read – every such incident I hear of – makes it clearer to me that the UK authorities truly are terrified of an imminent Islamic uprising.
The craven lengths to which they go to appease them is rather pathetic.
“PLEASE stay peaceable!” What an effective way with which to hand social power over to them.
Hostages. Y’all are hostages.
I am going to bed in a very Brexity mood.
Been said many times, the process is the punishment.
The caution was not a ‘mistake’. It was a deliberate,conscious decision.
There is no point issuing fines to public bodies.
A method needs to be found to punish individual officers.
Who was the senior officer who ordered 6 officers to arrest a 71 year old man for a social media post?
What policy, set by the Chief Constable (or by the Police and Crime Commissioner?) was being followed?
At the very least the senior officers should be reduced in rank. Other sanctions should also be considered and implemented if appropriate.
The Guardian seems moderately outraged about this. Not a word about the guy in Kent. Are the two things that different? I would argue they are qualitatively much the same. There is a difference in degree but the intent MO is much the same.
bobby b,
Yes. But I’d also suggest they are also terrified of the backlash to it as well.
“Brexity Things” sounds like it should have been a Stephen King novel with a monster in a Farage mask hacking Eurocrats to death with a zombie knife…
Far from Stephen King the use of the expression “Brexity things” strikes me as being juvenile and somewhat feminine. Not what I would hope from an institution that should be protecting the public from criminals.
@James Strong
I’ve argued elsewhere that whenever a publically funded body is fined the money should be deducted from the pay of all the people in that local organisation, spread over a year or whatever.
Yes, some individuals may not have been directly involved but if you have institutional malpractice then a broad penalty might concentrate the minds to prevent reoccurrence.
John,
I was being flippant. I dunno about “feminine” but it’s certainly juvenile to send six(!!!) cops to arrest a (presumably) unarmed 71 year old. I dunno. Maybe the SWAT team was breaking-up a playground scuffle at the time!
I do note whenever this happens over things like NCHIs the dibble are always mob-handed.
According to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Freedom of Speech is precious in Britain – it is a foundational principle that is upheld here.
May his lies turn to ashes in his mouth – and choke him.
Paul,
Starmer is correct. It is indeed so precious it has to be rationed to and only allowed for the deserving!
I fail to see why each individual officer, including the custody Sgt who accepted the arrest, and authorised the detention, and the senior officer who ordered the arrest in the first place, can’t be personally sued. On top of this, every Police action has the implied knowledge and permission, of the Chief Constable, so that person should be included too.
The date is worth highlighting as it shows this happened under the unlamented previous Tory government. While we’d likely expect no better from Labour, if the Tories were actually remotely conservative they could have stopped all this but that they chose not to is telling.
For those who want to support this, here, via the Free Speech Union, is a link to support his claim for compensation.
Heads need to roll for this.
Martin and Johnathan Pearce.
I think there were two stages, at least in modern times (historically is peak was the 1820s – before the word “Conservative” was even used to describe Lord Liverpool, Canning, Robinson and the rest), to the decline of modern Conservative Party.
The first stage was the betrayal of Margaret Thatcher in 1990 (partly due to Norman Tebbit being out of action due to his own injuries from the Brighton bombing and having to look after his wife – who was much more badly injured, Mr Tebbit had acted as Mrs T’s bodyguard against plots) – and her replacement by John “we have spent more money than Labour promised to spend” (he said that as if it was a good thing) Major.
The second stage was David Cameron’s decision to be the “heir to Blair” – to reverse nothing that Prime Minister Blair had done – not “Devolution”, not the “Supreme Court”, not all the bullying legislation, not the (insane and tyrannical) Climate Act and Equality Act – NOTHING.
As a “conservative” academic put it to me – “history has no reserve gear” – in which case (as I replied to the Gentleman) there would be no point in having elections, or, indeed, in staying alive at all. One might as well hang one’self if history really has no reverse gear – if evil can not be reversed. and will always win in the end.
The horrible way such people as Liz Truss and Jacob Rees-Mogg were treated shows that “history has no reverse gear” is still the mainstream view among many (not all – but many) Conservative Party Members of Parliament. Indeed I would go as far as to say that such Members of Parliament as Suella Braverman are in the minority – tragically so.
Will the Reform Party go the same way – as Rupert Lowe and Ben Habib say it has?
I do not know – we shall have to see.
I remember a team building exercise among Conservative party councilors – we were asked why we had entered politics.
My answer (although I was not the first to speak – and so was actually agreeing with someone else) was that I entered politics to try and reverse the growth of government – its spending, taxes and regulations, locally as well as nationally.
But only a minority of Conservative councilors said that, or something similar to it.
So it is not just a matter of Conservative politicians being hamstrung by officials and their terrible Policy (big P for Policy) – both local, national and international bodies (although they are hamstrung by officials and institutions – see Liz Truss on this). It is also the case that many Conservative politicians do not even want to roll back the state.
For example, they may support a “moderate censorship” – which is like supporting being “a little bit pregnant”.
“So long as the consequences of police misbehaviour are born by the taxpayer, not the police, why should they care?”
That was not always the case. Here is an example.
An excellent example Patrick – if a policeman, or any other official, engages in aggression against someone (for example falsely arresting them) they should be punished for what they have done.
However, the “training” remains – as do the terrible statutes (going all the way back to 1965, with each new statute being more extreme) that have waged against Freedom of Speech in this country – with ever increasing viciousness.
We have now reached a stage where “causing someone distress” in relation to a “protected characteristic” can get a person arrested.