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.
“Yes. But I’d also suggest they are also terrified of the backlash to it as well.”
It’s all fun and games, isn’t it? Until someone starts a civil war.
SteveD – a Civil War with what? The British people are unarmed and helpless – and demography is turning against them (as the French used to say, before they were sent to prison for saying it, “demography is destiny”).
Last summer, protests (which sometimes, sometimes, became riots) against the murder of three little girls were blamed on “far right” groups such as the English Defense League – which DO NOT EXIST (the EDL has not existed for years), and some people who had nothing to do with the protests (who just happened to be walking by – or even were not there at all) were sent to prison – with the Prime Minister saying, in advance of any trial, that they would be sent to prison (so much for the presumption of innocence).
Meanwhile leftist or Islamic (sometimes both) counter protests (which also sometimes, sometimes, became riots) were not punished. No matter how disorderly they were – or how many threats to murder people were made.
The entire establishment gloated about how “far right groups” (groups that DO NOT EXIST or had nothing much to do with the protests against the murder of three little girls) had been crushed – and they were still gloating last Christmas (in certain television broadcasts).
“Backlash”? “Civil War”? Not a chance.
The most that will happen is that people will vote for the Reform Party – ignoring the warnings of Ben Habib (himself a man of Pakistani heritage – which, perhaps, makes him understand the danger to Western nations more clearly) and Rupert Lowe (and others) that the Reform Party has already been compromised.
Nigel Farage is an intelligent man – he understands where the demography of many Western nations is going, but there is no evidence that he has a plan to reverse what is happening – or even that he thinks it is possible to stop what is happening.
Back in the 1960s the overwhelmingly majority of British people, in every opinion poll, supported the warnings of John Enoch Powell.
The “racist Enoch Powell” – who had slept on railway platforms in India rather than going to European only establishments, and had been one of the few Members of Parliament to protest against the harsh treatment of African prisoners in Kenya in the 1950s. But who did not wish his country to be destroyed.
The establishment united – united in condemnation of Mr Powell (and, by extension, condemnation of the vast majority of the British people – who supported the warnings of Mr Powell). For example, Edward Heath (then leader of the Conservative Party) sacked Mr Powell from the Opposition front bench.
Perhaps future historians, if there are any, will see that, that moment in the late 1960s, as the point where the opportunity to save Britain was thrown away.
For then it really was about “immigration” (really MIGRATION rather the immigration – as the word “immigration” implies a desire to be part of the nation one is going to) – now it is about natural increase (as Mr Powell warned it eventually would be). And in the 1970s such nations as Germany and France (and others) copied Britain – with “guest workers” allowed (indeed encouraged) to bring in their families and settle. The new populations can not be justly blamed – as they were invited in.
Even if all immigration was stopped right now (today) the process of demographic transformation would continue – in Britain and many other Western nations. Because it is now, mostly, about natural increase.
I repeat – Mr Farage is an intelligent man, he knows all this. But he has no plan to do anything about it – perhaps (perhaps) because nothing can be done.
To end on a hopeful note – perhaps some nations will escape this fate, for example Hungary is now (today) at the point that Britain was at the start of the 1960s. Perhaps such nations as Hungary will reject the terrible pressure of the “international community” (the international establishment) and save themselves.
There are, for example, Presidential elections in both Romania and Poland this Sunday – and in both nations there are leading candidates for President who reject mass immigration – really mass migration (it is not really immigration – see above).
In these countries it is still a matter of stopping mass migration – the natural increase factor has not, yet, gone into effect in these nations.
In 1964 the United States Civil Rights Act was passed – its attack on Freedom of Association (choice – specifically choosing who to trade with, employ, and so on) was justified (perhaps RIGHTLY justified) on the basis of more than a century of “Jim Crow” laws against black people – even though such laws had been ruled unconstitutional ten years before (in 1954) and had been in decline even before then – it was still held that they were such a monstrous evil (and the Jim Crow laws were indeed a monstrous evil) that a counter balancing intervention was justified in 1964 to try and correct for past wrongs (indeed from 1964 to to 2025, when President Trump ended the practice, the Federal Government, and others, actively discriminated in-favour-of black people – even though the 1964 Civil Rights Act would seem to outlaw racial discrimination – race-based-choice).
In 1965 the British Race Relations Act was passed – its attack on Freedom of Association was NOT justified on the basis of past “Jim Crow” laws, because no such laws existed in Britain – and-never-had-done.
The thinking behind the 1965 British Act appears to have been “we are inviting in new populations – the British people may not welcome the new populations, so we will MAKE them welcome them” – this interpretation is backed up by a key provision of the 1965 Act which held that even the expression of opinion could now be a “crime” – namely the new offense of “incitement of racial hatred”. No such provision existed in the 1964 American Act – or any other American legislation.
In short even expressing dissent, verbally or in writing, could now be a “crime” – later Acts have “doubled down” on this (several times).
It is very hard to escape the conclusion that what has been done, and is being done, to the United Kingdom is not an accident – but, rather, has been, and is, a conscious policy. For at least 60 years.
This is something for future historians to debate – one can not really discuss it further in this historical period, as to do so risks severe punishment.