“Police in free speech row after telling cancer patient to apologise for social media post”, the Telegraph reports.
Police have become embroiled in a free speech row after officers told a cancer patient to apologise for a social media post.
Deborah Anderson, an American citizen living in Slough, was confronted by an officer from Thames Valley Police after someone complained about an offensive Facebook post.
The police did not divulge which post had been the subject of the complaint.
The mother of two, who is undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer, was told that if she did not apologise for the comments she could be interviewed at the police station.
Ms Anderson, a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and a member of the Free Speech Union (FSU), refused and said the officer’s time would be better spent investigating serious crimes such as burglary.
Thames Valley Police later dropped the case after the FSU instructed lawyers.
However, the incident has reignited the debate over how far the police should intervene in social media spats.
The issue came into focus earlier this month when Graham Linehan, the Irish comedy writer, was arrested by five armed officers at Heathrow Airport over comments he had posted on X about a transgender activist.
Sir Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has since said the police were in an impossible position when it came to such matters and called on the Government to provide greater clarity within legislation.
[…]
Ms Anderson was visited at home by a single officer in June and informed that Thames Valley Police had received a complaint about her.
In a video shared by the FSU, the officer said: “Something we believe you have written on Facebook has upset someone.”
Ms Anderson then asked: “You’re here because someone got upset? Is it against the law? Am I being arrested?”
The officer confirmed that she was not being arrested and explained: “My plan was that if it was you who wrote the comment, you could just make an apology to the person.”
Ms Anderson replied: “I am not apologising to anybody, I can tell you that.”
The officer told her: “The alternative would be that I would have to call you in for interview.”
Ms Anderson then asked the officer: “Are there no houses that have been burgled recently, no rapes, no murders? … Then why aren’t you out there investigating those?”
Lord Young of Acton, general secretary of the FSU, said: “Watching this video, it’s as if the police have become schoolteachers, intervening in petty squabbles. Since when has it been their job to ask people to apologise?
“Except instead of threatening you with detention if you don’t, they’re threatening you with arrest. It’s both comical and deeply sinister – carry on 1984.
A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said: “In June, we received a report from a person who felt threatened by comments directed at them online.
“Following engagement with both parties, no arrests were made and no further action was taken.”
If Plod the Prefect comes round to “engage” with you, do what Ms Anderson did and stand your ground. The chances are good that they will back off. Even if they don’t, you will have kept your self-respect.* This is the alternative.
*Another way to preserve your self-respect in these times is not to join the police. No officer should have to endure this type of deliberately humiliating hazing ritual.
I’d like to complain. What this officer did really, really upset me. I DEFINITELY feel threatened that if I were to return to the UK that I might be arrested by armed police.
To whom should I complain? Will he be apologizing to me? Will he be called in for an interview?
Name the officer and find out, going up the chain of command, who authorised the visit. Was it the officer himself, or his Sergeant, his Inspector, his Chief Inspector and on up? When the officer who made the decision has been identified put a significant but non-terminal sanction on him. Maybe reduction of one rank. In addition the Police and Crime Commisioner should call in the Chief Constable, no need to provide coffee and biscuits or even a chair, and explain to him what policies are to be followed and what is to be prioritised.
——————————————————————————-
But plod say, and they do have something of a case, that they are following the statute. So it’s necessary to direct efforts elsewhere, to politicians, as well.
Fraser Orr – quite so.
For a change, rather than just blocking them as normal, I explained to some leftists who were abusing me, causing me alarm and distress (or so I could claim), on social media – that they were breaking British law. They were not impressed (not that they should be) – after all leftists are not likely to be prosecuted.
The “laws”, statutes, are vague (deliberately so) – and the “training” and conferences that the authorities (not just police, but also the judges – and the Corporate managers) undergo lead to certain attitudes.
“But Paul they do not know they are serving Critical Theory Marxism” – yes they do not know, but that does not help. If anything the fact that the police and judges, and so on, do not understand the doctrines they serve makes the situation worse.
If policeman X or judge Y understood they were serving Critical Theory Marxism then they might STOP serving it – if convinced that it is wrong. But as they can say, quite honestly, “of course I am not a Communist, do not be silly” nothing can change.
The Italian Marxist Gramsci argued that Marxist doctrines, about exploitation and oppression – and power structures, could be made so culturally dominant that even people who thought they were conservatives would serve these doctrines – and he was sadly correct (remember such Prime Ministers as Mrs May – a Conservative who had no idea that when she came out with these doctrines she was serving a certain world view).
All the German (and American – and British, and other Western nations to) Frankfurt School did was take the Marxist doctrines of exploitation-oppression-power-structures and apply them to race, sex, orientation, religion, and so on.
Pure Marxists have problems with the Frankfurt School – as pure Marxists want to talk about “the relations of production” rather than “Trans rights” and so on – but there are very few pure Marxists any more.
These days “Critical Theory” rules – not just on the left, but over unthinking “moderates” as well.
As John O’Sullivan, an adviser to Margaret Thatcher and then founder of the Danube Institute in Hungary, has often said – unless you understand the left and FIGHT the left, you and the organisation you are in (be it government or corporate) will end up the slave of the left.
So whatever organisation or even hobby that you are in – you must “gate keep” against the left, as the left will come into your police force, or your gardening club, or your court system, and grind you into the dust.
And this even includes games – as “Arch” has been explaining on social media for years.
“But surely we can play an innocent game with leftists” – no you can not, because they will take over the hobby and grind you into the dust.
A leftist judge is a contradiction – as being a judge is, or rather should be, be about defending private property rights. Ditto a leftist policeman. Or an “apolitical” judge or policeman (or whatever) – because people with no strong ANTI leftist world-view inevitably become slaves of the left – following leftist (Critical Theory – which is the opposite of Critical Thinking) doctrine without even knowing it.
If you find yourself in such a situation, consider videoing the conversation. If at the doorstep, it’s a public place, so no offence. If inside the property (and think carefully before inviting, or allowing, then in), explain the conversation will be videos – your house, your rules – if they don’t like it, they can leave.
My retirement from the Police was over 20 years ago, and although proud of my service, despair at the politically motivated organisation the Police have become. Officers are so scared of offending other officers, or Policecstaff, and senior officers just seem to do what it takes to jump to the next rank by appeasing those above them. Robert Peel will be spinning in his grave.
Penseivat – you make some good points, and you speak from experience.
Yes – there is no great understanding of or loyalty to Marxist “Critical Theory” (which is the opposite of Critical Thinking) – this is just police officers (and people from every other walk of life) trying to “get by” and “get ahead” – to feed their families.
Sadly the result is the same.
*If* the Police were to realise that their visits were most likely to be met with mulish resistance then they would probably stop their visits unless there was compelling evidence to make them worthwhile.
So perhaps the FSU could produce handy (i.e. could be printed off and handed around to your friends and relatives) ‘What to do if the Police visit you‘ leaflet or web page. Possibly a FSU sticker to put in your front window?
“Police in free speech row after telling cancer patient to apologise for social media post”,
Would it be OK to do this to someone who doesn’t have cancer?
Ted Schuerzinger, No, it would not be OK. But the Telegraph is right to flag up that this lady has cancer because that fact reinforces the point that she is no threat to anyone.
Obviously, very little police work is as exciting or obviously useful as what is depicted on the cop shows on TV, as I am sure Penseivat can confirm. But an officer doing routine and sometimes depressing police work as it used to be understood could say with pride that they were doing something necessary.
I wonder, when that young man first decided to join the Force, did he envisage being sent as an errand boy to try and pressure a sick old lady into apologising to some easily-offended (but evidently influential) person for something said on Facebook?
@Natalie Solent (Essex)
I wonder, when that young man first decided to join the Force, did he envisage being sent as an errand boy to try and pressure a sick old lady into apologising to some easily-offended (but evidently influential) person for something said on Facebook?
TBH Natalie I find it otherworldly. I mean it would be a good story were it in the Onion or some satirical site. Although I vehemently disagree with police action in these cases, someone saying something like “kill all the jews” or “burn down the immigrant hotels” might be something the police should take note of.
But an offense that can be corrected with an apology? I mean you must be kidding, right? This is a joke, surely? As the OP said, the police are not pre school teachers. It is at the level of “Miss, miss, she took the yellow crayon when I was going to use it next.”
The words by Sir Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police upset me.
Really an example of the process being the punishment. Apologise or the police will waste your time and possibly money if you need legal representation.
Here is an example of an apology, best delivered in a hideous guttural accent.
“I would like to make an announcement. I would like to make the most sincere apology to each and everyone of you and assure you I shall take my shame to my grave. Thank you.”
AlexS – I fondly remember the threats of Sir Mark Rowley to go to Texas (and elsewhere) and start arresting people for breaking British social media “laws”.
It would have been so interesting if he had actually tried to do this.
“British bureaucrat, thousands of miles outside his jurisdiction, tries to grab people – and ends up arrested himself”.
And that would have been the outcome if Sir Mark Rowley was lucky – otherwise the outcome could have been even more interesting.
But the practical effect is actually significant.
I – just like any American who regularly says offensive-to-government things on sites such as Samizdata – can no longer casually consider visiting the YouKay.
Am I on some huge list somewhere?
It seems dumb and trivial – who would care about little old me? – but if they’re sending the coppers out after people who are rude on Facebook, it’s no longer fanciful to think that a comment about how Starmer’s UK is a killing field might get me attention as I pass through your customs gate and my name is typed in.
It strikes me that all y’all posters are taking a not-insignificant chance. YouKay gov hates you and wants you silenced, and they have shown a frightening willingness to accomplish this.
It comes down to this [and I suspect that some low level bureaucrat is probably going to end up taking notes on this], britain is now functionally a totalitarian state with no rights inherent and functioning for the people there. Labour has a big enough majority that they cannot be limited in any way, and if you are a student of history it is not unreasonable to expect them to use that majority to suspend elections because of a “state of emergency” in a few years as they approach. It is what politicians do with absolute power to hold on to it.
No free person should be traveling to britain and placing themselves in danger of being arrested by the State for expressing politically incorrect opinions online and out of british jurisdiction. Probably, although less likely, they should not be buying british goods or doing business with british companies. Both as a student of history, and as someone whose extended family reaches into Celtic regions, I have long wished to visit britain. Given the ongoing Second Jihad in western Europe in general and especially in britain; I think I have given up on that idea.
Subotai Bahadur
It should be safe (as safe as for the locals) for us furriners to visit the YooKay — if we first join the Free Speech Union.
I myself would willing to pay twice the rate, in exchange for assurances that i’d be defended just as a native.
Actually, people like bobby and yours truly are protected by the use of pseudonyms. (Don’t know about Fraser.)
Speaking for myself, i think that they’d have to go to great lengths to find out my secret identity.
No doubt, it would be worth it if i ever posted about my role in the murder of Archduke Ferdinand and JFK; but not for what i actually posted.
— Going back to the FSU: perhaps Trump should instruct the ambassador to the UK to pay the FSU an adequate sum to cover every US citizen visiting the UK.
(US residents in the UK being expected to join the FSU themselves.)
“Actually, people like bobby and yours truly are protected by the use of pseudonyms.”
Yes and no. I’ve always used it as an icon across platforms more than an anon ID. There are a lot of people who know who I am. I’ll guess that it would be a trivial matter to track most of us down, given governmental resources. It’s like a lock on a door – it’s there to keep casual thieves out, not real ones.
And then I look at the partisan way in which the YouKay chooses to apply its laws, and it makes me even more certain it’s a place to avoid:
It’s not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you.
Bobby: nothing factually wrong with what you write.
And yet, consider: “they” would have to BOTH
(a) keep a list of all internet commenters who say the unspeakable
AND
(b) find out who they are.
No doubt, Skynet will be able to do that in the future — unless we take precautions.
Just as a random observation – certainly no real linkage – I see that Starmer is pushing a hard Digital ID law for the Youkay today.
It’s not paranoia if . . . . 😉
Snorri Godhi – “keep a list of all internet commenters who say the unspeakable”
Actually there seem to be sufficient informers for that part. All “they” have to do is item (b), track down the “offender”, and deliver punishment. Oh, and ensure that the identity of the “offended” (i.e. their informer) and the “offence” itself remain concealed.
@Snorri Godhi
Actually, people like bobby and yours truly are protected by the use of pseudonyms. (Don’t know about Fraser.)
I’ve always used my real name in these discussions, but truthfully I have been rethinking that. For me, I have family in Britain so I have to go there. I think the likelihood of something happening is small, but certainly not zero. BobbyB is right that they can track you down if they want to if you are on one of the bigger apps like X or FB. Although I am on them I never say anything that is not benign on there. But here on Samizdata it is a bit of a hidden corner that nobody cares about, and I think PDH hosts outside of Britain which would make a subpoena hard to execute. It is also worth saying that you can tune the logs on a WP site to make it not really record the relevant data.
However, it is something I have been thinking about as things seems to be getting much worse in Britain. So perhaps one day I will disappear, and someone with a different name will appear who expresses views remarkably similar to mine. It is the ideas and especially the exchange of ideas that I care about. If that happens, please don’t dox me 😉. I think my profile of ideas is probably pretty trackable to people who have read some of my prior commentary.
Fraser Orr, the UK Authorities will send a squad after you because in their mind you are William Joyce.
In the mind of the Authorities, we are all William Joyce and so deserve his fate.
Braver than me.
Decades ago, I was on a listserve (remember those?) of lawyers discussing amendments to the Minnesota statute defining “primary parent.” My suggestions were winning. Arcane, but consequential to a bunch of noncustodial dads. Some of whom drank heavily. One (whose lawyer had said “read this stuff so you’ll understand”) took a couple of shots at me one night.
It was a .22, and he was a bad shot sober, which he wasn’t, so I would have been in more danger if he had just thrown the gun at me, but that was the end of doing internet under my own name.
(I do get a kick out of the people who threaten Musk on X, anonymously.)
I always use my own name on Social Media.
If I am arrested and put in prison – this will mean that I no longer have to try and find a job, people are not likely to employ a 60 year old unemployed politician in poor health.
Back in my Home Office, Prison Service, days I was (briefly) in charge of the prisoners pay scheme (policy-towards) – it will be interesting to be on the other side of it.
“Following engagement with both parties, no arrests were made and no further action was taken.”
I wonder if a NCHI was registered before ‘no further action was taken’? Inquiring minds would like to know.
To comment on Natalie Solent’s entry, as a beat bobby, I found my professional life was about 60% routine, roughly 30% distressing, and the rest was sheer blind terror. I would like think that Ricky Gervais’s comment, “Just because you’re offended, doesn’t mean you’re right”, was nicked from me, but then I nicked it from someone else, and often used it, even then.
Regarding pseudonyms, I used to do voluntary work on a hospital radio station, interviewing patients on live broadcasts. At the beginning, on an open mike, I mentioned I was penseive. This was picked up by the controller, and for the rest of my time there, I was introduced as “pensive at” whichever ward I was on. This turned into Penseivat, and this is how I became known, even to friends outside the hospital, and it stuck, even now.
Life is funny.
It’s noticeable that most of these relate to females(apart from Graham Linehan, where because they made sure to arrest at an airport, they could go armed), because like all bullies they are utter cowards!
A FOI request will reveal it, if it has been.
For those of you worrying that “they will have us” once Skynet is up and running, I hate to ruin your day but that part of Skynet has been up and running for some time now. If they don’t like people who say the things you say, then you are surely on that list already.
And Musk recently taught USG agencies to get their computers talking to each other better. He did that for efficiency reasons but my first thought was “NO! We don’t WANT their computer systems working effectively together!” So, now, at least in the US, “the list” can be cross-correlated with all kinds of other lists: tax payer lists, property owners, those recieving private pensions, social security, gun registrations, etc., etc., etc.
GregWA
Yes indeed Sir.
Which means that people in the United States must work to ensure that supporters of the International Community (all Democrats – and some Republicans as well) do not regain control of the government – for, if they do, your remaining liberties will be crushed.
As for countries such as the United Kingdom – I fear it is too late for us here, although Perry (and some others) have high hopes that a Reform Party government might end the war to crush the British people.
Recently here there has been the conference of the ironically named “Liberal Democratic” Party – which hates liberty and hates democracy. Their support for the International Community and hatred of the British people (and hatred of the United States – which they associate with such “crimes” as Freedom of Speech, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by ordinary people in their own defense and the defense of others) was horribly obvious.
The stealing of the word “liberal” by fanatical Collectivists is complete – in the United Kingdom as well as the United States.
Real liberals, such Prime Minister Gladstone or President Calvin Coolidge, would weep.
In spite of more than 90 years of lying propaganda – Herbert Hoover was NOT a free market person.
Not only did Herbert Hoover support the Collectivist “Progressive Party” in 1912 – but, as Commerce Secretary in the 1920s he endlessly pushed for a bigger budget and more interventionism.
As President, Herbert Hoover not only created many new government agencies and programs (later renamed and enlarged by Franklin Roosevelt), he also actively intervened to PREVENT Real Wages adjusting to the Credit Money crash of 1929.
There had been many Credit Money crashes in American history (“banking” being, basically, legalized FRAUD) – going back to at least 1819 and most recently before 1929 in 1921 – but the crash of 1929 was the first crash where government intervened to PREVENT Real Wages adjusting to the crash – this interventionism was led by Herbert “The Forgotten Progressive” Hoover – and led to mass UNEMPLOYMENT that carried on for year after year.
Real Wages only fell in World War II – where government covered this up by pretending that official prices, rather than “Black Market” prices (the actual prices, were the real prices. This way there was large scale reduction of Real Wages – and unemployment ended.
Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were “liberals” in the traditional sense (free market supporters) and both had supported President Taft in 1912 – Herbert Hoover (whatever he may have later become in retirement) was not a Classical Liberal either in his youth or as President.