Bridget Phillipson tried to pull the plug on new free speech laws in her first act as Education Secretary just days after the general election, court documents reveal. The Telegraph has more.
High Court documents show Ms. Phillipson received a briefing from Department for Education (DfE) officials in July on how she could go about revoking new laws promoting academic freedom.
She took the university sector by surprise when she announced on July 26th that she was shelving the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, just six days before it was due to come into force.
Ms. Phillipson said at the time that she had chosen to “stop” the flagship Tory legislation before it was set to be implemented on Aug 1st “in order to consider options, including its repeal”.
However, court documents obtained by the Telegraph reveal the Education Secretary had already sought advice weeks before that on how to scrap the main elements of the free speech legislation.
In a briefing addressed to Ms. Phillipson on July 8th, the Monday after Labour swept to power, DfE officials said: “We understand you do not wish to implement the main provisions of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
“A decision is needed on whether to allow the commencement of the provisions of the Act that are due to come into force on Aug 1st, or to pause.”
The DfE document informed Ms Phillipson that failure to intervene over the Act would mean the legislation automatically going live at the start of August.
It said that “therefore, immediate decisions are needed to revoke these regulations following which you can consider different options relating to repeal of the Act”.
It suggests Ms. Phillipson set the wheels in motion to shelve the flagship Tory legislation just days after the General Election, in her first major act as Education Secretary.
The Telegraph understands it came after she consulted Jewish groups and other interested parties over their concerns about the legislation while still in the Opposition.
Days after she entered office, DfE officials advised Ms. Phillipson on various courses of action for scaling back the free speech legislation.
Documents show the Education Secretary was told she should “consider whether you wish to repeal the Act, in part or in full, or leave it on the statute book without the main provisions commenced”.
The Act, which received royal assent in May 2023, would have introduced a new complaints scheme for academics, students and visiting speakers concerned about free speech violations on campus.
It would have also allowed victims of ‘cancel culture’ at universities to seek compensation through a statutory tort.
Ms Phillipson’s decision to mothball the laws has received widespread backlash from academics, who argue it leaves them vulnerable to being “hounded, censured and silenced” for holding legitimate views some may deem offensive.
Sources close to the discussions told the Telegraph they were furious the Act has been painted as a “Tory hate charter” designed to stoke the culture wars.
The Education Secretary insisted the move followed concerns from Jewish groups that the Act could have created a platform for hate speech on campus.
Critics have branded the suggestion a red herring, insisting that the legislation would only have strengthened protections for free speech “within the law”.
Ms. Phillipson now faces legal action over her decision to pull the plug on the Act, after the Free Speech Union was granted permission to appeal the move.
A judicial review hearing is set to take place in the High Court on Jan 23rd.
Worth reading in full.
You can contribute to the CrowdJustice fundraiser the FSU has set up to help pay the costs of bringing the legal challenge against Ms. Phillipson here.
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.
A useful observation. Yesterday, when this verdict came up on this site, I made a cynical comment that whoever the defence barrister was will be quids in. Unless they operate in a cab rank regime, many will want him/her on their side!
I had understood that the Crown could appeal any decision that was clearly mistaken.
Perhaps the CPS should reconsider the quality of barristers they use.
I served on a jury more recently than the 1990s. Certain jurors were obsessed about a particular item mentioned briefly in evidence and asked the judge what had happened to it. The judge, rightly in my view, told them to consider the case on evidence presented not on what they would like to know.
Sadly in my case the accused was not found guilty even though everyone in the jury room agreed he did it. Afterwards his barrister could be seen telling him not to do again what he had just been acquired of.
I agree with this it disturbed me whenI served on a jury, the things I heard and saw. Quite frightening and I remember wondering if a jury the best way to deal with things. You could say that it is the fairest but fairness means nothing if it is universally rubbish. In an age of advanced propaganda and ignorance worship even more so. But what can you do – any alternative means that someone chooses the watchers and who watches the watchers.Of course a jury only needs to have one dissenting member but this is worthless when you consider the dynamics of the situation. For one thing most jurists are sick and tired of attending the trial by the time it comes to their decision and will agree on things just to get home and back to normal more quickly.
I can’t speak for most jurists but when I was on a jury which did not convict for GBH even though I thought the defendant was guilty, my rationalisation was that to acquit a guilty person was better than convicting an innocent one. I still think that’s right but it still worries me about that particular case. In that case it became apparent that no consensus would be found among the jury for a guilty verdict – so it was time to move on.
I served on a jury where 12 witnesses to an assault were called to give evidence. Each one claimed they did not see the person alleged of assault kick the supposed victim. Even the alleged victim said he did not see who the person was who kicked him. Remember this was in an open area with 20 or 30 people all around. So why were they called as witnesses? Then when none of those people could identify the assailant, not even the alleged victim, it was left to the jury to decide. ——–I said to myself why should me, a person that was not even there at the time and who saw nothing make a decision on who is guilty when those present were not prepared to?
In my experience juries are presented with conflicting opinions from expert witnesses who argue whether the defendant’s or the “victim’s” recollections of what may or may not have happened in under the old oak tree in 1959 have been so addled by dementia that their testimony is unreliable. These days the judges are not allowed to introduce the concept of delusional fantasies in summarised cases, so the case winds up as an expensive beauty contest between the teams of expert witnesses.
I detect a similar trend in other fields, in which experts are paid to dazzle juries with their supposed insight into the behaviour of humans, the climate and viruses.
On the whole I support the concept of “jury nullification” but cases like this make me waver.
This article reminds me of the classic Hancock’s Half Hour parody of 12 Angry Men:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48w3iu
A brilliant film and perhaps too sophisticated for the current generation left wing activists. In addition to the main plot line was the backdrop of the intolerable heat. I recall how the jury complained about how hot it was, something that the climate crazies might find incomprehensible because it was never that hot in the past.
In contrast, there was this:
‘Two Just Stop Oil protesters who scaled the Dartford Crossing bridge have been jailed.
Morgan Trowland, 40, of Islington, north London, and Marcus Decker, 34, of no fixed address, were suspended over the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge for about 37 hours in October.
The pair argued during the trial it was a peaceful protest but were found guilty of causing a public nuisance.
Trowland was jailed for three years and Decker for two years and seven months.
Judge Shane Collery KC said the pair “plainly believed you knew better” than other people and were thinking “to hell with everyone else”.
“You have to be punished for the chaos you caused and to deter others from copying you,” he said, as he sentenced them at Southend Crown Court.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65263650
There is an election in the offing and the Tories hope to scrape together a few votes by opposing Silly Khant’s ULEZ scheme.
That tactic would have crashed and burned if these R.souls had been acquitted. By contrast, few people will sob into their pillows about HSBC’s losses.
Fear not. Once the election is over, these Dartford Crossing “protestors” will amazingly be pardoned and likely given seats in the House of Lords.
“That tactic would have crashed and burned if these R.souls had been acquitted. By contrast, few people will sob into their pillows about HSBC’s losses.”
Indeed. But this decision legitimizes criminal damage. Where does that end?
And today this came up: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0p6ll3jjgo with the UN criticising the punishment.
Sod the UN! Bunch of west-hating, communists and religion-of-peace mongers
If we do not stop pandering to these brainwashed dreamers then they are simply going to become more and more emboldened. This country is already on a path to NET ZERO and is doing more on this issue than most other countries. We cannot have ideologically motivated misinformed dreamers dictating energy policies. We need to nip this in the bud NOW
Yes I get where the author’s coming from if there is anything remotely ambiguous put forward that is passed off as ”evidence” but there is nothing ambiguous at all about video footage of these deluded idiots actually committing vandalism to a property, therefore I don’t see how it’s possible for a jury to be manipulated into passing a verdict which is anything other than what the evidence showed. I mean, how can any sane person contradict actual evidence of people in the act of breaking the law??
So now we have a situation where the bar is set, this sends out a message nationwide that it’s totally okay to go ahead and vandalize your chosen property, graffiti and desecrate memorials and important statues/landmarks, you name it, you can do it, just so long as you break the law in the name of a specified cause/narrative then it’s all good. Zero deterrent, zero consequences. So that’s nice for the yobs and chavs isn’t it? And what role models these stupid bints represent for their own kids and others wishing to emulate them in future. It’s absolutely shameful, it really is.
Meanwhile, this is the sort of treatment one can expect should you speak out against a protest that is anti-West. Free speech being non-existent if you don’t toe the leftie line. Plus, I think he’s the ‘wrong’ colour;
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1726400335625740611
I wholeheartedly agree Mogs. What this case boils down to is ‘criminal damage.’
Did the accused commit criminal damage?
Yes they did. Case closed.
Guilty.
Send ’em down.
But you don’t send down your own useful idiots. —You need them to keep your phony pretend to save the planet policies in the public eye and have the excuses for forcing unaffordable unreliable energy on us so you can get a little gold star on your lapel from the one world government people at the UN
I thought it was held that the defendants were justified in causing the damage, so they were not guilty. There is a need for urgent legislation in that case or we are all legitimate targets.
Hopefully they won’t breed because they believe we are doomed and that white people breeding is dangerous for the environment and diversity and inclusion. Thick as planks, really. Evidence that we are getting stupider in the west, not cleverer.
There is absolutely no point in complaining about the stupidity of other people. As a teacher of mine said, tha there are stupid people in the world is their problem but when you start to consider them they become your problem. Yes they affect our reality and in benighted times they rise to power but just think about the fruitlessness of being concerned with stupidty. You may as well give a dog a string of sausages and tell him to save half of them for next week. The point is that that there are immense hidden depths of intelligence and guile and insight in this country. And it is the habit of masters to hide themselves away from the public. You have to allow the possibility of a world where reality is the opposite of the ostentatious.
My interpretation of the request for explanation of the Paris “Treaty” (which it wasn’t) and what the Government has done since; is absolutely different.
This will have been done by a juror who wanted to promote the Extinction Rebellion position that the Government has done “nothing” of significance to avoid the oceans boiling and a Great Extinction event. Not to mention MET office measuring warmth when adjacent Typhoon jets are taking off. So they were absolutely justified in their actions, ‘cos they was saving the planet, innit?’
Further evidence that jury selection, the “prosecution” and the selected Judge were all set up to guarantee a not guilty verdict.
Let’s be honest. Apart from the Daily Sceptic’s trolls, almost anyone who comes on here could have pointed out that the “Climate Emergency” is utter, infantile bollocks. And could have called genuine scientists to rubbish ER’s virtue signalling poppycock.
Note that I don’t blame the defence – they obviously did their job, which was to defend. But the “Prosecution” needs to be behind bars. After all, any rational appraisal of Government actions this Century would clearly show the tens of billions of our money they have wasted on this scam. Hard to see how much more they could have done to support ER and screw over the rest of us.
A crisis cult isn’t entirely misdirected but it will find a way to manifest its neurosis in the physical world. Carbon dioxide is an interesting choice. I suspect because given scientific antecedent such as the examination of the greenhousr effect on Venus it was found to be an idea rich for exploitation.If you tune into the spirit you will see the exact year and month in the 1980s when it happened.I am just telling you straight when it blew in. We who are still alive now we need to take care of things.
CO2 is also the one gas that can be directly tied to Industrial Capitalism. The rich emit the most, the poor emit the least. The CO2 is therefore the commy bureaucrats dream gas that allows them to implement policies they have long craved such as carbon taxes and assorted wealth redistribution policies with climate as the excuse.
Many years ago I found myself doing Jury Service at Kingston Crown Court. I joined a bunch of jurors who had tried other cases already and having lost their previous foreman they elected me. I should have been worried but was new to the game. We tried a GBH case where a girl’s boyfriend had beaten up her husband when he objected to the arrangement. We retired and the first vote was 10-2 guilty. A woman d’un certain âge thought the boyfriend looked too nice. Half an hour later we were still at it and I was required to tell the jury bailiff that we would be sitting through lunch and would need refreshments sent in. When I said that was what I was off to do, said lady then threw up her arms in horror and said “Oh NO! Not those bloody ham & cheese sandwiches again! Ok – he’s guilty”. Her friend followed. We were home for tea.
What they believed is irrelevant. Did they or did they not commit criminal damage to someone’s property? The answer is yes. The judge should have directed the jury to only focus on that part of the law. The judge is clearly biased and not fit to do their job and should be barred.
The next stop in such legal madness is murder: I killed this person your honour because their actions are going to lead to climate disaster.
We live in an utterly bizarre, lazy-thinking, stupid, ignorant society that deserves to be destroyed so we can rebuild it
Maybe HSBC can bring a civil prosecution for damage against the group. Lower bar for conviction, I believe? If they could get damages they might bankrupt the little communist green, middle class w4nkers. But I suspect that HSBC would avoid this because of bad publicity and them being seen as the big, bad capitalist attacking the small, brave, climate freedom fighters. Cowards, of course.
We should be more Javier Milei about these things; crush the leftists!
If a private prosecution were brought it would be “legally adopted” by the Crown Prosecution Service who would then drop it A . civil claim for damages would bypass a jury.
Under this way of thinking I should be able to haul you from your 4×4 and set it alight all for the children and grandchildren because your car is “adding to climate change”———-There must be no Social Justice, only Equal Justice for all. We cannot have decisions based on popular belief that is only popular because most people are too busy to properly investigate it for themselves and simply accept the group think and what they see on the Telly. —You either smashed the glass or you didn’t and if you smashed the glass you are GUILTY
The judiciary is gone. People need to understand that all the institutions we relied on have been infected with Woke-23.