A retired Cleveland Police officer has been convicted and fined over £1,000 for resharing satirical Facebook memes critical of Islam, despite the Crown Prosecution Service initially declining to charge him. Stephen Gray, 65, is now appealing his conviction with the support of the Free Speech Union. The Telegraph has the story:
When Stephen Gray, a retired police officer, was told he would be charged with a criminal offence for sharing posts online that were critical of Islam, his first concern was not for himself.
It was for the young Irish girl he and his wife had been fostering for the past six years.
He told The Telegraph: “I was initially quite worried because obviously we have to have enhanced DBS checks to foster children.
“These kids have enough to put up with without the fear they may be moving again hanging over their heads.”
Gray, 65, who worked for Cleveland Police for nearly three decades, went on trial at Newton Aycliffe magistrates’ court in April 2026.
Despite pointing out he had only reshared the posts, as hundreds of other people had, and explaining he viewed them as political satire, he was found guilty of making a grossly offensive post on Facebook contrary to Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003.
Speaking from his home in Darlington, County Durham, Gray still cannot get his head around the fact he has a criminal conviction for a post on social media.
He said: “I guess some of the posts may have been in bad taste. Some of them may upset one or two people, but I didn’t think for one second it would be cast as grossly offensive by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and by the courts. Not for one second.”
Gray was charged over the reposting of two allegedly offensive images.
The first had the words “time for mass deportation” alongside an image of a Middle Eastern man, who was in his late 20s or 30s, and the words “Children in Need”.
The image had the caption “12-year-old Mohammed recently arrived at Dover. Please donate to help him move from a three-star to a five-star hotel which has a better halal menu, free wifi and Sky and is nearer to a girls’ school”.
The second image was a picture of a rasher of bacon and a man in a turban alongside the caption “Fun facts about Bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9-year-old!”
Ultimately, the district judge who tried his case ruled the first post was not grossly offensive and it related to a political issue that had been debated in Parliament.
The second image, however, resulted in a conviction. The judge ruled the post was not political; it was about religion, and it was grossly offensive.
Giving evidence during the trial, Gray pointed out that he had not made the images himself but had simply reposted the images along with thousands of other people.
The posts had not been directed at any individual and the person who complained about it to police in the first place, was a non-Muslim neighbour of Gray’s, with whom he had previously had an unrelated disagreement.
Gray said: “I made a joke, an ironic joke, about Islam. That is all it was at the end of the day. A joke. I certainly never, not for one second, thought it would be deemed abusive.”
After being found guilty, Gray, who is appealing against the decision with the support of the Free Speech Union (FSU), was also ordered to pay more than £1,000 in fines and costs.
Gray and his wife Alex, 62, have fostered three children over the past seven years. He informed social services about the prosecution after he was charged.
“Even they looked at it and said, ‘This is utter rubbish’. They reassured me nothing would happen as a result of it,” he said. “So that was a bit of pressure off. We were very worried about losing her.”
After investigating the posts, Durham Constabulary passed a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who initially declined to charge Gray, saying there was no realistic prospect of conviction.
But the person who made the original complaint appealed the decision using the Victims’ Right to Review scheme, and the CPS then decided to proceed with the case.
Worth reading in full.
You can donate to the Free Speech Union’s crowdfunder for this case here.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
So, someone who claims to have been offended by a neighbour’s online post is able to appeal under the ‘Victim’s Right to Review’.
This suggests that the CPS is staffed by dolts. As for the district judge, words fail me.
Donated the suggested £25. This is outrageous!
Apparently the complaint came from a non-Muslim neighbour (which is exactly why these offensive laws are such a bad idea – just a petty whinger’s charter). The judge found the reposting to be ‘grossly offensive’ which suggest the judge thinks less of the offensiveness of grown men having sexual intercourse with prepubescent children than some silly bacon joke.
Satire and sarcasm is the device of choice for pucker British people, of all ethnic heritages, when making a rhetorical point. But when it come to being culturally offensive I am offended that I need to not mention ham actors, pedo-porking or giving a sausage over someone else’s ugly cult culture.
And why didn’t he opt for jury trial?
A bench of three lay justices might have proved better judges than a single district judge, whose decision should certain be appealed. If upheld this will be a shameful restriction of free speech to criticise a religion.
Fundamentally, religions should never be protected from criticism, and I speak as a Christian. Mocking the human constructs put up around religions is actually a good thing.
According to Google AI, the “joke” is factually correct. https://share.google/WUReFWsegtekZoDK3 GBN Free Speech Nation programme declined to repeat the words of what he posted. The words should be repeated far and wide. More like grim reality than a joke.
So, we do have blasphemy law. At least in one direction.
Disgraceful and offensive behaviour by the so-called justice system.
Makes my blood boil. Nothing worse than woke judiciary and snitching neighbours. What an appalling environment we now live in. Freedom of speech obliterated,Communist government, imprisonment at the drop of a hat. What a repulsive, foul parliament we have.
Even less votes for the uni-parties, so there are many positives.
Who was the goddawful district judge? Just go on Google and look up Christian jokes
Not the first time judge Hood has done his masters bidding – reported elsewhere – Paul Henderson opened up The Porky Pint in Billingham in January 2021 in protest at Covid regulations and had his licence revoked by Stockton Council.
At a hearing at Teesside Magistrates’ Court, Mr Henderson appealed against the decision but it was dismissed by judge Hood
So statistics are now offensive ? That magistrate needs sacking.
What an effing joke ( skewer a solid guy over nothing)
There will be a reckoning
That judge who convicted him should be ashamed of himself and charged with treason.
Wonder what his religion is – just asking?
Liberal white judges are the worst.
Following the Islamic London Bridge attack Sadiq Khan warned of the dangers of White Supremecy or something similar.
Following the Islamist attacks on the Jewish London Ambulances Master Khan responded with how afraid Muslims feel.
Following the Golders Green attack on Jewish people we are told this is because of the far right.
Just in relation to UK citizens at the hands of Islam we have had:
Pan Am Flt 103 / Lockerbie
Glasgow Airport suicide attack
7/7 suicide attack
Manchester Arena suicide attack
Sir David Ames Murder
Salmon Rushdie death sentance and attack
London Bridge suicide attack
Borough Market suicide attack
Westminster Bridge suicide attack
Reading terrorist attack
Tunisia holiday resort terrorst attack
David Haines murder
James Foley murder
Kris Donald murder
Rhiannon Whyte.
Rochdale Rape Gangs
Rotherham Rape Gangs
Telford Rape Gangs
Amie Grey murder
Southport murders
Terence Carney murder
Manchester Synagogue terrorist attack and murders
Gurvinder Johal murder
Wayne Broadhurst murder
Pro Palestine/Hamas demonstrations following Oct 7th
The response? The introduction of Islamophobic Laws
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F8moLAvuY-M
This is urgent Business – Christopher Hitchens
Hamit Coskun
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/02/27/koran-burner-hamit-coskun-wins-landmark-blasphemy-case-at-high-court/
Missed Lee Rigby on your list
Chopped to death – beheaded
Pickaxe handle time
As a lesser detail, to some extent, there is also the practice of meat being mostly halal now, in order to meet the needs of the dictatorial minorities.
Yes. I refuse to buy halal meat.
And of course it’s a PEACEFUL religion.
Just think how much worse it would be if they weren’t so peaceful.
Gad Saad has clarified that there are two houses of Islam – the House of Peace and the House of War. Any Islamic country is a House of Peace and any non Islamic country is a House of War.
Dave Allen, comedian.
Always signed off with ‘may your god go with you‘.
Regular viewing in my parents’ household.
Sharia, police enforced.
“Fun facts about Bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9-year-old!”
It’s funny cause it’s true.
I’ve seen that joke forwarded on some channel or other dozens of times
It’s just occurred to me (far too late, of course) to ask how the person who complained knew it was about Islam(ists)? Unless, of course they recognise a grain of truth?
Quite.
So we have opened the doors to blasphemy laws. Not only has this man been fallen foul and been convicted of passing on what was meant as exaggerated jokes (but have a recognisable basis in facts), but his life has been wrecked way beyond a £1000 fine. Who knows whether he and his family will now have to go into hiding lest they become targets of violence from the “religion of peace”?
Donation made.
Me too.
Me too.
Best wishes with the appeal.
Will the Chief Constable and PCC at Durham now resign in disgrace.
The person who started the complaint should be prosecuted for wasting police and cps time and resources….. £1,000 fine seems about right….
The ‘victim’ who had a prior grievance used his right to reply to tell the legal system to reverse the decision to not prosecute. A non Muslim hurt by hurty memes. Victim?
FxSake.
I thought being offensive against a religion was legal, from the minimal to the gross? In times past the neighbour would have been charged with wasting police time.
The wording of that part of the legislation is incredibly broad- probably intentional. In general anything that has the potential of restricting speech ends up being used to reinforce whatever the political orthodoxy of the time is, as defined by national and international politicians, bureaucrats and the rich and powerful.
As we know, offence can only be taken, not given. The grey areas that have been written into some of our laws are there for a reason. To set a trap.
It’s not for you or I to decide what is offensive. That little detail is left to some pillock in a wig, with a little nudging from behind.
After 30 years in the police force he was fairly confident that he knew the laws around free speech. He should’ve known they’d be happy to make an example of him. Walked straight into the trap…
Outrageous…!
The problem is less that someone abused the law like this and much more that this is actually what the law is at least in the opinion of some in the judiciary. Change the lawmakers.
The judiciary shouldn’t be making law.
The harder they hammer the wedge the wider the split will get.