In an analysis of Britain’s criminal justice priorities in the Sunday Times, Tom Calver lays bare the absurdity of a system where tweeting the wrong thing is more likely to get you arrested than burglary — even though hardly anyone ends up charged, and the public couldn’t care less. Here’s an excerpt:
You do not have to be J.D. Vance to admit that Britain’s approach to free speech can seem a bit heavy-handed. …
As the Times reported last month, the number of people arrested by police for posting online messages jumped from 5,502 in 2017 to 12,183 in 2023 — the equivalent of about 33 a day. By way of comparison, 5,229 people were arrested for fraud offences last year. But strangely, according to Ministry of Justice figures, the number of people who actually end up facing justice for these offences is considerably smaller and has fallen over the past decade.
In 2015 the number of people sentenced for posting malicious communications online was 1,983. But by 2024 the figure had fallen to 1,160. Just 137 received immediate custodial sentences, most of which were shorter than two months. In other words, the number of people eventually punished in court for digital free speech infractions has actually fallen by more than 40% in a decade.
What is going on? …
In the vast majority of thefts, robberies and burglaries dealt with by the police in 2024, the case was closed without a suspect even being identified — a familiar story to anyone who has had their phone stolen by a balaclava-clad thief on a moped. But sending mean posts online, particularly from a named account, is like handing police a case on a silver platter. Unsurprisingly, about two thirds of these crimes have a named suspect.
Offences investigated by police in 2024
Yet the clear-up rate for these online cases is low. The charging rate for all crimes was about 8.8% in 2024; even for home burglaries it is 6.7%. But just 2.5% of malicious communications offences result in someone being charged, even though the police usually know exactly whodunnit.
Why so low? Some of these crimes are considered minor enough to be resolved through cautions and community resolutions; the data also says there may be “evidential” reasons for not taking the case further. But more than a third of malicious communications offences are closed because the victim does not support any further action. In other words, officers are spending time investigating these crimes when in many cases the victim does not want to press charges.
Stop Press: Toby Young writes: This is incomplete because Tom Calver is defining “the number of people arrested by police for posting online messages” as those arrested on suspicion of committing an offence under s127 of the Communications Act and s1 of the Malicious Communications Act. I’m sure he’s right that the data show fewer people are prosecuted for those offences than was the case ten years ago, but a more complete analysis would expand the definition to include those arrested on suspicion of committing an offence under the Public Order Act – e.g. stirring up hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation – because of something they’ve posted online. Many of the people we defend at the Free Speech Union are arrested on suspicion of committing those offences for something they’ve posted online. I would be interested to see that more complete analysis. Our data at the FSU show that, as far as people asking us for help is concerned, there’s been an uptick in cases of individuals arrested on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred for something they’ve posted online since the Southport attacks last year, compared with the period 2020–24.
You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.
“You do not have to be J.D. Vance to admit that Britain’s approach to free speech can seem a bit heavy-handed. …”
What a crock of crap this statement is. We don’t have free speech. It’s not “a bit heavy handed” to imprison people for speech. It is totally inimical to free speech.
Mr Calver’s choice of words (“a bit heavy-handed”) and his overall approach do not encourage me to believe that he is “leading a team of investigative journalists” seriously investigating the clampdown on criticism of government policy or on free speech. On the contrary: I now fear he will be diverting attention away from the crisis, or playing it down. Whatever happened to real investigative journalism of the 1950s-1970s?
If there was free speech in the UK, then the idea of anybody visited by the police – let alone arrested – purely for expressing an opinion on a subject, would be totally absurd.
It simply couldn’t happen. It would be the equivalent of “being arrested for having pink hair”.
In contrast, the fact is that people have been arrested, locked up in cells, fined, prosecuted and lost their jobs for nothing more than expressing an opinion.
Not only that, the statement doesn’t even have to be controversial. How about: “All lives matter”. Who would argue with that? Black or white, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist – all lives matter. But no, in Britain you can be persecuted for a statement like that.
So, no, there is no freedom of speech in the UK.
But you think Lucy Connolly should have been fined rather than sent to prison for her ”wrong” comments, and she was just expressing her opinion, no matter how offensive some might have found it. So this just demonstrates how open to interpretation and subjective the whole ‘free speech’ thing is. Some people believe it’s a black and white issue, a ‘free for all’, where anybody should be able to say anything with no consequences, whereas others feel there should be limitations imposed. So this is another reason why free speech is just an illusion: because there appears to be differing understandings of the term and different meanings depending on who is in authority, such as the judge who sent Lucy down and denied her appeal. That judge and the FSU appear to have totally different interpretations of what one’s right to freedom of speech entails. A lack of consistency is a real issue here.
JXB
4 months ago
Mark Steyn reported it in a nutshell: “The British police, police everything but crime.”
Sforzesca
4 months ago
It’s simply the case that The RPTB don’t mind us plebs thieving from each other nor assaulting or raping each other.
No. What they’ve always cracked down on is anything and everything which they think threatens “the State” ie them.
It seems pretty clear that they’re frightened to death of riots/civil war.
If they’re not scared then they bloody well will be soon as more wake up.
I hasten to add that I don’t advocate violence of any form whatsoever, it’s just my personal opinion that if they don’t let the police do their proper job then violence may ensue as the plebs get more and more pissed off.
ACW
4 months ago
Perhaps the real aim remains?
Intimidation and creating fear, with the process being the punishment, in the majority of anti free speech cases.
marebobowl
4 months ago
The lack of free speech in the Uk is driving many away. No one wants to visit a police state. I have never seen a country fall as rapidly as the Uk.
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.
I wonder how many people have successfully sued the police for wrongful arrest or taking fingerprints and DNA tests unlawfully?
“You do not have to be J.D. Vance to admit that Britain’s approach to free speech can seem a bit heavy-handed. …”
What a crock of crap this statement is. We don’t have free speech. It’s not “a bit heavy handed” to imprison people for speech. It is totally inimical to free speech.
Mr Calver’s choice of words (“a bit heavy-handed”) and his overall approach do not encourage me to believe that he is “leading a team of investigative journalists” seriously investigating the clampdown on criticism of government policy or on free speech. On the contrary: I now fear he will be diverting attention away from the crisis, or playing it down. Whatever happened to real investigative journalism of the 1950s-1970s?
Very few people actually believe in freedom of speech, and I doubt anyone working for the Times does.
If there was free speech in the UK, then the idea of anybody visited by the police – let alone arrested – purely for expressing an opinion on a subject, would be totally absurd.
It simply couldn’t happen. It would be the equivalent of “being arrested for having pink hair”.
In contrast, the fact is that people have been arrested, locked up in cells, fined, prosecuted and lost their jobs for nothing more than expressing an opinion.
Not only that, the statement doesn’t even have to be controversial. How about: “All lives matter”. Who would argue with that? Black or white, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist – all lives matter. But no, in Britain you can be persecuted for a statement like that.
So, no, there is no freedom of speech in the UK.
But you think Lucy Connolly should have been fined rather than sent to prison for her ”wrong” comments, and she was just expressing her opinion, no matter how offensive some might have found it. So this just demonstrates how open to interpretation and subjective the whole ‘free speech’ thing is. Some people believe it’s a black and white issue, a ‘free for all’, where anybody should be able to say anything with no consequences, whereas others feel there should be limitations imposed. So this is another reason why free speech is just an illusion: because there appears to be differing understandings of the term and different meanings depending on who is in authority, such as the judge who sent Lucy down and denied her appeal. That judge and the FSU appear to have totally different interpretations of what one’s right to freedom of speech entails. A lack of consistency is a real issue here.
Mark Steyn reported it in a nutshell: “The British police, police everything but crime.”
It’s simply the case that The RPTB don’t mind us plebs thieving from each other nor assaulting or raping each other.
No. What they’ve always cracked down on is anything and everything which they think threatens “the State” ie them.
It seems pretty clear that they’re frightened to death of riots/civil war.
If they’re not scared then they bloody well will be soon as more wake up.
I hasten to add that I don’t advocate violence of any form whatsoever, it’s just my personal opinion that if they don’t let the police do their proper job then violence may ensue as the plebs get more and more pissed off.
Perhaps the real aim remains?
Intimidation and creating fear, with the process being the punishment, in the majority of anti free speech cases.
The lack of free speech in the Uk is driving many away. No one wants to visit a police state. I have never seen a country fall as rapidly as the Uk.