Category: Free Speech

Free speech, also known as freedom of expression gives you the right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without interference.

Categories
Free Speech Government Law Legal Analysis Police

Think Before You Post !

Think Before You Post - Free Speech

The United Kingdom has long been hailed as a cornerstone of democratic values but recent trends in policing suggest a troubling erosion of free speech. This concern is explored in a Spiked Online 43-minute documentary, Think Before You Post which was released on the 27th October 2025.

Think Before You Post | How the UK fell to a sinister new form of censorship | FULL DOCUMENTARY – Spiked

The film investigates how the UK has increasingly criminalised online speech over the past six decades, using personal accounts and expert commentary to illustrate the impact. It focuses on the aftermath of the 2024 riots, where social media posts led to arrests without direct incitement to violence.

The documentary’s title references the government’s advisory during the riots: “Think before you post” which was employed to caution users against potential prosecution for content deemed hateful.

Think Before You Post – Gov.uk

Overview of the Documentary

The film begins with footage from the 2024 Southport riots, which followed a stabbing incident at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class on 29 July 2024, perpetrated by Axel Rudakubana, a 17-year-old British-born individual of Rwandan heritage.

The attack resulted in the deaths of three young girls Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar along with injuries to eight other children and two adults. This event prompted widespread disorder, exacerbated by online misinformation falsely claiming the attacker was a Muslim migrant.

The documentary details the government’s response, which included not only managing physical unrest but also intensifying scrutiny of online content. It states that approximately 30 individuals are arrested each day in England and Wales for offences related to social media, such as inciting racial or religious hatred or sending communications considered grossly offensive.

Using Home Office figures, the film compares the UK’s more than 12,000 arrests for speech-related matters in 2023 to Russia’s 3,319, highlighting a contrast between a democratic nation and an authoritarian one in terms of regulating expression.

The investigation references legislation including the Race Relations Act 1965 and the Communications Act 2003, which provide a framework for such prosecutions. It notes that while conviction rates are typically around 10%, the process of arrest and investigation often acts as a deterrent to public discussion.

Key Cases and Personal Stories

The documentary presents several cases to demonstrate the application of these laws. Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, a couple from Buckinghamshire, describe their arrest in January 2025 after an online disagreement with their daughter’s school concerning a headteacher’s appointment.

They were charged with harassment and malicious communications for messages that included describing a teacher as a ‘control freak’. Six police officers arrived at their home, leading to their detention, fingerprinting, and DNA sampling.

Hertfordshire Police said the arrests “were necessary to fully investigate the allegations” but the charges were eventually discontinued due to insufficient evidence, but the experience caused considerable stress, particularly for their daughter who has epilepsy.

Journalist Allison Pearson recounts her investigation for inciting racial hatred following a 2023 tweet about police conduct during an anti-Israel demonstration. Essex Police visited her home on Remembrance Sunday 2024, and although the case was later dropped, she highlights the intrusive nature of the process.

Former Royal Marine Jamie Michael discusses his arrest in July 2024 for a Facebook video expressing views on illegal immigration and child safety after the Southport incident. Despite no advocacy for violence, he was held in custody for 17 days and electronically tagged before being acquitted. The report originated from a Labour politician’s office.

The film also covers the case of Lucy Connolly, a 41-year-old former childminder from Northampton, arrested in August 2024 for a tweet responding to the Southport stabbings: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it.”

Charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for publishing material to stir up racial hatred, she pleaded guilty and received a 31-month prison sentence from His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman in October 2024. She served about nine months before release on licence in August 2025, following an unsuccessful appeal in May 2025.

Other examples include a 16-year-old autistic girl arrested for likening a police officer to her ‘lesbian nana’, and Harry Miller whose tweet on transgender issues prompted police to suggest he ‘check his thinking’, a decision later ruled unlawful.

Expert Analysis and Broader Themes

Experts in the documentary provide context. Lord Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, states that police priorities have shifted towards recording ‘non-crime hate incidents’ rather than addressing actual crimes.

He refers to ‘two-tier policing‘, where certain expressions, such as those on immigration, are targeted to preserve social order.

Solicitor Luke Gittos examines the 60-year history of hate speech legislation, noting the ambiguity in definitions that allows for variable enforcement. He argues for addressing offensive ideas through discussion rather than legal action and points out the lack of entrenched free speech rights in UK law.

The film discusses a move towards preventive policing, with social media surveillance used to avert potential disorder. It connects this to societal trends, including identity politics and the Online Safety Act 2023, which requires platforms to remove content under regulatory oversight.

The Irony of Self-Censorship

Upon its release on X, the documentary encountered restrictions under the UK’s Online Safety Act, which reduced its visibility.

Spiked reported this in an article on their website “Our documentary about censorship is being censored Thanks to the Online Safety Act, X has muzzled Think Before You Post“.

Conclusion

Think Before You Post documents the implications of criminalising speech in the UK, using individual cases and data to highlight the scale of arrests. It suggests a need to review current laws to protect democratic discourse.

With 59,095 views on YouTube and 334,439 views on X as of the 30th October 2025, the film has prompted discussion among the public and officials about balancing regulation with freedom of expression.

You may wish to consider joining and supporting The Free Speech Union(FSU). The FSU has silver and gold membership with monthly or annual payments options.

Check out our related articles on the Free Speech Union, Free Speech and the Law, Judiciary, Policing, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Free Speech Law Legal Analysis

Free Speech and the Law

Free Speech and the Law

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that allows individuals and communities to express their opinions, ideas, and information without fear of retaliation, censorship, or punishment particularly from government authorities.

In England and Wales, this right is enshrined in law but operates within a framework of balances and restrictions. Unlike the absolute protections in some jurisdictions, UK free speech is a qualified right.

The primary safeguard for free speech in England and Wales is Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated via the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 mandates that universities uphold free speech for students, academics, and guest speakers, countering “cancel culture” and deplatforming.

Education Providers must ensure lawful events proceed without undue hindrance, with the Office for Students empowered to investigate complaints and impose fines.

The Free Speech Union is a non-partisan, mass membership public interest body that stands up for the speech rights of its members and campaigns for free speech more widely. We champion the right of people from all walks of life to express themselves without fear of punishment or persecution. We often come to the defence of our members who get into trouble for exercising their right to lawful free speech, whether in the workplace, at university or on social media.

The Free Speech Union

Origins of Free Speech

The concept of free speech traces its roots to ancient Athens in the late 6th or early 5th century BCE, where democracy fostered the principle of parrhesia, the right to speak candidly about politics, religion, and government without fear of retaliation. This allowed philosophers, playwrights, and citizens to criticise leaders openly, though it was limited to certain public forums and did not extend to slaves or women.

In contrast, ancient Rome had more restricted speech under laws like the Lex Julia Majestatis which punished insults to the emperor.

During the Middle Ages, speech was heavily controlled by the Catholic Church and monarchies with censorship intensifying after the invention of the Gutenberg printing press around 1440.

The 18th century saw philosophical defences of free speech as essential for progress and governance. John Locke advocated toleration (excluding atheists), Baruch Spinoza pushed for universal expression, and Voltaire praised England’s relative freedoms in his 1733 Letters on the English, coining the spirit of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (attributed later by biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall).

Modern Free Speech

Globally, Free Speech is recognised in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) : “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.“

In the United States, Free Speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

Limitations and Challenges

Free speech in England and Wales is curtailed where it veers into hate speech. The Public Order Act 1986 and related laws prohibit expressions intended or likely to stir up hatred based on race, religion, or sexual orientation with penalties up to seven years’ imprisonment.

Legal action remains a potent tool for silencing critics, through the Defamation Act 2013.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Online platforms face pressures under the Online Safety Act 2023 to remove harmful content, raising fears of over-censorship.

Anti-protest legislation, including bans on demonstrations in abortion buffer zones punishable by fines or imprisonment, adds further restrictions.

Cases like comedian Graham Linehan’s September 2025 arrest for tweets alleged to incite violence against trans individuals underscore chilling effects. With over 12,000 annual arrests for speech-related offences in England and Wales, enforcement remains contentious.

Case Law

“Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another.” – Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

“Free speech is a fundamental common law right” – Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so.

The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us.

Mr Justice Bennathan – Southwark Crown Court 10th October 2025
“We’ve had free speech for a very long time here…” – Sir Keir Starmer

Check out our related articles on the Free Speech Union, Judiciary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Free Speech Legal Analysis Police

Is the Dark Web (Tor) Secure ?

Dark Web Tor Secure

Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) unveiled on the 19th September 2025 a dark web portal designed to lure potential informants from hostile regimes.

MI6 reveals ‘Silent Courier’ dark web portal upgrade it hopes will help it recruit new spies

Dubbed “Silent Courier” the platform aims to provide a secure channel for individuals worldwide to share sensitive information without fear of detection.

MI6 (SIS) Silent Courier
MI6 Silent Courier on the Dark WebDownload

As cyber threats proliferate, the initiative underscores the agency’s pivot towards anonymous online communications while preserving its storied tradition of clandestine face-to-face operations.

This upgrade reflects MI6’s ongoing efforts to recruit spies, particularly in Russia and other high-risk areas amid rising global tensions.

The portal’s launch coincides with instructional videos released on MI6’s newly established YouTube channel, available in eight languages.

MI6 – Securely Contacting MI6 – Introducing SILENT COURIER

These resources guide users on accessing the site safely, highlighting the blend of cutting-edge technology and practical tradecraft.

Yet, at the heart of this development lies a critical question. In an era of sophisticated surveillance, is Tor the anonymity network powering the dark web truly secure ?

How to Access MI6 Silent Courier

The new “Silent Courier” is accessible exclusively via a .onion address https://mi6govukbfxe5pzxqw3otzd2t4nhi7v6x4dljwba3jmsczozcolx2vqd.onion portal is hosted on the Tor network, enabling users to connect without revealing their IP addresses or locations.

Step-by-Step Guide to Access Tor (The Onion Router)
  1. Download Tor Browser:
    • Visit the official Tor Project
    • Select the Tor Browser download for your operating system (Windows, macOS, Linux, or Android; iOS users can use third-party apps like Onion Browser).
    • Choose the latest version (e.g., Tor Browser 14.5.7 as of 19th September 2025) and your preferred language. Avoid unofficial sources to prevent malware.
  2. Install Tor Browser:
    • Run the downloaded installer and follow the prompts. It’s portable, so no deep system changes are required.
    • For security, install on a clean, updated device free of malware. MI6 recommends a freshly installed browser to avoid tracking.
  3. Launch Tor Browser:
    • Open the Tor Browser application. It looks like a modified Firefox browser, as it’s built on Firefox’s framework.
    • On first launch, click “Connect” to join the Tor network. This routes your traffic through three relays (entry, middle, exit) with layered encryption.
  4. Accessing a .onion Site (e.g., Silent Courier):

Is Tor Secure?

Tor, short for The Onion Router, is a free open-source network that routes internet traffic through multiple volunteer-operated relays, layering encryption like an onion’s peels to obscure origins.

Launched in 2002 by the US Naval Research Laboratory, Tor has become the backbone of the dark web, shielding journalists, activists, and dissidents from oppressive regimes.

But is Tor secure? The short answer is a qualified yes—for most users, it offers robust protection against casual surveillance and basic tracking. Its multi-hop architecture makes it exceedingly difficult for eavesdroppers to correlate entry and exit points, thwarting mass data collection by ISPs or governments. Independent audits, such as those by the Tor Project, consistently affirm its cryptographic strength, employing protocols like Diffie-Hellman key exchange and AES-256 encryption.

Yet, Tor is not impenetrable. Vulnerabilities arise from user error: misconfigurations, JavaScript-enabled browsers, or reusing identifiable details can de-anonymise individuals.

State actors, including the NSA, MI6 and FSB, have exploited “traffic confirmation attacks” by controlling both entry and exit nodes, as revealed in Edward Snowden’s leaks.

Moreover, Tor’s public bridges and directory authorities can be targeted and malware on a user’s device bypasses the network entirely.

Nonetheless, experts caution that no tool is fool proof as Tor excels at evasion but demands vigilance. As cybersecurity experts say, “Tor hides your path, but not your destination if you’re careless.”

Any communication using the internet involves risk: the best method to contact us depends on your personal situation and environment. Data submitted on this website is secured to the highest standard but internet browsing activity, including visits to this website, can be monitored by most hostile governments.

You can decrease this risk by:

  • Using the Tor browser or a virtual private network (VPN) to increase your privacy.
  • If using a VPN (especially in a hostile country), considering carefully the VPN provider that you choose. Do not enter any data linked to your own identity when setting up the VPN.
  • Using a device which is not registered to you.
  • Ensuring your internet browser is updated.
  • Creating a free new email address or social media account for us to reply to. Do not use a name, phone number or other data linked to your real identity when creating this account.
  • Contacting us from outside your country if you are able to travel.
MI6 (SIS) – “Silent Courier”

Is the Dark Web (Tor) Secure ? No but its better than nothing !

We support the important work of the United Kingdom Intelligence Community (UKIC) including MI5 and MI6.

Check out our articles on National Security Online Information Team, Policing by Consent, Are the Police for Hire ?, Police Impartiality, Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Police Professional Standards Department, IOPC, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Police Digital Service, Wasting Police Time, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Free Speech Law Legal Analysis

Domain Squatting and Cyber Security ?

Domain Squatting and Cyber Security

Domain squatting, commonly referred to as cybersquatting, is the act of registering, trafficking or using an internet domain name with the intent to profit from the goodwill associated with a trademark, brand, or name belonging to another entity.

In the UK, where businesses, organisations, government departments and individuals increasingly depend on their online presence, domain squatting poses significant legal, ethical, and commercial challenges. It can undermine brand integrity, confuses consumers, and threatens the trustworthiness of the digital marketplace.

Addressing this issue requires a robust combination of legal frameworks, industry mechanisms, and proactive strategies, including guidance from authoritative sources such as the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

The National Cyber Security Centre, a part of GCHQ, helps businesses, the public sector and individuals protect the online services and devices that we all depend on.

National Cyber Security Centre

How Domain Squatting Works

The mechanics of domain squatting are deceptively simple yet highly damaging. Squatters target well-known brands, public figures, or trending terms, registering domain names that closely resemble or incorporate these names. For example, a squatter might secure “brandnameuk.com” or a misspelled variant like “bradnname.com” before the legitimate owner can claim it.

Their objectives typically include selling the domain to the rightful owner at an exorbitant price, redirecting traffic to competing websites, or hosting misleading content to generate advertising revenue.

A related tactic, typosquatting, exploits common typing errors to divert users from their intended destinations, further eroding trust in online navigation. These practices not only harm brand owners but also create confusion and potential financial loss for consumers who may encounter fraudulent or misleading websites.

Legal and Industry Mechanisms in the UK

In the UK, domain squatting is addressed through a combination of legal and industry mechanisms designed to protect brand owners.

For .uk domains, the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) offers a specialized, efficient process tailored to the .uk namespace. The DRS allows brand owners to resolve disputes by proving abusive registration or bad-faith use, making it a cornerstone of domain protection in the UK. Beyond these mechanisms, UK law provides additional recourse.

The Trade Marks Act 1994 enables trademark holders to pursue legal action against domains that infringe on their registered marks. The tort of “passing off” can also apply when a squatter’s actions mislead consumers into believing the domain is associated with the legitimate brand, causing reputational or financial harm. High-profile cases, such as those involving major brands like Marks & Spencer or Premier League football clubs, illustrate the courts’ commitment to protecting brand owners from cybersquatting.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), provides a global framework for trademark owners to challenge bad-faith domain registrations. To succeed under the UDRP, complainants must demonstrate that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to their trademark, that the registrant has no legitimate interest in the domain, and that it was registered or used in bad faith.

Government Guidance on Defensive Domain Registration

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) security guidance on Defensive domain registrations emphasises defensive domain registration as a proactive strategy to combat cybersquatting. This approach involves registering multiple domain variations, including common misspellings, alternative extensions (e.g., .co.uk, .uk), and related terms, to prevent squatters from acquiring them.

The guidance advises securing domains early in the branding process, particularly for organisations with valuable intellectual property or high public visibility. It also recommends ongoing monitoring of domain registrations to detect suspicious activity, enabling swift action through Nominet’s DRS or legal channels. This proactive stance is critical for businesses seeking to safeguard their online presence and avoid costly disputes.

Some domain registrars have methods to detect malicious registrations of overtly government-associated domains through the use of misspellings and so on.

Unless there are strong justifications as to why misspellings must be covered, organisations should only defensively register .uk and .co.uk top-level domain variants and visual manipulations.

For example, the removal of one dot from justice.gov.uk leads to justicegov.uk which could be a registerable domain and one that looks a lot like justice.gov.uk during a casual inspection.

Defensive domain registrations – Ministry of Justice Security Guidance

The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) publishes Protecting your public domain name – NCSC.GOV.UK and many other articles on cyber security.

Ethical and Practical Implications

The ethical debate surrounding domain squatting is complex. Squatters often argue they are engaging in legitimate entrepreneurial activity by securing available digital assets in an open market.

However, their actions frequently exploit brand goodwill, mislead consumers, and undermine trust in the online ecosystem. Small businesses, in particular, are vulnerable, as they may lack the resources to pursue expensive legal battles or pay exorbitant fees to reclaim domains.

The financial and reputational damage caused by squatters can be significant, particularly when consumers encounter fraudulent websites or lose trust in a brand’s online presence.

Proactive Prevention and Solutions

Preventing domain squatting requires a multifaceted approach. Defensive domain registration, as recommended by cyber security professionals, is a critical first step. Businesses should also leverage monitoring services to track new registrations that may infringe on their brand.

Nominet’s DRS and other registry tools facilitate rapid detection and resolution of disputes, while legal action can reclaim hijacked domains when necessary.

However, prevention remains the most effective strategy. Public awareness, robust enforcement by Nominet, and adherence to government guidance play vital roles in mitigating the risks of cybersquatting.

Cyber Security Failure of MI5 and SIS (MI6) ?

For reasons unknown, MI5 – The Security Service (mi5.gov.uk) didn’t register the domain mi5gov.uk. CI5/MOI registered it to protect MI5 from domain squatting and other cyber attacks.

For reasons unknown, MI6 (sis.gov.uk) didn’t register the domain sisgov.uk. CI5 / MOI registered it to protect MI6 from domain squatting and other cyber attacks.

The mi5gov.uk domain registration did not trigger the expected domain suspension whereas the sisgov.uk domain registration did.

Thank you for registering the domain name sisgov.uk. We are writing to let you know that this domain has been temporarily deactivated and what you can do to reactivate it. You should be able to find all the information you need below but if you need any help, please contact our Customer Support team on 0330 236 9477.

The domain sisgov.uk has triggered a score that requires us to verify some additional information. This domain is still registered in your name – simply follow the steps below to reactivate it.

To reactivate your domain, we need the following details:

• Tell us what this domain will be used for.
• You will need to verify your identity, we use Mitek an identity verification service to complete this. This will involve taking a live picture, similar to a passport photo, via your device and uploading your identification documents for photo ID and proof of address.

Nominet Customer Support– 9:17am

Nominet publishes Terms And Conditions of Domain Name Registration. Specifically 6.1.5 states that you will not use the domain name for any unlawful purpose.

Hi,

Thank you for your email and completing the Mitek verification.

I can confirm the domain name is now active.

Thank you again.

Kind regards,

Nominet UK
Registry Compliance Advisor

Nominet Registry Compliance Advisor – 10:39am

As with all the MOI domains, these domains will continue to be used for a lawful purpose.

Check out our related articles on Domain Names and Freedom of Expression, Free Speech Union, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?, Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Free Speech Legal Analysis

The Free Speech Union

The Free Speech Union

The Free Speech Union (FSU) is a prominent advocate for freedom of expression in the UK, founded in 2020 by journalist Toby Young. He is a current member of the House of Lords and known as Lord Young of Acton.

It aims to protect individuals from censorship or retribution for expressing lawful opinions, especially in settings like workplaces and universities where cancel culture is seen as a growing concern.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

As of early 2025, the FSU boasts over 25,000 members, reflecting significant growth from previous years, and operates with a non-partisan, member-funded model.

As a member, you gain access to an array of resources and support, ensuring you can speak your mind without fear of being cancelled. Our experienced team provides guidance, support, and if necessary, discretionary legal support to defend your right to free speech. We will stand by our members, however unorthodox their views provided they’re not unlawful.

Join the Free Speech Union

The FSU has silver and gold membership with monthly or annual payments options.

Background and Mission of The Free Speech Union

The FSU emerged in response to growing concerns about the erosion of free expression in democratic societies, particularly amid rising instances of cancel culture and ideological conformity. It describes itself as a non-partisan, not-for-profit, member-funded organisation dedicated to defending the right to express lawful opinions without fear of censorship or retribution.

Its mission, as articulated on its official website, is to protect free speech as the “bedrock of all other freedoms,” especially in contexts like workplaces, universities, and public forums where dissent is increasingly penalised.

This mission is rooted in the belief that free speech enables the exchange of ideas, challenges orthodoxies, and fosters the pursuit of truth. Without it, the FSU argues, societies risk sliding into authoritarianism, where intellectual freedom is curtailed, and dissent is silenced.

Membership and Growth

As of January 23, 2025, the FSU announced on X that its membership had surpassed 25,000, marking a significant milestone. This represents more than a 100% increase from the 3rd January 2024, when membership stood at 12,151 reflecting rapid growth driven by heightened concerns over free speech restrictions.

Membership benefits include access to legal advice, representation, and advocacy for those facing repercussions for their speech, with an annual fee providing peace of mind for individuals worried about potential censorship.

Core Activities and Support

The FSU’s core function is providing practical support to its members, which includes legal referrals, crowdfunding for court costs, and public campaigns to raise awareness of free speech violations.

It has assisted over 2,000 people facing issues like job loss, academic sanctions, or social media backlash for expressing controversial but lawful opinions. Examples include supporting teachers sanctioned for questioning ideological teachings and workers penalised for political posts outside work.

Beyond individual cases, the FSU engages in broader advocacy, lobbying policymakers to strengthen legal protections for free expression.

It has been vocal in critiquing legislation like the UK’s Online Safety Act, arguing it could inadvertently restrict lawful speech under the guise of combating misinformation or harm.

Its newsletter and podcast further amplify its message, fostering a community dedicated to free thought and expression.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

The FSU’s approach has not been without controversy. Criticsargue that it sometimes defends individuals whose views are divisive or offensive, potentially amplifying harmful rhetoric.

They contend that the organisation’s focus on “free speech absolutism” overlooks the need to balance free expression with protections against hate speech or harassment.

The FSU counters that it does not endorse the views of those it defends, only their right to express them within the law. It emphasises that open debate, even on contentious issues, is essential for societal progress, arguing that suppressing speech risks driving harmful ideas underground where they fester unchallenged.

This stance reflects a broader philosophical debate about the limits of free expression, with the FSU positioning itself as a defender of intellectual resilience against cancel culture.

International Presence and Impact

The FSU’s influence extends beyond the UK, with a growing international presence including branches in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Switzerland, and efforts to establish new unions in other countries.

This global network, coordinated under the Free Speech Union International formed in early 2025, aims to defend free speech in international bodies like the UN and foster a culture of free expression worldwide.

Conclusion

The Free Speech Union stands as a vital advocate for free expression, with over 25,000 members and a robust suite of activities aimed at countering censorship and supporting individuals.

While it faces criticism for potentially amplifying divisive views, its emphasis on open debate and legal protections reflects a commitment to fostering a culture of intellectual resilience.

As debates over free speech continue to evolve, the FSU’s work remains relevant, ensuring diverse voices can be heard.

Check out our related articles on Policing by Consent, Thought Police, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?, Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Free Speech Law Legal Analysis Police

Did Bobby Vylan and the BBC break the law at Glastonbury 2025 ?

Bobby Vylan

The performance by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury 2025, where frontman Bobby Vylan (reportedly Pascal Robinson-Foster) led chants of “death, death to the IDF” and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” has prompted an investigation by Avon and Somerset Police to determine if any criminal offences were committed.

In any investigation by the police, it is vitally important that there should no suggestion of two tier policing or two tier justice.

His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC (The Recorder of Birmingham and The High Court Judge that never was) sentenced Lucy Connolly at Birmingham Crown Court to two years and seven months in prison for publishing written material that incited racial hatred.

Can you email a judge such as the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales about a dishonest judge such as HHJ Melbourne Inman ?

Potential Offenses Under UK Law

  1. Incitement to Racial or Religious Hatred (Public Order Act 1986, Section 18)
    • Description: This section makes it an offense to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with the intent to stir up racial or religious hatred, or where such hatred is likely to be stirred up. The maximum penalty is seven years in prison.
    • Relevance to Bob Vylan: UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLI) have suggested that Bobby Vylan’s chants, particularly “death, death to the IDF,” may breach this section by causing harassment, alarm, or distress and potentially stirring up racial or religious hatred, given the reference to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The phrase “from the river to the sea” is contentious, with some interpreting it as a call for the elimination of Israel, which could be seen as targeting Jewish self-determination or inciting hatred against Jewish people. However, others argue it is a call for Palestinian liberation, and its interpretation depends heavily on context.
    • Analysis: For a conviction, prosecutors must prove intent to stir up hatred or that hatred was likely to result. The performance context—a music festival with a politically charged atmosphere—may complicate proving intent, as artistic expression often enjoys some legal protection. However, the explicit call for “death” to a specific group (the IDF) could be seen as crossing into threatening language, especially if interpreted as targeting Israeli nationals or Jewish people broadly. The lack of immediate violence following the performance might weaken the case for “likelihood” of hatred being stirred up, but public reaction and the broadcast’s reach could be considered aggravating factors.
  2. Incitement to Violence (Common Law or Public Order Act 1986, Section 4)
    • Description: Incitement to violence is an offense under common law or Section 4 of the Public Order Act, which addresses threatening or abusive behaviour intended to cause fear of violence or provoke immediate unlawful violence. The maximum penalty under Section 4 is six months in prison.
    • Relevance to Bob Vylan: Bobby Vylan’s statement, “We are the violent punks, because sometimes you have to get your message across with violence because that is the only language some people speak,” alongside the “death to the IDF” chant, has been cited as potential incitement to violence. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp and former Home Secretary Baroness Smith have argued that the chant constitutes incitement, with Philp calling for prosecution.
    • Analysis: The threshold for incitement requires a clear intention to provoke violence and a likelihood of it occurring. The chant’s violent imagery could be interpreted as incitement, particularly in a charged political context. However, the festival setting, where provocative rhetoric is common in punk performances, and the absence of immediate violence may suggest the statement was performative rather than a direct call to action. Bobby Vylan’s broader comments about using violence to communicate could be scrutinised, but artistic expression and political protest often blur legal lines, making prosecution challenging without evidence of specific intent or immediate harm.
  3. Causing Harassment, Alarm, or Distress (Public Order Act 1986, Section 5)
    • Description: This section criminalises threatening or abusive words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress. It carries a fine as the maximum penalty.
    • Relevance to Bob Vylan: UKLI has claimed that the chant “death, death to the IDF” could breach Section 5 by causing distress to audience members or viewers, particularly those who identify with Israel or the Jewish community.
    • Analysis: This offense has a lower threshold than Section 18, as it does not require intent to stir up hatred, only that the behaviour was threatening or abusive and likely to cause distress. The chant’s explicit call for “death” could meet this threshold, especially given its broadcast to a wide audience. However, the festival context and Bob Vylan’s history of provocative performances (e.g., addressing racism and political issues) might frame the chant as artistic or political expression, potentially protected under free speech principles. The subjective nature of “distress” makes this offense plausible but less severe.
  4. Broadcasting Material Stirring Up Racial Hatred (Public Order Act 1986, Section 22)
    • Description: This section makes it an offense for a broadcaster to transmit material that is likely to stir up racial hatred, particularly if it was reasonably practicable to remove the content before broadcast. The maximum penalty is seven years in prison.
    • Relevance to Bob Vylan and the BBC: The BBC’s live broadcast of Bob Vylan’s performance has been criticised for potentially breaching this section, as the chant was aired without being cut. UKLI and former BBC Director Danny Cohen have argued that the BBC’s failure to intervene constitutes a criminal offense, especially given prior antisemitism training for staff.
    • Analysis: While this offense primarily applies to the BBC, it indirectly implicates Bob Vylan as the source of the content. The BBC issued an on-screen warning about “very strong and discriminatory language” during the livestream, suggesting awareness of the content’s potential impact. However, the decision to continue broadcasting for over 40 minutes before removing the performance from iPlayer could be seen as a failure to exercise due diligence. For Bob Vylan, this offense would only apply if they were complicit in ensuring the broadcast, which seems unlikely. The focus here is more on the BBC’s editorial decisions than the band’s actions.

Additional Context and Considerations

  • Police Investigation: Avon and Somerset Police are reviewing video footage to assess whether any offenses were committed. This indicates that no charges have been filed as of June 30, 2025, and the investigation is ongoing. The police’s focus is on both Bob Vylan’s and Kneecap’s performances, suggesting a broader scrutiny of politically charged acts at Glastonbury.
  • Political and Public Reaction: The performance has drawn condemnation from Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who labeled it “grotesque” and “hate speech.” The Israeli Embassy criticised the chants as advocating for the dismantling of Israel, raising concerns about normalising extremist language. Conversely, civil liberties groups have warned that prosecuting such performances risks blurring the line between censorship and accountability, highlighting the tension between free speech and hate speech laws.
  • Festival and BBC Response: Glastonbury organisers, including Emily Eavis, condemned the chants as “appalling” and emphasised that they do not endorse performers’ views. The BBC removed the performance from iPlayer and issued a statement calling the comments “deeply offensive,” but faced criticism for not cutting the live feed sooner.
  • Bob Vylan’s Statement: Bobby Vylan (reportedly Pascal Robinson-Foster) stood by his comments in a social media post, framing them as a call for a change in foreign policy and expressing solidarity with Palestinians. He acknowledged receiving both support and hatred but did not retract his statements.
  • Context of the Performance: Bob Vylan’s set included a screen displaying “Free Palestine – United Nations have called it a genocide – the BBC calls it a ‘conflict,’” reflecting their broader critique of26 of UK and US foreign policy. Their punk-rap style often involves provocative political commentary, which may argue for the chants being artistic expression.

Critical Perspective

The case highlights a tension between free speech, artistic expression, and legal boundaries around hate speech and incitement. UK hate speech laws, particularly under the Public Order Act, are designed to prevent harm but can be vague, leading to debates about their application to political or artistic statements. The phrase “from the river to the sea” is particularly contentious—interpreted by some as a legitimate call for Palestinian rights and by others as antisemitic or genocidal. The legal outcome may hinge on whether the chants are deemed to target a racial or religious group (e.g., Jewish people) or a military institution (the IDF), as well as the intent and context of the performance.

The BBC’s role raises questions about media responsibility. The broadcaster’s failure to cut the feed, despite prior antisemitism training, suggests a lapse in editorial judgment, but prosecuting a broadcaster for live content is rare and would require clear evidence of intent or negligence. The broader political context—intense public and governmental scrutiny of Israel-Palestine rhetoric—may amplify the case’s visibility but also risks politicising legal enforcement, potentially chilling free expression at cultural events like Glastonbury.

Conclusion

Bob Vylan’s performance may potentially breach Sections 5, 18, or 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, depending on interpretations of intent, context, and impact. The “death to the IDF” chant is the most likely basis for any charges due to its explicit violent imagery, though proving incitement or hatred in a festival setting is challenging. The ongoing police assessment suggests no immediate charges, and any prosecution would need to balance legal thresholds with free speech considerations. The BBC faces separate scrutiny under Section 22, but this is less directly tied to Bob Vylan’s actions.

Other legislation may also apply and be considered by the Avon and Somerset Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Image of Bobby Vylan – Yui Mok/PA

Check out our articles on the  Foul and Absuive Language, Justice System, Open Justice, Rule of Law, R v Sussex Justices, Victims’ Right to Review, Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friend, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Free Speech Law Legal Analysis Police

What is a Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) ?

Non-Crime Hate Incident

A Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) in the UK refers to any incident where an individual or group perceives that they have been subjected to hostility or prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity, even if no criminal activity has taken place. Here are key points about NCHIs:

  • Definition: It is defined as any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice. This perception does not require evidence or justification from the victim regarding the hostility.
  • Purpose: NCHIs are recorded by the police to monitor community tensions, potential risks of escalation into more serious incidents or crimes, and to provide data for understanding patterns of prejudice or hostility.
  • Recording Criteria: Not all perceived hate incidents are recorded as NCHIs. There are specific criteria:
    • The incident must disturb an individual’s, group’s, or community’s quality of life or cause concern.
    • The incident must meet an additional threshold if personal data is to be recorded, indicating a real risk of significant harm or future criminal offence against individuals or groups with the same characteristic.
  • Legal Implications: While NCHIs do not result in criminal charges, they can appear in enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, which might affect employment opportunities, especially in sectors requiring such checks.
  • Freedom of Speech: Recent guidance and legal reviews have emphasized balancing the recording of NCHIs with the protection of free speech, ensuring that trivial, irrational, or malicious reports do not lead to the recording of personal data unless necessary. The Free Speech Union published An Orwellian Society: Non-Crime Hate Incidents and the policing of speech.
  • Public and Legal Scrutiny: There has been scrutiny over NCHIs, with concerns that they might infringe on free speech or be used maliciously. Changes in guidance now aim for a more proportionate approach where NCHIs are only recorded when deemed absolutely necessary and not merely based on someone being offended.

The Home Office published Statutory guidance – Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data (accessible)

Allison Pearson, an award-winning writer, is being investigated by Essex Police for allegedly stirring up racial hatred in a social media post last November.

The scale of the investigation has now become clear, with officers from the Metropolitan Police, Sussex Police and Essex Police all having handled the complaint over the past year.

The Telegraph understands that the post was reported to the Metropolitan Police as a potential breach of the Malicious Communications Act in November last year. The case was then passed to Sussex Police, which marked it as a possible non-crime hate incident (NCHI) as well as a potential malicious communication.

Sussex Police passed it to Essex, where Pearson lives.

The Telegraph – Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) or Stirring Up Racial Hatred ?
Non Crime Hate Incident Headlines – The Telegraph

Essex Police sets up ‘gold group’ normally reserved for major crimes to lead Allison Pearson probe

Keir Starmer says police should focus on ‘what matters most’ – amid growing anger over police investigation into Allison Pearson’s tweet

It should be noted that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression.

The Public Order Act 1986, Part III defines Racial Hatred. What is Christophobia ? What is Islamophobia ?

The BlackBelt Barrister published a video Police Will come for YOU Next which examines the right to Free Speech.

“Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another.” Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

Attack on Free Speech ? Black Belt Barrister

Incidents such as the Allison Pearson tweet are supposed to be part of a broader effort to address and monitor hate-related issues in society without necessarily involving criminal law and sanctions. They can still have implications for the individuals involved due to the recording of such incidents by the police.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Are the Police for Hire ?, Police Impartiality, Police Surveillance, Police Professional Standards, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Free Speech Union, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Free Speech Legal Professionals

Is the Secret Barrister not a Barrister of England and Wales ?

Secret Barrister Not a Barrister ?

A complaint was made to the Bar Standards Board about The Secret Barrister on the 8th August 2024.

On the 13th August 2024, The Bar Standards Board replied “…It is possible the person may not even be a barrister”

Update 23rd August 2024 – Paul Embery wrote an article Crossing swords with the ‘Secret [and very intolerant] Barrister’

The Secret Barrister should not be confused with the BlackBelt Barrister.

A Google Search for The Secret Barrister shows that they are an Award-winning Sunday Times No.1 bestselling author much lauded by the public and legal profession.

The Secret Barrister states on their Secret Barrister website….

“The Secret Barrister is a junior barrister specialising in criminal law, and part-time author and blogger.”

The Secret Barrister also state (correctly) that they have won an award from the Law Society.

“In 2018, the Secret Barrister was named Legal Personality of The Year at the Law Society Awards.”

“In 2020, Channel 4 News produced a four-part documentary series, The Secret Barrister: Disordered Justice.” The series can be viewed here.

Since 2015, a barrister practising criminal law in the UK started blogging and tweeting under the pseudonym ‘The Secret Barrister’.

The Secret Barrister – Legal 500

The Secret Barrister regularly posts on X (formerly Twitter) and they have a blue tick which shows that they are verified and a criminal lawyer.

Seems a bit odd that the Bar Standards Board don’t think the Secret Barrister is a Barrister !

If the Secret Barrister is not a Barrister then surely this should be of concern to the Bar Standards Board ? This would also be an offence under the Legal Services Act 2007 ?

It is highly likely that The Bar Standards Board know  :-

  1. The identity of the Secret Barrister
  2. That the Secret Barrister is a barrister regulated by the Bar Standards Board

The Secret Barrister is, contrary to the email from the Bar Standards Board Contact and Assessment Team, most definitely identifiable and should be subject to proper investigation in the public interest.

The Bar Standards Board Corporate Services Team have been asked to explain. They have 20 working days to do so.

From: BSB Contact Us <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 2:48 PM
To: Dom Watts
Subject: RE: Reporting a concerns about a practising barrister (The Secret Barrister) 2024/1910

Dear Mr Watts

Thank you for your email and for sharing your concerns with us.

However, we are only able to deal with matters about a barrister that is identifiable, and it is the reporter’s responsibility to provide us with the name. It is possible the person may not even be a barrister; therefore, we will not be able to assess this matter further and the case is now closed in our system. If you want to make a report in the future, you will need to provide us with the name of the barrister and evidence of your concern.

We are sorry that we are unable to help at this time.

Kind regards,  

Contact and Assessment Team

Bar Standards Board

Email: [email protected]

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk

Bar Standards Board Email – Secret Barrister
Blocked by The Secret Barrister on X

Is The Secret Barrister Lyndon Harris of 6KPW Barrister Chambers ?

Check out our related articles on The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Free Speech Legal Professionals

The Secret Barrister

The Secret Barrister

The Secret Barrister is an anonymous junior barrister practicing criminal law in England and Wales. Through a series of books and a popular blog, this enigmatic figure has shed light on the intricacies and flaws of the UK’s legal system, making complex legal issues accessible to the general public.

The Secret Barrister should not be confused with the BlackBelt Barrister.

Update 19th August 2024 – Is the Secret Barrister not a Barrister of England and Wales ?

Update 23rd August 2024 – Paul Embery wrote an article Crossing swords with the ‘Secret [and very intolerant] Barrister’

The Cut Throat Trial, the debut legal thriller by the Secret Barrister (Lyndon Harris ?) writing as SJ Fleet, is out on the 28th August 2025.

If you have arrived here from thesecretbarrister.co.uk – Welcome !

Who is The Secret Barrister ?

The identity of The Secret Barrister remains unknown to the public, but everyone loves a good mystery and a healthy whodunnit !

Despite various speculations and attempts to uncover their identity, they have successfully maintained their anonymity until now. The Secret Barrister was described as a junior barrister specialising in criminal law, aged between 30 and 40, and not an Oxbridge graduate. They have also been described as a lefty lawyer.

The Secret Barrister stated on X that the question : Is Keir Starmer The Secret Barrister ? kept recurring.

There may be a clue to the identity of The Secret Barrister online with many people saying it is Lyndon Harris !

Mr Lyndon John Harris is listed on the register at the Bar Standards Board website. He was called to the Bar in Jul 2010. His Inn of Court is Gray’s Inn.

Lyndon John HARRIS was a Director of PRIMUS LEGAL MEDIA CONSULTANTS LTD (08870530).

Is The Secret Barrister Lyndon Harris of 6KPW Barrister Chambers ?

Who do you think The Secret Barrister is ? Will the Bar Standards Board reveal who they are ⬇

The Secret Barrister and a “Moron”

On the 7th August 2024 in response to a tweet by Alex Armstrong, The Secret Barrister replied publicly “You are a moron….”.

The Secret Barrister – You are a moron

In a now deleted tweet (due to continued abusive language), I asked if this behaviour was in breach of CD5 of the Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct.

CD5 You must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession

Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct

The Secret Barrister replied “Suck it up, buttercup. It’s called free speech. I understand your sort are very keen on it.“

The Secret Barrister – Suck it up, buttercup

The term moron is now widely accepted as being dated and offensive.

A person affected with mild intellectual disability

The terms idiot, imbecile, moron, and their derivatives were formerly used as technical descriptors in medical, educational, and regulatory contexts. These uses were broadly rejected by the close of the 20th century and are now considered offensive.

Miriam Webster definition of moron

“Name calling” is also widely considered to be a form of bullying and harassment. I believe it’s also illegal !

Hardly the behaviour of a Barrister of England and Wales. It displays wanton arrogance and a rules don’t apply to me attitude.

The Secret Barrister may have friends in high places and be an expert in law, however no one is above the law. Thanks for reminding me about free speech.

The Secret Barrister has been reported to the Bar Standards Board to investigate :-

You can also report behaviour by a barrister to us even if you were not their client. For example, you can make a report about barristers who may be:

……behaving in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in them or in the profession – for example if they are bullying or harassing someone or using racist, sexist, or otherwise seriously offensive language either in person or on social media.

Reporting concerns about barristers – Bar Standards Board
Barrister Alan Robertshaw discusses Barristers and behaviour on Social Media

From: Dom Watts
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 10:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Reporting a concerns about a practising barrister (The Secret Barrister)
Importance: High

Dear Bar Standards Board

I wish to report a barrister ( The Secret Barrister) for a breach of CD5 and behaving in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in them or in the profession –bullying / harassing someone using seriously offensive language either in person or on social media.

I am unable to use your online reporting form as I do not have the details for The Secret Barrister. I’m sure you know who they are !

Can you confirm that they are a practising barrister and regulated by you ?

I believe that sending my concern by email is allowed by your Reasonable Adjustments Policy. If not, could you please provide their full name and chambers so I can complete your online form ?

Regards

Email to the Bar Standards Board with concerns about The Secret Barrister

The Secret Barrister on YouTube

The Secret Barrister: is it only the rich who can afford to defend themselves?

For years - via Twitter, and now a tell-all book - an anonymous author known as the 'Secret Barrister' has painted a picture of a ...
The Secret Barrister: is it only the rich who can afford to defend themselves?
The Secret Barrister: is it only the rich who can afford to defend themselves?
For years - via Twitter, and now a tell-all book - an anonymous author ...
The Secret Barrister: Bestselling Anonymous Author | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union
The Secret Barrister: Bestselling Anonymous Author | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ▻ http://is.gd/OxfordUnion Oxford Union on ...
The Secret Barrister on why it's so difficult for rape victims to get justice
The Secret Barrister on why it's so difficult for rape victims to get justice
Last week we heard from the anonymous author The Secret Barrister ...
A system on its knees? Inside the criminal justice system with the Secret Barrister
A system on its knees? Inside the criminal justice system with the Secret Barrister
It's rare to get a peek behind the scenes of courtrooms and the people ...
The Secret Barrister: Justice in a pandemic
The Secret Barrister: Justice in a pandemic
Over the last week, we have been hearing about the troubles in the ...
Why Criminal Justice Matters | The Secret Barrister
Why Criminal Justice Matters | The Secret Barrister
The Secret Barrister is one of the UK's leading law bloggers, whose ...
Phillip Taylor MBE book review. The Secret Barrister
Phillip Taylor MBE book review. The Secret Barrister
BOOK REVIEW NOW OUT IN PAPERBACK! ARE THE CRIMINAL COURTS FLAWED? ...
Is the BAR a Secret society?
Is the BAR a Secret society?
4 months free for NordVPN: https://nordvpn.com/bbb Discount for ...
The Secret Barrister by The Secret Barrister: 7 Minute Summary
The Secret Barrister by The Secret Barrister: 7 Minute Summary
BOOK SUMMARY* TITLE - The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How ...
'Fake Law: an Evening with the Secret Barrister'
'Fake Law: an Evening with the Secret Barrister'
The Secret Barrister: A Candid Conversation on a Broken System
The Secret Barrister: A Candid Conversation on a Broken System
That's Just Criminal is sponsored by LexisNexis and the Criminal Bar ...
Andrew Gray reviews The Secret Barrister
Andrew Gray reviews The Secret Barrister
Andrew Gray tells us about why we need to read The Secret Barrister by ...

Books by The Secret Barrister

  1. The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken (2018)
    • This debut book provides a critical first-hand account of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It highlights the systemic issues and underfunding that plague the legal system, using real-life cases to illustrate these points.
  2. Fake Law: The Truth About Justice in an Age of Lies (2020)
    • In this follow-up, The Secret Barrister tackles the misinformation and myths surrounding the legal system. The book debunks common misconceptions and explains how these falsehoods can harm justice and society.
  3. Nothing But The Truth: Stories of Crime, Guilt and the Loss of Innocence (2022)
    • This memoir tracks the author’s journey from a novice barrister to a celebrated legal commentator. It combines personal anecdotes with broader reflections on the state of the legal profession and the justice system.

Themes and Impact

The Secret Barrister’s works are known for their candid and often critical perspective on the legal system. Key themes include:

  • Access to Justice: Highlighting the barriers that prevent ordinary people from accessing legal representation.
  • Legal Aid Cuts: Criticizing the impact of funding cuts on the quality of legal defense available to defendants.
  • Systemic Failures: Exposing the daily failures within the courts that undermine justice.

Online Presence and Resources

The Secret Barrister also maintains a blog and an active X presence, where they continue to discuss legal issues and engage with the public. Here are some useful links:

Conclusion

The Secret Barrister has played a crucial role in demystifying the legal system for the public. Through their books and online presence, they continue to advocate for a fairer, more transparent justice system. Whether you’re a legal professional or simply interested in understanding how the law works, The Secret Barrister’s insights are invaluable.

Latest Blog Posts from thesecretbarrister.com

Check out our related articles on Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Free Speech Legal Analysis

What is Christophobia ?

What is Christophobia

Christophobia, or Christianophobia, refers to an irrational fear, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice against Christians, Christianity, or its practices. Here’s a deeper look based on various perspectives and historical contexts:

  • Definition and Usage: The term combines “Christo-” (referring to Christ or Christianity) with “-phobia” (from the Greek word for fear). While the suffix might suggest an irrational fear, in broader usage, it encompasses hatred, bias, and discrimination as well. This term has been used in discussions around the world, including in academic, religious, and political contexts, to describe various forms of anti-Christian sentiment.
  • Historical Context:
    • Ancient Persecution: Early Christians faced persecution in the Roman Empire, where refusal to worship Roman gods led to their marginalization and often violent suppression.
    • Modern Instances: Throughout history, from the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror to the Soviet Union’s state atheism, there have been notable periods where Christianity was actively suppressed or persecuted.
  • Contemporary Manifestations:
    • Western World: Here, Christophobia might manifest more subtly through cultural disdain, legal challenges to religious freedoms, or media portrayals that marginalize Christian beliefs. There’s an observed trend where Christian values or symbols are removed from public spaces or discourse, often under the guise of secularism or neutrality.
    • Other Regions: In some parts of the world, especially where other religious or ideological groups hold power, Christians might face overt persecution, including violence, forced conversions, or severe legal restrictions.
  • Public Discourse and Recognition:
    • International Bodies: Terms like “Christianophobia” have been recognized in some UN documents alongside other forms of religious discrimination like Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, indicating a global acknowledgment of the phenomenon.
    • Debate Over Terminology: There’s debate over using “-phobia” due to its implication of irrational fear rather than just hatred or discrimination. Critics argue this might oversimplify complex socio-political dynamics or be used to stifle criticism of Christianity.
  • Cultural and Social Implications:
    • In Media and Academia: There’s an observed trend where Christianity might be portrayed negatively or critically in media or academic settings, sometimes leading to a broader cultural disdain or dismissal of Christian beliefs.
    • Legal and Political: This can translate into policies or legal decisions that limit Christian expression or practice, often framed within discussions of secularism, human rights, or equality.
  • Christian Perspective: From a Christian viewpoint, as reflected in some theological discussions, Christophobia might be seen as part of a broader spiritual battle, where opposition to Christian values or practices is expected due to the inherent conflict between worldly values and Christian teachings.
  • Public Sentiment on X: On platforms like X, discussions around Christophobia often highlight personal experiences of discrimination, cultural shifts against Christian norms, or compare the treatment of Christianity with other religions in terms of public discourse and legal protections.

In summary, Christophobia describes a spectrum of negative attitudes and actions against Christians and Christianity, ranging from subtle cultural biases to overt persecution. The term, while debated for its accuracy or appropriateness, captures a recognised phenomenon of anti-Christian sentiment globally.

You may be interested in our article What is Islamophobia ?

What is a Christian ?

A Christian is an adherent of Christianity, which is a monotheistic religion based on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as described in the New Testament of the Bible. Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

Core Beliefs:

  • Jesus Christ: Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah (or Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament, the Son of God, and part of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Jesus is central to Christian faith, seen as both fully divine and fully human.
  • Salvation: Many Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. This often involves the concept that Jesus died to atone for humanity’s sins, offering forgiveness and eternal life to those who believe in him.
  • The Bible: Christians generally accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God, comprising the Old Testament (shared with Judaism) and the New Testament, which includes the Gospels (accounts of Jesus’s life), Acts of the Apostles, epistles (letters from early Christian leaders), and the Book of Revelation.
  • Resurrection: The belief in Jesus’s resurrection from the dead is fundamental, symbolising victory over sin and death.

Practices:

  • Worship: This can include attending church services, prayer, reading the Bible, and participating in sacraments or ordinances like baptism and the Eucharist (or Communion).
  • Community: Christianity often emphasizes community life, fellowship, and acts of charity and service, reflecting Jesus’s teachings on love, forgiveness, and helping others.
  • Moral and Ethical Living: Christians are encouraged to live according to the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus, which include loving one’s neighbor as oneself, forgiveness, humility, and honesty.

Diversity in Christianity:

  • Denominations: Christianity has numerous denominations (e.g., Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox), each with variations in doctrine, practice, and governance. These differences can affect how the faith is practiced and interpreted.
  • Cultural Expressions: Christianity has adapted to various cultures worldwide, leading to a rich diversity in worship styles, theological emphases, and social practices.

Historical Context:

  • Origins: Christianity began in the 1st century in Judea, spreading rapidly throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, influenced by the missionary work of the Apostles and early followers.
  • Development: Over centuries, Christianity has evolved, split, and reformed, influenced by theological debates, cultural integration, and historical events like the Reformation in the 16th century.

Modern Christianity:

  • Global Presence: Christianity is one of the world’s largest religions, with followers on every continent. It plays significant roles in global politics, culture, and social issues.
  • Contemporary Issues: Modern Christians engage with various issues like human rights, environmental stewardship, social justice, and the relationship between church and state, often reflecting diverse interpretations of Christian teachings.

Identity:

  • Personal Faith: Being a Christian can be as much about personal faith, a relationship with God through Jesus, as it is about communal practice or doctrinal adherence.
  • Lifestyle: For many, Christian identity influences lifestyle choices, moral decisions, and worldview, aiming to emulate the life and teachings of Jesus.

In essence, a Christian is someone who follows Jesus Christ, embracing his teachings and often seeking to live by his example, though the specifics of belief and practice can vary widely across the global Christian community.

What is a Phobia ?

A phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of an object, place, situation, feeling, or animal. Here’s a more detailed look:

Definition:

  • Medical Definition: In clinical psychology, a phobia is classified as an anxiety disorder where the fear experienced is significantly disproportionate to the actual danger posed by the object or situation. This fear often leads to avoidance behaviors, which can interfere with daily life.

Characteristics:

  • Excessive Fear: The fear is out of proportion to the actual threat. For example, while it’s normal to feel cautious around heights, someone with acrophobia might experience debilitating fear even on a low ladder.
  • Avoidance: People with phobias often go to great lengths to avoid the source of their fear. This avoidance can limit their activities and restrict their lives.
  • Anxiety Response: Encountering or even thinking about the phobic stimulus can trigger an immediate anxiety response, which might include symptoms like sweating, rapid heartbeat, trembling, shortness of breath, or a full-blown panic attack.
  • Recognition of Irrationality: Typically, individuals with phobias acknowledge that their fear is excessive or unreasonable, yet they feel powerless to control it.

Types of Phobias:

  • Specific Phobias: These are fears centered around a particular object or situation, like arachnophobia (fear of spiders) or claustrophobia (fear of confined spaces).
  • Social Phobia (Social Anxiety Disorder): This involves an intense fear of social situations, particularly of being judged or scrutinized by others, leading to avoidance of social interactions.
  • Agoraphobia: Often misunderstood as a fear of open spaces, it’s more about fear of environments where escape or help might not be immediately available, like public transportation, open spaces, or being outside the home alone.

Treatment:

  • Exposure Therapy: Gradually and repeatedly exposing the person to their fear in a controlled way helps reduce the fear response over time.
  • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): This helps individuals change the way they think (cognitive patterns) and act (behavior) towards the feared object or situation.
  • Medication: While not a cure, medications like beta-blockers or antidepressants can help manage symptoms, particularly in conjunction with therapy.
  • Virtual Reality Therapy: Increasingly used for exposure therapy, especially for phobias like fear of flying or heights.

Cultural Context:

Phobias can also be culturally influenced. What might be considered a phobia in one culture might be a normal fear or even a revered trait in another. For example, in some cultures, a fear of spirits or the supernatural might be more widespread and accepted.

Understanding phobias involves recognising them not just as irrational fears but as complex psychological conditions that can significantly impact an individual’s quality of life. Treatment often focuses on helping individuals manage and eventually overcome these fears, allowing them to live more freely.

Racist and Religious Hate Crime

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have published the Racist and Religious Hate Crime – Prosecution Guidance which assists their prosecutors when they are making decisions about cases. It is regularly updated to reflect changes in law and practice.

“Using threatening, abusive or insulting language to rile up racism online is unacceptable and is breaking the law……It is not an offence to have strong or differing political views, but it is an offence to incite racial hatred”

Frank Ferguson, Head of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Unit

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent