… does not mean freedom from consequences.
Thee are two cases that the right-wing press and “politicians” are currently salivating over and claiming that they are evidence of two-tier policing and the eradication of free speech in the UK.
Lucy Connolly posted a tweet on July 29, 2024, following the Southport killings, which read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*cking hotels full of the b*st*rds for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it”.
Graham Linehan was arrested at Heathrow Airport on September 1, 2025, over three posts he made on X (formerly Twitter) in April 2025. The most controversial tweet stated, “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”
Both of those posts can be, and were/have been, read as incitements to violence – and that’s against the law, specifically the Public Order Act 1986 (POA).
Amongst a great many other things the Act says: “A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or (b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.”
Lucy Connolly claims she posted the offending tweet in anger over the Southport attacks, having believed at the time that the attacker was an asylum seeker. It became clear after the event that this was just an unfounded rumour spread by people with an agenda. She subsequently pleaded guilty and was jailed for 30 months, but now bleats that she is a victim of the mythical war on free speech. She really isn’t.
Linehan’s case is only a tad different, although it is also an incitement to violence. He claims that it was a joke, but it wouldn’t be very funny for the victim of an attack prompted by it.
They both need to understand that if you say things like that on a public forum you have to be prepared to face the consequences. I’m forced to wonder whether they would be quite so gung-ho for unrestricted free speech if they were both on the receiving end of the hatred they both display.
Wes Streeting has jumped into this “debate” to say that the law needs to be reviewed. Probably true – the Public Order Act is almost forty years old – and could do with a wash and brush up, particularly since it was written long before social media appeared. It’s also worth noting that it was first enacted under a somewhat right-wing government.
Which brings me back to Nigel Fraud-age who was in Washington DC, again, yesterday, although he should really have been at Westminster. His absence was noted by the Prime Minister:
“Of course, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not here to represent his constituency in the House that he was elected to. No, he has flown to America to badmouth and talk down our country. It is worse than that, Mr Speaker: if you can believe it, he has gone there to lobby the Americans to impose sanctions on this country that will harm working people. You cannot get more unpatriotic than that. It is a disgrace. The Online Safety Act 2023 protects children from material on suicide, self-harm and online predators. Reform says it would scrap it. When its leader was asked, “Well, what would you replace it with?”, his answer was: “There needs to be a tech answer. I don’t know what that is”. You cannot run a country on “don’t know” answers.”
Fraud-age appeared before a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee about free speech. He tried his usual smug smile, but he didn’t have it all his own way, not by a long chalk.
Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee, said, rightly, that we do have free speech in the UK. He said that Keir Starmer has not shut down GB News, even though Farage has a show on that station in which he criticises the government and calls for bans on peaceful protests. He said that Farage is able to parrot “Putin’s absurd talking points” on TV. He went on:
“For a man who fancies himself to some kind of a free speech martyr, Mr Farage seems most at home with the autocrats and dictators of the world who are crushing freedom on earth.
To the people of the UK who think this Putin-loving, free speech impostor and Trump sycophant will protect freedom in your country, come over to America and see what Trump and Maga are doing to destroy our freedom, kidnap college students off the street, ban books from our libraries, militarise our police and unleash them against our communities, take over our universities … You might think twice before you let Mr Farage “make Britain great again”.
Fraud-age refused to answer questions as to why he bans certain journalists and news organisations from meetings of Reform UK. Or why a council controlled by his party refuses to allow local journalists access.
But here’s the real kicker – Fraud-age left the hearing early before other Democrats could question him . He did so in order to do an interview with GB News.
What a humbug!