Yes, Jamie, Haven't They Made It Perfectly Clear That's What They Are Doing?

The former Royal Marine, who is suing the authorities for £25,000, told The Telegraph: 'It makes no sense. It just seems to me they want to punish me because of my opinions and because my views don’t align with theirs.'

Bingo! As with the Joey Barton trial, that is indeed the deciding factor behing the decision - 'how dare you question your rulers' Even medieval kings didn't weild their power so cavierlierly, because they knew their castles weren't totally impregnable if the citizenry were riled enough...

Jamie Michael, from Penygraig in south Wales, was charged with inciting racial hatred following comments he made in a 12-minute Facebook video. The 47-year-old described some migrants as 'scumbags' and 'psychopaths' as riots spread across the UK in the aftermath of the Southport murders.

Some undoubtedly are. So what he said wasn't even wrong. 

Despite his acquittal Mr Michael was told a 'child protection concern' made against him had been 'substantiated' less than a fortnight after the jury delivered its not-guilty verdict. As a result the Football Association of Wales has now barred the father-of-two from coaching his daughter's team following a meeting held in private with a safeguarding officer and South Wales Police.

The Free Speech Union is taking up his case: 

Lord Young, the union's founder and director, said: 'Citing safeguarding concerns to silence people you disagree with is a scandalous abuse of the system.' He added the FSU has '15 people on our books' branded a risk to children due to their political views.

Safeguarding boards were established in 2004 following the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham by a school caretaker.

A crime that  wouldn't have happened without the incompetence and laziness of the police record-keeping, and which lead to a host of shutting-the-stable-door legislation to prevent wrong un's with criminal histories slipping through the cracks in future. It was never intended to silence critics of the government's plans to flood the UK with boat people, but that's now how it's being used.

Remember When Universities Were Where The Smart People Went?

A ruling by the higher education regulator for England on freedom of speech breaches at the University of Sussex has sparked anxiety in the sector, as vice-chancellors scramble to review their policies to avoid potential violations. Two weeks after the Office for Students (OfS) handed out a record £585,000 fine, many university leaders are still not clear what it means in practice.

It seems crystal clear to me, but maybe that's because I never went to university? 

One of the few vice-chancellors willing to speak out condemned the OfS ruling as “a lesson in authoritarianism, with threats of more to come”.

No doubt they are from one of the universities featured in David Thompson's roll-call of authoritarian left-wing agenda pushers...  

Prof David Green, University of Worcester vice-chancellor and chief executive, said: “Using coercive powers of the state risks terrifying university leaders into a culture of compliance which is the very opposite of the democratic and free culture for which we should be working.”

The rise of no-platforming and speech codes in universities give the lie to that, Dave... 

Many university leaders have turned to lawyers, in some cases spending tens of thousands of pounds, to review not just transgender and non-binary equality policy, which was at the heart of the Sussex case, but a range of university statements, documents and policies. “I wouldn’t say that they were in a state of panic,” said one lawyer who did not want to be named, “but I think there is genuine anxiety they don’t know what they need to do to get this right.”

What are they paid their huge salaries for? 

University leaders are struggling to find the right balance between freedom of speech duties and a legal requirement to protect students and academics from abuse and harassment, and feel they have not been given enough clarity by the OfS.

You could always start by telling those fragile snowflakes that infest modern universities that stating biological fact isn't 'harassment' or 'abuse' and if they are at university, they shouldn't need protecting from it... 

If You Get The Very Basics Wrong, Why Should We Listen Further?

Carole Cadwalladr on the riots:

"The 1996 Dunblane massacre and the outcry that followed are held up in the US as a textbook example of how an act of terror mobilised a country to demand effective gun regulation.The atrocity, in which 16 children and their teacher were killed, provoked a wave of national revulsion that, within weeks, led to 750,000 people signing a petition demanding a change to the law. Within a year and a half, new legislation had outlawed the ownership of handguns."

But Carole, we still have gun crime. So really, how effective was it? It stopped some innocent people enjoying a legal hobby, and the thugs and criminals went right on doing what they do...

Almost 30 years on, the horrific violence visited on a dance class in Southport has sparked a very different reaction. A reaction that shocked many in Britain this week but which experts in domestic extremism – and especially those who look at the intersection of violence and technology – say is all too depressingly familiar. And in this, our new age of algorithmic outrage, depressingly inevitable. “We’ve always had radicalisation, but in the past, leaders would be the bridge and bring people together,” said Maria Ressa, the Filipino journalist and trenchant tech critic who won the 2021 Nobel peace prize. “That’s impossible to do now, because what used to radicalise extremists and terrorists is now radicalising the public. Because the information ecosystem is designed that way.”

Ah, so now we must ban the Internet? I think that's going to prove a tougher opponent than the target shooting community... 

The question is what Keir Starmer will do.

The wrong thing, of course! Since this whole thing started, he's unerringly done that every single step of the way. 

Ebner points to the fact that this is no longer about dark corners of the internet: politicians are among those who have been radicalised. “They now say things that they would not have said previously and use dog whistles to the far right, flirting with conspiracy myths that used to belong to fringe far-right movements.”

And now everyone can see that they actually had a point after all and that the conspiracy is out in the open. No wonder people like you, Carole, are shitting themselves at no longer being able to control the narrative... 

Stop 'Warning' And Start Fining!

Banks are to be warned by ministers that they must protect free speech as increasing numbers of customers are having their accounts closed for holding allegedly controversial views.

The Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is reportedly 'deeply concerned' that lenders are blacklisting customers they are deemed to hold contrary political beliefs and social values.

And is he prepared to actually do anything? Well, he's prepared to consider it, at least...

A Treasury source told the Daily Telegraph: 'It is absolutely a concern. No one should have their bank account denied on the grounds of freedom of expression. We expect to take action on this issue within weeks.'

What action? Hold another meeting? Send a stong letter of condemnation?  Admit that this has been brewing under your noses for a long time? 

What's that, Reader? You're surprised? You thought it was new? Oh no. It's EU legislation that hasn't been junked when we junked the EU.

The term defines anyone with a 'prominent public function' and originates in a 1987 initiative against corruption and money laundering launched by the G7 group of leading economies. This was designed to make banks and other financial institutions subject any PEP to intense scrutiny when setting up accounts — on the grounds that by reason of their public position they presented a much higher risk for potential involvement in corruption and money laundering than the man or woman in the street.

And, as we all know, give some people power and they will wield it in ways you never thought possible.  

The PEP system came into force in this country under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, which referred to people with a prominent public position 'other than [in] the United Kingdom'. In other words, identifying powerful people from various highly corrupt nations, where political power and bribery went together like eggs and bacon. But the financial institutions here immediately applied it to members of our own Parliament — even though this did not become mandatory until the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. And not just them, but their immediate family — which, typically, include the PEP's 'parents, siblings, spouse, children, in-laws, grandparents and grandchildren'.

And all our legislative government was asleep at the switch while they did it. Or...were they? 

Is it possible they knew exactly what was going on? And were content because they never thought it'd affect them?

It's Our Money She's Won..!

The Met Police has paid out £10,000 in damages to a Christian evangelist preacher for wrongful arrest and unlawful imprisonment.

Hatun Tash was twice arrested at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park after reporting to officers that she was being harassed and threatened by Islamic demonstrators.

A good win for freedom of speech? Yes, undoubtedly. But the police aren't paying it, are they? 

And until they are, personally, there's no reason for them to ever stop, is there?

Fighting Talk!

Dr Bryn Harris, the FSU's Chief Legal Counsel, said: 'This is a tremendous victory for Simon and for free speech. The lesson is clear: if you’re a member of the FSU, make sure your employer knows it. And if you’re an employer – don’t bully our members, or we’ll come for you.'

Free Speech Union General Secretary Toby Young said: 'I'm delighted we were able to help Simon win a landmark victory for free speech.

'I hope this sends a message to other employers: you cannot dismiss staff for gross misconduct for mocking woke diversity training. Workers have rights, including the right to free speech.'

Well, well, well...isn't it nice to see a good news story for once? 

A West Midlands Trains spokesperson said: 'We respect the decision of the Tribunal. West Midlands Trains is an inclusive employer and there is no place for discriminatory behaviour within the rail industry.'

Then why did you try it, and then fail? Hard?