First arrests under the New Police Act preventing freedom of speech

I think his arrest was for the wrong reasons, but do you think arresting those who attacked him for his right to free speech would have been the best option for him?
I think they should have arrested all three, for the sake of safety or causing a breach of the peace.

I am afraid I lost faith in the police many years ago. Some are ok but I’m wary.

Very true Galaxy as we have seen so many times.

It's the easiest option for the police to do lots of things that doesnt mean it's the right thing.

I expect WWM2 it was the easiest option for the police. I think he yelled that Andrew was a dirty old man. I imagine a lot of people agree with him but he said it in a crowd who were paying their respects to the Queen and tolerated Andrew as a consequence which they wouldn’t normally do.

growstuff

Maizie Yes, I would. I genuinely don't know the exact circumstances, which is why I asked and haven't come to a definitive conclusion. I'd like to know what these people have been charged with. As ever, there seem to be a number of different versions circulating and people have jumped to conclusions.

I saw footage of exactly what happened in Edinburgh. It was a young man in his early 20s perhaps. He shouted at Andrew Windsor not sure what he said. At least two men in the crowd set upon him (the young man was small) and knocked him to the ground. The police then stepped in and arrested him. Leaving those inflicting violence free to go.

I think that's a terrible definition of hate speech if that's any help. With no concept of the grey areas that might be within that statement.

With the aim to provide an unified framework for the UN system to address the issue globally, the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”
Could someone please explain the difference between 'freedom of speech' in this case and 'hate speech' as defined above by the U.N.?

Maizie Yes, I would. I genuinely don't know the exact circumstances, which is why I asked and haven't come to a definitive conclusion. I'd like to know what these people have been charged with. As ever, there seem to be a number of different versions circulating and people have jumped to conclusions.

I would expect those using violence to be arrested.

growstuff

Galaxy

It was once a deeply unpopular opinion to express the fact that people of the same sex should have the right to marriage. It was once a deeply unpopular opinion that rape in marriage should be made illegal, should the people expressing those views have been arrested for their own protection. After all they should have expected a reaction from the public to their unpopular opinions.

No, they shouldn't have been arrested, but if they were being beaten up in public, I would expect the police to intervene and possibly move the protester for his/her own protection.

But wouldn't you expect the ones who were doing the beating up to be arrested too?

Is your right to free speech enumerated anywhere in your constitution?

Galaxy

It was once a deeply unpopular opinion to express the fact that people of the same sex should have the right to marriage. It was once a deeply unpopular opinion that rape in marriage should be made illegal, should the people expressing those views have been arrested for their own protection. After all they should have expected a reaction from the public to their unpopular opinions.

No, they shouldn't have been arrested, but if they were being beaten up in public, I would expect the police to intervene and possibly move the protester for his/her own protection.

Based only on my knowledge of watching police interceptors, and other such programmes, I have seen the police move someone along, with many clear warnings that they need to do as they're told.

It is only if they refuse, and begin to actively refuse by swearing, pushing, ignoring, that they are warned that they will be arrested.

@Zoejory,
You used a news report dating from over two and a half years ago to illustrate your point, just a tad outdated!
You may be a scouser, but just how many home games for whichever team you support do you actually go to?
Also, the report you chose does actually state that the Everton fan was welcomed in the Kop!
I was merely pointing out to Avalon that she had chosen the wrong two teams to illustrate her point!
At the last derby match I was able to attend, at Goodison, a young woman tripped and twisted her ankle badly about thirty minutes before kick off. She was carried away to receive first aid by two strapping young lads, one wearing a red and white scarf, the other blue and white!

It was once a deeply unpopular opinion to express the fact that people of the same sex should have the right to marriage. It was once a deeply unpopular opinion that rape in marriage should be made illegal, should the people expressing those views have been arrested for their own protection. After all they should have expected a reaction from the public to their unpopular opinions.

I hope charges are dropped Saetana.

My personal view is that I feel that unlimited freedom of speech should not be allowed. I don't agree with those who claim that people need to accept being offended. Some forms of harrassment, such as racial and sexual, are already against the law. I also recognise that there's a very shaky dividing line between expressing an opinion which offends people and bullying/harrassment.

I'm unclear about whether these arrests were for harrassment or breaching the peace in some way. If somebody expresses an unpopular opinion, he/she should expect a reaction from other members of the public. My understanding is that's what has happened here. I think the police were correct to move the people for their own protection. I can just imagine the reaction if somebody had been seriously hurt while the police looked on and did nothing. Nevertheless, charging somebody for expressing an inappropriate/unpopular opinion seems heavy-handed.

I guess we'll have to see what happens.

It shows no respect to arrest people for peaceful protest.

It show

Keir Starmer says don’t ruin it for those who have queued up I.e respect others if you don’t respect the Queen. He is still in favour of free speech. Well said Sir Keir. I agree with you for once.

Juggernaut I was just trying to choose teams people have heard off. Perhaps Arsenal v Tottenham, but only in certain parts of the ground. It was meant to illustrate how we can’t always say whatever we want wherever we are.

Arrest can also happen because the police wish to prevent a breach of the peace - in these cases I would imagine said breach would refer to members of the crowd who had come to see the Queen's memorial procession taking exception at whichever idiot had shown so little class as to choose that particular moment to make a protest. It was likely for their own protection more than anything else - most of these charges will likely be dropped quietly in time.

It is usually minorities who suffer the most when freedom of speech is restricted. Trying to protect people by restricting speech usually achieves the opposite.

@25Avalon,
Maybe in Bristol they would fight with opposing fans, but Liverpool and Everton fans are not kept apart.
They get on the same trains to travel together into Liverpool, get lifts in one another's cars, have a pint together in the pub before going to the match.
Admittedly, there are some who would never even enter the opposing team's ground, but that's their choice, and they all finish up missing derby matches at some point!
If you're going to pick football teams to vilify, why not choose those you know about, eg Bristol City and Cardiff City.
What people don't seem to be aware of is that Everton is a district of Liverpool, the grounds are less than one mile apart, and it's more than likely that next door neighbours will support differing teams.
When little Rhys Jones who was an Everton fan was murdered in 2007, LFC played the Everton anthem (the theme from Z Cars) at Anfield, followed by You'll Never Walk Alone, in his memory at the game against Toulouse on August 29th 2007.
There may be very many places in this country where opposing teams need to be kept apart, Liverpool, however, is not one of them!
It's getting a little tiring, having people who are totally ignorant of the facts, slating Liverpool!

Saetana

Breach of the Peace as a minor offence has been around for a long time - nothing to do with any new laws. I would imagine these people were arrested or removed for their own protection - a memorial parade for a much loved monarch is not the time to be protesting and its not likely to go down well with a crowd who have come to pay their respects to the Queen. Can people not have a little grace and leave it until next Tuesday onwards to start banging on about republics and unelected monarchs? We have no absolute right of free speech and never have had - its a fantasy.

In what way were the people breaching the peace? I admit I haven't read reports of what actually happened, so it's a genuine question. Were the people shouting out or assaulting others in the crowd? What were they actually doing?

I was thinking about that as I typed it Glorianny. It makes the point either way, I think. In a democracy Mosely, et al should be arrested if they breach the peace, as they did, so deliberately. In a Dictatorship or a country with something less democratic than we expect, Mosely might well be protected. I would like to think his speech would not now be seen (except by those few who agree with his views) as free speech as in law it attacks other people's freedom's.

In these situations, the police arrest suspects, the law decides guilt or innocence.