Hello, and welcome to another episode of Page 94.
My name's Andrew Hunter Murray, and I'm here in the private eye office.
This episode is going to be a slightly upside down one in the second half.
Uh, we're going to be joined by Ian, Helen, and Adam.
But in the first half we're going to have an interview, and the
reason for that is that this is our Summer Freedom of Speech special.
Uh, we're gonna be talking about policing, about protest, and
about prescribed organizations.
The reason this is in the news so much at the moment, uh, was all kickstarted,
by a group called Palestine Action.
Now a prescribed organization, but until recently, uh, simply
a, a direct protest group.
Their direct protests, uh, on behalf of the Palestinian calls culminated
at the start of July when some members of the group broke into an
RAF base and sprayed paint into the entrance of two military aircraft,
which the group claimed were helping to refuel American and Israeli jets.
Just a few days later, plans were announced, uh, to ban the group, uh, by
the government, and it is now categorized as a prescribed organization on roughly
the same level as Islamic State, say when the government prescribed Palestine
action, the home office minister Dan Jarvis said that that prescription.
Quotes would not impinge on people's right to protest.
Those who wish to protest or express support for Palestine have always been
able to and can continue to do so.
That has not been strictly true.
Dozens of people have been arrested not only for holding placards, supporting
Palestine action, but many more.
Uh, for holding placards, which were not about.
The group Palestine action was simply in support of the Palestinian cause.
And recently one man in West Yorkshire was arrested for holding a placard,
which although it mentioned the words Palestine and action, uh, was
not a placard supporting the group.
And we can say that for sure because it was a joke, uh,
from the last issue of eye.
John Farley, a retired head teacher from Yorkshire, had printed out the joke,
which he thought made a good point.
He put it on a placard and promptly found himself arrested
by the West Yorkshire police.
He was bundled into a police Van.
He was driven to the nearest police station where he was
held for about six hours.
Uh, he eventually got a solicitor and was interviewed, by counter terror
police before eventually being released on bail, uh, pending any charges.
Charges, which were not eventually brought.
Uh, and it's a good thing that Mr. Farley is still at liberty because
it means he's free to join us now.
John.
Hello?
Hi there.
John, you went on this march, was it a Palestine action march or was
it simply a pro-Palestine march.
No, it wasn't Palestine action.
It's organized by Leeds Branch of Palestine solidarity campaign.
They've been doing them, almost continuously since the situation started.
And I've, I've been on quite a few.
I've not been on all of them, you know, but I've been on quite a few.
So, uh, you went on this march, you had a placard with you, we should
say at the start of things that it was a joke from Private eye.
Can you just tell us what the joke was, please?
Yes, I can.
It, it, it said at the top in quotes, Palestine Action explained, and then
underneath it had in sort of on red background, unacceptable Palestine
action,, spraying military planes with paint the other bit in green
it said acceptable Palestine action shooting Palestinians queuing for
food, and I should add, actually underneath, I put copyright symbol,
private eye, uh, number 1, 6 5 3.
And that was really the thing, the punchline, if you like, for it.
Because the march was about the denial of food aid to, that was the theme.
It was a silent march and that was the theme of it.
Can you tell us in your own words, what happened on the day?
it was a silent march, which we don't, which you sometimes do.
So it was very solemn, you know, um, people were carrying boxes to symbolize
the aid that's been denied into Gaza.
So I'm holding this up and I, I passed serious policemen on the, on the way.
And then I was more than, we were more than halfway round.
And I saw two officers on the side and they just, they saw me and
made a beeline straight to me.
And I thought, they must have good eyesight.
'cause you know, I wasn't that near them, but they said,
can we have a word with you?
And I said, well, can he come to the paper and have a word with me, us?
And I said, well.
We can have a word here if you like, and they said, no, we want you.
So then they just grabbed me by the arms, took me to the pavement and
I'm not quite sure how, but some, I ended up sitting on the pavement.
I think I went a bit limp as they dragged me over and, and they
said, it's about the placard.
And I went, oh, I.
I brought the private eye with me.
'Cause I thought possibly somebody might say something to me, you know?
Um, so I, I said it's in, it's in, uh, my rucksack.
I couldn't show you private eyes from mag.
It's from that.
It's from, and, and at that point I realized that I
had a handcuff on one hand.
And they were saying, you're under arrest under Section 12, the Terrorism Act.
I thought they might say something to me first, but they
just, and I was a bit surprised.
So then they said, you are resisting.
I said, I'm not.
And he said, but your arms are tense.
And I thought to myself, I, I feel pretty tense.
I've just been drug to the pavement by two cops, you know?
Uh, anyway, they put the handcuffs on and they said, will you walk to the Van?
So I said, well, I will, if you take the handcuffs off, let me show you the
magazine and you can see where it's come.
You know?
And I kept saying, it's a cartoon from Private Eye.
It's, and eventually people stood around me, they all started, they heard that and
went, it's a cartoon from Private Eye.
It's a cartoon from, so it went on like this?
No, they weren't interested.
And as I did suggest before, I don't know, but I think they've not.
They weren't readers and they may not have heard of it.
You know, their loss, their loss.
I was in shock to be honest.
it was really only when I got in the Van I thought, crikey,
so you would, you would, I presume, driven off from the protest?
Yeah.
yeah, uh, yeah, they, people sort of surrounded a Van and that, but
obviously they, they took me away.
And then lying back in the, uh, Van I was on the floor, I said to them,
they said to, what's your name?
And it was beginning to sink in then.
And I said, well, look, take the handcuffs off.
'cause I thought, I'm in the Van.
I'm not gonna get in two burly coppers, you know?
Um, and I'll show you the no.
And then, so he found my bus pass and he said, oh, you are your Alan Farley.
Because before that he said.
Well, if you don't tell me your name, what can I call you?
And I said, call me sir. And which seemed reasonable enough,
but he didn't like that.
, So by this stage I thought, well, you know, I better not say anything
else now then I got booked in.
I was.
Feeling a bit stroppy by then.
So they said things like, are you vulnerable or do you feel vulnerable?
And I said, yes, I do.
And they looked at me a bit surprised.
They said, well, I'm in a police station and, you know,
I presume this is your first arrest,
yes.
they give you cards out with a solicitor's number on.
On the demo, which I've had in my pocket and I've never used,
obviously, and they said it's better not to use the duty solicitor.
You get them to ring this one.
Could I find this card?
No.
And I accused falsely I apologized to wish I falsely called,
accused you of throwing it away.
In fact, it was tucked into my phone case all the time.
I found out upon release, but I, I luckily I could remember the name
and they said, oh yes, we know them.
We can call them.
And I could just about remember my wise phone number.
So I asked them to call her and they never did, to be fair.
but she was also on the march, but elsewhere, so she was one of the last
people to find out that I'd been arrested.
So then they said, do you want to read the, uh, police and
criminal evidence, uh, guidance?
And I thought, well, I'm, I dunno how long I'm gonna be in there and they
won't let me take my copy of private eye.
Uh, so I said yes.
So I've read most of West Yorkshire's guidance.
they took my fingerprints.
They took DNA swabs, Then I got a call from the solicitor via the intercom,
which was hard to make out, but she said, don't worry, I'll be there fairly soon
and I asked, could she ring my wife?
And she took the number and she did ring my wife, I had a Cup of
tea, they gave me a Cup of water.
I had a fairly horrible.
heated up meal.
How long were you held all in?
just over six hours.
I think I was arrested just before two and I got out about eight.
Oh, I gotta see a nurse while I was in as well.
Um, because I'd asked my medica, I'm mass, I'm mildly asthmatic,
and I'd ask my medication.
'cause in a stressful situation it can be a bit worse, you know, which somebody got
and brought down to the police station.
And I got to see a nurse, very friendly nurse, a paramedic, NHS.
And one of the things she did was take my blood pressure and I said, oh, I'm going
to see my doctors about that this week.
and she said, well, you can tell them your blood pressure's fine.
Which it was.
Which considering Yes, exactly.
So I've, I thought that was an un, you know, I thought, well that's one positive
that's come out of today, you know
Then the solicitor came, we had a brief chat.
She said, look, I advise you.
Just no comment, no questions because you, if we're gonna have
a debate, we'll have it in court.
They asked me all sorts of questions.
I mean, one of the questions, I can't remember what it was, but
he sort of, I rolled my eyes as he said it and he sort of looked a bit
apologetic and said, I know, but we do have to ask these questions.
I'm sure you understand at.
is this questions about whether you were a member of Palestine
action or a member of a prescribed organization,
they said, do you support Palestine actions?
Obviously, I said, no comment.
Um, or I might have just said no to that one.
and then they said, did someone force you to carry this placard?
Did you make it?
Did somebody else make it?
And one of them, one of them said, this is the counter-terrorism police.
He said, I see the advert.
And the magazine was very small and I thought advert, I
thought, what's going on anyway?
I said, uh, he said, he said, did you blow it up yourself?
And I thought, you're counter-terrorism.
Police don't say things like that to me.
That's a very leading question to ask.
Yeah.
well, but
they.
your placard would've been one inch square, so,
well, exactly, yes.
So through that interview I back and I thought, are they
taking this, that seriously?
I wonder if they are, you know, the solicitors felt quite confident.
She said, I think, you know, she said, don't know, but, you
know, got quite a strong case.
okay, so eventually you were released without charge.
yes, well, no.
I raised on bail charges going, pending, going.
They said they were gonna send my file to the CPS.. they hadn't committed an offense
and they, they must have been beginning to think, you know, what's in this?
and my bail conditions said I wasn't to go on any Palestine action demos or mark
protests, and I said to the solicitor, I wasn't on a Palestine action protest.
And I've never been on one.
And in any case, aren't they illegal?
So at this point, John, I probably have an apology to make to you, um, because
it was actually me who wrote that joke for private eye and I. I did not think
would have a result because the classic result of writing a joke for the mag
is nothing, nothing happens at all.
Uh, and so it wasn't our intention to get anyone banged up, uh, particularly
not if they haven't done anything wrong.
So I'm very sorry about that.
Well, it's not your fault.
I saw it and I I did think that will make a good placard, not least because it's.
Different from the standard ones that are handed out.
You know, the same same old, you know, everybody's heard the same stuff before
and I thought this is a clever, a nuanced take, but makes the point really
well, you know, good old private eye.
It'll have been through the lawyers.
What could go wrong?
I thought,
yeah
so did you know about Palestine action before?
Did you know that this group had been prescribed?
I'm sure you keep up with the issue in general.
I'd heard of them and yes, and I was aware of the prescription.
So, you know, and, and I. I knew I didn't want to do what other people have done
and gone out and saying they support them.
But when I could say, I saw that and I thought that uses that phrase, but in
a different way to make the point about people are being shocked, queuing for food
, um, we're gonna be talking a bit later on in the podcast, um, with the, with the IT
team about freedom of speech, heavy handed policing, all of this kind of thing.
I mean.
In your opinion, do you think what happened to you was simply really clumsy
policing, or do you think it kind of indicates a general problem with freedom
of speech at the moment in the uk?
I'd say a bit of both.
I mean, they were clumsy because they didn't give any chance to explain.
The solicitor said to me later, they didn't even give you what words of
advice, I believe is the phrase.
but they chose to arrest me.
somebody showed me a video that had been taken.
There's people who follow us around videoing us and they post them and
and it showed the Van driving around.
Parking up, they walked out, stood to the side and then as soon as I came by,
they would come straight out for me.
So I think they'd already seen the, I dunno, I presume they'd seen the
sign at some point and thought, right, we're gonna arrest him.
So yeah, I think it was clumsy, but also they weren't, I think,
right, we need to get off the street straight away sort of thing.
I wasn't thinking I'd get arrested.
I thought they might say, I thought perhaps, perhaps they'll say something.
Somebody, a friend said to me, oh, you sure about that?
I said, well, it's been in private.
Ah, you know, so I wasn't completely oblivious to it,
but I thought at the worst they'd say, you can't carry it.
You know, or whatever.
You know?
Now I've just said, all right, you have it, you know?
As it turns out, stuff being printed in private eye is not.
I guarantee that you won't be sued over it as the magazines
found out to its cost many times
that's true.
very dangerous, very dangerous idea.
Um, so part of this, was shutting down the use of those words on any
placards whatsoever, no matter what the context was., What happened next?
Did it work?
Has this absolutely been chilled and shut down and the words have
never appeared again on a placard?
quiet the opposite.
Well, on Monday they rang me at 10 30 and said No further actions being taken.
I said, would you?
And they said, would you like that?
Emailed her in write.
I said, write to me.
Well, I've had the letter saying that although it says.
They still reserved a right to investigate further, you know,
but no, quite the opposite.
Last Saturday we had another march.
And I reckon there was a double, the number of people there.
Uh, my son came along, friends I hadn't seen for ages came along.
And then as we were going around, I thought that looks familiar.
And it turned out somebody had made about 50 copies of the placard that I
had and were carrying around and, you know, and I thought, I mean, somebody
had one hanging from his carrier bag.
I thought that was very casual.
And there was one, one person, he had one and he would, he was walking along and
he left the march and he'd walk up to a policeman, stand next to them, and at the
end, um, somebody was collecting them in and some people said, oh, can I keep it?
So, so there's, there's probably a few hanging up in people's houses somewhere.
So, yeah, no, it's had the opposite effect and lot, I've had so many messages.
. In fact, an old friend who I haven't seen.
well, since the eighties.
he sent me a mess.
He found me on Twitter or ex and, and sent me a message and said he,
we were at school together and he said, I'm having a birthday party on
Saturday, next Saturday in London.
Can you come down?
So I am, so it's working as friends reunited.
So there you go.
There you go.
If you want to connect with an old friend, uh, just pick up your copy of
private eye, find the most inflammatory drug you can and print it out.
Yeah,
Thank you so much for speaking to us, John.
that's, that's my pleasure.
so now for the second of the show, I'm still in the private eye office, but
I'm joined now by Helen Lewis, Adam McQueen and Ian Hislop, and this is
gonna be our summer free speech special.
Very exciting.
Something to listen to on the beach.
So, um, yes, Palestine action was prescribed.
Interesting little bonus info for you here, the same day as, the Maniac's
Murder Cult and the Russia Imperial Movement, which are two neo-Nazi groups.
So, Palestine Action is, classified as a terrorist organization, which is.
I think an interesting conflation of a, a protest group and a terror group.
so the nature and scale of a group's activities, I believe have to be taken
into account before you prescribe it.
And most of Palestine actions, actions, uh, had been.
Marches, protests, that kind of thing, rather than breaking into places.
Does
this follow climate groups as well, like extinction rebellion, getting
designations as, uh, as targeted groups?
it certainly follows very heavy sentences being dished out to members
of, uh, climate groups, which have taken direct action that that is true.
But what's also true is that presumably breaking into a military base and.
damaging planes is also covered by existing criminal laws, isn't it?
I, I believe it is.
Yes.
And
this was the argument, um, inside government, um, before they, they
rushed to do this and there were voices saying, Don't do this in a hurry, it
may end up making you look ridiculous.
and before private I had written this joke, we had written a number of pieces
saying, if you're going to do this, um, surely it's covered by criminal damage.
There are ways of prosecuting people if that's what you want to do,
without making them a terrorist group.
Um, and also without making people who support any sort of action about.
Palestine, um, into supporters.
It was obviously going to conflate things that, um, would lead to
misunderstandings and in this case the arrest of, of poor John.
And it's also crazy to leave those decisions at an operational level
at actual demonstrations, isn't it?
Because, I mean, there are, there are many difficult things that,
that coppers on the beat have to do.
Possibly passing private eye jokes and deciding whether or
not they're offensive or funny.
Shouldn't really be one of those should, are they?
I mean, it just strikes me as a really, really badly drafted
all, like a lot of these kind of kneejerk things that come in.
Hey, so I'm thinking also you remember the Dangerous Dogs Act?
Yep.
And that came in and suddenly police were having to make
decisions on what breed a dog was.
You know, when they're not trained up by the Kennel Club, it take the time
to, uh, to make these things specific.
Yes.
I'm still in shock over the fact the police officer who made the arrest
didn't know what private eye was, which is, um, you know, uh, a really
shocking thing in the modern world.
He should be in
prison, is what you're saying.
Well, John,
no.
It's a deep failure.
Mr. Mr. Farley said that he kept saying, look, can I just get my copy
of private eye out of my rux rucksack?
But if you've just arrested someone on a potential T charge, and they
keep saying, can I go and get something from my bag to show you?
Yeah.
Fair point.
They didn't, uh, they didn't go for that for some reason.
So, Ian, is this.
Is this just badly drafted law then having its inevitable consequence on the streets?
Yes.
if you are told, um, to take some sort of, I hate to say the word action, um, uh,
when demonstrations happen and it's really unclear what you are meant to do, then.
Ridiculous things will happen.
and this is both absurd.
And also, I mean, he, he spent six hours in custody.
You know, he was, he was put on the ground and cuffed.
It's not nothing.
Mm. Yeah.
Um, and the freedom speech issue is something that's important
at the moment, and we get it every which way at private eye.
Nearly all the time.
There's someone who wants to ban a joke from the last issue or
a piece from the last issue, or says, why do you never write about
antisemitism when we've written three pieces about it in that issue?
Or why do you,, accept that?
Um, we need a new blasphemy law with Islamophobia, which we didn't do.
And there are concerns there.
you have to, I think, have what John called nuance here, and
that's in the legislation that can't be in the policing of it.
I think it's a particularly difficult one because actually this is a subject
on which Britain's politicians are until now have been actually slightly
outta touch with popular opinion.
So the kind of elite popular opinion about Israel's right to exist and
the, and being supportive and an ally to Benjamin Netanyahu actually
in the polling the British public is a lot more skeptical of Israel.
Its government, its actions in Palestine, the Gaza Strip than, than
our kind of political class has been.
So I think that's a particularly dangerous time.
For, you know, because we hear all the time about all politicians are so
outta touch, this is a way in which people really feel that their, their
voices weren't, weren't being heard.
And now more than 250 mps from across the parties have all signed a letter
put together by Sarai champion and calling, um, for a Palestinian state.
Now to some extent, that's a symbolic question.
At this point in time, I don't
believe we get to make the call.
Right, exactly.
Since Mandate Palestine, it's not really up to us anymore, but nonetheless, it's
a, it's a point about the fact that lots of mps are constantly hearing from their
constituents and not just people with, uh, large numbers of Muslim constituents,
although you'll note those people are really well represented in this.
But across the political spectrum, people are feeling real unhappiness from people.
It's not a kind of lefty liberal hand ringing kind of concern.
This one,
and I think there the realization has dawned that there are protests in Israel.
There are opposition newspapers, um, in Israel written by Israelis,
which have been rather more strident.
than any press in Britain I think there the last few days and, you know, a
couple of really shocking pictures and videos have slightly changed the climate.
Yeah, so, uh, Benjamin Ashu has said there is quotes no starvation in Gaza,
and there is a lot of kind of truth theism around about some of the more, um, high
profile photos saying that one of the, the babies who look really malnourished
actually has a kind of muscular disorder.
Nonetheless, you know, there are just.
So many reports from inside that aid has been having difficulties getting through.
It's, you know that the food cues per your joke are really violent and
dangerous for people to get into.
To the extent that Trump was asked about it this week in Turnberry,
in his appearance with Kier, and he said, this is a classic Trump
answer from what I see on tv.
A lot of people look hungry.
That's, that's how he does his policy making.
And, and you know, but, but you know, and the fact is that Israel has declared
an effective ceasefire daylight hours.
In order to get aid to get through is the closest you'll ever get to a
kind of concession that actually the situation had become intolerable.
you know, one of my friends said they'd just seen the picture of that baby and
gone home and hugged their own baby.
Right.
I just think lots of people, particularly parents, see photos like that and it
hits them really, really viscerally.
I think you're right as well about the way that it's crossing the usual lines.
It isn't just the usual suspects.
Um, I was really interesting that one of the first papers to go big on
those photos last week in the sort of live aid type presentation of.
We need to do something about, this was the Daily Express, which did a, a full
page, really, really shocking picture of one, one of those emaciated children.
So, you know, it, it isn't just, as you say, you know, a le lefty rabble
browsers that are onto this one.
It is really crossing a lot of political lines.
Well, like Alan Kirby, the um, Syrian little boy who dry coming
off a boat, you know, and that was across the media, including right
wing papers who otherwise are very concerned about illegal boat crossings.
I think there is just a thing that people really don't like to see
pictures of children suffering and, you know, you would have to be.
Even more outta touch than Donald Trump not to recognize that, which
is unfortunately, it turns out where Benjamin Netanyahu is right now.
Right.
And also the, the Netanyahu line that, Israel has the right to defend itself,
does not extend in most people's imaginations to starving children.
And that becomes an issue.
And when he says, um, there's nothing I can do about this, then.
Decides, yes, there is something I can do about this.
'cause internationally this is getting a bit, hot even for him.
Then somehow there are, ways, of defending the convoys that come in.
There are ways to pause the fighting, suddenly.
This, problem is not insoluble.
Um, and that I think is, is a fairly major giveaway.
Mm-hmm.
Questions about free speech always end up coming down to questions about power.
Right.
Who are you allowed to criticize?
Who are you, which our groups necessarily treated the same.
And so, you know, this is something that I think you'd find traditionally left wing
Palestine protesters to say, we are not being treated the same at the same time.
You'll get.
There's big, big moves on the right to say things like, the people who supported
the riots last year, you know, have have received unduly harsh sentences.
You know that they will say that you can't criticize immigration,
you can't criticize small boats.
These are clamped down on, I think all of these arguments
end up to some extent becoming.
What Abouty, which goes back to your point, Ian, which is the idea that you
just need to have some sort of broader principles and the police need to be seen
to applying them equally, not based on who is a favored or disfavored group to the
police at that particular point in time.
I think you're absolutely right.
I mean, the, the, the kind of key one on, on, on that side is the case of
Lucy Connolly, who, uh, was the woman who tweeted an incredibly offensive,
um, um, and tweet at the time of those riots last summer, uh, well
she called for an asylum hostel to be set on fire, didn't she?
Yeah.
She said to set on fire, I don't care, burn the bastar for all I care.
She did think better of it, but she had this slight misfortune that by
that point it had been, um, reposted 940 times and viewed 310,000 times,
which is one of those cases of.
Where the line is between social media and just something you might say to a friend
in a kind of hotheaded moment, isn't it?
Because that, that, that went slightly beyond it.
But she was, and this has become a sort of core celebrity in certain circles.
She pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred, but she was given an, in what
does seem to me like an incredibly harsh sentence, 31 months, which is
way beyond some of the people who are actually physically involved in some
of the violence out those protests.
Um, but there's an odd line with that because it's.
Become such a cause celebrity on, on the right.
Now that it's sort of the unfairness of the sentence has been kind of looked over
into this, this more sort of, it should be an absolute free for all and anyone
should be allowed to say anything online.
Yes.
The, I mean, the argument has moved from, is 31 months excessive to, well,
she should have the right to say that.
The traditional line is that, um, uh, we all believe in freedom of
speech, but that doesn't extend to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
But nowadays, what people are shouting is, let's set fire to the theater.
Which is slightly different.
And I would say the Connolly case does prove that.
can I ask, I know this varies a lot internationally, and I read one argument
claiming that had Lucy Connolly written that tweet in America, given that it did
not call for a specific act of violence, for example, she would most likely not
have been arrested, charged, imprisoned.
So is this, I mean, is there a difference between saying, I would
like this particular person to be attacked and saying, oh, Burned
the lot down for all I care.
Well, again, I think this comes back to that initial point that we made about
these guidelines need to be really, really carefully drafted because, I
mean, I've read stuff by, by very eminent legal commentators saying Actually,
you know, according to the sentencing guidelines, this was completely,
it went to the court of appeal.
Who, who said that it wasn't manifestly unjustly, it stands as a sentence.
But in that case, maybe we do need to have a look at the sentencing
guidelines on that thing.
'cause that does seem a crazy situation where inciting violence
gets, gets a harsher sentence than committing violence itself.
Yeah.
And the Scott in Scotland, they wanted to go even further than that.
They wanted an offensive stirring up hatred that you could be, uh,
guilty or even in, in your own home.
Even in kind of Adam's example of saying it to your, your own family, right.
Which didn't ever, ever go through.
But like there are, that is definitely a force in political life
at the moment, is that people do want more restrictions on speech.
And look, I can see why, you know, I think lots of people feel very.
Worried about violence and harm.
You know, I know lots of Jewish people feel that there's been
a real uptick in antisemitism.
And if you go on some of those Palestine marches, I, I went on one now, 18
months ago, and the vast majority of people there were completely peaceful
and making a legitimate al statement.
But there were also really grim vile signs that were slipped in amongst them.
And this again, I think comes back to the how much can the
police be expected to do that?
They always have to make a call when there are things that obviously
cross the line about is it worth.
The ruck to go in and sort that out?
Or are we actually gonna, at that point, does it tip into violence?
Right.
They are making.
Fine policing distinctions.
and they were criticized on a number of those marches for not arresting people
who had paraglider symbols on their back on the grounds that, um, well,
we're not quite sure what that means.
And then those people were subsequently arrested after public pressure and
then were not given, a custodial sentence, if you remember, on the
grounds that emotions were running high.
we, we should say that Paragliders being the ones that we used by Hamas
in, in the October attacks on Israel.
Yeah.
So it cuts both ways.
This why don't the police act?
usually because they're not quite sure or because as you said earlier,
they're worried about stirring up.
Real trouble, um, in which, uh, arresting people, turns into something else.
I mean, all these points are appreciated, but, uh, the essential principle
is, um, if people are committing an offense, they should be arrested.
If they're not, they shouldn't.
that's
inherent to the problem, isn't it?
I mean, having covered the feminism wars for more than a decade, the
problem is when you give police the ability to make these distinctions,
they tend to err on the side of who is quite easy to arrest and right in front
of me now, rather than like dealing with mobile phone thefts or whatever.
So there have been some.
Kind of really, you know, like people, uh, uh, uh, you know, someone
said at some point the suffragette ribbons were a threatening sign.
You know, that there, there is just this wildly over expansion
of what constitutes threat.
you know, there are people within labor who'd like to bring back
blasphemy laws, for example, right?
As a kind of way of saying religious offenses also kind of a harm.
And at the same time, you've got this much greater idea that speech can cause harm.
There's just been two, this is tangentially related.
Two Jewish comedians have just been, had their bookings canceled
at the, uh, Edburg Fringe.
And one of the, uh, rationales given was the venue saying, our staff
are worried about being unsafe.
Now this used to happen to feminist meetups all the time during the 2010s, and
the problem was, it was essentially saying we're gonna have protestors and we can.
Hack that.
, Back in 2020, I was supposed to be doing an event at the South Bank Women
of the World Festival for Difficult Women, and on my panel were Amad Weer.
Played netball for England.
Aisha has Eureka, who's now in the Lords, and Julie Bindle, the feminist
campaign on lots of things including grooming, gangs, and also gender.
And I got a phone call from the venue two nights before saying the staff union
has said that because Julie Bindle is going to be there, they don't feel safe.
And I thought, she gonna like, heck you about.
She doesn't like Pan Tony.
That's about the worst thing that's gonna happen.
But it was, and, and they tried to, you know, essentially get
me to cancel her on her behalf.
And I said, well, look, if she walks, I walk and I phone the other two panelists
and they said the same and it went ahead.
And guess what?
We didn't even talk about trans stuff, which was obviously what was behind it,
because the book isn't about that, the.
But it was this sense that you could suddenly just get anything canceled
just by saying it's a safety issue.
It's a safety issue.
And I think there has to be a certain level of robustness that people can be
incredibly offensive up to the point of invoking really unpleasant stereotypes.
Nonetheless, it is not the same as violence and I, and
I think that distinction is, is increasingly getting lost
and I, I think just saying, the staff are either feeling unsafe or being unsafe.
It would mean very little gets published.
I mean, certainly the Satanic verses, um, but all the controversy after that.
One of the things that, that, brought up was if people are sufficiently
violent in their reaction to what they perceive to be blasphemy,
uh, then nothing gets published.
and again, I don't think that is, uh, a position that the law should be taking.
I mean, I remember feeling not entirely comfortable in this very office in 2015,
the week after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, when every single news, uh, news, um,
broadcast seemed to be describing it as the equivalent of private eye in the uk.
Oh, we're really not actually, but you know, you turn up because
you believe in something and you.
You do the work, and I probably would feel better if I was different about
it, if I was, you know, behind the bar on minimum wage in Edinburgh venue.
But again,
but sure.
When I was reading it, I was thinking about your Tommy Wild Blood novels and
the fact that so many LGBT campaigners through the seventies and eighties,
they went to work in drag shows and in standups when they knew there'd
be a, might be well be a police raid.
Right.
And they'd all be carted off.
Mm-hmm.
Like that was real bravery.
If you believe in.
A certain level of free speech.
You know, you, there are risks that you take them, and I think if you work in a
venue that is a comedy venue or a standup venue or a free speech venue, that's
sort of part of the, the vibe, isn't it?
There there are other other bars you could work in that are completely apolitical.
Well, two of those acts are apolitical, aren't they?
Well, so the one of the comedian, one of the comedians that had,
had, they essentially done what I consider to be slightly tedious.
What about online saying, oh, you're protesting about Palestine,
but what about the hostages?
Now I just find that's a sort of route one thing when you just want
to kind of, you know, just make everybody just derail what everyone's
currently talking about, mate, and talk about what you want to talk about.
But it's absolutely legitimate level of free speech.
Disagree with his emphasis in that particular conflict.
It was a Jewish cabaret involving Jewish and non-Jewish artists.
And then a show called Ultimate Jewish Mother, which I'm just
gonna guess was probably about like having a Jewish mother.
I mean, maybe, maybe it was a trenchant commentary on the Middle East.
But that's the problem is that there's just an incredible
heckler veto on, on speech.
And then I think the same thing happens with these groups, which is saying
even voicing support for someone is the same as doing it, you know?
, That the speech itself is seen as a kind of harm.
So this is what I mean about favored and disfavored groups.
I, I came into this debate in the 2010s from the kind of feminist perspective of
the internet was causing a huge uptick in abuse of women and minorities thinking
something should be done about that.
And actually almost every time I've seen tightening up of speech laws, it
has ended up affecting whoever has got the currently unfashionable opinions.
And I'm just not sure you can get past that.
Something that really struck me in that reading the headlines
over the last few days.
Sunday telegraph's reaction to the news that police are gonna be monitoring
social media in an attempt to sort of stave off any anymore protests
and riots outside of asylum hotels.
Like last year, this was absolutely presented as kind of like,
this is Big Brother, this is Allwell, and this is the stary.
They are spying on it.
And then the other stories I've been reading recently been particularly about
the failures of the Prevent program and that they didn't intervene earlier
with David Amos and they didn't pick up on all of these signs of extremism
in, in, in either his killer or the, uh, the Southport killer either.
You can't have it both ways.
I mean, if, if Chatter is out there on.
Open source information, which is effectively what social media is.
You cannot object to the police taking interest or anyone else taking interest.
If you're putting that stuff out there, it's gonna get reacted to,
including by law enforcement agencies.
, There's a piece,
in the Telegraph this week, which is really outraged about, uh.
A pro-Palestinian kind of perma protest in nine Elms.
It's near the American Embassy and it consists of, uh, some tents
and it consists of a, a kind of open kitchen and it's on a bit
of the foot bath near the river.
I've walked past it a few times.
Yeah, I've seen that
when I'm in the embassy.
Yeah.
It's, um, it's not, I would say severely in anyone's way.
No, I don't, it's not disruptive or threatening.
Right.
I don't live directly next to it, but I, I. Yeah, I don't believe there
have been sort of direct threats.
It's not as annoying as
Steve Bray, his bloody accordion.
Well, outside parliament.
Yeah.
But um.
That is, uh, so the subject of a piece in the Telegraph with a lot of really
outraged people saying, well, the police should shut this down immediately.
Mm-hmm.
their other state of position has been much more on the other side of the coin.
So it slightly goes back to Helen's point about favored groups or,
or just who you want to have the microphone and anyone turn and.
Free speech tends to be, I believe in the freedom for you to
speak things that I agree with.
Um, and Elon Musk and the whole of Twitter is a perfectly good example of this.
What he wanted to see on Twitter were, were people who agreed with him.
And that's what you get now.
And, and people who are even to the right of him and now
free to say whatever they like.
If you're going to make a case of freedom of speech, it, it does
have to include opinions that you don't like and don't agree with.
I mean, it's, it's, it's all well, really,
Ian, do you have a kind of benchmark of what free speed absolutism is,
or do you think there are really examples in which you can go too far
in supporting the right but beyond incitement to actual physical violence?
I think my own freedom to say and print whatever I feel like has always been.
Um, primary,
but I do expect other people to go beyond that.
I think that probably is a rule that everyone could agree on that what they
want to say count as freedom of speech.
Anyone else is, is hate speech.
Your other rule, which is essentially.
Never tweet, have you considered not posting on social media?
And has also I think, been vindicated by history.
Right.
Which is, when you were saying that, Adam, I was thinking if you don't
want the police to read your lads, let's all meet down the, you know,
pick and whistle and have a riot.
Maybe don't put it on Facebook.
Maybe just, well, I think the think is that
still, where are we at 20 years into social media now?
People haven't worked out what it's for.
People haven't worked out, whether it is chatting to your mates down
the pub or whether it is as it legally is actually publishing stuff,
which can be seen by other people.
Yeah.
, If you were organizing something in the old days through setting
up a a, a newsletter or something and sending out to people and
saying, let's have a ruck down at.
Hmm, it's the mill wall ground out outta thin air.
Other football clubs are available.
Then, you know, you would expect the police to take an interest in that.
If you're doing that on Facebook, or just on Twitter off your own
bat, then you know it's out there.
It's public.
People are going to take an interest in that.
People are gonna react to that, whether they agree with you or very much ly
disagree with you or think it's illegal.
Yeah, I mean there is no, that gets into a wider question about, which
is a free speech question about how much should the social networks be
responsible for the, the riot encouraging slop that they, that they allow and
they have just taken a view that it's absolutely nothing to do with them.
They're just platforms in a way which you as editor, this magazine
would simply wouldn't be able to do.
Just hold your heads up and go.
Some contributor put something in at last minute.
I'm, I can't be held responsible.
Well, that's pretty much
how they did it.
The spectator, isn't it?
We're tacky for many, many years.
Whenever he wrote a racist column, they just go, well,
you know, I'm only the editor.
I can't tell him what to write.
I can't tell him not to write in praise.
It's been your approach, has it?
Uh,
no.
And I do, do agree with Helen, the idea that you just put on one of
your platforms, something that is not only manifestly untrue, but is likely
to, stoke up a riot straight away.
shortly after you've just had some real riots.
I mean, it seems to be reasonable to expect people to take some care with that.
What we really need to talk about though is the fact that
Adam is ringing his shame bell.
Ah, yes.
In audibly it's a very high pitch shame bell, so young, only younger
listeners will able to hear it.
It's a whistle.
It's what?
It's, we come to the bit of the podcast just like on page
two of a newspaper, corrections
and clarification.
Exactly.
Um, I wish to apologize, uh, in a previous episode of page nine
four, the Private Eye podcast.
Specifically our questions and answers to listeners.
One, I think it was last February, wasn't it?
We talked about amongst other things, um, super injunctions
and I said very, very clearly.
As far as I know, they are a thing of the past and I'm pretty certain about this.
Listeners, I was wrong, as you will know by now, there was one very, very
spectacular and longstanding super injunction, uh, which was awarded
to the MOD, the Ministry of Defense back in, uh, August August, 2023.
It was massive headline news over the last few weeks to summarize it.
Basically it was about the leak of a list of names, uh, of, uh, Afghan
people who were being considered for resettlement after the disastrous
withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The MOD didn't actually realize the list had been put out there by
accident, uh, for another 18 months.
So it was August, 2023 when they went for, uh, not a super injunction.
Simply an injunction that would, uh, cover the kind of security of these people
while they worked out what to do about it.
Because obviously these people were in danger of reprisals, by the Taliban.
Uh, it then went on for months and months and years and years after that,
and has finally only been dropped after a review brought in by the incoming,
labor government, uh, which said it was not necessary and not needed anymore.
Uh, in that meantime, it is covered.
This is the extraordinary bit, um, the relocation of 20.
Thousand or more people, which we weren't told about, uh, which obviously
migration into this country being quite a hot political topic for the last few
years, it does seem rather relevant.
Uh, and the, um, as, as the judge noted in the final judgment, there's
billions of pounds of taxpayers cash being spent on this as well with no
oversight from either the public or more to the point from parliament.
So, uh, yeah, it was quite a biggie really,
This was an MOD list.
This was a,
it was within the MOD, it was about the people who needed, um, resettling from
Afghanistan because of the work they had done with British troops out there.
So it's people like translators and facilitators and drivers and
all, all, all that kind of thing.
Was there
not a suggestion too that some of them had put, as their references, names
of serving Army offers potentially serving intelligence officers as well?
There were, it turned out in a slightly separately election, the names of certain
MI six officers and Special Forces soldiers also revealed in the league.
and it was a super injunction.
Used for what they were traditionally used for, which was to cover
up, what had happened and make sure no one took any blame.
Well, it was a really odd one because initially you could see the argument
for keeping this stuff secret.
And in fact, the media organizations that initially approached the MOD, uh, which
was actually Louis Goodall at the News Agents podcast, and, independent revolved
at quite an early stage as well, 'cause they'd heard, heard about this leak.
they said, look, we understand that there are security information.
Journalists generally, this may surprise listeners, but we, we
don't want to get people killed.
It's really not what we came into the game for, for the most part.
and they were willing to, to hold back on that stuff.
And it was in fact the judge, uh, a man called Mr. Justice Robin Knowles, uh, who
interestingly is not from the media list.
He's from the financial list.
This is a case of when we, you remember this, Ian, from going back
to the days when super injunctions and injunctions were being cast all
over the place, it tended to be.
The judge who was on duty and was called there in his pajamas and
didn't really know what area he was talking about, and would just say,
well, why don't you have one of these?
Then that's exactly what happened.
In this case.
No one was going for a super injunction.
It was Mr. Justice Knowles who came up with and said, well, why don't you have
one of these so arguments to be made?
As I say, the journalists were quite happy to keep the stuff secret,
and there are precedents for this.
Do you remember 2008 Prince Harry when he was deployed to Afghanistan?
There was no kind of formal system to keep that a secret while he was over there.
It was sort of gentleman's agreement, gentleman, gentle women's agreement,
I guess, across the press that they would keep that a secret.
And it was only blown by, the Drudge Report, which is a pretty down
market kind of American website that, that, that, that, that blew
the whole thing open in that case.
So it could have worked that way.
We're in a slightly more feral world now, as we've been saying with social media,
but actually the list was leaked partially on Facebook by someone in Afghanistan.
And actually because of the feral world of social media, as far as I can see,
there was no way of imposing the super injunction of him and the only actual
thing that happened as a result of that.
Uh, was that he got his own resettlement expedited as a result.
That's a little bit like blackmail, which is one of the other things that used to
get thrown round in the cases of super.
That's
outrageous.
I'm a, I'm, I'm voting reform.
but as the joke pages had it, normally these super injunctions were to, cover
incidents where celebrities were, were getting screwed as opposed to the
entire country for billions of pounds.
It does seem slightly more.
Important than what Harold Donald from Take that was doing
with his winky, doesn't it?
Good Lord.
Not only do I know what you are referring to,
but I wish I didn't.
Uh,
In fact, it was actually discharged the super injunction
in July, 2024, and then promptly reinstated by the Court of appeal.
Everyone on the media side of it and there were a lot of media organizations involved
by that point in the legal action thought.
That's it, we're there.
Uh, and then the MOD appealed it, it went back to the court of Appeal
and there's been subject to various more hearings until this point
But it also meant that a number of commentators found their heads exploding
'cause um, they had to move from.
Why can't we stand by our Afghan allies into what are we doing
having another 24,000 people flying in here, um, without any checks?
So, um, it, it, it had, um, it had follow up effects as well, right?
And it covered the period of course in the run up to the general election
as well when, you know, unchecked migration was an enormous issue.
So, uh, you know, it was a hell of a political hot potato
that was being covered up.
I find it quite cheering.
I mean, we actually managed to organize all of that repatriation for people
without anyone finding out I was a level of British state capacity.
I didn't know we possessed.
Right?
Yeah.
If we could apply that same zeal to like building some houses or
something, how wonderful that would be
Okay.
But in many ways, what I'm hearing, a win for Britain,
, Right.
That's it for this episode of page 94.
We'll be back again in a fortnight with another one.
My thanks to Ian, Helen, Adam, and of course to John Farley.
Thank you to you for listening.
If you would like more examples of Untrammeled free speech, which nonetheless
maintains the boundaries of usually taste and decency while still being very funny.
Then why not buy a copy of Private Eye?
Go to private hyphen.co.uk.
You can get a year's subscription to Private Eye for the cost of,
I would say about six coffees.
Um, so that's, that's worth doing
plus unlimited placards to print out and take to your next protest.
I'm taking a, a thri poem along to my next one, whether it's relevant or not,
you'll be arrested for the Scansion.
Um, so thank you very much again, uh, to all of you for listening.
And to Ollie Peart of Rethink Audio for producing.
Bye for now.