Where is the strict Policing of Online and Private Speech leading?

Elizabeth Kinney, 34, a mother of four and a care assistant, was in the bathroom (!) when 11 (!!) police officers burst into her home without warning.

She was arrested naked and in a state of shock, while she cried and said she felt “terrified and humiliated”.

The charge was based on the Malicious Communications Act, which criminalises messages deemed “grossly offensive” or “intolerant”. The messages had been sent to an acquaintance of the woman, after she had been attacked by a man. In the messages, she described her injuries and used the term “faggot” for the attacker.

The incident is typical of the strict policing of online and private speech in Britain. The presence of 11 police officers for such a case is scandalous, ridiculous and a clear sign of an authoritarian government that tries to humiliate, scare and silence citizens.

Such cases in Britain, do not think are rare. In August 2025, Jon Richelieu-Booth was arrested, just returned to Britain from the USA, because while he was in the USA, he posted photos of himself with a shotgun! Although the photos were legal there, the police accused him of “intention to cause fear” through posts!!!

Also, Norbert Gyurcsik from Hereford, in November 2025, was arrested by the counter-terrorism service and sentenced for: distributing and possessing recordings of “far-right music” to 40 months in prison!

In the UK, around 12,000 arrests are made each year for posts or messages on social media that are deemed “offensive” or “threatening” – that’s around 30 arrests a day!

In 2023, 12,183 arrests were recorded by 37 police forces across the country. This works out to around 33 arrests a day. This is a 58% increase on 2019, when 7,734 arrests were recorded. Some police forces have very high rates. For example, Cumbria Constabulary had 42.5 arrests per 100,000 residents in 2024!

Arrests for offensive or threatening posts on social media can lead to cautions, fines, prison sentences of up to 2 years and a “hate incident” or “hate crime” entry on the criminal record.

Similar incidents occur throughout almost the entire “democratic Western world” but the ferocity with which it is implemented by Britain is unique.

When, for one [even] offensive word in a private conversation, 11 armed police officers invade the home of a mother of four and violently arrest her while she is taking a bath, then we are sorry, but things have turned dramatically around. No, this is not law enforcement! No, this is not a free society! No, this is not an action to protect the public but to level it!

Someday, sooner or later, European citizens must wake up from the deep and paralyzing narcotic lethargy into which they have allowed themselves to sink, either out of indifference or the illusion of a fictitious prosperity.

It is necessary to stand up, to demand with determination but also to impose with uncompromising will the return of honesty, justice and decency as fundamental values ​​of political and social life. The governments that today function as puppets, given and subordinated to impersonal globalizing interests, cannot continue to manage the fate of the peoples without accountability.

With the responsibility of their own societies, the peoples have handed over Mother Europe without a fight into foreign hands, into mechanisms that do not serve the common good but the power of the powerful. The time is approaching when Europe will need to be won back, not with empty words but with decisive actions, with the active participation of citizens who will refuse to remain spectators and will themselves become the defenders of its dignity and freedom.

About the author

The Liberal Globe is an independent online magazine that provides carefully selected varieties of stories. Our authoritative insight opinions, analyses, researches are reflected in the sections which are both thematic and geographical. We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our political agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We continue to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, even if that means we must oppose the will and the majority view, even if these positions that we express may be unpleasant and unbearable for the majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *