RUTHFULLY YOURS

Sitting here in London, I wonder what Ross Parker and Hughie Charles would think if they could join me for a pint. I suspect that the authors of the famous 1939 song “There’ll Always Be An England” would be puzzled, not to say alarmed, over some recent developments in this green and pleasant land.

“There’ll always be an England,” these songsters wrote, “and England shall be free/if England means as much to you/as England means to me.”

But the question is, does it? Does England mean as much to the ruling establishment as it once did? The words “free” and “freedom” are repeated several times in “There’ll Always Be An England.” That’s the theme, the hope, the conviction: that Britain would triumph because of its native love of freedom.

How do things look now? Let me introduce you to two recent developments that would have astonished Messrs. Parker and Charles—police tracking of “non-crime hate incidents” and a so-called “banter ban” that is on the threshold of becoming the law of the land.

The practice of recording “non-crime hate incidents” by the police became law in June 2023. Ponder this:

Where there is no criminal offence, but the person reporting perceives that the incident was motivated wholly or partially by hostility, the incident will be recorded as a non-crime hate incident. Police officers may also identify a non-crime hate incident, even where no victim or witness has done so.

I added the italics to underscore the surreal, Orwellian nature of the practice. If you say something mean about somebody, prepare to have your remarks—or even just your “whole or partial” hostility recorded and put into an official database that might then be scrutinized by prospective employers.

Who or what oversees this database? The College of Policing, a private company that provides guidance for the police forces of England and Wales. Recording such incidents is not required by Parliament. Rather, it is part of the increasingly vast, quasi-governmental surveillance apparatus that has grown up in formerly free countries, such as the UK.

The College of Policing defines “hostility” as the expression of “ill-will,” “ill-feeling,” and “dislike.” This means, a paper for the Free Speech Union notes, “that certain thoughts are now being policed.”

An NCHI can show up if prospective employers carry out enhanced Disclosure and Barring (DBS) checks. These are common for all sorts of professions—they could mean teachers, doctors, nurses, and many others are kept out of work simply for having made a joke on Twitter. Journalists could easily be recorded without their knowledge.

NCHIs can be recorded against someone’s name whenever an accusation of hate is made, without any further investigation or notification.

This means people are being put on a list, often without their knowledge, when the police know that no crime has taken place.

NCHIs are recorded after anonymous accusations, encouraging a culture of denunciation, like in the Soviet Union. Supposed victims need not justify their opinion, and police officers are told not to challenge accusers on the grounds that it is immaterial whether a “victim’s” feelings are reasonable.

The police have claimed that NCHIs are needed to prevent “escalation,” but can provide no evidence that they do this.

Just in case the recording of people saying mean or “hostile” things is not enough to stifle free speech, Britain is about to pass a Labour-sponsored law banning hurtful or possibly hurtful “banter” in pubs and other public places. “Under Labour’s new law,” an article in The Express reports,

…employees will be able to take offence on behalf of one of their colleagues. Given that we live in an age in which some are hyper-sensitive, the implications for the hospitality sector of turbo-charging the Equality Act in this way are mind-boggling. What “reasonable steps” will a publican be expected to take to protect his or her staff from overhearing conversations between customers that might upset them?

Will it be sufficient to include a notice on the wall warning customers to keep their opinions to themselves, on issues such as gender neutral toilets, mass immigration and the Israel-Gaza conflict? Or will publicans need to go further and employ “banter bouncers” to eavesdrop on customers and eject anyone for saying something “inappropriate” or “problematic”, such as telling a saucy joke?

Good questions. Already, some 37 pubs a week are closing in Britain. Can there be any doubt that the criminalization of banter will accelerate the trend? Or that those that remain will be transformed into “sanitized ‘safe spaces’ in which no one dares express a controversial opinion or tell a joke.” And of course, it is not only pubs that will be targeted. There is plenty of banter elsewhere in British society. For example,

In football grounds, it’s not unusual for fans to shout “Are you blind?” at the linesman for failing to rule a goal offside or spot a handball. Once this new law is on the books, a partially sighted steward who overhears this could sue the club for not taking “all reasonable steps” to protect him from being “harassed,” i.e., overhearing that expostulation. Indeed, any of his colleagues could sue the club on his behalf. That, in turn, means football clubs will have to clamp down on any expostulations or chants that might cause offence. … Expecting employers to police the speech of customers in this way will have a hugely chilling effect on free speech. The fearful atmosphere that prevails in so many workplaces since the passing of the Equality Act, with people looking over their shoulders before whispering what they really think about a controversial issue, will be extended to the venues people go to in their leisure time.

Will there always be an England? Not if Keir Starmer’s Labour government has its way.