Policing what you post – even in private

The case of the Grenfell effigy raises some worrying questions.

Andrew Tettenborn


In November last year, at a bonfire party in a south London back garden, some people set up a cardboard model of a block of flats, labelled it Grenfell Tower, placed dark-faced cardboard figures in its windows, and set it on fire. The effigy was filmed on a mobile phone. The video was distributed to members of a few WhatsApp groups. Someone in one of the groups passed it on, and it went viral.

The Crown Prosecution Service, ever determined to keep as close a control as possible over what is said online, threw the book at the host of the party, Paul Bussetti. He was charged with transmitting grossly offensive material over a communications system.

But as it happened, the trial was a farcical anti-climax. It turned out that a bungling CPS had failed to prepare the case properly, or to pass on information that the viral video might have been taken by someone else entirely. The charge was dismissed.

It’s good news that we were spared the spectacle of someone being sent down for something they got up to in their own back garden, regardless of how offensive it was. It could have so easily gone the other way: the magistrate deciding the case was Emma Arbuthnot, who imprisoned the demonstrator who egged Jeremy Corbyn.

Nevertheless, this whole affair remains worrying for anyone interested in preserving the private sphere. The video was vile, and produced by deeply unpleasant people. But it was still a private act. And it would have been far better to ignore it rather than give it so much publicity. Plus it reflects the broader trend for policing online speech.

Bussetti was charged under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. This criminalises those who send, or cause to be sent, by means of an electronic communications network material that is ‘grossly offensive’. It dates back, as Lord Bingham notes, to the Post Office (Amendment) Act 1935, which made it an offence to send any message by telephone which is ‘grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’.

Section 127 extended this to the entire online world. And it has since become a catch-all crime for almost anything on the internet that the authorities disapprove of and choose to prosecute. After all, what is and isn’t grossly offensive is any magistrate’s guess.

What’s more, despite the government’s commitment to treating online and offline crime equally, Section 127 effectively restricts online speech to such a degree that there is no equivalent restriction that exists offline. It must go.

But there is more to the Bussetti case than that. Previous prosecutions, including that of Count Dankula over the ‘Nazi pug’ video, have in general been brought in respect of online material broadcast publicly for anyone to see – if they so choose. What Bussetti did, by contrast, was an entirely private matter. Before someone passed it on, the video of the burning effigy was sent to two closed WhatsApp groups, consisting of no more than 20 people in total.

In other words, we’ve now reached a situation in which you are liable to have your collar felt for things you post to a closed group of friends, and which somehow becomes public. That is a prospect that ought to frighten anyone.

Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of commercial law and a former Cambridge admissions officer.

Picture by: YouTube.

Rod Liddle and Brendan O’Neill in conversation at Podcast Live!

Rod Liddle and Brendan O'Neill
– live in London

Podcast Live

Podcast Live, Friends House, London, NW1 2BJ – 5 October 2019, 2.30pm-3.30pm

To get tickets, click the button below, then scroll down to The Brendan O'Neill Show logo on the Podcast Live page.

spiked needs your support

Defending liberty isn’t easy – especially in times of crisis, when freedom is so often traded away in search of security. But amid the coronavirus pandemic we at spiked have continued to speak up for our principles, calling for more scrutiny of the authoritarian measures being wielded over us and more debate on the best way forward. To continue to do that, we need your help. spiked is free and it always will be, because we want as many people to read us as possible. But to keep spiked free we rely on the generosity of our readers, particularly those who can give regularly. Even £5 per month can make a huge difference to us. We know it’s hard out there for many of you, now more than ever. But if you support what we do here and you can afford to contribute, to make sure we can continue to produce our free and fearless journalism for anyone who wants to read it, please do consider making a donation today.

Thank you! And stay safe.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Amelia Cantor

30th August 2019 at 11:49 am

What do you mean “even in private”? It’s the so-called private realm that should be the most strictly policed of all, because that’s where the mask comes off white racists, sexists, homophobes who might otherwise escape the consequences of their behaviour.

Hate should have no place to hide. And won’t have a place to hide, when the coming BAME / progressive majority locks in on both sides of the Atlantic.

John Reic

30th August 2019 at 2:45 pm

And black and Asian racist they say the words things in private
You’re also confusing the fact that it’s legal to be racist
Oriole can’t be stopped from having racist views in private

By the way if someone , say in Tottenham Nrw that a racist murder took place and no one convicted and kept quiet in evidence that could bring a conviction, like the resident in the abroad water farm, then their racism in quiet would have been illegal

Mike Arthur

30th August 2019 at 7:45 pm

You are Titania McGrath, and I claim my £5.

Hana Jinks

31st August 2019 at 1:34 am

Amelia’s right again. She’s speaking about the kinds of technologies that are being put in place to monitor everything about us.

Tim Really

1st September 2019 at 11:39 am

I am trying to decide if your comment is an oxymoron or not; it is certainly close. Do you think that people with such opinions are likely to change them because there is a law that says they must?

In my opinion if you want to call out people that have such beliefs then you need to know who they are in the first place, and in order to do that you must allow them to express them. I also think it helps, if you are in one of those “minorities”, and I am, to know who your enemies are.

Finally I would ask you to consider the adverse effects of trying to enforce your opinion on others, Just look at how toxic Megan Markle has become since trying to ram her opinions down our throats; she has actually managed to encourage the very opinions that she protests.

Free speech; even hate speech is vital, for without people sharing their opinions, how can they ever be argued, countered and openly discussed.

James Knight

29th August 2019 at 5:30 pm

When did we vote to become a police state? I seemed to have missed it.

People should not be made criminals for posting grossly offensive things whether in public or private.

John Reic

30th August 2019 at 2:46 pm

The he outrage over Stephen Lawrence killing there nit being enough evidence in beyond reasonable doubt so we changed it to guessing the feeling in the accusers mind and deciding they were guilty based on a feeling

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.