No action taken against election candidate arrested on suspicion of "religious or racial harassment"

Daily Echo: Police officers speak to election candidate Paul Weston Police officers speak to election candidate Paul Weston

NO further action will be taken against an election candidate arrested in Winchester on suspicion of racial or religious harassment.

Paul Weston, leader of eurosceptic party Liberty GB, was arrested on the steps of the Guildhall on April 26, when reading a Winston Churchill quote on Islam.

The European Parliament candidate was reading sections of the former Prime Minister's book, The River War, through a megaphone that included the opinion that the religion is “retrograde” and “militant”.

Police officers were called to the scene after a member of the public complained, and Mr Weston was then arrested.

The incident sparked a major debate on free speech across the country, with fellow South East candidate Daniel Hannan - who was subsequently re-elected as a Conservative MEP - criticising Hampshire police for their “disproportionate” actions.

But now police have informed Mr Weston, whose party came fourteenth out of 15 parties at the elections, that he will not face any further action.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:49pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Highfielder says...

Common sense has prevailed, although Paul Weston should never have been arrested in the first place. He could not be charged with racial harassment for the simple reason that Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and it is our inherent right to criticise religions if we want to, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN and the EU.
Paul Weston was quoting Winston Churchill -- so if he had been charged he would in effect have been charged with just that -- quoting Churchill !
Common sense has prevailed, although Paul Weston should never have been arrested in the first place. He could not be charged with racial harassment for the simple reason that Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and it is our inherent right to criticise religions if we want to, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN and the EU. Paul Weston was quoting Winston Churchill -- so if he had been charged he would in effect have been charged with just that -- quoting Churchill ! Highfielder
  • Score: 8

3:59am Thu 12 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Highfielder wrote:
Common sense has prevailed, although Paul Weston should never have been arrested in the first place. He could not be charged with racial harassment for the simple reason that Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and it is our inherent right to criticise religions if we want to, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN and the EU.
Paul Weston was quoting Winston Churchill -- so if he had been charged he would in effect have been charged with just that -- quoting Churchill !
Quite right and why was he arrested? A simple invitation to attend the police station would have been quite sufficient. Even better would have been to tell the complainant that if s/he feels "harassed" by hearing a Prime Minister's speech the best remedy is to go home and lie down in a darkened room till the alleged feeling passes
[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote: Common sense has prevailed, although Paul Weston should never have been arrested in the first place. He could not be charged with racial harassment for the simple reason that Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and it is our inherent right to criticise religions if we want to, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN and the EU. Paul Weston was quoting Winston Churchill -- so if he had been charged he would in effect have been charged with just that -- quoting Churchill ![/p][/quote]Quite right and why was he arrested? A simple invitation to attend the police station would have been quite sufficient. Even better would have been to tell the complainant that if s/he feels "harassed" by hearing a Prime Minister's speech the best remedy is to go home and lie down in a darkened room till the alleged feeling passes Dai Rear
  • Score: 7

4:46am Thu 12 Jun 14

skeptik says...

Many of our problems stem from the lack of reasoned debate - suggesting someone is an idiot because of who they vote for - or the usual round of Commie, Marxist, Tory Toff or right wing...............t
his just displays a lack of argument. Governments proclaim and woe betide anyone pointing out the pitfalls - time and time again we see decisions made without 'second guessing' - a process which asks - what will occur there if I do this here. We are seeing it now blundering in with cuts and changes that have cost more or failed. An idea in the mind of an inexperienced politician forced onto the public without being tested by reasoned debate.
Many of our problems stem from the lack of reasoned debate - suggesting someone is an idiot because of who they vote for - or the usual round of Commie, Marxist, Tory Toff or right wing...............t his just displays a lack of argument. Governments proclaim and woe betide anyone pointing out the pitfalls - time and time again we see decisions made without 'second guessing' - a process which asks - what will occur there if I do this here. We are seeing it now blundering in with cuts and changes that have cost more or failed. An idea in the mind of an inexperienced politician forced onto the public without being tested by reasoned debate. skeptik
  • Score: 2

8:49am Thu 12 Jun 14

userds5050 says...

Highfielder wrote:
Common sense has prevailed, although Paul Weston should never have been arrested in the first place. He could not be charged with racial harassment for the simple reason that Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and it is our inherent right to criticise religions if we want to, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN and the EU.
Paul Weston was quoting Winston Churchill -- so if he had been charged he would in effect have been charged with just that -- quoting Churchill !
He was arrested on suspicion of racial or religious harassment. See the religious part in there? So, it's not our right to criticise a religious any way we see fit. This law though should be used correctly, which it wasn't in this case.
[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote: Common sense has prevailed, although Paul Weston should never have been arrested in the first place. He could not be charged with racial harassment for the simple reason that Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and it is our inherent right to criticise religions if we want to, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN and the EU. Paul Weston was quoting Winston Churchill -- so if he had been charged he would in effect have been charged with just that -- quoting Churchill ![/p][/quote]He was arrested on suspicion of racial or religious harassment. See the religious part in there? So, it's not our right to criticise a religious any way we see fit. This law though should be used correctly, which it wasn't in this case. userds5050
  • Score: 1

9:40am Thu 12 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

userds5050 wrote:
Highfielder wrote:
Common sense has prevailed, although Paul Weston should never have been arrested in the first place. He could not be charged with racial harassment for the simple reason that Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and it is our inherent right to criticise religions if we want to, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN and the EU.
Paul Weston was quoting Winston Churchill -- so if he had been charged he would in effect have been charged with just that -- quoting Churchill !
He was arrested on suspicion of racial or religious harassment. See the religious part in there? So, it's not our right to criticise a religious any way we see fit. This law though should be used correctly, which it wasn't in this case.
Indeed it is very hard to see that arresting could have been done in good faith. As I have said above, an invitation to attend the police station would have been the proportionate approach, but since the words are recorded anyway, being a speech, merely reporting for summons would have sufficed. I think an action for unlawful arrest would be worth a go. Of course Sergeant Bigears' employers would pay up (it's only our money after all) to prevent a court investigation of their motives, but at least it might calm them down, because we can all see that a great deal is going to be said about Mohammedanism in the next few years, and little of it will be music to the sensitive Mohammedan's ears.
[quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote: Common sense has prevailed, although Paul Weston should never have been arrested in the first place. He could not be charged with racial harassment for the simple reason that Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and it is our inherent right to criticise religions if we want to, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN and the EU. Paul Weston was quoting Winston Churchill -- so if he had been charged he would in effect have been charged with just that -- quoting Churchill ![/p][/quote]He was arrested on suspicion of racial or religious harassment. See the religious part in there? So, it's not our right to criticise a religious any way we see fit. This law though should be used correctly, which it wasn't in this case.[/p][/quote]Indeed it is very hard to see that arresting could have been done in good faith. As I have said above, an invitation to attend the police station would have been the proportionate approach, but since the words are recorded anyway, being a speech, merely reporting for summons would have sufficed. I think an action for unlawful arrest would be worth a go. Of course Sergeant Bigears' employers would pay up (it's only our money after all) to prevent a court investigation of their motives, but at least it might calm them down, because we can all see that a great deal is going to be said about Mohammedanism in the next few years, and little of it will be music to the sensitive Mohammedan's ears. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

10:24am Thu 12 Jun 14

userds5050 says...

Dai Rear wrote:
userds5050 wrote:
Highfielder wrote:
Common sense has prevailed, although Paul Weston should never have been arrested in the first place. He could not be charged with racial harassment for the simple reason that Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and it is our inherent right to criticise religions if we want to, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN and the EU.
Paul Weston was quoting Winston Churchill -- so if he had been charged he would in effect have been charged with just that -- quoting Churchill !
He was arrested on suspicion of racial or religious harassment. See the religious part in there? So, it's not our right to criticise a religious any way we see fit. This law though should be used correctly, which it wasn't in this case.
Indeed it is very hard to see that arresting could have been done in good faith. As I have said above, an invitation to attend the police station would have been the proportionate approach, but since the words are recorded anyway, being a speech, merely reporting for summons would have sufficed. I think an action for unlawful arrest would be worth a go. Of course Sergeant Bigears' employers would pay up (it's only our money after all) to prevent a court investigation of their motives, but at least it might calm them down, because we can all see that a great deal is going to be said about Mohammedanism in the next few years, and little of it will be music to the sensitive Mohammedan's ears.
For sure. We got a leaflet through the door from his party (which Royal mail have to deliver and is funded by the European parliament). There was far more stuff in there that could be described as wacist than him qouting Churchill.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote: Common sense has prevailed, although Paul Weston should never have been arrested in the first place. He could not be charged with racial harassment for the simple reason that Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and it is our inherent right to criticise religions if we want to, regardless of the pronouncements of the UN and the EU. Paul Weston was quoting Winston Churchill -- so if he had been charged he would in effect have been charged with just that -- quoting Churchill ![/p][/quote]He was arrested on suspicion of racial or religious harassment. See the religious part in there? So, it's not our right to criticise a religious any way we see fit. This law though should be used correctly, which it wasn't in this case.[/p][/quote]Indeed it is very hard to see that arresting could have been done in good faith. As I have said above, an invitation to attend the police station would have been the proportionate approach, but since the words are recorded anyway, being a speech, merely reporting for summons would have sufficed. I think an action for unlawful arrest would be worth a go. Of course Sergeant Bigears' employers would pay up (it's only our money after all) to prevent a court investigation of their motives, but at least it might calm them down, because we can all see that a great deal is going to be said about Mohammedanism in the next few years, and little of it will be music to the sensitive Mohammedan's ears.[/p][/quote]For sure. We got a leaflet through the door from his party (which Royal mail have to deliver and is funded by the European parliament). There was far more stuff in there that could be described as wacist than him qouting Churchill. userds5050
  • Score: -4

10:45am Thu 12 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

I think you meant "rac-ist" but anything can be described as "rac-ist" because it's a word made up by the left to describe anything they are told to disapprove of from time to time. e.g Moscow would have said it wasn't "rac-ist" to beat up on the Chechens because they were Mohammedans but Southy might say it is, so one lefty's "rac-ist" is another lefty's pure as the driven snow.
I think you meant "rac-ist" but anything can be described as "rac-ist" because it's a word made up by the left to describe anything they are told to disapprove of from time to time. e.g Moscow would have said it wasn't "rac-ist" to beat up on the Chechens because they were Mohammedans but Southy might say it is, so one lefty's "rac-ist" is another lefty's pure as the driven snow. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

11:10am Thu 12 Jun 14

userds5050 says...

Dai Rear wrote:
I think you meant "rac-ist" but anything can be described as "rac-ist" because it's a word made up by the left to describe anything they are told to disapprove of from time to time. e.g Moscow would have said it wasn't "rac-ist" to beat up on the Chechens because they were Mohammedans but Southy might say it is, so one lefty's "rac-ist" is another lefty's pure as the driven snow.
Wacist
noun
1.
a person who believes in wacism.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: I think you meant "rac-ist" but anything can be described as "rac-ist" because it's a word made up by the left to describe anything they are told to disapprove of from time to time. e.g Moscow would have said it wasn't "rac-ist" to beat up on the Chechens because they were Mohammedans but Southy might say it is, so one lefty's "rac-ist" is another lefty's pure as the driven snow.[/p][/quote]Wacist noun 1. a person who believes in wacism. userds5050
  • Score: 5

11:27am Thu 12 Jun 14

Orwell's Ghost says...

The powers-that-be clearly didn't want too much media attention on this case, as acknowledgement that quoting Sir Winston Churchill is no longer permissible would lead the British public to ask why our Police Force has become Shariah compliant, and who gave them the authority to enforce this. Clearly, the threat of imprisonment of an election candidate for expressing his opinion raises serious issues for our democracy. Hence this spurious case being dropped after the election and with relatively little fuss.
The powers-that-be clearly didn't want too much media attention on this case, as acknowledgement that quoting Sir Winston Churchill is no longer permissible would lead the British public to ask why our Police Force has become Shariah compliant, and who gave them the authority to enforce this. Clearly, the threat of imprisonment of an election candidate for expressing his opinion raises serious issues for our democracy. Hence this spurious case being dropped after the election and with relatively little fuss. Orwell's Ghost
  • Score: 5

5:35pm Thu 12 Jun 14

steekeemcglue says...

he should now sue for false arrest.
he should now sue for false arrest. steekeemcglue
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree