Police arrest man for posting image of burning poppy on Facebook

Kent police say the man was detained on suspicion of "malicious telecommunications".

By George Eaton Published 12 November 2012

Poppy wreaths are laid at the Cenotaph during Remembrance Sunday in Whitehall. Photograph: Getty Images.

Police in Kent have arrested a 19-year-old man for posting an image of a burning poppy on Facebook. In a press release published on its website, the force said that the man, from Aylesham, was arrested last night on suspicion of "malicious telecommunications" following "a posting on a social network site of a burning poppy". He is currently in custody and is due to be interviewed by police this morning.

The police said that officers were contacted at around 4pm on Sunday and alerted to the picture, "which was reportedly accompanied by an offensive comment."

The news of the arrest prompted strong criticism from civil liberties campaigners.

Nick Pickles, the director of Big Brother Watch, described the arrest as "utterly ridiculous".

He said: "Kent Police need to urgently release this man and drop an utterly ridiculous investigation into something that has harmed no-one.

"It is not illegal to offend people and, however idiotic or insensitive the picture may have been, it is certainly not worthy of arrest.

"This case highlights the urgent need to reform a law that poses a serious risk to freedom of speech after several ludicrous prosecutions in recent months."

David Allen Green, a solicitor and the New Statesman's legal correspondent, wrote on Twitter: "What was the point of winning either World War if, in 2012, someone can be casually arrested by @kent_police for burning a poppy?"

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

View the discussion thread.

22 comments

Tue, 2012-11-13 13:49 — jankaas (not verified)

indeed this fool is trapped in his own vile existance, agreed.

but, i do think that this is a perfect example of what free speech means; to offend others with your opinion.

from the little i know about the facts of this specific case it appears to fall within the bounderies of free speech. or have i missed something vital that could make me change my mind?

Tue, 2012-11-13 20:47 — Armin ius (not verified)

I have my doubts that the drunken abuse of this bozo can be classed as the expression of an opinion but I think that to arrest him was an excessive over-reaction (it appears to have been prompted by a complaint made by the local EDL).
Contrast this with the likes of Emdadur Choudhury and his extremist group of Muslims Against Crusades. He was fined £50 for burning replica poppies on Armistice Day and some of his supporters have appear at demonstrations with offensive slogans on display such as "British Soldiers burn in Hell" and "Death to British Soldiers". These are obvious public order offenses inciting violence and likely to cause offense to the extent that they will provole a violent reaction. As such they should be supressed as we cannot allow extremists the freedom to destroy freedom.

Wed, 2012-11-14 20:47 — jankaas (not verified)

"As such they should be supressed as we cannot allow extremists the freedom to destroy freedom."

and i could not disagree more. offensive behaviour of all of these types are in the eye of the beholder. in the absence of a meaningful definition of "offense" anyone's view can be deemed offensive and require punishment. censorship is the enemy of freedom.

Mon, 2012-11-12 17:42 — Geraint (not verified)

It was the comment he was posted for, not the burning of the poppy. This has been happening to a number of people recently.

Mon, 2012-11-12 17:18 — G Orwell (not verified)

Freedom of speech is the right to utter publicly what would offend and discredit the powerful. This is a political right tied to the right of association and assembly, as such utterance only makes sense if they lead to political association, possibly assembly that will factually take away the power of the offended powerful.

Burning a poppy explicitly discredits the armed forces but implicitly discredits the decision of the commanders (the powerful) , in the same way than celebrating members of the armed forces as heroes credits their commanders implicitly with righteousness of the goals of the armed conflicts such forces have be sent to fight in.

Arresting people, who utter their discontent in such a way is therefore a clearly anti democratic act as it smothers efficient attempts to break a 'taboo' intentionally designed to glorify the powerful and the ones following their orders

Mon, 2012-11-12 17:14 — Fuzzy_Spider (not verified)

Hurrah! So many died in those wars for our freedom, so to justify their sacrifice we will arrest and incarcerate a man for setting fire to a 2 gram piece of plastic in the privacy of his own back yard.

Mon, 2012-11-12 15:39 — Bolshie Dave (not verified)

Use the 'Nan Rule': If you'd be embarrassed to say it while your nan was in the room, don't say it here!

Mon, 2012-11-12 13:17 — jankaas (not verified)

is this an April Fool's...?

Mon, 2012-11-12 12:28 — Babeouf (not verified)

You see he burnt it and unmasked himself as a villain. Where as if he'd eaten it he could have been a 'Hero of Recycling' Fourth Class. Now off to the proms for another rendition of 'Land of Dopes and Tories'.