A 61-year-old man from Castleford in West Yorkshire has been sentenced to 15 months in prison at Leeds Crown Court for posting antisemitic racist comments on Facebook, according to a press release from UK Counter Terrorism Police.
Neil Lloyd of St Andrews Road, Castleford, pleaded guilty on 19 April 2024 to charges of publishing threatening, abusive, or insulting written material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, or in circumstances where racial hatred was likely to be stirred up, contrary to section 19 of the Public Order Act 1968. The offences occurred between 14 October and 19 October 2023.
On 20 October 2023, West Yorkshire Police, acting on information regarding Lloyd’s antisemitic content and threats posted on Facebook, promptly arrested him at his home. During the arrest, items associated with his antisemitic views were found in his residence. Lloyd admitted to police that the Facebook profile and posts were his and that the items in his home had been collected over the years.
Detective Chief Superintendent James Dunkerley, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing North-East, praised the quick response of the local officers. “The quick response of local officers from West Yorkshire Police is commendable,” he stated in the press release.
Dunkerley spoke of the importance of collaboration between local policing and specialised units to address and prosecute individuals exhibiting racist views. He encouraged the public to report concerning online material to the national Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU).
This unit, he explained, consists of specialist officers who assess online material for its nature, potential breaches of legislation, and any need for further investigation or concerns.
“If any extremist content is identified, then the unit takes steps to get it removed by the host website or platform,” Dunkerley added. He urged the public to report any terrorist or extremist material they come across online to the police at www.gov.uk/report-terrorism.
What do you call it when the state punishes people for expressing an opinion.
The Public Order Act prohibits publication of written material where: (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. So in principle you can express whatever views you wish unless the above criteria apply. However, I don’t believe that Dunkerley expressed that caveat and I have a nasty suspicion he doesn’t quite understand it. I would prefer a US-style constitutional protection around free speech personally. Ultimately if expressing an opinion ‘stirs up’ violent tendencies in other people then it’s really those people who… Read more »
Just sounds ambiguous enough to keep the public guessing, but ambiguous enough for the government to pick and choose for prosecution.
I completely disagree that it’s the target’s fault. Accusers lie, and the stirring up of hatred isn’t for things that somebody did, but for what somebody else claimed they did. Repeatedly. Until it’s been said so often you kind of believe it with no evidence. Like a racial stereotype. That’s why it’s so insidious.
In primary school both you and Stuart were in trouble
I believe it’s the Public Order Act 1986, not 1968.
I hate that the thought police aren’t just some monty python-esque joke.
He didn’t just think it though, did he?
Attempting to instigate violence against an individual is a crime and always was. Remember Derek Bentley’s infamous, “Let him have it”? This is an extension where the violence would be against unspecified members of a group rather than a particular target.
But if you’re Nchti Gatwa, you can make racist comments about whites.
And politicians get away with making similar comments with a slap on the wrist. Not to mention Dane Baptiste making threats against a Jewish comedian and gets away with making the threatening comments.
I think consistency in the application of a law is all anyone should expect.
Inconsistency (perceived or otherwise) will of course just excerbate feelings of persecution- and allow certain sections of society to fan the flames.
Unfortunately I see many circumstances that fall into this later category.
Can I ask. Where were these laws when Muslims were receiving all of this hate after 9/11, 7/7 and so many other attacks
Incitement to racial hated has been an offence since the 1970s and in its current form since ’87, but legislation banning incitement to religious hatred outside of N. Ireland is much newer. Attempts were made to get this included immediately post 9/11, shoehorning it in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (2001), but it couldn’t get past the House of Lords and was dropped. Another attempt failed to pass the Lords in 2004 — the simplistic wording would have technically banned the Bible and the Quran and possibly put satirists/comedians in prison. It was finally enacted in 2006 (the year… Read more »
Pc brigade, that’s how Britain is screwed ,the guy just spoke how he felt or wrote ,snowflakes report him 🤔, it was alright for some black to slate white people ,FXXK OFF PC BRIGADE BXXXXXDS,
I agree on the racist double standards but the right answer is to police all hate crimes the same, not turn a blind eye to them all.
I have just checked his comments in the local press and he deserved his sentence.
His black, white and Asian equivalents running the Saturday pro genocide marches in London should be next.
Hard disagree with this. What use does such a severe custodial sentence serve?
A severe talking to, a night in the cell and perhaps a fine should be all that’s needed as a first off. If the behaviour repeats then you escalate.
Bear in mind that people speaking up against mass immigration can be labelled as “stirring up racial hatred” and that gbh can get you 6 months in prison.
This is political policing and it will be used to silence people opposed to mass immigration and radical Islamists.
Chris, this is how bad this country has sunk ,yes freedom of speech and right to protest in Britain is being eroded, I totally agree with you ,BRITAIN FOR THE BRITISH IN MY EYES
Not what I was saying at all. I invite anyone interested to check his comments as reported in the local press. He got a fair sentence, it is others that are being indulged.
So as per my comments above- no consistency? One could of course therefore argue his sentence was not fair..nor equitable, and it would be hard to counter that- & that perceived discrepancy in itself causes issues. One could also genuinely question the severity of the sentence esp. If this is a first offence. Surely some sort of education/ community service would have been a more appropriate step? At a time when the justice service is asking courts to consider reduced/non custodial.sentences and/or current guests of his majesty are being considered for earlier releas due to prison over crowding it hardly… Read more »