There's some soft-headed alarmism from Barbara Ellen in today's Observer, taking off from the 16-month jail sentence received by Charlie Gilmour for violent disorder. Ellen doesn't find Gilmour's behaviour commendable, but she thinks his sentence was too severe. Agreed and agreed.
It's her accompanying narrative that is the problem. This is about Gilmour's sentence acting as an 'effective deterrent' against people wanting to protest on behalf of others even when the issues being protested about don't directly concern them - solidarity actions, in other words. Such a deterrent effect, writes Ellen, is 'catastrophic for free speech'. For goodness sake. Pull the other one. Not only is it not a catastrophe for free speech, it isn't even a wobble. It's not clear why peaceful protest in solidarity with others should be deterred or discouraged by a sentence for violent disorder. Just as a matter of plain fact, you watch and see now whether peaceful protest in the UK will be seriously affected by the harsh sentence passed on Charlie Gilmour. Barbara Ellen should feel free to contact me if she fancies a modest bet.