Allison Pearson did not deserve a visit from the police
From Shakespeare’s Constable Dogberry to Gilbert and Sullivan’s policemen of Penzance, the comic potential of the British plod has long been recognised. It was clearly on display with the spectacle of two uniformed constables who turned up on Allison Pearson’s doorstep this Remembrance Sunday.
They were there to request her attendance at a voluntary interview over a long-deleted tweet. She could not remember the tweet and they could not tell her what it was about, although Essex police have now divulged that they are investigating her for a serious offence under the Public Order Act.
There was outrage, from senior Tories blaming the Labour Government and Elon Musk (of all people) quoting George Orwell. It was reported that her tweet had been determined a “Non-Crime Hate Incident” which would be Orwellian indeed, as it would go down on her record without a fair opportunity for challenge.
Essex Police has said that they are pursuing her for the criminal offence of incitement for “uttering words that were intended to cause racial hatred”.
It should be obvious, if not to those who have already sprung to her defence, that any judgment must await the revelation of her actual words. Some social media racists have rightly been convicted over disinformation which actually stoked the recent riots outside asylum hostels.
Unlikely as it may be that Ms Pearson falls into this category, there is already quite reasonable disquiet over the processes thus far.
Essex has already tried to shift the blame “to another force” which it alleges asked for the investigation. Nonetheless, it has a duty, before sending uniformed police to her doorstep demanding she attend the police station, to decide whether there is a “reason to suspect” of her committing any crime.
Essex has also refused to identify the original complainant. If so, should it even be followed up, unless the post is obviously incendiary? Anyone who demands police action against another citizen for voicing an opinion should at least be prepared to be identified to the person being complained about.
The post was, the police say, in any event, quickly deleted — the right, surely of a writer to reconsider and withdraw before any damage is caused. And only if damage has demonstrably been done during the time it was up, should an investigation proceed.
It is silly to blame the Government, or the Home Secretary, for what may simply be a case of overzealous or under competent policemen. But it is right to watch closely and consider whether the quickly deleted opinion could be such as to justify the intervention of the state. If not, the senior officer who decided to take the complaint seriously should be brought to account at least.
There is, as American free speech law reminds us, no right to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre. Britain is much less protective of opinion, but nonetheless gives no right to the state to suppress it unless it is intended to incite violence or is so inflammatory that it is likely to do so.
Ms Pearson has now been asked to attend the police station and is minded to do so with a solicitor. There is no reason why she should be put to that inconvenience. She should ask the police to interview her in the Daily Telegraph offices, where they can be photographed and the interview recorded and broadcast for public interest, and probably for public amusement.
Geoffrey Robertson KC is author of “Crimes Against Humanity, the Struggle for Global Justice”, published by Penguin this month