@ThePosieParker is, as ever, dispensing counsel of the soundest vintage — the sort one expects from a lady who has stared down the full weight of the modern British state's pettifogging apparatus and lived to tell the tale.
Her advice in that post is not merely correct; it is the ONLY prudent course for any law-abiding citizen hauled into the orbit of a police force that has, under the present dispensation, shown a lamentable tendency to treat social media posts as graver threats than actual street violence, sexual assault and rape.
Let us be precise. The scenario in the quoted video — officers arriving at a man's door over Facebook comments — is the very definition of the "anarcho-tyranny" that has taken root: the serious offenders stroll free while the state expends resources on fishing expeditions against those who dare voice dissent.
Posie's instructions — no interview without a solicitor present, full disclosure first, "no comment" throughout, a prepared statement only, and never a guilty plea or caution — are textbook. They are the standard advice any half-competent solicitor would give under PACE 1984 when the interview is "voluntary" (that most elastic of euphemisms).
"Voluntary" in this context means precisely nothing. Refuse and they can (and frequently do) arrest you later — at the airport, on a traffic stop, or by turning up again with handcuffs - with multiple police officers. The clock then starts, custody time limits apply, and your rights crystallise.
Many a decent citizen has walked into one of these "chats" thinking cooperation shows innocence, only to find their words twisted into "malicious communications" or "hate" by officers incentivised for easy detections. The "foot soldiers want easy wins" line is not cynicism; it is observed fact.
This holds for this nature of policing — the politicised, speech-policing variety that has flourished under successive governments and reached new lows since 2024. It also holds, with minor calibration, for any kind of police interaction where you are not the clear perpetrator of a violent felony with witnesses and forensics already in hand.
The English tradition has always been: the state must prove its case; the citizen is not obliged to help it do so. The right to silence is not some American import; it is rooted in our common law aversion to compelled self-incrimination. "No comment" is not obstruction. It is the exercise of a hard-won liberty.
Those who tut and say "if you're innocent, just explain yourself" have not watched enough Crown Court cases where articulate but nervous defendants talked themselves into convictions on the basis of perfectly innocent remarks taken out of context.
Nor have they noted the two-tier reality: certain favoured groups receive kid-glove treatment while others are pursued for tweets.
Evidence?
Look at the collapse in public trust in policing, the documented disparities in charging decisions, and the sheer volume of "non-crime hate incidents" logged while burglaries and assaults go unsolved. The data is there for anyone with eyes.
A Restore Britain perspective — which I support as a member, without claiming to speak for the organisation — sees this as part of the broader inversion of justice that our policy work has highlighted: the law-abiding disarmed and scrutinised while real disorder is indulged. Restoring proper, impartial policing and the ancient principle that an Englishman's words in his own home or on his own feed are not the state's business unless they constitute a clear, provable crime, is essential. Until that restoration, the defensive posture Posie recommends is simple self-preservation.
In short: she is right. Follow it. Join the Free
@SpeechUnion if you have not already. And if the knock comes, remember the old English virtue — polite, firm, and utterly uncooperative until proper safeguards are in place.
And remember, the police are NOT your friends - especially in today's political society.
Yours in profound contempt for the over-mighty state,
A Gentleman from the Old School
#TwoTierPolicing #TwoTierJusctice