Thread by @StarkNakedBrief

This case hasn't received much coverage but it should have...

This is Greg Hadfield.

He is a retired ex-Times journalist.

Now, the British State is coming after him—and it once again concerns X posts.

Thread 🧵

Yesterday, The Press Gazette revealed that Hadfield will go to trial over for drawing attention to an "obscene" X message posted by the account of Ivor Caplin.

Hadfield has been charged under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The law criminalises the sending of “offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing” messages via public communications networks.

Caplin is the former Labour MP for Hove who was arrested in Brighton by Sussex Police on suspicion of engaging in online sexual communications with a child back in January.

The charge against Hadfield relates to a post he made on X on 25 June 2024. He shared a screengrab showing that the account belonging to former Labour MP Ivor Caplin had “liked” and commented on explicit adult content.

In an accompanying post, he questioned whether a Labour Party colleague of Caplin had known about the account’s activity for “a very long time” and asked, “Why didn’t she say something?”

Hadfield said he had grown concerned over the content of Caplin’s account for some time. In September 2024, Sussex Police officers visited his home and interviewed him under caution.

He was later offered a formal police caution but declined, saying he feared it would lead to reputational damage through headlines such as “journalist charged with online gay porn.”

On 15 September, Hadfield was notified that his application to have the case thrown out had been denied. The trial will go ahead at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on 17–18 November.

Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring, Chief Magistrate of England and Wales, ruled that the Crown Prosecution Service had made a “not unreasonable” decision to prosecute.

He rejected Hadfield’s claim that the case amounted to an abuse of process.

Goldspring added that questions over Hadfield’s right to free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be dealt with at trial.

Now, compare this to the recent case of Charlotte Hayes.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination, she posted a video on TikTok calling Kirk and his supporters "inherently violent" people before saying, "F*cking kill them all. Kill them all"

It amounted to clear incitement to violence, though there was no specific named target. It was inferred she meant anyone who held views similar to Charlie’s.

She has since apologised, deleted the post, and claim it wasn't incitement but satire.

Want to know how our police and CPS responded?

(FYI this is the head of Kent Police Tim Smith and CPS head Stephen Parkinson).

Kent Police gave her "words of advice” and determined that no offences had been committed.

The CPS was also nowhere to be seen. Be in no doubt, however, the CPS can prosecute cases that are not directly referred to them by police, though it is uncommon.

In short, post concerns about a former MP's online conduct and you'll get prosecuted but post an overt incitement to violence (against particular political figures) and you'll get "words of advice".

Sure, these are different actions concerning different police forces at different times but surely there needs to be some semblance of consistency.

Ask yourself: what's more "offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing"—a threat to kill or a screenshot of an MP engaging with explicit content?

Greg is reportedly needing to raise funds for his case. You can follow him here for updates — @GregHadfield

The case could have damning ripple effects for free speech and freedom of the press for all online commentators and journalists if he loses.

@GregHadfield Investigative journalist @DrRebeccaTidy has also been on top of this.

You can find the Press Gazette's report here:

pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/jour…