Free speech charter

This charter outlines my approach to free speech, among the values I cherish most dearly. This charter should be read in accordance with the wider suite of legal documentation pertaining to my work, including the following items:

• Copyright charter
• Terms of service
• Privacy policy, including approach to cookies

The right to free speech

Everybody has the inalienable right to freedom of expression, without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers, as detailed within the Human Rights Act of 1998.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." - Article 10, Human Rights Act, 1998.

I exercise this right by writing and publishing articles – both news-led and opinionated editorials – on this website, in addition to authoring books.

Legislative compliance

I understand that such exercising of my free speech rights is still beholden to criminal law and other codes of conduct put forth by public and private bodies. For instance, I publish writing to my website, built using tools from Shopify, a Canadian registered company, while residing in England. Accordingly, all of my works comply with that legislative interface.

Hate speech and targeted discrimination

The United Nations defines hate speech as ‘any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are – in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.’

Here in England, hate speech is outlined within, and governed by, several regulations, including the Public Order Act 1986 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I comply with all legislation contained therein.

I do not – and will never – write, post, publish, promote or encourage hateful content. I condemn hate speech in all forms. We should always be free to criticise, denounce, analyse, investigate, parody, and disagree with others, but resorting to hate speech and direct, targeted discrimination is illegal and immoral. As such, it has no place on this website, nor in any of its associated communities.

Malicious communications

As per the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Communications Act 2003, one cannot send or publish by means of electronic communication material that is 'grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character,' especially where said content includes knowably false information. I comply fully with this mandate, in addition to later amended prosecutorial guidelines that necessitate the need for a 'credible threat' of 'violence, harassment or stalking.'

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it, should, and no doubt will, continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by this legislation." - Judgement, Paul Chambers vs DPP, June 2012, case law.

Indeed, the contents of my work(s) – in style, tone or substance – may well offend readers and users of this website. You will not agree with every opinion I share, and you are also likely to interpret facts differently to me. However, no intention is made to harass, bully, threaten or defame individuals, groups or organisations, especially pertaining to their age, disability, gender, marriage status, sexuality, religious belief(s), ethnicity or political affiliation(s). I reserve the right to reply to any such claims, and will defend myself accordingly using the full breadth of my human right to free speech.

Defamation, libel and slander

I support the crusade to end cancel culture, which threatens to extinguish heterogeneous opinion from the public realm. In short, cancel culture describes the contemporary zeitgeist of publicly humiliating individuals or organisations online, usually via social media, whenever they act, write or speak in a manner that is not deemed politically correct by a secular band of sanctimonious angels acting in self-appointed roles as moderators of morality.

We now live in a world where the utility and pleasure of an entire book can be cancelled from the historic realm by virtue of one single sentence that conveys a confused, unfinished or raw opinion. As authors, we are increasingly forced to write in a manner that will not cause offence to readers who are becoming more robotic in their ability to scan a page of text and identify all of its perceived inaccuracies. At the moment, we must sculpt our writing to match its epoch, rather than allowing the epoch to be defined by what we write. That is the very antithesis of creative expression or journalistic inquiry. That is a sanitisation of self drenched in hypocrisy.

Every day, writers are currently forced to self-censor through fear of being cancelled. That anxiety-riddled phenomenon is what threatens the uniqueness and confidence of diverse opinion. That is what stops people from writing. That is what encourages people to bottle up their hurt. That is what makes us more susceptible to extremist politics, because he who does not speak from the heart is bound to be exploited in the mind.

As such, right now, we are living through a grim nadir of self-censorship. Never before have people been so inclined to dilute their own truth through fear of it offending other people. Some see that as a force for good, fostering restraint and encouraging compassion, but I see it as a trend for ill, diminishing art and muzzling expression. I will thus defend anybody’s freedom of expression – even those with whom I vehemently disagree – with every fibre of my being.

"It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met. The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion." - The Defamation Act 2013.

All reporting on this website is – to the best of my knowledge – true at the point of publication or otherwise earmarked as opinion, negating the viability of disputes related to libel, defamation or slander. I adhere to a meticulous research process that includes extensive vetting of sources and critical analysis of interview materials, and I never publish content of dubious provenance.

"It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true." - The Defamation Act 2013.

For defamation claims to succeed, claimants must prove that serious financial loss was caused to themselves or their organisation(s) as a direct result of the contentious article or statement. Prosecution is therefore unlikely where an author or publisher disseminates said contentious article or statement to a small, niche audience such as mine. Writing is my hobby and not something from which I generate substantial income. As such, no statements or articles are published for the purpose of commercial gain.

"A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. Harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not 'serious harm' unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss." - Defamation Act 2013.

All my work is produced with a commitment to public interest reporting, ensuring every statement I publish - whether factual or opinion-based - is made in good faith and with a reasonable belief in its significance to public discourse. My articles, books, and editorials cover matters of societal, cultural, political, and journalistic relevance, adhering to a rigorous research process that involves source verification and critical analysis. At all times, I strive to inform, educate, and provoke thought on issues that affect the public, rather than to cause undue harm or misrepresentation. As such, any statements challenged under defamation law would be defended on the grounds that they were made as part of a broader discussion on public interest matters, in alignment with my right to freedom of expression and the protections afforded under the Defamation Act 2013.

"It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest, and the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest." - Defamation Act 2013.

The statute of limitation for defamation and libel claims is one year from the date a contentious article was published online. As such, issues pertaining to content written and published outside that limitation window will be settled amicably, without the option of legal mediation.

Independence and indemnity

I make no attempt to influence, promote, condone, encourage or suggest agreement with any individual(s), organisation(s), movement(s), cause(s) or initiative(s). Readers should not be swayed by my writing, nor should they commit illegal acts citing my work(s) as inspiration or motivation. I write, publish and share my views. The unique interpretations thereof, and implications therefrom, are the sole responsibility of each individual reader. More information is available in my terms of service.

I’m an independent writer whose creative ideation, research and editing processes are not beholden to any third party. Therefore, my writing is not intended to – in any way – promote, support, condone or further any individual(s), organisation(s), movement(s), cause(s) or initiative(s).

I write passionately about Tranmere Rovers Football Club, for example, making nominative fair use of their trademark(s) for news reporting in the public interest, but any implied endorsement between myself and the registered company – either for me or by me – is denied. These subjects are my passions, and if they are yours as well, that is just a happy coincidence.

I use Shopify as a content management system, allowing me to build, host and develop this website. Shopify allows me to publish articles, but the contents of those articles do not represent Shopify's views, nor should they reflect upon Shopify in any way as an organisation.

Shopify believes in the ‘free and open exchange of ideas and products,’ so long as they comply with their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). I take this responsibility very seriously, conducting regular audits to ensure compliance with Shopify’s AUP. Any claims or complaints to the contrary will be investigated internally and swiftly mitigated to minimise harm and guarantee continuity of service. I take full ownership and responsibility for all feedback, complaints and issues raised with regard to content written and published by me that is subsequently published on Shopify’s platform - access to which I receive on a contracted basis. That distinction should be acknowledged by readers and website users who wish to raise any concerns.

By the same token, I will not be held responsible for the accuracy and content of external links embedded within my own website – for instance, where I share a hyperlink to a Wikipedia entry while reporting on a certain topic. Such links are included in the interest of adding context for readers, who should derive their own interpretations from them in terms of debate, education and critical analysis. Due diligence will be undertaken in selecting appropriate links so they do not offend, harm or promote embellishment, but ultimate responsibility for such perceived transgressions lies with the respective copyright holder.

Similarly, I use Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) as a means of self-publishing my own books, minimising interference and censorship from major publishing houses, which often have vested interests and conflicted priorities. ‘As a bookseller, we believe that providing access to the written word is important, including content that may be considered objectionable,’ say the Amazon KDP guidelines, and I fully support that endeavour while condemning acts that fall outside this remit, such as hate speech.

The virtual town square

“If a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society,” wrote human rights activist Natan Sharansky in his book The Case for Democracy. “We cannot rest until every person living in a fear society has finally won their freedom.”

In the modern age, so centred on digital communication, we have created virtual town squares of infinite power. Websites, blogs, social networks and instant messaging apps are now at the epicentre of our discourse, and Sharansky’s paradigm – once endorsed by president George W Bush – should be applied to those digital environments, too. Alas, that is not always the case, as large publishing platforms engage in censorship, cancelling those whose views chafe with their orthodoxy.

On this website, however, my virtual town square is open for frank, honest and forthright debate. My audience is small and my exposure is minimal, but I will always walk to the middle of my virtual town square and express my opinions. Attempts to impede that process – through arrest, imprisonment or physical harm – are indicative of authoritarianism, and I will always strive to stamp that out wherever it percolates.

Finally, any content, materials, articles or sentiments suspected of contravening this charter will be investigated and, where necessary, removed upon request. I reserve the right to explain any perceived violations in this theatre, just as I reserve the right to appeal any decision to cancel, thwart, prosecute or de-platform me based on legal views conveyed through my freedom of expression.

Approved by: Ryan Ferguson

Last reviewed: 1 March 2025