Discussion of Free Speech Issue in Richard Cooke’s Case: Even Denying “Racism” Now a “Hanging” Offence! By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
The case of Richard Cooke, former chair of the West Midlands Police Federation, as detailed in the article "The Free Speech Fight Heating Up in the UK" by Cam Wakefield (Reclaim The Net, July 1, 2025), highlights a growing tension between free speech and institutional disciplinary measures within UK policing.
Richard Cooke was removed from his position after posting on X in response to a Channel 4 News report claiming widespread racism and misogyny in West Midlands Police. His comments, which described the report as "nonsense" and asserted that the force is an "anti-racist organisation," led to his suspension by the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW). The Federation argued that his remarks breached their standards, following complaints from two officers featured in the report. Cooke, supported by the Free Speech Union, is now pursuing legal action, claiming his removal was an attack on his right to represent officers' views and a form of censorship.
Cooke's case raises a fundamental question about the extent to which elected representatives, particularly in public-facing roles, can challenge media narratives without facing professional repercussions. His posts on X were not personal attacks but a defence of his colleagues, asserting that the media's portrayal was inaccurate. The Free Speech Union's observation that "twenty-five years ago, a Police Federation Chair would have been suspended for disparaging his fellow officers" underscores a shift in institutional priorities, where defending colleagues can now lead to punishment if it conflicts with certain narratives. This suggests a chilling effect on free expression, where individuals in leadership roles may self-censor to avoid disciplinary action.
The PFEW's decision to suspend Cooke and bar him from re-election for three years, following a process he was not allowed to attend, raises concerns about fairness and transparency. The Federation's claim that its procedures were "followed rigorously and applied fairly" contrasts with Cooke's assertion that his removal was a "political decision intended to silence him." This discrepancy points to a broader issue of institutional mechanisms being used to suppress dissenting voices, particularly when they challenge sensitive topics like racism or misogyny. The lack of due process, such as denying Cooke attendance at his appeal hearing, further undermines the legitimacy of the disciplinary action and fuels perceptions of a "witch hunt."
The PFEW argued that Cooke's comments risked "alienating members who had experienced discrimination." This highlights a tension between free speech and the expectation that representatives adhere to standards that avoid causing offense. While organisations have a right to set conduct standards, the threshold for what constitutes a breach must be carefully defined to avoid stifling legitimate debate. Cooke's statements did not deny the existence of racism or misogyny but challenged the characterisation of these issues as "widespread." Punishing such nuanced critique risks creating an environment where only approved narratives can be expressed, undermining open dialogue about complex issues.
Cooke's case has significant implications for free speech within public institutions. Police federations, as bodies representing rank-and-file officers, are meant to advocate for their members' interests, including their perspectives on public criticisms. If leaders like Cooke are disciplined for defending their colleagues against media allegations, it may deter others from speaking out, weakening the ability of such organisations to engage in robust public discourse. This could lead to a homogenised narrative where critical issues like institutional reform or media accuracy are left unchallenged, ultimately harming public trust in both the police and the media.
Moreover, the case reflects broader societal debates about free speech in the UK, where laws and institutional policies increasingly prioritise preventing offense over protecting expression. The Free Speech Union's involvement, alongside Cooke's collaboration with Rick Prior (a former Metropolitan Police Federation chair disciplined under similar circumstances), suggests a growing resistance to what some perceive as overreach by institutions in policing speech. This legal challenge could set a precedent for how far public representatives can go in expressing controversial views without facing professional consequences.
The article situates Cooke's case within a "free speech fight heating up in the UK," pointing to a pattern of disciplinary actions against police federation leaders for expressing views deemed controversial. For instance, Rick Prior's suspension for highlighting officers' fears of being labelled racist indicates a systemic issue within police unions, where free speech is curtailed under the guise of maintaining standards. This aligns with concerns raised in other sources, such as The Washington Post's critique of the UK's "astonishing" clampdown on free speech, where non-crime hate incidents can be recorded without evidence, impacting individuals' careers. Such policies amplify the risk of subjective interpretation being used to silence dissent.
Additionally, the UK's lack of a codified constitution, as noted in the same source, makes it particularly vulnerable to such restrictions, relying on advocacy groups like the Free Speech Union to defend those targeted. The organisation's support for over 3,500 individuals since 2020 underscores the scale of the issue and the need for legal challenges to protect free expression.
While the PFEW's concern about maintaining inclusivity is valid, the swift and severe response to Cooke's comments suggests an overreach that prioritises narrative control over open debate. The media's role in framing allegations of systemic racism must also be scrutinised, as sensationalised reporting can distort public perception and pressure institutions to act punitively to appear responsive. Cooke's point that reporters "rarely bother checking their sources" highlights the need for accountability on both sides, media and institutions, to ensure fair and accurate discourse.
Furthermore, the involvement of only two officers' complaints in triggering such a significant disciplinary outcome raises questions about proportionality. If a small number of complaints can lead to the removal of an elected representative, it risks empowering a minority to silence broader representation, undermining democratic principles within the Federation.
Richard Cooke's legal challenge, backed by the Free Speech Union, is a critical test case for free speech in the UK, particularly within public institutions like police federations. It underscores the need to balance professional standards with the right to express dissenting views, especially when defending colleagues against broad-brush accusations. The outcome of this case could influence how far elected representatives can go in challenging media narratives without facing censorship, shaping the future of free expression in policing and beyond. As the Free Speech Union aptly notes, punishing leaders for defending their members marks a troubling shift in institutional priorities, one that demands robust legal and public scrutiny.
"The head of the West Midlands Police Federation is taking legal action after he was removed from office for rejecting claims racism was widespread among his colleagues.
Richard Cooke, who was elected to represent 7,000 rank and file officers in the country's second largest police force, was suspended and banned from standing in recent elections following comments he made on the X social media platform.
Responding to claims made in a Channel 4 news report that racism and misogyny were widespread in West Midlands Police, Mr Cooke wrote: "....I don't recognise these attitudes. They do not represent us – we are an anti-racist organisation."
In a second tweet, he dismissed suggestions that the force had done nothing to tackle racism, writing: "Nonsense – and so was the report but these reporters rarely bother checking their sources."
Following the remarks, which were made in December, Mr Cooke was suspended by the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) from his position as branch chairman pending an investigation.
Bosses at the police union claimed his comments risked "alienating those of our members who might be victims of discriminatory treatment -effectively leaving them with nowhere to turn for support and representation'".
'Witch hunt'
It is understood the suspension came after the two officers who had featured in the original Channel 4 News report lodged a complaint.
Mr Cooke lodged an appeal against his suspension but that was dismissed at a hearing in March he was not invited to attend.
He was also banned from standing for election for three years meaning he was not on the recent ballot papers and so has now been replaced as branch chairman.
With the support of the Free Speech Union he is challenging the process in the courts and is looking to join forces with Rick Prior, the former chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, who was sacked in similar circumstances for comments he made in the media.
Mr Cooke, who has been elected as branch chairman in three separate elections since 2018, said he had been the victim of a "witch hunt".
'Deeply sinister'
He told the Telegraph: "I have been removed from office for speaking out in defence of my members and for reflecting their views, which is what I was elected to do.
"The media report wrongly suggested that racism and misogyny were widespread in West Midlands Police. I challenged that because I do not recognise that and it is unfair to the vast majority of my colleagues.
"I did not suggest that racism and misogyny do not exist within the force but to shut me down for stating my views is deeply sinister.
"This is a witch hunt. My reputation has been unfairly traduced and I have been removed from an elected post and banned from standing for office for speaking bluntly. There is clearly a political agenda at play here."
Lord Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, agreed: "Twenty-five years ago, a Police Federation Chair would have been suspended for disparaging his fellow officers. Today, you get suspended for defending them. We're through the looking glass."
Mr Cooke is crowdsourcing to fund a legal claim against the PFEW and is hoping to join Mr Prior's judicial review which is currently pending.
'A striking crisis of confidence'
Mr Prior was suspended and eventually sacked from his democratically elected post representing 30,000 Met officers after giving an interview in which he suggested his colleagues were worried about using force for fear of being labelled racist.
In an interview with GB News, Mr Prior said: "There's a striking crisis of confidence at the moment within policing in general, and certainly within the Met police, whereby officers are withdrawing from any kind of proactive policing for fear of falling foul of the IOPC [Independent Office of Police Conduct] or a vexatious or malicious complaint."
The day after his comments were broadcast, he was suspended by the PFEW for allegedly making comments that were "discriminatory in nature".
He was also barred from standing for re-election but launched legal action to challenge the suspension.
However after giving an interview to the Telegraph about his situation, he was immediately dismissed for breaching the terms of his suspension.
Both he and Mr Cooke have now returned to frontline police roles with their own forces.
A PFEW spokesman said: "Richard Cooke was removed from his role as Chair of the West Midlands Federation branch following an extensive process, which included an appeal.
"He was investigated following complaints from members about comments on social media which were judged by a panel of his peers to have been in breach of the Federation's standards.
"Our processes, which are set in statute, were followed rigorously and applied fairly at all times. Richard Cooke remains a serving police officer with the West Midlands Force."
Comments