Sigh, yet more U.K. bashing from people who don't understand the law over here. Here's some education before you start jumping to conclusions.
Firstly, we do have "Freedom Of Speech" but we have it spread out through various documents that can be amended if the system used to uphold them proves faulty. Also, please note that America did NOT invent "Freedom of Speech", the ancient Greeks did.
Article 10, Freedom of Expression of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a qualified right, states everyone has the right of 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. This guarantees the right to pass information to other people and to receive information that other people want to give to you. It also guarantees the right to hold and express opinions and ideas.
It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a "Convention Right". A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998 may, if he or she is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act either:
* bring proceedings in any appropriate court or tribunal against the authority under the Human Rights Act 1998; or
* rely on the Convention right concerned in any legal proceedings.
What this man did comes under a completely different law. This is a law against Anti-Social Behaviour and comes under the Anti-Social Behaviour Order Act (Miscellaneous) but more so the offence is created by Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
This offence has the following statutory defences:
(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.
Since he failed both parts (b) and (c) when interviewed because this was a public forum and could be viewed by anyone and he had prior knowledge that what he was doing had intent to cause harm then the following course of action to arrest and try him under these laws is the next logical step.
The fact of the matter is that U.K. law is very nuanced in order to keep the peace in various situations that require addressing. No blanket law is applied in every circumstance otherwise the system would fail and people who deserve punishment will slip through the loopholes. I admit the system isn't perfect, but it's an old system that has been amended and reformed countless times throughout our history and sometimes the changes might not work as planned, but the intent is to make sure that everyone's rights are protected and that people do not come to any unnecessary harm.
There's a difference between being able to express yourself freely with an opinion that counters someone in a constructive fashion (i.e.: an atheist discussing why they don't believe what a theist does) and blatantly causing harm to innocent people with nothing other than the intent to do so.
The law here is viewed on a case-by-case basis and crimes are given the level of punishment suitable to the severity of the crime(s) presented in court. The law I mentioned above (Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) is not always enforced when the situation doesn't call for it. I could call you a name for no reason other than to annoy you and, unless you could prove that the name I called you had caused some severe harm in some way then the case would be thrown out. Nothing is as black and white as the OP seems to think so.
Please do not take everything at face value and remain ignorant of other people's culture, do your research beforehand before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.
