TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Since Starner's election, free speech is getting depleted in the UK

Fact Check: Since Starner's election, free speech is getting depleted in the UK

Published May 14, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
✗
VERDICT
Mostly False

# Claim Analysis: "Since Starmer's election, free speech is getting depleted in the UK" ## Introduction The claim that "Since Starmer's election, fre...

Claim Analysis: "Since Starmer's election, free speech is getting depleted in the UK"

Introduction

The claim that "Since Starmer's election, free speech is getting depleted in the UK" suggests a significant decline in the protection and exercise of free speech under the leadership of Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party and current Prime Minister of the UK. This assertion raises questions about the state of free speech in the UK and the implications of Starmer's policies and rhetoric on this fundamental right.

What We Know

  1. Keir Starmer's Leadership: Keir Starmer became the leader of the Labour Party in April 2020. His leadership has been marked by a shift towards more centrist policies compared to his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer has emphasized the importance of unity within the party and has made various pledges regarding governance and community empowerment 24.

  2. Free Speech in the UK: The UK has a complex legal framework regarding free speech, which is protected under the Human Rights Act 1998, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights. However, there have been ongoing debates about the balance between free speech and other societal interests, such as hate speech and public order 9.

  3. Public Statements: Starmer has made various public statements regarding free speech, including a defense of the UK's track record on this issue in response to criticisms from international figures 10. However, some interpretations of his comments suggest a more restrictive approach to dissent within his party 16.

  4. Media and Public Perception: Reports from various media outlets indicate a growing concern among certain groups about the perceived erosion of free speech rights in the UK. For instance, articles have described a "draconian" approach to speech laws, suggesting that individuals face severe consequences for expressing unpopular opinions 5.

Analysis

Source Evaluation

  • Credibility of Sources:
    • Reuters and BBC are generally regarded as reliable news organizations with rigorous fact-checking standards. Their reports on Starmer's comments and policies provide a factual basis for understanding his leadership style and the political context 12.
    • Tablet Magazine, while it may provide a critical perspective on free speech issues, has been noted for a more opinionated style of reporting, which may reflect a specific ideological bias. Thus, its claims about "draconian" laws should be approached with caution 5.
    • Euronews and Politico offer balanced reporting on Starmer's defense of free speech, but their interpretations may also be influenced by the political context in which they operate 910.

Conflicting Perspectives

  • Support for the Claim: Proponents of the claim argue that Starmer's leadership has led to a chilling effect on free speech, particularly within the Labour Party, where dissenting voices have reportedly been marginalized. This perspective is often supported by anecdotal evidence and commentary from critics of Starmer's approach 56.

  • Counterarguments: Opponents of the claim point to Starmer's public affirmations of free speech rights and his defense of the UK's historical commitment to these rights. They argue that while there may be calls for greater accountability regarding hate speech and misinformation, this does not equate to a depletion of free speech overall 910.

Methodological Concerns

The claim lacks specific data or empirical evidence to substantiate the assertion that free speech has declined since Starmer's election. A more robust analysis would require quantitative measures of free speech incidents, legal changes, or public sentiment surveys over time. Additionally, anecdotal accounts should be corroborated with broader statistical trends to assess the validity of the claim.

Conclusion

Verdict: Mostly False

The claim that "Since Starmer's election, free speech is getting depleted in the UK" is assessed as mostly false based on the available evidence. While there are concerns raised by critics regarding a perceived chilling effect on free speech within the Labour Party, these claims largely rely on anecdotal evidence and subjective interpretations of Starmer's leadership.

Starmer has publicly defended free speech rights and the UK's historical commitment to these rights, suggesting that any calls for accountability regarding hate speech do not necessarily indicate a depletion of free speech overall. However, the lack of empirical data to substantiate claims of decline in free speech rights since his election introduces a significant degree of uncertainty.

It is important to acknowledge that discussions around free speech often involve complex societal dynamics and varying interpretations of what constitutes a threat to free expression. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information and consider multiple perspectives when assessing claims related to free speech and political leadership.

Sources

  1. Fact Check: Keir Starmer saying people 'can leave' follows EHRC review. Reuters. Link
  2. Labour conference: Six takeaways from Keir Starmer's speech. BBC. Link
  3. Parts of England vote in local elections, with Farage's Reform UK. AP News. Link
  4. Sir Keir Starmer makes 'take back control' pledge to voters. BBC. Link
  5. Free Speech Wobbles in the U.K. Tablet Magazine. Link
  6. Keir Starmer did not tell UK citizens to leave the country if they ... Full Fact. Link
  7. 'Work of change begins' - Keir Starmer's No 10 speech in full. BBC. Link
  8. Keir Starmer speech latest: Labour leader promises new towns and ... BBC. Link
  9. Fact check: Yes, the UK does have free speech. Euronews. Link
  10. UK's Starmer hits back at JD Vance on freedom of speech. Politico. Link

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: This afternoon, London’s hospital halls fell unusually silent as Paul McCartney quietly arrived, carrying the same old guitar that had followed him through decades. On the fifth floor, Phil Collins lay still—frail and pale after months battling severe complications from spinal and heart conditions. As Paul entered the room, Phil’s eyes slowly opened, his lips trembling without sound. Without a word, Paul sat down and began to strum “Hey Jude” — gently, with deep emotion. Each lyric poured warmth into the sterile room, moving the nurses to tears, while a single tear slid down Phil’s cheek. When the final chord faded, Paul took his old friend’s hand and whispered, “We’re still a band, even if the only stage left is life itself.” The story has since spread among musicians like a final.love song between two legends.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: This afternoon, London’s hospital halls fell unusually silent as Paul McCartney quietly arrived, carrying the same old guitar that had followed him through decades. On the fifth floor, Phil Collins lay still—frail and pale after months battling severe complications from spinal and heart conditions. As Paul entered the room, Phil’s eyes slowly opened, his lips trembling without sound. Without a word, Paul sat down and began to strum “Hey Jude” — gently, with deep emotion. Each lyric poured warmth into the sterile room, moving the nurses to tears, while a single tear slid down Phil’s cheek. When the final chord faded, Paul took his old friend’s hand and whispered, “We’re still a band, even if the only stage left is life itself.” The story has since spread among musicians like a final.love song between two legends.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: This afternoon, London’s hospital halls fell unusually silent as Paul McCartney quietly arrived, carrying the same old guitar that had followed him through decades. On the fifth floor, Phil Collins lay still—frail and pale after months battling severe complications from spinal and heart conditions. As Paul entered the room, Phil’s eyes slowly opened, his lips trembling without sound. Without a word, Paul sat down and began to strum “Hey Jude” — gently, with deep emotion. Each lyric poured warmth into the sterile room, moving the nurses to tears, while a single tear slid down Phil’s cheek. When the final chord faded, Paul took his old friend’s hand and whispered, “We’re still a band, even if the only stage left is life itself.” The story has since spread among musicians like a final.love song between two legends.

Aug 5, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: In the United States, approximately 13.6% of police officers are Black. This translates to roughly 12% of local police officers being Black, a figure that has remained consistent since 1997, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data from 2020 indicates that 16% of officers in large departments serving one million or more people were Black, while nationally, the percentage is closer to 12%, according to The Sentencing
Partially True

Fact Check: In the United States, approximately 13.6% of police officers are Black. This translates to roughly 12% of local police officers being Black, a figure that has remained consistent since 1997, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data from 2020 indicates that 16% of officers in large departments serving one million or more people were Black, while nationally, the percentage is closer to 12%, according to The Sentencing

Detailed fact-check analysis of: In the United States, approximately 13.6% of police officers are Black. This translates to roughly 12% of local police officers being Black, a figure that has remained consistent since 1997, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data from 2020 indicates that 16% of officers in large departments serving one million or more people were Black, while nationally, the percentage is closer to 12%, according to The Sentencing

Aug 4, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: 2005 ISRAEL FULLY DISENGAGES FROM GAZA. EVERY SINGLE JEW IS PULLED OUT- FAMILIES, SYNAGOGUES, CEMETERIES. 2006 HAMAS TAKES POWER. SINCE THEN NO JEWS IN GAZA. NOT ONE. YET HAMAS WRITES IN ITS CHARTER THAT IT WANTS TO WIPE OUT EVEN JEW ON EARTH. 7 2023 THEY PROVE IT. THEY CROSS THE BORDER AND SLAUGHTER JEWS -NOT SETTLERS, SOLDIERS, BUT BABIES, GRANDMAS, AND FESTIVAL-GOERS.
Partially True

Fact Check: 2005 ISRAEL FULLY DISENGAGES FROM GAZA. EVERY SINGLE JEW IS PULLED OUT- FAMILIES, SYNAGOGUES, CEMETERIES. 2006 HAMAS TAKES POWER. SINCE THEN NO JEWS IN GAZA. NOT ONE. YET HAMAS WRITES IN ITS CHARTER THAT IT WANTS TO WIPE OUT EVEN JEW ON EARTH. 7 2023 THEY PROVE IT. THEY CROSS THE BORDER AND SLAUGHTER JEWS -NOT SETTLERS, SOLDIERS, BUT BABIES, GRANDMAS, AND FESTIVAL-GOERS.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: 2005 ISRAEL FULLY DISENGAGES FROM GAZA. EVERY SINGLE JEW IS PULLED OUT- FAMILIES, SYNAGOGUES, CEMETERIES. 2006 HAMAS TAKES POWER. SINCE THEN NO JEWS IN GAZA. NOT ONE. YET HAMAS WRITES IN ITS CHARTER THAT IT WANTS TO WIPE OUT EVEN JEW ON EARTH. 7 2023 THEY PROVE IT. THEY CROSS THE BORDER AND SLAUGHTER JEWS -NOT SETTLERS, SOLDIERS, BUT BABIES, GRANDMAS, AND FESTIVAL-GOERS.

Aug 4, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Since WWII: Jobs under Democrats: 50 million Jobs under Republicans: 1 million Real GDP Growth Rate Dems: 4.3% Real GDP Growth Rate Repubs: 2.5% Unemployment Rates: Lower under Democrats Inflation Rates: Lower under Democrats Budget Deficits: Lower under Democrats Stock Market Returns: Higher under Democrats Recessions under Republicans: 84% Recessions under Democrats: 16%
Unverified

Fact Check: Since WWII: Jobs under Democrats: 50 million Jobs under Republicans: 1 million Real GDP Growth Rate Dems: 4.3% Real GDP Growth Rate Repubs: 2.5% Unemployment Rates: Lower under Democrats Inflation Rates: Lower under Democrats Budget Deficits: Lower under Democrats Stock Market Returns: Higher under Democrats Recessions under Republicans: 84% Recessions under Democrats: 16%

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Since WWII: Jobs under Democrats: 50 million Jobs under Republicans: 1 million Real GDP Growth Rate Dems: 4.3% Real GDP Growth Rate Repubs: 2.5% Unemployment Rates: Lower under Democrats Inflation Rates: Lower under Democrats Budget Deficits: Lower under Democrats Stock Market Returns: Higher under Democrats Recessions under Republicans: 84% Recessions under Democrats: 16%

Aug 4, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks