Outside Canada · Free speech / public order
UK free-speech Reel: Montgomery Toms says police seized banners after public debate
A Facebook Reel by Montgomery Toms claims police placed him under investigation, searched him, seized Freedom Watch banners and threatened the team with arrest after public debates outside Liverpool University and Manchester. PBC checked the video record and the UK Public Order Act context.
Short answer
The incident belongs in PBC’s Outside Canada / free-speech watch. The video itself shows a police/public-order confrontation and includes discussion of Public Order Act section 5. UK legal sources confirm section 5 can apply to threatening or abusive words, behaviour or signs likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress — but CPS guidance also says section 5 no longer covers words or displays that are merely “insulting.” The formal police outcome was not independently confirmed in this pass.
What the Reel says
The Reel’s caption says Freedom Watch GB held peaceful conversations outside Liverpool University and Manchester; that there was no violence or disorder; and that Montgomery Toms was reported for being “offensive,” threatened with arrest, searched, placed under investigation and had banners seized.
The captured transcript includes an officer/person in the exchange saying the report would be under Public Order section 5 and that flags/signs would be seized. The speaker says this is “shutting down free speech.”
What is visible/verified
- People/group: Montgomery Toms / Freedom Watch GB.
- Claimed locations: Liverpool University and Manchester.
- Visible issue: signs/banners about transgender identity and mass deportation, used as public debate prompts.
- Police/public-order angle: the video references Public Order Act section 5, seizure of flags/signs, search/detention language and warning about risk of arrest if returning.
- Legal anchor: official UK legislation and CPS guidance confirm the section 5 framework and the legal distinction between merely offensive/insulting expression and threatening/abusive/disorderly conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Evidence table
| Claim | Status | Source-trail note |
|---|---|---|
| Montgomery Toms/Freedom Watch had a police interaction over banners and public debate. | Verified from captured video/social metadata | The video shows the confrontation and metadata names Montgomery Toms/Freedom Watch. |
| Police cited Public Order Act section 5. | Verified from transcript/video audio | The transcript includes “public order section five” as the reason for reporting/seizure. |
| UK law criminalizes mere offence. | Needs careful wording | CPS guidance says section 5 no longer covers words/displays that are simply “insulting”; the legal threshold is threatening/abusive/disorderly conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. |
| Banners were seized and Toms was under investigation. | Claim/video-supported, formal paperwork not confirmed | The Reel and transcript say this; no police incident statement or case outcome was found in this pass. |
| This is an Outside Canada free-speech watch item. | Yes | It is a UK public-order/free-expression case relevant to Canadians watching speech policing abroad. |
Why PBC is logging it
This is exactly the kind of outside-Canada speech story worth tracking: public debate, controversial signs, police interpretation of public-order law, property seizure, search/detention language and a dispute over whether “offence” is enough to justify intervention. The careful question is not whether everyone likes the message. The question is where public-order policing ends and political speech begins.
Sources saved
- Facebook Reel metadata/transcript — Montgomery Toms / Freedom Watch GB.
- UK Public Order Act 1986 section 5 — harassment, alarm or distress.
- UK Public Order Act 1986 section 4A — intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
- Crown Prosecution Service guidance — Public Order Offences incorporating charging standard.
- Equality and Human Rights Commission Article 10 guidance — freedom of expression.