Censor Watch

Carry On Spying is a 1964 UK comedy by Gerald Thomas
Starring Kenneth Williams, Barbara Windsor and Bernard Cribbins

BBFC category cuts were required for an 'A' rated cinema release in 1964. The BBFC cuts have persisted into all releases since.

Summary Notes

Agent Simpkins and trainees chase STENCH (the Society for the Total Extinction of Non-Conforming Humans) for a stolen chemical formula, using gadgets and disguises to defeat villains The Fat Man, Dr Milchman, and Dr Crow.

Versions

category cuts cut:   run: 87:02s pal: 83:33s

UK: The cinema version was BBFC U rated for mild language, innuendo and comic violence: 2007 Studiocanal R2 DVD at UK Amazon #ad 2006 TPC / The Portman Consultancy DVD (rated 15/03/2006) UK: The cinema version was BBFC U rated: 2001 Warner Home DVD (rated 12/09/2001) 1988 Warner Home VHS (rated 11/07/1988) UK: BBFC A (PG) rated after BBFC category cuts: 1964 Anglo Amalgamated cinema release (rated 04/06/1964) Thanks to Vince. The BBFC cuts list read: Reel 5 - Remove the words "more than enough for a fat man with a very small dossier." Reel 6 - Remove Daphne's line "Most men find her very exciting" and ensuing conversation in which she whispers to the fat man and he replies, resuming on "Let me see your shimmy." From IMDb: A scene - apparently now lost - shows Agent Bind stopping to feed money into a fruit machine as the other recruits are escaping the fun house. It would seem that all existing prints of "Spying" now fade out just before this occurs but there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that this full version had been shown on British TV at least once during the 70s.

The BBFC commented in a recent board meeting minutes:

BBFC Classifiers discussed a policy proposal to allow BBFC age ratings issued by self-rating partners such as Netflix to be made available for wider online use by other VoD services licensed to carry BBFC ratings. This proposal will promote greater ratings consistency across the VoD landscape, to help families make safe and informed viewing decisions.

The Classifiers approved the new policy to be implemented on a 12 month trial basis, after which the BBFC will review its impact and effectiveness.

European police chiefs have called for Europeans to be deprived of basic internet security used to protect against Russian & Chinese spies, scammers, thieves and blackmailers. The police chiefs write:

Joint Declaration of the European Police Chiefs

We, the European Police Chiefs, recognise that law enforcement and the technology industry have a shared duty to keep the public safe, especially children. We have a proud partnership of complementary actions towards that end. That partnership is at risk.

Two key capabilities are crucial to supporting online safety.

First, the ability of technology companies to reactively provide to law enforcement investigations  --  on the basis of a lawful authority with strong safeguards and oversight  -- the data of suspected criminals on their service. This is known as lawful access.

Second, the ability of technology companies proactively to identify illegal and harmful activity on their platforms. This is especially true in regards to detecting users who have a sexual interest in children, exchange images of abuse and seek to commit contact sexual offences. The companies currently have the ability to alert the proper authorities  -- with the result that many thousands of children have been safeguarded, and perpetrators arrested and brought to justice.

These are quite different capabilities, but together they help us save many lives and protect the vulnerable in all our countries on a daily basis from the most heinous of crimes, including but not limited to terrorism, child sexual abuse, human trafficking, drugs smuggling, murder and economic crime. They also provide the evidence that leads to prosecutions and justice for victims of crime.

We are, therefore, deeply concerned that end to end encryption is being rolled out in a way that will undermine both of these capabilities. Companies will not be able to respond effectively to a lawful authority. Nor will they be able to identify or report illegal activity on their platforms. As a result, we will simply not be able to keep the public safe.

Our societies have not previously tolerated spaces that are beyond the reach of law enforcement, where criminals can communicate safely and child abuse can flourish. They should not now. We cannot let ourselves be blinded to crime. We know from the protections afforded by the darkweb how rapidly and extensively criminals exploit such anonymity.

We are committed to supporting the development of critical innovations, such as encryption, as a means of strengthening the cyber security and privacy of citizens. However, we do not accept that there need be a binary choice between cyber security or privacy on the one hand and public safety on the other. Absolutism on either side is not helpful. Our view is that technical solutions do exist; they simply require flexibility from industry as well as from governments. We recognise that the solutions will be different for each capability, and also differ between platforms.

We therefore call on the technology industry to build in security by design, to ensure they maintain the ability to both identify and report harmful and illegal activities, such as child sexual exploitation, and to lawfully and exceptionally act on a lawful authority.

We call on our democratic governments to put in place frameworks that give us the information we need to keep our publics safe.

Trends in crime are deeply concerning and show how offenders increasingly use technology to find and exploit victims and to communicate with each other within and across international boundaries. It must be our shared objective to ensure that those who seek to abuse these platforms are identified and caught, and that the platforms become more safe not less.

See article from reclaimthenet.org

Here we have Europol and the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA), teaming up to attack Meta for the one thing the company is apparently trying to do right. And that's implementing in its products end-to-end encryption (E2EE), the very, necessary, irreplaceable software backbone of a safe and secure internet for everybody. Yet that is what many governments, and here we see the EU via Europol, and the UK, keep attempting to damage.

But mass surveillance is a hard sell, so the established pitch is to link the global and overall internet problem, to that of the safety of children online, and justify it that way.

The Europol executive director, Catherine De Bolle, compared E2EE to sending your child into a room full of strangers and locking the door. And yet, the technological truth and reality of the situation is that undermining E2EE is akin to giving the key to your front door and access to everybody in it, children included, to somebody you trust (say, governments and organizations who like you to take their trustworthiness for granted).

But once a copy of that key is out, it can be obtained and used by anybody out there to get into your house at any time, for any reason. That includes governments and organizations you don't trust or like, straight-up criminals -- and anything active on the web in between.

IRaH is a 2024 UK thriller by Sam Bhattacharjee
Starring Rohit Roy, Ameet Chana and Fagun Thakrar

BBFC category cuts were required for a 12A rated cinema release in 2024.

Summary Notes

Everybody wants a piece of Hari Singh and his revolutionary new app: the IRAH 5.10. Sadly, this extends to kidnappers, Police, Cyber Security Agencies and international hackers.

Versions

cut: run: 131:28s pal: 126:12s

UK: BBFC 12A rated for moderate threat, violence, injury detail, sexual threat, strong language for moderate threat, violence, injury detail, sexual threat, strong language after BBFC cuts: 2024 Do It Creative cinema release (rated 26/03/2024) The BBFC commented: The distributor chose to remove scenes of violence in order to achieve their desired 12A rating. An uncut 15 classification was available.

New Tools to Help Protect Against Sextortion and Intimate Image Abuse

We're testing new features to help protect young people from sextortion and intimate image abuse, and to make it more difficult for potential scammers and criminals to find and interact with teens. We're also testing new ways to help people spot potential sextortion scams, encourage them to report and empower them to say no to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. We've started sharing more signals about sextortion accounts to other tech companies through Lantern, helping disrupt this criminal activity across the internet.

While people overwhelmingly use DMs to share what they love with their friends, family or favorite creators, sextortion scammers may also use private messages to share or ask for intimate images. To help address this, we'll soon start testing our new nudity protection feature in Instagram DMs, which blurs images detected as containing nudity and encourages people to think twice before sending nude images. This feature is designed not only to protect people from seeing unwanted nudity in their DMs, but also to protect them from scammers who may send nude images to trick people into sending their own images in return.

Nudity protection will be turned on by default for teens under 18 globally, and we'll show a notification to adults encouraging them to turn it on.

When nudity protection is turned on, people sending images containing nudity will see a message reminding them to be cautious when sending sensitive photos, and that they can unsend these photos if they've changed their mind.

Anyone who tries to forward a nude image they've received will see a message encouraging them to reconsider.

When someone receives an image containing nudity, it will be automatically blurred under a warning screen, meaning the recipient isn't confronted with a nude image and they can choose whether or not to view it. We'll also show them a message encouraging them not to feel pressure to respond, with an option to block the sender and report the chat.

Nudity protection uses on-device machine learning to analyze whether an image sent in a DM on Instagram contains nudity. Because the images are analyzed on the device itself, nudity protection will work in end-to-end encrypted chats, where Meta won't have access to these images -- unless someone chooses to report them to us.

The BBFC commented about a recent decision to uprate Mary Poppins from U to PG.

Historically rated U, the film was recently submitted for classification ahead of a 60th anniversary cinema re-release. When distributors choose to resubmit older films, the BBFC considers them under its current Classification Guidelines so that the modern rating is in line with public expectations. This means that older titles may sometimes require a higher or lower age rating than in previous years.

Viewed under the current guidelines, MARY POPPINS required a PG rating for two uses of the discriminatory term hottentot. In the film, Admiral Boom (who believes he is a naval commander in charge of a ship travelling the world) asks Michael, a child, if he is going on an adventure to defeat hottentots. Later, the character shouts We're being attacked by hottentots! after seeing a gang of chimney sweeps (who have faces blackened with soot) dancing on a rooftop. He then proceeds to launch fireworks in their direction.

At U, the guidelines state that Discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly disapproved of. There is no disapproval of the language used in MARY POPPINS, and so a PG rating was required.

The decision received considerable attention from the press, both in the UK and around the world, with factual reporting as well as opinion pieces both supporting and criticising the decision. David was interviewed about the reclassification live on the BBC.

The Classifiers suggested that it might be wise in future to publish a statement on our website about any reclassification decisions that generate similar levels of media interest, to ensure that accurate information is readily available for anyone who needs it.

When the British Government started work on online censorship laws I think it envisaged that age/ID verification would create a business opportunity for British start up companies to exploit the market so created. Unfortunately for them it looks inevitably set that the usual US internet giants will be the ones to profit from the requirements.

In fact Meta has been speaking of its ideas that operating system companies and app stores should be the ones to implement age/ID verification.

Meta is calling for implementing age verification across Europe and proposed a way to do it. The company wants to ensure that parents only need to verify the age of their child once and noted that the most effective way of achieving this would be to have operating systems or app stores complete the verification process.

The move would pass on the responsibility of age verification from social media platforms to firms such as Apple and Google. Other platforms have also in argued in favor of the solution, including Twitter and Match, the company behind dating apps like Tinder, Hinge and OkCupid.

Meta delivered its statement during a hearing of an Irish parliament committee focused on children's rights this week. Meta has been taking different approaches to try and ease pressure from global censors on the age verification question. The company has been experimenting with facial age estimation technology from UK firm Yoti in several countries.

The Kansas state governor, Laura Kelly, has announced that she will not sign age verification legislation that was recently passed through the state legislature.

Instead, she will let the bill, Senate Bill (SB) 394 , automatically become law by letting it enter force on April 25. The bill levies age verification requirements on websites with users from Kansas IP addresses to check their identities through government identification or transactional data.

SB 394 empowers Attorney General Kris Kobach to enforce the law.

Kelly said in a statement:

While well-meaning in its efforts to protect children from content the legislature considers 'harmful to minors,' this bill is vague in its application and may end up infringing on constitutional rights, which is an issue being litigated in other jurisdictions over similar bills. For that reason, I will allow this bill to become law without my signature.

Kelly added that she could have vetoed the bill, but the Republican-held state legislature would have the necessary votes to overturn her veto.

Complaint:

I would like to express deep concerns about the name, branding and pump clip design of Twickenham Brewery's ale Naked Ladies. In itself, the school-child sniggering tone of the name is offensive, representing outmoded and sexist attitudes to women which should have no place in public life, and certainly not in any industry that wishes to survive in the 21st century.

Moreover, from my recent experience of ordering a pint in a London pub in which this was the only available real ale, the name of the beer and pump clip imagery present real problems of offence and embarrassment. As a middle-aged man, the experience of saying the name of the beer to the young woman serving at the bar was awkward and unsettling for all concerned. As a pub-goer, I would obviously prefer not to be made uncomfortable by the simple act of ordering a pint. More importantly, bar staff should be able to go to work without being subjected to sexist and sexualised language and imagery which, given age/power differentials with customers, could well be interpreted as harassment or abuse.

Company statement:

The company stated that Naked Ladies was a best-selling beer and had been available for over 19 years. The company explained that it was one of a range of beers which were all named after local landmarks, with the name Naked Ladies relating to statues at York House, the home of Richmond and Twickenham Council. While the statues had no official name, locally they had become known as the Naked Ladies and usage of the local name had transferred more formally with the statues also listed as an entity with Historic England. The company explained that in addition to this, the name was also used to refer to the statues in several other sources, including The York House Society, reflecting that the name was well known by the general public.

The company explained that the pump clip included a graphical representation of the largest statue and it had used such branding for approximately 10 years. The company explained that at all stages, it endeavored to ensure the link between the name and the statue was obvious and clear. This included a description of where the name derived on the company's website and on the packaging of the bottles which referenced the local landmark.

The Panel's assessment

The Panel discussed the product name Naked Ladies and its historical context as explained by the producer. The Panel noted that the name was a colloquial one used to refer to a group of statues at York House in Twickenham which was a fairly well-known landmark as an entity listed with Historic England. The Panel discussed the company's response and noted that the name had not been used gratuitously as the packaging and company website incorporated descriptive language designed to explain the historical context of the statue. The Panel noted that due to its smaller size and limited space the pump clip did not include the same information but considered that the reference to Twickenham in the company's name did provide some context between the name of the beer and the local landmark. The Panel determined that the name may be distasteful to some but that the overall impression, as opposed to the name in isolation, would determine whether the pump clip caused serious or widespread offence under Code rule 3.3.

The Panel discussed the artwork presented on the pump clip which depicted one of the referenced local statues, a naked woman, at York House. The Panel considered the Portman Group's accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.3 and noted that to breach the rule in relation to sexual objectification the packaging or marketing would need to incorporate elements that were demeaning, derogatory, gratuitous or overly sexualised. The Panel considered that the design was artistically stylised and akin to art deco in style with no identifying detail added to any of the statue's features. The Panel noted that the naked statue was modestly presented with its pubic area covered by hops and considered that nudity in and of itself would not inherently cause serious or widespread offence, particularly nudity depicted by an art deco statue. The Panel noted that there was no undue focus on the statue's breasts which were low definition and portrayed through a shadowing technique in keeping with the depiction of the rest of the statue. The Panel discussed the pose of the statue and noted that it was not positioned in a sexualised manner which meant that it did not objectify the statue based on its gender or sexuality. The Panel considered the artwork in its historical context alongside the name Naked Ladies and considered that the pump clip was not demeaning, discriminatory or derogatory in its portrayal of women more broadly.

The Panel considered that the depiction of the statue and the name Naked Ladies did not cause serious or widespread offence. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.3.

EU DisinfoLab, a censorship lobby group regularly making policy recommendations to the EU and member-states, is now pushing for a security structure created by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to be utilized to censor what it deems as disinformation.

Attempting to directly use ICANN would be highly controversial. Given its importance in the internet infrastructure -- ICANN manages domain names globally -- and the fact content control is not among its tasks (DisinfoLab says ICANN refuses to do it) -- this would represent a huge departure from the organization's role as we understand it today.

But now DisinfoLab proposes to use the structure already created by ICANN against legitimate security threats, to police the internet for content that somebody decides to treat as disinformation. It would require minimal amount of diligence and cooperation from registries, a blog post said, to accept ICANN-style reports and revoke a site's domain name.

Police Scotland is grappling with potential budgetary pressures and service reductions. David Threadgold of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) has raised concerns about the financial impact of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act. According to him, the legislation has already led to an overload of calls, with over 6,000 logged since its enactment.

Threadgold's worry centers on the unforeseen costs of handling these cases, particularly the overtime payments for control room staff. He believes these expenses will reverberate throughout the year, affecting other police services. Calum Steele, former general secretary of the SPF, echoes these concerns. As reported by The Scotsman, Steele criticized Police Scotland's preparation for the Act, calling it negligently unprepared and pointing out that the additional costs were predictable.

The legislation's impact extends beyond financial strains. The Act has resulted in a notable rise in the logging of non-crime hate incidents, incidents perceived as hateful but not necessarily criminal. This increase has prompted concerns about a potential inundation of trivial or malicious complaints, especially in the context of highly charged events like football matches. Tory MSP Murdo Fraser has already lodged a complaint over a tweet he posted being logged as a hate incident.

The Alabama House of Representatives has passed a bill that would require makers of phones and tablets to fit the devices with a filter to block pornography that would be activated when the device is activated for use by a minor.

The bill, HB167 by Representative Chris Sells passed by a vote of 98-0. It moves to the Senate.

HB167 says that beginning on Jan. 1, 2026, all smartphones and tablets activated in the state must contain a filter, determine the age of the user during activation and account set-up, and set the filter to on for minor users.

The filter must be able to block access to obscenity as it is defined under state law.

The bill says a manufacturer can be subject to civil and criminal liability if a device is activated in the state, does not, upon activation, enable a filter that complies with the law, and a minor accesses obscene material on the device. The bill says retailers would not be liable.

Authorities in Russia's republic of Chechnya have imposed limits on music tempos to abide by strict cultural norms in the Muslim-majority region.

From now on all musical, vocal and choreographic works should correspond to a tempo of 80 to 116 beats per minute, Chechnya's Culture Ministry said in a statement earlier this week.

The new tempo standard, which is relatively slow in the context of popular music, was announced following Chechen Culture Minister Musa Dadayev's meeting with local state and municipal artists.

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov had instructed Dadayev to make Chechen music conform to the Chechen mentality, according to the statement.

Local artists were ordered to rewrite their music by June 1 to accommodate the changes. Otherwise, they would not be allowed for public performance, the Culture Ministry wrote on the messaging app Telegram.

The Ohio state legislature is debating House Bill (HB) 295 , introduced last October by Republican state Rep. Steve Demetriou. HB 295 would require adult entertainment websites with content considered harmful to minors to verify users' ages using government identification or transactional data, with felony penalties for website operators who violate the law.

An amended version of the bill, dropping the penalties for website operators to a misdemeanor, was adopted during the hearing before the House Criminal Justice Committee on April 3.

However, one of the more controversial elements of the bill is the establishment of a misdemeanor charge against minors who manage to circumvent the age gate through falsified records or the use of a virtual private network that spoofs an IP address.

The US games censor, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) has been working on a facial recognition tool to verify gamers' ages and this method was submitted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for approval.

In a blog post, the FTC has just announced that it was denying the company's application for the technology. The FTC stated that it denied the application in a vote of 4-0, noting that it received over 350 comments on the issue before the vote. As the FTC notes, those who opposed the application cited privacy, protections, accuracy, and deepfakes as concerns.

Had the application been approved, the FRC would have added the facial age detection tech to the list of acceptable forms of receiving parental consent for collecting information from minor-aged users under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). This Act requires parental consent for the collection or use of personal data for users under the age of 13.

Last year, the ESRB partnered with the digital identity firm Yoti and SuperAwesome to create this technology to verify users' ages. The ESRB claimed it was not meant to identify individuals outright but rather estimate the user's age and stated it would not store the data after the analysis concluded. However age companies offering facial age estimation also offer facial recognition, so users would have to somehow trust big tech companies (or national authorities) not to identify users. And let's face it, such institutions haven't proved themselves to be very trustworthy in the past.

While the FTC rejected the proposal, it said that ESBR could re-file the application in the future,presumably after improvements to the system.

The Arizona state legislature has just passed the state's version of the age verification bills being sponsored around the country by anti-porn religious conservative activists. HB 2596 has been sent to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has five days to veto it.

Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Alison Boden wrote to Hobbs, outlining the free speech and privacy concerns raised by HB 2596 and copycat bills being passed around the country. The text of the FSC letter follows:

The Free Speech Coalition, an advocate for the rights of the adult industry and others engaged in constitutionally-protected sexual expression, writes to express our deep concern regarding HB2586, and ask that you veto the legislation.

The adult industry whole-heartedly supports efforts to keep young people from material that is age-inappropriate or harmful. Unfortunately, HB2586 has significant practical, technical and legal problems that render its ability to protect children limited, while creating dangerous privacy risks for adults, and violating the First Amendment rights of both consumers and producers.

Age-Verification Bills Have a Substantial Chilling Effect

In the past fourteen months, several similar age-verification bills have gone into effect in other states. In that time, we've seen a substantial chilling effect on adult consumers seeking to access legal content. Some adult websites initially attempted to comply with the laws, only to find that the vast majority of adult consumers -- as many as 97% -- refuse to submit their ID or otherwise engage age-verification protocols.

Despite the claims of the proponents of HB2586, submitting an ID online for sensitive content is simply not the same as flashing an ID at a checkout counter.

The process is expensive and complicated, and most consumers fear the real risks of surveillance, identity theft and exposure.

Proponents of these laws have promised that this information will never be shared, but anyone who knows the history of the internet and hacking, knows how unrealistic that is.

Even more worrisome, these bills allow this sensitive information to be stored and sold. While age-verification providers themselves are barred from retaining this information, state governments, credit bureaus, employers, banks or other databases against which age and identity is checked are not.

Unfortunately, this chilling effect goes far beyond explicit adult content. The law is written so broadly that the description or depiction of nudity, sexuality or sexual activity can create liability for a website, if it is determined to be inappropriate for a single minor. In the past several years, we've seen that the designation material harmful to minors has been weaponized to censor art, sex education, LGBTQ+ literature and healthcare resources, chilling speech throughout the public square. With HB2586, the same tactics could now be applied to the internet.

Carry On Regardless is a 1961 UK comedy by Gerald Thomas, Ralph Thomas
Starring Sidney James, Kenneth Connor and Charles Hawtrey  

BBFC category cuts were required for U rated 1961 cinema release and presumably the same cuts have applied to all releases since.

Summary Notes

The Helping Hands agency employs some very strange people to perform some very strange jobs. Even the simplest of tasks get bungled by the incompetent but lovable staff.

Versions

cut run: 90:14s pal: 86:37s

UK: Cut and BBFC PG rated: 2007 Studiocanal R2 DVD at UK Amazon #ad 2007 Studiocanal Amazon VoD [UK] at UK Amazon #ad 2006 Optimum Releasing DVD (rated 19/09/2006) 2001 Warner Home DVD (rated 12/09/2001) 1988 Warner Home VHS (rated 14/07/1988) UK: Cut and BBFC U rated: 1961 Anglo Amalgamated cinema release (rated 01/03/1961) Thanks to Vince. The BBFC cuts list read:  Reel 2 - In the 'Penny Panting' scene, remove shots of Sam lowering his trousers. Reel 3 - Remove "Oh no, there is nothing wrong with my knockers." Reel 4 - Remove "Do you now" and the accompanying visual. Reel 6 - Remove the final shot of Gabriel as he faints in the boxing ring. Reel 7 - Remove "What is it you like doing most of all in bed" and "The bed of the century helps you do it better." Reel 9 - The scene between Delia and a bachelor who is seeking a wife should be sortened to remove as much as possible of the innuendo.

Scotland's disgraceful new hate crime law has come into force that will undoubtedly restrict free speech and give power to those wih a scores to settle regardless of the merits of their claims.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of stirring up hatred relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. The maximum penalty is a prison sentence of seven years. A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, with the intention of stirring up hatred based on the protected characteristics.

The bar for this offence is lower than for the other protected characteristics, as it also includes insulting behaviour, and as the prosecution need only prove that stirring up hatred was likely rather than intended.

As well as the offence of stirring up hatred, the Hate Crime Act also consolidates the existing law on crimes which are aggravated by prejudice. These are where an offender demonstrates malice or ill-will towards their victim based on a protected characteristic, which can be taken into account by a sheriff or judge with a longer sentence or a higher fine than would otherwise have been the case. This is the first time that age has been included in the list of protected characteristics for aggravated offences, a move welcomed by some campaign groups.

Adam Tomkins, professor of public law at Glasgow University, and a former Conservative MSP, voted against the bill because it could see someone convicted of stirring up hatred for a comment they make in private in their own home, not just in public, and I just don't think that's where the criminal law belongs.

Susan Smith of For Women Scotland fears those who are investigated under the new law will have their lives upended.  She told BBC News:

The tests are quite woolly and we don't know how people are going to interpret this. We do anticipate that there will be a lot of malicious complaints, a lot of rather trivial complaints and potentially people who are investigated will see their lives upended. I imagine there will be many complaints, for example, made against JK Rowling.

Ch Supt Rob Hay of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS), which represents senior officers, said there was the potential for a huge uplift in complaints about social media posts. And as is so often the case, the police have sided with complainers and have pledged to investigate every hate crime complaint it receives.

BBC News understands that these will be assessed by a dedicated team within Police Scotland including a number of hate crime advisers to assist officers in determining what, if any, action to take.