A fresh free speech controversy has broken out after new figures showed that more than 60,000 people have been arrested in the UK over the past five years for alleged “communications offences” — including cases critics say were as minor as watching disparaging videos on TikTok.

The scale of the arrests has prompted fierce criticism from civil liberties campaigners, who have branded the numbers “Orwellian” and warned they risk creating a “chilling effect” on what people feel able to say and share online.

The figures, due to appear in a hard-hitting report this week, also point to striking inconsistencies in how laws covering “malicious” communications are being enforced, with some police forces making 14 times as many arrests under the powers as others.

According to the report by campaign group Big Brother Watch, at least 62,199 people across the UK have been arrested for such offences in the past five years. Of those, 18,510 were charged and 12,292 were convicted.

Campaigners acknowledge that some arrests will be warranted, particularly where police intervene to stop threatening messages in domestic abuse cases. But they argue the breadth of the legislation has encouraged an overly aggressive approach to policing ordinary digital communication.

The report cites the case of West Midlands Police visiting the home of a vulnerable teenage girl to accuse her over a TikTok post containing a teacher’s image with negative comments. 

They demanded that the girl hand over all her devices and either attend a voluntary interview or face arrest – even though she had not created, shared or commented on the video.

The investigation later concluded with the child formally told that no further action was taken. The force defended their actions on the grounds that they were ‘investigating alleged malicious communications offences’.

Writing in today’s Mail On Sunday, Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union, said: ‘Why are the authorities spending so much time policing our tweets when they could be policing our streets?

‘Shoplifting, mobile phone theft and sexual offences are all on the rise, yet the police seem increasingly obsessed with catching thought criminals.

‘The sheer number of people being arrested for online offences, even though only one in five end up being convicted, cannot help but have a chilling effect on free speech. 

‘People up and down the country daren’t say what they think about a whole range of issues for fear they’ll get a knock on their door at four in the morning by a couple of plainclothes officers wearing rainbow lanyards.’

RELATED: Orlando Bloom Reportedly Furious After ‘Months of Chaos’ on Priyanka Chopra Movie Set

Last year, a Hertfordshire couple were arrested after they made complaints about their daughter’s primary school on a WhatsApp group chat.

Rosalind Levine and Maxie Allen were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment and malicious communications. 

They later received £20,000 in damages following a public outcry. 

Big Brother Watch says ‘the elasticity of vaguely defined speech offences’ in legislation such as the Online Safety Act has also led to wide divergences between arrest rates across the country.

While Cumbria Police arrested 25.7 people per 10,000 over five years – around 2.5 times the national average – neighbouring Northumbria did so for just 1.9 people per 10,000.

The laws have also been used to shut down or age-restrict internet forums on political parties, British history and even famous artworks. 

Analysis of communities on the Reddit website showed that discussions as diverse as horror film posters, advice on supporting a friend through chemotherapy, 1970s punk bands and ‘annoying papercuts’ were all placed behind digital age barriers.

Big Brother Watch is demanding an independent national review into the laws affecting freedom of speech in the UK and for action to ‘restore Britain’s free speech laws and culture’.

In another high-profile case, Lucy Connolly was jailed after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire in the wake of the Southport murders in July 2024. She was sentenced to 31 months in jail.

Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, said: ‘There is mounting concern among the public that speech policing is out of control in Britain and it’s long overdue that the government takes action. 

‘Andy Burnham must now launch a free speech reset and order an independent review of our laws and police training around speech, in order to fix this Orwellian mess.

‘Thousands of people are being arrested for controversial speech, online jokes and non-violent protest. People have even been arrested for holding blank pieces of paper, and urged to take ‘online thinking skills’ courses by police. Enough is enough.’

Two simple words have achieved more for my sex life than mood lighting, expensive lingerie and a generous sampling of the Kama Sutra ever managed. Unfortunately, they are also the exact phrase I use when my friend’s Labrador proudly drops a tennis ball at my feet: “Good girl.”

I realize this confession may make me sound unbearably self-involved — possibly even a touch narcissistic. But there it is. I have a praise kink, and frankly, I have no intention of apologizing for it.

If the phrase “praise kink” has somehow passed you by, here’s the short version: it’s the particular thrill of being complimented, encouraged or told how irresistible you are, especially during intimate moments.

In other words, if a perfectly timed “You feel amazing” has the power to send you into another dimension, you are far from alone. The subject has become a major talking point online, with TikTok videos about praise kink drawing more than 60 million views at last count.

My own realization came courtesy of a French man who excelled at unhurried foreplay and seemed to know instinctively which words would undo me. At one point, he held my gaze with impossibly blue eyes and said, “That’s my good girl.”

I lost my mind.

I mean, it certainly helped that he was French and looked deep into my soul as he said it, but further research has confirmed that nope, you don’t need an accent for me to unravel under those well-timed words.

‘Good girl’ is the most famous praise kink phrase, although a breathy ‘You’re doing that so well’ or the disgustingly effective, ‘You have no idea what you do to me’ will also get the job done.

All of a sudden, I’m going gaga for top marks in the bedroom.

Now listen, there’s no denying that some women get off on being tied to the bed and called a filthy little tart – hey, I never kink shame. One person’s yuck is another’s yum.

However, the rest of us have discovered that a glowing performance review is what really gets us going.

Praise kink has been quietly steaming up TikTok and romance novels for years. Online reading communities now compile enormous lists of books based almost entirely on whether the male hero knows when to deploy a well-timed ‘good girl.’ One Reddit thread dedicated to the kink attracted almost 1,000 upvotes.

And men, please take note, because some of you still think peak dirty talk is loudly asking, ‘Do you like that?’ every 30 seconds.

Snore. Spoiler alert: usually, we don’t.

The more I looked into praise kink, the more I realized that men have been talking dirty to women all wrong.

Porn has handed them a very particular bedroom script, and it’s a bad one. It’s heavy on commands and degradation, using words most women would slap a stranger for saying anywhere else.

Again, yes, once again plenty of women genuinely love that. Godspeed to them.

But I suspect many others have politely endured some wildly aggressive pornographic dialogue because they didn’t want to embarrass the man delivering it.

There is nothing quite like lying naked beneath a perfectly pleasant accountant named Simon as he suddenly begins speaking like a recently paroled nightclub bouncer.

One moment he’s asking whether you’d like another glass of pinot and the next he’s calling you names that make you mentally go, ‘Eww, what?’

READ MORE: Former Child Stars Who Called Out Hollywood’s Toxic Culture

We’ve spent so long discussing the way porn has shaped men’s expectations of women’s bodies that we’ve overlooked what it has done to their vocabulary.

At its most simple, feeling intensely desired is sexy. Of course, there could also be a slightly darker explanation for our collective weakness.

Daddy issues.

Yes, I know. Ick. But stick with me.

Could a well-timed ‘good girl’ feel so powerful because some of us grew up desperate for approval? There are therapists who believe a praise kink can occasionally be connected to the affirmation we lacked earlier in life, particularly from our fathers.

If you spent your formative years chasing gold stars from someone who rarely handed them out, perhaps approval carries a little extra charge in adulthood.

How very Freudian.

Then again, sexual experts are also quick to point out that enjoying praise doesn’t automatically reveal some great childhood wound. You can have loving parents and a perfectly healthy sense of self-worth and still find a low, well-timed, ‘That’s my girl,’ outrageously hot.

Sometimes a kink is simply a kink.

And if I’m being completely honest – because heck, why stop now? – part of the appeal is the cheeky little power play tucked inside those otherwise innocent words.

‘You look beautiful’ is a compliment, but ‘That’s my good girl,’ contains a hint of possession that really makes things interesting.

Sorry, my feminist ancestors. My kink has done you dirty.

But that, dear gents, is why you need to tread carefully, because ‘good girl’ is astonishingly divisive. Say it to one woman and she’ll melt. Say it to another and she’ll wonder whether you’re about to reward her with a dog treat.

I put a poll on my Instagram, asking if other women found it a turn on, and the answers surprised me: 54 percent said it was an instant turn on, compared to 46 percent who said: ‘Please don’t speak.’

The safest way to test the waters is to begin with some sincere praise. Tell her what she is doing to you. Tell her how incredible she looks. Who wouldn’t love that?

And to be fair, we women have spent years faking orgasms. Men can manage one enthusiastic compliment.

As for me, I have accepted my diagnosis. Perhaps a little too eagerly.

Call me ‘good girl’ and I’ll be checking my phone every six minutes like you’ve placed me under some sort of horny little spell. If that desire can be traced back to a murky psychological need for validation, I’m sure a therapist and I will have a fascinating chat about it one day.

Until then, I’ll be over here wagging my tail.

A Canadian law that allows mothers to be prosecuted under a separate infanticide provision after killing their children has come under renewed scrutiny, as global attention intensifies around Lindsay Clancy’s triple murder trial.

The controversial statute, introduced in 1948, sets a maximum prison sentence of five years for mothers in Canada who kill a child before the child’s first birthday while suffering from postpartum depression.

Canada’s approach differs from the legal framework in the United States, the United Kingdom and parts of Europe, as its Criminal Code includes infanticide provisions that apply specifically to mothers who kill their newborn children.

Infanticide is generally understood as the intentional killing of a baby or very young child, typically under the age of one. In Canada, Section 233 of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offense for a mother to take her child’s life while her mind is considered “disturbed” as a result of childbirth or lactation.

The offense carries a significantly lighter penalty than murder or manslaughter, with the maximum punishment capped at five years in prison.

In stark comparison, crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, and break and entering with intent – where no human being died as a result – can carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment in Canada. 

The infanticide law north of the border is wildly different to those in the US. Clancy, whose murder case ended in a mistrial this week, faced a maximum of life in prison.

The 36-year-old admitted to strangling her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, to death in their Duxbury home on January 24, 2023. 

She pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity, citing postpartum psychosis. She also attempted suicide after the killings. 

She was on trial for five weeks, but on Friday, a judge ruled a mistrial after 12 jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision following 38 hours of deliberation. 

Clancy will remain at a state-run medical facility while prosecutors determine if they wish to try her again. 

But if the case had taken place in Canada, Clancy’s possible outcomes could have been far less consequential because Callan was less than a year old, according to a CBC report published on Tuesday. 

The report, titled ‘How different would Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial look if it happened in Canada?’, delved into Canadian law and why some experts believe it is just. 

‘Women who kill as a result of not recovering from childbirth should not face life imprisonment – that doesn’t really serve anyone’s interests if there was truly a postpartum illness at play,’ Isabel Grant, a University of British Columbia professor in the Allard School of Law, told the outlet. 

Grant, who specializes in criminal law, has published pieces on homicide, including infanticide, she said. 

She went on to slam the US for its approach to the matter. 

ALSO READ: King Charles’s Fondness for Prince Harry Reveals How Father-Son Bond Has Shifted, Expert Says

‘The United States has taken a much harsher approach to these cases than in Canada, with young women being sentenced to extraordinarily long periods of incarceration in some of these cases,’ Grant added. 

Under Canadian law, Clancy could have raised infanticide as a defense for the murder of baby Callan, but it would not have worked for Cora and Dawson, Grant said. 

‘That is a shortcoming in the Canadian law,’ she stated to the outlet. 

Because of evidence pointing to Clancy’s mental health issues, Grant said: ‘It is possible she would have been charged with manslaughter for the older children and infanticide for the infant, but that would be a significant determination.’ 

Earlier this year, Cassie Acorn, a mom from Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island, Canada, was sentenced to one year in prison for killing her three-month-old daughter.

Little Winter Elizabeth Acorn was crying when her mother slammed her head against the floor of her apartment, leaving the little girl with head injuries that killed her.

A psychiatric evaluation after she was arrested showed Acorn suffered from postpartum depression – and her charges were downgraded from first-degree murder to infanticide. 

With this downgrade, she was handed a one-year prison sentence in January 2026.  

Clancy’s case, and subsequent mistrial, has unleashed fresh outrage for Canada’s lenient infanticide law. 

Nellie Bowles, the co-founder of The Free Press, shared her opinion on the CBC’s recent article in a piece published on Friday.

She mentioned Grant’s ‘shortcoming’ comment, calling it ‘pro-choice taken to the nth degree.’ 

Bowles wrote: ‘Maybe postpartum should last until the kid’s 18, right? Maybe moms – if they’re under a lot of pressure and like, super, super stressed and changing Zoloft dosages and can’t figure out the Snoo— should be able to kill her offspring at any age?’ 

‘The deeper idea being proposed here seems to be that moms should kind of be able to kill their kids. Like, if they’re really, really stressed. In Canada, that’s the law already,’ she added. 

Online users have also bashed the law after hearing about it, with one writing: ‘The maximum sentence for a mother killing her infant is only five years in prison. 

‘Canada is one of the most evil nations on Earth. We have invaded and bombed countries for far less.’ 

‘There is something deeply, insanely wrong with Canada,’ wrote another.  

More than six years after stepping away from duties as a working royal, Prince Harry has repeatedly used interviews, documentaries and his memoir to describe what he sees as the “generational trauma” he endured growing up as the younger son — the so-called royal “spare.”

In his 2023 autobiography, he put that feeling in stark terms: ‘I was the shadow, the support, the Plan B. I was brought into the world in case something happened to Willy.

‘I was summoned to provide back-up, distraction, diversion and, if necessary, a spare part. Kidney, perhaps. Blood transfusion. Speck of bone marrow.’

But newly revisited archive footage showing an 18-year-old Harry chatting about his sporting successes with his father, now King Charles, and Prince William, then 20, suggests a warmer dynamic than the one often associated with his later public reflections.

Body language specialist Judi James argues that the “strained and complex” father-son relationship Harry, 41, has frequently described is not necessarily supported by how he and Charles appeared together in the footage from that period.

She told the Daily Mail: ‘Charles’s physical awkwardness might be legendary but in clips like this one he appears to be giving Harry a unique form of watchful attention that is littered with subtle but powerful displays of fondness.’

The lighthearted conversation – which was filmed in Anglesey, north Wales, in June 2003 – shows Charles, William and Harry reflecting after a polo match. Charles praises his youngest son for his ‘brilliant’ performance.

‘You scored two goals didn’t you?’ Charles asked Harry, before the prince replied: ‘Three.’ His father then said: ‘Well done, brilliant.’

After that, William interjected: ‘I did all the hard work in the middle pitch obviously. Didn’t score any goals myself.’

At a later stage in the conversation, Harry jokingly calls his brother a ‘spoon’, adding: ‘I almost fell off my horse trying to get you the ball and you missed it!’

‘Spoon did you say?’ Charles queried, with Harry going on to explain: ‘It isn’t a swear word’.

Ms James notes that the lighthearted interaction between Charles and Harry highlights the ’empathy’ shared between the pair.

‘We have Charles creating a preferential form of proximity with his youngest son, both when he sits with one boy on either side and then very emphatically when another player joins them and Charles sits next to Harry, mirroring him and chatting quietly while William is now one seat away,’ she said.

‘It is clearly Harry who gets Charles’s prime and then exclusive attention in this video while William appears to have to work to dominate the spotlight or break into and take over the conversation.

‘Charles gives two different types of attention to his sons here: with Harry he appears gentle, caring and watchful but William is treated more like a fellow adult and equal.’

Ms James added while William appears both ‘confident and socially at ease’, Harry’s body language suggests he ‘might actually resonate more strongly with his father’.

She added: ‘Red-cheeked and bashful-looking, he sits hunched and glowering slightly, hiding his face behind his hand and a glass in a gesture of shyness that would probably promote feelings of empathy in his father, who often looked like the shy, awkward, isolated and less confident member of his family group when he was younger.’

And it appears that Charles, while not naturally a tactile father, appears to acknowledge his son’s cues ‘subtly’ here.

‘He pays his son individual and full eye-attention and his vocal tone softens and drops to signal affection as he tries to draw him into the conversation. 

‘He points at Harry’s banana to ask if it’s his “method of recovery” with an amused but nurturing approach and his features soften in a look of indulgence, along with his tone.’

The expert added that even when William is discussing his involvement in the sporting game and the challenges he faced trying to score, Charles’s ‘body position shows his closeness to Harry’.

‘He turns his head to listen as William talks, but his right hand remains close to his younger son and his right leg is splayed out next to and close to Harry,’ she explained.

Indeed, while Charles is often depicted as a father who was a ‘product of protocol and boarding schools’ and maintained a ‘stiff upper lip’ at all occasions, the King has always spoken fondly of his affection for his youngest son.

He referred to Harry as his ‘darling boy’ and in a 2017 interview for the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. Harry shared how he and his father, whom he affectionately referred to as ‘Pa’, would ‘talk for hours and hours’ about Charles’s passion for the environment.

He also revealed how he valued his father’s opinion saying: ‘I do end up picking your brains more now than I ever have done.’

That same year, William and Harry paid tribute to their father for being ‘there for us’ following the death of Princess Diana, during a BBC documentary to mark the 12th anniversary of her death.

Both princes were staying at Balmoral with their father in 1997 when Princess Diana was killed in a car crash in Paris – and it was up to Charles to break the news to them.

Harry said of his father: ‘One of the hardest things for a parent to have to do is to tell your children that your other parent has died.

‘How you deal with that, I don’t know. But, you know, he was there for us. He was the one of the two left.’

Writing in Spare, Harry recalled that Charles sat him down on the bed to break the news of the car accident, calling him ‘my dear son’ as he told him how Diana had sustained head injuries that didn’t look likely to improve.

He writes: ‘What I do remember with stunning clarity is that I did not cry. Not a tear. My father did not hug me.’

While he claims Charles did not cry while breaking the news, he said his father put his hand on Harry’s knee and claimed everything would be OK. 

In 2021, during an interview on the Armchair Expert podcast with host Dax Shepard, Harry said his father had treated him ‘the way he was treated’, with Harry asking himself ‘so how can I change that for my own kids?’

The Duke then went on to add that he and Meghan had made the move to the US to ‘break the cycle’ of ‘genetic pain’ he had experienced growing up.

Harry suggested that Charles had ‘suffered’ because of his upbringing by the Queen and Prince Philip, and the Prince of Wales had ‘treated me the way he was treated’, calling it ‘genetic pain’.

Ms James added: ‘Tactile behaviours have never appeared to be Charles’s love language. 

‘It was Diana who put hugs on the royal PDA menu, while her husband could barely place his hand on her shoulder for their engagement photos without looking ill at ease.’

She notes that ultimately William ‘appears to have inherited Diana’s ease in public and in front of a camera’, while ‘Harry and Charles seem twinned in their inner awkwardness and signals of diffidence’.

‘They fall into a much more intimate and personal form of verbal dialogue that both seem happier and more comfortable with than with William’s alpha banter mode,’ she explained.

‘Their voices become private and softer and their speed of speech increases until they appear to be mumbling together in what almost sounds like their own form of dialogue.’

The heartwarming footage of the father-son pair comes as Harry is soon set to celebrate his 42nd birthday on September 15 – just weeks after he and Meghan Markle relocated back to the UK with their two children. 

Harry and Meghan, 45, will live in a non-royal residence outside of London. Their children Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, have both been enrolled in UK schools, ready to start next week.

But despite their close bond, Charles was said to have only been informed just days before the news dropped about the Sussexes’ return to Britain. 

Harry and Meghan will remain private individuals and non-working members of the Royal Family, in keeping with their ‘clearly expressed wishes and the agreement reached in recent years’.

He is understood to have visited his father at Highgrove House in Gloucestershire following an Invictus Games one-year-to-go event in Birmingham.

Harry was joined by his wife and two children in what is believed to have been the first time Archie and Lilibet had seen the monarch since Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June 2022.

Just weeks ago, sources close to Harry said he wanted to visit Britain ‘every few months’ over the next year after his reunion with King Charles last month.

Before deciding on a longer-term return, the Duke of Sussex said his most recent visit to the UK and time with his father left him feeling ‘buoyed’, ‘very happy’ and ‘really energised’.

Harry was already due to return to Britain in September for a week of engagements.

A source previously told The Sunday Times: ‘He wants more of a foothold here, more trips back, less courtroom drama. And he always loves seeing his family.’

Sign up to our Palace Confidential newsletter for FREE and we’ll send you an exclusive article on the moment the Royal Family started to question Meghan’s motivations. Get it HERE