Thank you for subscribing!

Veteran journalist Kelvin MacKenzie writes why the case against Stephen Gray should alarm anyone who values free speech

Very quietly, without a hint of publicity, a case has gone through the courts which may well have even more far-reaching consequences than Lucy Connolly's jailing.

Let me explain. In the dock was ex-policeman Stephen Gray, who was accused of sharing a post which showed a piece of bacon alongside a man wearing a turban, with a caption reading: "Fun facts about bacon. People who eat bacon have less chance of marrying a nine-year-old."

Not very funny and not particularly clever, but Gray, 65, who served three decades with Cleveland Police, was convicted of making a grossly offensive post on Facebook by a district judge at Newton Aycliffe in County Durham.

Let's be clear. It is not grossly offensive. Not even mildly offensive. But what is offensive is that the verdict is a back door to a blasphemy law.

As Mr Gray explained to the court, he was simply sharing a post. He didn't create it — and even if he had, so what? Hundreds had already shared it.

The reason it came to the notice of the police in the first place was that they had been contacted by a neighbour Mr Gray had fallen out with (no, he wasn't a Muslim).

The neighbour had complained about two separate postings. The judge, who should be stood down over this verdict, thought the first one was okay.

The second one, quite wrongly, appeared to cross his personal offence threshold, leaving Mr Gray with a fine and costs totalling £1,000.

The only good news about this disgraceful verdict is that the Free Speech Union — a simply fabulous idea from Lord Toby Young — is funding his appeal.

I haven't the slightest doubt he will win on appeal. In the meantime, Mr Gray and his wife are worried he may not be able to continue fostering at his home in Darlington now that he has a conviction against his name.

Already, because of the nature of fostering, he has to undergo an enhanced criminal records check.

But the main point is: under what circumstance could that post be deemed grossly offensive?

We need the Appeal Court to throw out this verdict. It should never be an offence to repost views about Islam that some Muslims find offensive.

I find some aspects of the Muslim religion offensive. I dislike the idea that women are treated as second-class citizens, wearing clothes from medieval times while the men can walk around in jeans and a T-shirt.

It's not often that the spotlight falls on a small magistrates' court like Newton Aycliffe.

It does make me wonder what other bad decisions are being made by Mr Hood and his colleagues that we know nothing about.

Mr Gray's conviction is a classic case of state overreach. But have you noticed there hasn't been a peep from this Labour government?

For voting reasons, they would rather support the Muslim position than that of Mr Gray, a man who has given thirty years to the community.

The first thing I would do is sack district judge Hood — not only incompetent, but also lacking in judgment.

Next, I would quash the conviction and apologise for the distress caused to the Gray family.

My fear is that, emboldened by this decision, there will be a wave of similar complaints to the police.

Astonishing that they have the time to follow them up. It probably explains why you can't walk down any street in the UK without being overpowered by the smell of weed.

Drug peddlers are making a fortune while the police are busy scrutinising memes to decide whether they're offensive.