The UK’s Catcalling Crackdown: Entrapment, Free Speech, and the Slippery Slope of State Overreach

In recent months, a controversial police initiative in Surrey, United Kingdom, has sparked heated debate about the balance between public safety, personal freedom, and state intervention. Dubbed the “Jog On” campaign, Surrey Police have deployed undercover female officers posing as joggers to target men who engage in catcalling or street harassment.

The operation, which has resulted in 18 arrests in its first month for offenses ranging from harassment to sexual assault and theft, has been praised by some as a bold step toward protecting women but criticized by others as a dangerous overreach that flirts with entrapment and infringes on free speech.

The “Jog On” Campaign: A Proactive Sting or Entrapment?

The “Jog On” initiative involves plain-clothed female officers jogging through known harassment “hotspots” in areas like Reigate and Banstead, with backup units ready to intervene when men engage in behaviors such as catcalling, honking, or making gestures. According to Surrey Police, the campaign addresses a pervasive issue: a 2024 University of Manchester study found that 68% of women surveyed experienced harassment while running, yet only 5% reported it.

Inspector Jon Vale, who leads the operation, emphasized that such behaviors, while not always criminal, can “have a huge impact on people’s everyday lives” and may escalate to more serious offenses. PC Abi Hayward, an undercover officer, echoed this, noting that the harassment she experienced during patrols mirrors what many women face daily.

However, critics, including the Free Speech Union, have labeled the operation a “bizarre social-psychology experiment” that diverts resources from enforcing existing laws. They argue that it risks entrapment, a concept rooted in British common law and carried into American jurisprudence, where it is explicitly illegal. Under American law, entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed.

In the landmark case Jacobson v. United States (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that entrapment hinges on whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense absent government inducement. In the UK, while entrapment is not a statutory defense, the case R v. Loosely (2001) established that undercover operations must avoid “state-created crime” and focus on existing criminal activity. Critics argue that by sending female officers to “hotspots” in athletic gear, Surrey Police may be creating scenarios that provoke behavior, particularly since catcalling itself is not a specific criminal offense under UK law.

Catcalling and Free Speech: A Protected Activity?

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in the First Amendment, protects a wide range of verbal conduct, including speech that some may find offensive or crude. Cases like Cohen v. California (1971) and Texas v. Johnson (1989) affirm that speech, even if provocative or offensive, is protected unless it incites imminent lawless action, constitutes a true threat, or falls under narrow exceptions like obscenity. Catcalling, while often crude, typically does not meet these thresholds.

A man shouting a compliment or making a gesture at a passerby, absent any threat or physical contact, would likely be protected speech in the U.S. The UK, however, lacks a direct equivalent to the First Amendment. While freedom of expression is recognized under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is subject to greater restrictions, particularly for behavior deemed to cause “harassment, alarm, or distress” under laws like the Public Order Act 1986 or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Surrey Police have acknowledged that many behaviors targeted in the “Jog On” campaign—such as honking or shouting—may not be criminal but are addressed through “educational interventions” or arrests for related offenses like harassment or sexual assault. This raises a critical question: if catcalling is not inherently illegal, are police overstepping by targeting it through undercover operations?

Critics argue that this approach risks criminalizing subjective interpretations of speech, undermining the principle that individuals, not the state, should navigate social interactions. A woman can reject or ignore a catcall, they contend, without state intervention, unless the behavior crosses into clear criminal territory like assault or stalking.

The Human Element: Gender Dynamics and Social Norms

The campaign also ignites a broader debate about how men and women interact in public spaces. Human societies have long relied on hierarchies and social cues to facilitate connections, including romantic or flirtatious ones. While some catcalling is undoubtedly crude or intimidating, not all instances are malicious.

For some men, it may represent a clumsy attempt at initiating contact in a world where traditional avenues for meeting potential partners are increasingly limited by digital isolation and social norms.

If men face arrest or public shaming for such interactions, how are they to approach women without fear of state reprisal? The “Jog On” campaign, by framing catcalling as a precursor to violence, risks casting a wide net that chills legitimate, non-threatening social behavior.

This tension reflects a deeper societal challenge: balancing women’s right to feel safe with men’s ability to express interest without being presumed predatory. A UN Women UK survey (2021) found that 71% of women have experienced public sexual harassment, with rates as high as 97% for women aged 18–24. These statistics underscore the real fear and discomfort many women face. Yet, the solution cannot be to police every interaction, particularly when the state’s role is to intervene in clear crimes like assault or battery, none of which were uniformly present in the “Jog On” arrests.

Authoritarianism and the Power of Collective Pushback

The “Jog On” campaign exemplifies a broader trend toward state overreach, where law enforcement, under the guise of protecting vulnerable groups, expands its authority into subjective social behaviors. This aligns with historical patterns of hierarchical control, where regimes prioritize order over individual liberty. In the UK, recent years have seen increased scrutiny of speech, from social media posts to public protests, raising concerns about creeping authoritarianism. The Free Speech Union’s critique resonates here: police resources might be better allocated to addressing violent crimes or domestic abuse rather than orchestrating stings for non-criminal behavior.

Yet, history also shows that collective resistance can counter such trends. From the American Revolution to modern grassroots movements, citizens have pushed back against overreaching authority through protests, legal challenges, and public discourse. In the UK, social media reactions to “Jog On” are mixed, with some praising the initiative as “proactive policing” and others decrying it as entrapment or a waste of resources. This division suggests an opportunity for public debate to shape policy, ensuring law enforcement focuses on clear crimes rather than policing social norms.