I’m with Crusoe - there’s no reason why Joel should be overly informed about the British constitution (or lack of it 
).
Hell, the very fact that Joel hasn’t automatically believed his source but has come here to validate the information shows that he is far from ignorant!
Anyway, as evidence that we do have freedom of speech i hereby offer myself. 
I’m a Web Developer, but my monthly coin comes from my employers the British Civil Service - which makes me a Civil Servant.
If the government of this country restricted the public’s free speech, then they would restrict mine (and my fellow Civil Servants) even more so. Yet my free speech is restricted in no way. I am only bound by two important rules:
-
I have signed and am therefore bound by the Official Secrets Act which prevents me from disclosing classified information.
-
As a Civil Servant my allegience is to the Crown, not the Government. Therefore, as the Goverment of the Day (whatever their political persuation) is the vehicle of the Crown’s Authority, i must carry out the duties I’m given with impartiality and without political predjudice (unless carrying out said actions is illegal or goes against my conscience).
At the end of the day there is probably very little practical difference between the US and Great Britain in terms of freedom of speech. As Governer Quinn pointed out, if anything our Prime Ministers are given a much rougher ride in the media and public eye than their Presidential counterparts (i highly recommend watching Prime Ministers Question Time).
This isn’t, of course an indication that Joe Briton is any more politically savvy than Joe Yank, he isn’t. I think, however (and this is, of course, purely my own opinion) that we just tend to separate Patriotism from Government a bit more. By this i mean that we don’t automatically equate criticism of the government with criticism of the country quite as much as Americans appear to do.
I wonder whether this confusion over the liberties over here has arisen due to reports on the recent Hutton Enquiry and (allegedly) dodgy defence dossier which was used to justify the war with Iraq.
To an outside observer, these may appear to offer evidence that the Government does not officially tolerate any contrary views and comes down hard on those who speak out against it.
Whilst - obviously - no government is going to be happy if it’s employees speak out against its actions, the British Government has no right to deliberately target those who do.
If Dr. Kelly (whose tragic suicide led to the Hutton enquiry) was still alive, then the Government could no more prosecute or imprison him for his claims that the defence dossier was “sexed up” by the Government than you or I, for example, could prosecute a friend for suggesting that we were exagerating when we told them how big the fish was that we caught last summer.
As far as i’m aware the only grounds they would have for prosecution would be if he had signed (and subsequently broken) the Official Secrets Act.
Alternatively, if he were a Civil Servant then there would concievably be grounds for dismissal on the grounds that he was engaging in political activity or had irrepairably damaged his impartiality but even that would have been tenuous. More likely they would have allowed the fact that he had pretty much killed his career in government advice/the Civil Service serve as his “punishment.”