Is it 'irresponsible' to talk about 'two tier policing' ?
Recent and horrific riots around England have been seen by some through a lens of 'two tier' policing. Is this irresponsible incitement or necessary comment?
It should not need saying but I am sure if I don’t, I will be accused by some of arguing that ‘free speech’ encompasses threats to kill or incitement to violence. It does not. As I have repeatedly said, people who make such threats have no defence, they should be arrested, charged and imprisoned for the safety of us all.
So why have the recent riots in England encouraged discussion about ‘two tier’ policing, if anyone with any sense agrees that there is no defence to violence or the threat of it? Because the police and the Government have not directed their stern admonitions and threats of immediate punishment to simply those who are violent or incite violence. Again, in proclamations to camera or by social media posting, the word ‘hate’ crops up frequently. And with it the concern that the police do act differently when faced with groups they are afraid of or who they consider to have unacceptable political view.
Again, I have to make it clear I understand the different operational choices that apply when faced with a very angry and large group of people, where de-escalation may have to take priority rather than immediate arrests. But all of this is still taking place against a backdrop of concern about how the police and Government define ‘hate’ and whether the violence of the recent riots are being used as further opportunity to enlarge the ambition of the accusation of ‘hate’.
For example see the social media publications of the CPS and the Attorney General. The Gov.UK re tweet was widely mocked, and had to turn off replies which were universally negative. This is encouraging but underscores the ill advised nature of such broad pronouncements.
Fair Cop have long campaigned against the woolly use of the word ‘hate’ to underpin or exacerbate criminality - its definition includes ‘dislike’ and ‘unfriendliness’. We have also pointed out repeatedly the distrust that is created when the police abandon the core ethical demand of impartiality and treat certain groups as morally inferior to others.
See for example the treatment of Jennifer Swayne contrasted with the response to Sarah Jane Baker. One bundled into a police van for putting up stickers containing biological facts, the other excitedly encouraging a crowd of thousands to physically attack women and who was only charged after a wave of outrage, given that at the time he was out on licence for a life sentence for kidnapping and attempted murder. It is a reasonable assumption that the stark disparity in the response of the police to Swayne and Baker, was that one was a woman daring to express views the police found repulsive, the other a trans identifying man and hence beyond reproach.
When the police proudly announce they have dedicated teams scouring social media to find the next examples of criminal ‘hate’ I am rather less reassured after considering these examples of how they define it.
As our brave undercover operative at the Northumbria Pride showed, the Northumbria police were very happy to publicly pose with a sign equating ‘terfs’ to ‘racists’ and opining that both should be ‘afraid’. Gender critical belief has been affirmed time and time again as a protected characteristic. Just what the bloody hell do the police think they are doing? I hope the plans for judicial review of Northumbria Police proceeds apace; if one force falls, they all do.
Someone emailed Fair Cop to say that he was among about 100 people handcuffed at a protest on 31st July 2024 in London - they were simply standing and watching. They were held for 20 hours and then bailed to return in October. The police claimed to be operating under section 14 of the Public Order Act which allows restrictions to be placed on demonstrators when there is fear of significant disorder. But no warning was given to those standing by, no opportunity for them to disperse. Compare this to the police liaison officer who advised a group of armed men that they could leave their weapons at the mosque and no arrests would be made.
The problem is, as I discussed with Andrew Doyle on Free Speech Nation on Sunday 11th August 2024, you cannot ring fence your idiocy and corruption. If you abandon truth and reason in one area - such as what is a woman? - you cannot be trusted with it in ANY area. How you do something is how you do anything.
I note that Hope Not Hate have condemned Fair Cop as a dangerous ‘far right’ group, without contacting any member of our group for comment or giving us any right of reply. And yet their Director Nick Lowles was able to publish very serious misinformation on line on 3rd August 2024 about an acid attack on a Muslim woman He faced no consequences. He was not arrested. His promotion of this lie can only have served to inflame tensions - but because he has the correct political views, he can spread lies with impunity. But why is he less blameworthy that those who wrongly asserted the man who attacked little girls in Southport was a Muslim?
Lowles is simply a less covered up version of all those men in their black balaclavas, empowered and encouraged to threaten women with violence in public while the police either watch or walk away. Because they have the ‘right’ views.
‘Fascist’ and ‘far right’, like ‘transphobic’ will shortly cease to have any meaning. They have become just another in the now long list of thought terminating cliches, a net cast very wide to catch anyone who challenges your narrative. Better be sure that your net is strong and sturdy indeed.
You may find that you need a bigger boat.
The terms ‘fascist’ and ‘far right’ have long since lost their meaning and become the go-to slurs to castigate anyone who doesn’t buy into the “progressive” narrative. They are analogous to the more recently minted term “terf”. The problem, quite apart from the effective libel against those with perfectly mainstream views, is that there is no language left to use when real manifestations of fascism arise, ironically of course well illustrated by balaclava clad thugs aggressively shutting down meetings.
As regards “hate speech” I simply can’t and won’t accept the concept in a legal context. Hate is a natural human emotion, the corollary of love; we are, or should be, all as entitled to experience hatred of other people or groups of people (balaclava clad thugs, for example) and to express it both orally and in writing, provided that the long understood limitations of incitement to violence against persons or property and harassment are observed. The law simply has no business intervening within those limitations; but outside those limitations it must intervene uniformly. The Police as a body must have no collective view on any political or cultural matter and must absolutely not display any affiliations; their job in this context is to protect people from violence and harassment and their property from damage / expropriation and to arrest those who infringe without consideration of political or identity grouping. It is staggering that something that something which would have been seen as obvious and taken for granted by the majority only 5 minutes ago is now not only controversial but the opposite of the mainstream political and institutional viewpoint.
No because two tier keir is still spouting left wing rhetoric to describe ordinary people who protest. The thugs who destroyed should not be accepted, it's wrong to burn people's property. But ordinary people protested two tier keir sent the stasi against them double quick. He is an authoritarian just like putin, Kim Jong, china's leader. Not a month into the job, he shows you how he intends to proceed, believe him. Two tier policing as fashioned by wef kier