Elon Musk, still probably the world’s richest man and greatest self-publicist, has branded Sir Keir Starmer “Two-Tier Keir” with the allusion being to the apparent different approach to the policing of public demonstrations where it is perceived that there is one rule for the “Far Right” and another, less uncompromising and more accommodating, for all others such as the Pro-Palestine demonstrations, Black Lives Matter (BLM), Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and other left-wing organisations that regularly take to the streets.
For the avoidance of doubt and future calumny, the riotous behaviour experienced in many parts of Britain since the heinous murders of three children in Southport cannot be justified in any way and should be unequivocally condemned by all of us who love our country, its freedoms and its generally civilised and welcoming society.
I unreservedly condemn the riots as there is no place in a functioning representative democracy as ours for violence and intimidation on our streets, whatever the cause, and the police should deal with such behaviour quickly, without fear or favour and with the full force of the law. It is heartening to see that the police have dealt with this spasm of riotous behaviour quickly and effectively and they deserve our full thanks and support in doing so. I have two nephews who are serving police officers and another recently retired, and so I know what a worry it is for their close family when they become engaged in having to deal with such dangerous challenges.
There are two aspects to this situation I feel require addressing. First, there is the essential requirement to identify why a particular section of our society felt it necessary to explode into such shocking violence; and, second, to examine if there is any justification for the charge of two-tier policing.
Why did a very small section of our society take to the streets with violent intent? Frankly, I don’t know and your guess is as good as mine, but it’s lazy and all-too-easy for some in high places to dismiss the riots as an example of a mindless convulsion of crazed right wing morons and career criminals, fuelled by booze and drugs, just looking for a fight as their chosen pastime. It’s also lazy and easy to dismiss them as brainless fascist racist bigots without a cause worthy of a second thought. However, it’s not being in any way supportive of the rioters to ask why they behaved in this way and what aspect(s) of life in Britain today convinces them that their only course of action to rectify their perceived or actual wrongs is to bring violence and mayhem to the streets.
Maybe they are, after all, just extreme-right-wing, bigoted, fascist, criminal morons fuelled by drink and drugs who just love a fight. If so this societal cancer must be surgically removed through swift and robust police action backed up by the deterrent of significant gaol time (if there is the space). Such reactive action must also be supplemented and supported through a process of education in our schools and elsewhere to inculcate in fertile minds the sure knowledge that violent disorder will not be tolerated and will achieve nothing other than lengthy confinement at His Majesty’s pleasure.
However, maybe, beneath it all, there is some sort of logic to their behaviour. This, as I say, is not a justification in any way for the riots, but I for one would really like to know what is actually in the minds of those who riot and get an answer to the question “Why?” Is it just mindless thuggery and criminal opportunism, or is there a deep resentment of aspects of our society that was triggered by the appalling Southport tragedy and egged on by the shameful misinformation spewed out of social media.
If police officers are to put their lives on the line in dealing with rioters I would like to know if there is something else other than violent confrontation and incarceration (with all its recognised downsides) that can be done to ensure that there is no repeat of the disgusting behaviour blighting our country.
A start could be made by the police reporting FACTS more quickly than they do in order to deny a news vacuum to be filled by the social media miscreants. It seems to me that in American after one of their terrible mass shootings the local police chief, mayor and other relevant officials hold a press conference where they give out the FACTS and answer journalists’ questions.
With regard to the Southport tragedy, was it not possible for the police to hold a press conference within hours to state that the alleged perpetrator was NOT a Muslim, was NOT an asylum seeker, had NOT recently come to Britain via a small boat crossing, but was, in FACT, someone who’d been born and raised in Britain and has no known links to terrorism. Surely such swift action would have forestalled much of the misinformation circulating online which, by all accounts, was the fuel and excuse or the riots.
We have, of course, previously experienced significant rioting in Britain. I well remember the “poll tax” riots, the Brixton riots, the Toxteth riots and the Tottenham riots where the police were engaged in force to confront the rioters. I don’t recall any two-tier policing at the time, which brings me to the charge made by Elon Musk.
Sir Keir Starmer has unequivocally condemned the “Far-Right” as perpetrators of the riotous violence and the significant injuries caused to police officers in dealing with them, and of the serious damage to property, including looting, also involved.
Starmer is quoted as saying that the police merit our support in dealing with disorder “whatever the apparent cause or motivation, we make no distinction. Crime is crime.” I think we all agree with that, but has the PM been consistent in this approach?
Please cast your mind back to the dark days of the first Covid lockdown, June 2020, and the draconian controls granted the police by Parliament to regulate our private and public lives. One such control was an absolute ban on public gatherings and yet on 6th June a massive demonstration was organised by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organisation and their fellow left-wing travellers in protest at the murder of George Floyd, a black man, at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer several days before. I still don’t see the relevance of that tragedy to the UK, but, nevertheless, the police chose not to ban the demonstration as they were empowered to do. It was, after all, much easier to arrest individuals for minor breaches of the regulations than stop a mass demonstration in flagrant breach of the law that could only serve to exacerbate the spread of Covid within the community.
The police chose to manage the demonstration rather than ban it. This had very serious consequences for the officers on the ground in that the demonstration almost inevitably turned ugly with looting and the vandalism of public property and monuments. The behaviour of the demonstrators could accurately be described as riotous resulting in fourteen police officers being injured, the most serious of which was a police woman who suffered broken ribs, a broken collarbone and collapsed lung when she was thrown from her horse which bolted when a moron hurled a bicycle into its flank. On the 7th June, the next day, another BLM demonstration (riot), again not banned by the police, resulted in a further eight officers being injured.
What was Starmer’s response to the BLM riots? I stand to be corrected, but I don’t recall any unequivocal condemnation or any at all. What I do recall is that on 9th June an official Labour photograph was released to the press showing Starmer and his class-warrior deputy, Angela Rayner, “taking the knee” in support of BLM. I can’t imagine a more inappropriate and nauseating piece of virtue-signalling than this and I’m amazed it didn’t figure in the recent general election campaign.
How does the publication of this photograph in clear support of a left-wing organisation whose demonstrations only days earlier had descended into riotous behaviour with serious injuries to police officers square with Starmer’s current stance? To repeat his recent comment: “Whatever the apparent cause or motivation, we make no distinction. Crime is crime.” Could Starmer’s different approach be anything to do with the source of the riotous behaviour? Could it be an example of “Two-Tier Keir” and his double-standards?
However, that was then, this is now. Has Starmer experienced a Damascene conversion on the road to No 10? He’s dismissed out of hand any suggestion that he and the police are going softly-softly on the so-called counter-protesters whilst going in hard against the “Far-Right” rioters. There is no doubt that the police should go in hard against the rioters, but why is it that there persists a sense that the other “non-far-right” protesters are being allowed much more tolerance?
The current over-promoted Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, has, rightly in my view, incurred considerable criticism for the way in which the Met has policed the pro-Palestinian marches that have blighted London for months on end. These protests have involved tens of thousands of people, many thousands drafted in from around the country, and through their huge scale and chanting of offensive slogans are clearly intimidatory of the general population of London who just want to go peacefully and unhindered about their daily lives. The effect on the Jewish population of London has, however, been catastrophic. This peaceful, law abiding and constructive ethnic minority is now threatened, abused and harassed on a daily basis.
When the marchers openly call out for “jihad” and chant the slogan “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” (which is generally regarded as a demand for the extirpation of Israel) the Met’s response is a pathetic comment that these words have different meanings dependant on context and can’t in themselves be regarded as invoking violence or racial hatred. Similarly, during one of these marches the projection of pro-Palestinian slogans onto the Elizabeth Tower (Big Ben), which is in itself a criminal offence, was ignored by the police although the perpetrators were on show for all to see.
So, no action taken on flagrant law breaking, but a Londoner who was “obviously Jewish” because he was wearing a kippah was prevented by a police officer from walking unmolested through the streets of the capital, his home city, and a counter-protester peacefully displaying a hand-made sign reading “Hamas is terrorist” was arrested “for his own safety”. Perhaps the arresting policeman was unaware that Hamas is proscribed by HM Government as a terrorist organisation and so the sign was factually correct and not illegal to display.
This softly-softly approach to policing the pro-Palestinian marches has only served to bring the Met into disrepute and embolden the protesters. I have to wonder what the Met’s reaction would be to an organised anti-Hamas march arranged by the Jewish community and their supporters which, no doubt, would bring pro-Palestinian counter protesters to the streets? What would Starmer’s approach be?
We all agree that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental freedom essential to our democracy. However, perhaps it’s time look at how this freedom has been abused, particularly where tens of thousands of protesters take over city and town centres on a regular basis for months on end to the detriment of those inhabitants just wanting to go about their daily lives without fear and intimidation.
Another aspect where the police appear to favour one section of society over another, which has been exposed and highlighted during this riotous period, is their “engagement” with Muslim communities from where the initial “counter-protesters” sprung.
In a recent article in the Daily Telegraph their columnist Michael Deacon relates a situation where a Sky News reporter was covering a “counter-protest” in Birmingham where masked and armed men were gathered outside their local mosque and Islamic centre apparently ready to defend it against any “Far-Right” protesters who ventured their way. The reporter asked the police officer in attendance why there was such a low-key police presence when in the large gathering of, I assume, Muslim men many were carrying weapons. The officer’s somewhat amazing response was that the police were essentially allowing the “community” to police itself as they (the police) had previously consulted unidentified community leaders (presumably from the local mosque) so that they (the police) could be clear as to what type of policing would be acceptable. Essentially, the local Muslim community was being allowed to act outside the law in that they were unchallenged in carrying offensive weapons and were allowed to police themselves and their local environment.
I wonder if this approach was adopted in other Muslim community areas elsewhere in England, and would this situation be allowed in, say, any Jewish or Christian community which felt itself to be under real or imagined threat?
It seems to me that there is clear evidence of two-tier policing in Britain, but there’s also worrying evidence of the police contracting-out their primary responsibility of impartially maintaining law and order without fear or favour.
It also seems that the charge of “Two-Tier Keir”, is proven unless, of course, there really has been a Damascene conversion on the road to No. 10 and all rioters, irrespective of their political leaning, will hereafter be hit hard by an impartial police force not in thrall to any particular community or political cause.