THREE weeks ago, just after publication of the Home Affairs Select Committee report on two-tier policing, detailed in the first part of this report, thousands of trans activists gathered at Parliament Square, raging at the Supreme Court decision to restrict the status of female to biological women. Statues were defaced and placards bore death threats to anyone opposing transgender rights. The ugly scenes escaped mention by Keir Starmer, despite his repeated emphasis on ‘the rule of law’ and warnings about extremism on our streets. Another example of two-tier policing in action.
It has taken me a while to understand that the ‘two-tier’ system of justice is not fundamentally about race, gender, sexual orientation or even about the state’s preferred identities per se – though there is an element of that. What it primarily reflects is a dichotomy of approach to those who do not challenge the system or the establishment (upper tier) and to those who do (lower tier). Anyone who openly identifies as a conservative or patriot is, by definition, challenging the system and will soon learn where they will be placed, should they decide to resist.
What I realised is that shoplifters, drug dealers, vandals, muggers, rapists and murderers are on the upper tier, not because they are not a plague on the lives of ordinary people and businesses, but because they do not represent a threat to authority. What worries the establishment is dissent. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago showed from the author’s experience how ‘thought criminals’ were the lowest of the low, lorded over by violent recidivists. The report into policing of disorder in summer 2024 rejects the widely perceived and documented examples of bias in policing of protests. Let us judge whether the outright denial of two-tier treatment is credible.
Ruthless policing of protests against the slaughter of innocent girls in Southport by the son of Rwandan asylum-seekers began early. The Home Affairs Committee, however, says the police were unprepared. Supposedly they should have been out in force preventing any protest from taking place. As it was, on the evening of July 31, 2024, two days after the stabbing spree, some 200 people converged on Whitehall for a vigil for the murdered. Simon Elmer, a communist commentator (now smeared as ‘far-right’ for exposing the government’s global migration agenda) described what happened that day in his book The Great Replacement: Conspiracy Theory or Immigration Policy?
‘A vigil for the dead girls, organised under the banner ‘Enough is Enough’, was held outside Downing Street, where – presumably on the orders of London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan – it was brutally attacked by the riot division of the Metropolitan Police Force. These attacks were recorded: setting police dogs on the crowd, snatching random passers-by, punching members of the public repeatedly in the face, arresting an apparently predetermined number of people (111, extraordinarily high for such a small crowd), and illegally kettling the remainder for hours.’
For their troubles, those attending were cast by the media as nasty extremists striving to divide society. I know three people who are certainly not but who were arrested that day at Whitehall – just for being there. Andy Ngo reported the police mobilisation, kettling and arrests that you can see here.
Little respect for public grief and horror was shown.
Contrast this with another event defined as a vigil. The kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by policeman Wayne Couzens led to a large gathering on Clapham Common. This was during the covid regime and so broke lockdown rules. Two arrests were made. Some claimed it was not policed sensitively. However the protest was reported very sympathetically by the BBC and other media. Feminism is an approved cause, while protesting about someone of non-white ethnicity killing white girls is not. Two years later the arrested women won compensation and an apology from the Metropolitan Police.
Let us return to the Black Lives Matter campaign mentioned in Part One. This erupted in 2020 after the killing of a black felon by police officers in Minneapolis. George Floyd’s death happened 3,000 miles from Britain, in a country with a high rate of shootings by police and of the police but where statistics clearly demonstrate that there is NO evidence of an epidemic of racist police shootings. (Black people are at an elevated risk of shooting – by black people). Despite this Floyd’s death was given fanatical attention by media – the BBC in particular took it as an excuse to run wall-to-wall stories on race inequalities, thereby spurring the mass protests. Again this was during the covid interregnum, but official blessing was given for rallies throughout Britain, politicians telling us that racism is as much of a public health crisis as any virus. Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner memorably ‘took the knee’ to signal their virtue, while little was said about the police officers attacked at rallies, including a policewoman who was knocked off her horse at Westminster.
The BLM action appeared to be choreographed (the organisation is backed by massive funding from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation), quite unlike the spontaneous gatherings after the Southport murders. Anti-racism is presented as a progressive stance, while complaining about a killer who happens to be black is inherently racist. ‘White lives matter’? – not much, and if you utter such a phrase you could be punished severely. Consider Sam Melia, who was jailed merely for distributing stickers about white identity (which the court confirmed were not unlawful).
A few days before the Southport killings, a riot had erupted in the Harehills area of Leeds, after social services attempted to take custody of a child of a Romany migrant family. A large and intimidating crowd gathered, and, emboldened by the lack of police presence, vehicles including a double-decker bus and police cars (rocked and rolled over) were set alight. Apparently the only arrest at the time was when a white woman remonstrated with the baying mob for their wanton destruction, and police officers suddenly appeared – to arrest her! The Daily Mail reported local fury as ‘lawless Leeds’ was left to burn for hours after riot police were driven out by thugs. What the Harehills showed that the Mail dod not put into so many words was the extreme reluctance of authorities to police ethnic or migrant communities.
For many of us, hypocrisy has reached the level of absurdity. Attending the wrong type of protest is risky. Why? Because police arbitrariness is a powerful instrument of totalitarianism. Nobody knows where the line is drawn, when the knock on the door in the night for a tweet might come, so we censor our own writing, speech and action. The spate of imprisonments after Southport included people who did not attend any protest, never mind commit acts of violence. As Lucy Connolly, wife of a Conservative councillor, discovered, a spur-of-the-moment emotionally charged tweet (which she soon deleted) of no real violent intent was enough to arrest her and bring a two-and-a-half year sentence at His Majesty’s pleasure down on her. ‘Stirring up racial hatred’ however did not apply to the excesses of BLM agitators.
‘Two-Tier Keir’, as Starmer justifiably became known, implored the courts (incredibly opened around the clock), to deliver swift justice to the prejudged ‘criminals’. This, from a former Director of Public Prosecutions, was an egregious breach of judicial independence. Magistrates willingly meted out harsh penalties, often their sentencing televised to the delight of bien-pensants who regarded the mostly white working-class protesters as thick bigots. One grandstanding magistrate remarked that he had no idea what the men who he was jailing had been protesting about. Contrast with Just Stop Oil activists, who caused serious and costly disruption by blocking bridges and motorways, praised by a judge as he gave a soft sentence.
The hundreds of men and women arrested, typically in dawn raids, tended to be of the lesser-educated class and ignorant of their legal rights. They did not know that they could have maintained their right to silence. Jailed on remand, they were tricked into believing that if they pleaded guilty the court would be lenient. Contrast that with the legal and financial support given to protesters of favoured causes.
Most of these suspects had done nothing more than shout at police officers in riot gear. Take Peter Lynch. He was given two-and-a-half years for obstructing police, but his real crime was to bear a placard asserting that we have a puppet government under a new world order. The judge told this principled man that he was a ‘disgrace to grandfathers’. Soon after his incarceration Lynch was dead, arousing suspicion in some quarters but drawing no media headlines. Imagine the furore if a BLM protester had died in jail. Of course that wouldn’t have happened, because that campaign was in tune with the establishment’s subversion of traditional society.
The tiered approach to policing was evident in Stoke, where a large group of Muslim men assembled near that city’s demonstration against the Southport carnage. A police officer was filmed telling the hot-headed gathering to ‘stash your weapons at the mosque’. It was quite clear whose side the police were on.
Contrast too the Southport protesters’ treatment with that of Labour councillor Ricky Jones who, at a massive ‘anti-racist’ rally in Walthamstow, was caught on camera urging the crowd to ‘slit the throats’ of fascists. His court case has been kicked into the long grass.
Thus two-tier justice is proven by events both before and after the Southport killings. The final damning evidence is the battle over the Sentencing Guidelines. Starmer pretends to oppose this institutional prejudice against white Britons, but as a former DPP and an acquaintance of Tony Blair, whose administration set up Sentencing Council, he should not be taken seriously. Instead, his intervention appears staged, because for selective justice to work, the populace must know about it. Far from being a figment of whingers’ imagination, two-tier society is a political strategy. But ask any of the Select Committee’s MPs and they will see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, as though the blatant injustice is all in your mind.
The members of the Home Affairs Select Committee responsible for the police report are:
Rt Hon Dame Karen Bradley (Chair) – Conservative (Staffordshire Moorlands)
Shaun Davies – Labour (Telford)
Paul Kohler – Liberal Democrat (Wimbledon)
Ben Maguire – Liberal Democrat (North Cornwall)
Robbie Moore – Conservative (Keighley and Ilkley)
Margaret Mullane -Labour (Dagenham and Rainham)
Chris Murray – Labour (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
Connor Rand – Labour (Altrincham and Sale West)
Joani Reid – Labour (East Kilbride and Strathaven)
Bell Ribeiro-Addy -Labour (Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Jake Richards -Labour (Rother Valley)
