Two-Tier Rioting

The response to the Southport riots and their overspill across the country demonstrate a key facet of Britain’s governing class – it’s hatred of the native people, particularly the white working class and the peri-urban middle class. A seemingly natural response to children being murdered by a psychopathic child of Rwandan immigrants would be to ask why did the police, mental health services and other aspects of this country’s bloated, sclerotic bureaucracies not intervene or flag this. Inevitably, this case will become another in the long line of “he was on our radar” statements, passing the buck to another faceless agency in the administrative state.

But such a response is disallowed in polite company, and certainly cannot be aired in the lofty halls of government lest one be censured. To question why a second generation immigrant could be allowed to get to the point of massacring children would have to go up there with other taboo questions, such as why were Southeast Asian grooming gangs allowed to go on for a decade raping white working class girls? Why were the police involved in an innocuous incident of a boy scuffing a Quran[1], siding with the “Islamic community” who threatened the family of said boy (by placing a liaison officer at a ridiculous event where a cleric said the response of his community was justified and justice was needed)?

It is called two-tier policing or two-tier justice but such phrases miss the ideological component that underpins them. Two tiers would suggest an easy correction – equality before the law. But which laws? The Communications Act 2003 prohibits the sending of offensive or indecent material via electronic means. The Public Order Act 1986 bars hate speech on the grounds of either stirring up racial hatred intentionally, or “having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby”[2]. Something so vague that practically any act can be perceived to stir up racial hatred by part 3’s second criterion. With amendments this provision has been expanded to other protected groups, and with the addition of section 4A greater vagueness has been added such that causing distress is an actionable offence.

Perception is the key criteria for this legal melange, subjectivising the law and making equality before it practically impossible. Hate crimes and hate speech only go in one direction, and it certainly isn’t in favour of the native population. Vagueness is also key as it means that a wide swathe of communications can meet a prosecutable criteria. The Southport riots have been wholly caught up in this. People have been arrested for posting memes, writing non-actionable threats, shouting at police dogs and being near the riots without being an active participant. “Richard Williams, 34, became the first person from Wales to be convicted and sentenced for offences associated with the recent disorder. He posted about taking part in a riot and shared a derogatory meme about migrants in a local Facebook group dedicated to protests”[3].

No need to worry about trials or due process though. Their cases have been fast-tracked through the courts, and nearly all have pled guilty (presumably on the basis that they would never receive a fair trial considering the legislative nonsense that the CPS and judges take as gospel). But then we get to the issue of what to do with these racist thugs and Facebook hooligans. Prisons are overcrowded, with early release schemes being expanded to cope, allowing those with sentences of less than 4 years to be eligible for parole after serving only a few months[4] (this includes violent offenders). Again, we needn’t worry as the government has promised to open up 500 prison places specifically for those convicted of rioting or related offences[5], increasing the need for early releases that allow further violent offenders to be released, such as those involved in machete attacks[6].

This is the law (as currently codified) in action, with equality going one way. This was demonstrated during the riots themselves, when Muslim “counter-protestors”, who were whipped up by false reports of further rioting by Jess Phillips and Nick Lowles (Hope Not Hate director), were allowed to run rampant with weapons, trashing business premises and attacking people. And the police’s response? Well they liaised with the Muslim community and were given assurances that they wouldn’t need a police presence[7]. This is what community liaising really means – special treatment for organised communities that can viably threaten the peace. The language the officer uses is indicative – “counter-protestors” were there for the right reasons. No matter that someone got their head kicked in or a pub was trashed, so long as the right reasons were there. What are those reasons? A vague commitment to anti-racism which devolves into beating Whites who object to Muslim gangs carrying weapons around and intimidating ordinary people. I imagine the police response would be just as measured if white gangs decided to do some paki-bashing in response to the grooming gangs scandal or the murder of Richard Everitt (or maybe they’d crack down hard and accuse all perpetrators of racism as they have with the Southport riots).

Similarly pathetic efforts were witnessed in the 2022 Leicester riots, where India-Pakistan rivalries were imported onto British streets. The same community liaising and hands off approach prevailed as these riots spread into Birmingham. “Rob Nixon, Acting Chief Police Constable for Leicestershire, has noted the investigation into the unrest will run for ‘several months’ and that ‘the traditional community leaders, partners […] having a really detailed dialogue about some of these tensions, how we’ve got to where we are, and how we resolve them and take the issues forward’”[8]. The aftermath shows just how unserious a reaction was developed by political authorities. Political parties turned it to their advantage, increasing Conservative representation through Hindu enclaves (with the city divided politically with a Hindu Conservative in the east of the city and a pro-Gaza Muslim in the west). The structural foundations that allowed ethnic riots by alien populations to flare up remain in place. Will such a dialogue be had with white working class communities once the riots have been quelled?

It seems unlikely. Neither political nor legal equality escape the ideological position of the administrative state. The networks and regimes that constitute the modern state have an ideological fetishisation of the unprivileged other – Blacks, Muslims, the LGBT community. The white working and middle classes are superfluous in this framework. This is why Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner can sincerely take the knee. It’s why Humza Yousaf can openly declare that there are too many white people in positions of influence in Scotland. “The enemy-within is whoever happens to be adverse to the goals of the state and its agents. The current enemy-within is the patriotic white working classes, who are equally averse to both the middle-class facilitators of state policy and the imported proxies who carry it out”[9]. When the state wants to do something, like come down hard on people posting memes, they can do so easily, fast-tracking court cases and finding extra prison spaces. When they are uninterested, and when the perpetrator comes from a culturally favoured community, the full force of Kafkaesque bureaucracy comes into play (as with the various murderers and terrorists who were known to mental health agencies and security services[10]). The governing class is very open in who its friends and enemies are.

This two tier aspect can be seen in legal definitions as well, where the maintenance of vagueness and subjectivity once again show themselves. The Commission for Countering Extremism, a government agency created in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing, has proposed a working definition of hateful extremism so unclear as to be laughable:

“Activity or materials directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to an in-group motivated by or intending to advance a political, religious or racial supremacist ideology:

a. To create a climate conducive to hate crime, terrorism or other violence; or

b. Attempt to erode or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of our democratic society as protected under Article 17 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998”[11].

Focus on the out-group, or other, is key to understanding how this definition would be applied in practice. If you are from an “oppressed” group, your calls for violent action would be understood in a different context to someone from an “oppressive” group, due to the focus on supremacism as a central aspect for extremism. In practice, if you call into question the legitimacy of democracy on the basis that it does nothing for the native people of Britain, you are an extremist. If you do it on the basis that democracy does not serve the needs of minority communities, you should be respectfully listened to. The prioritisation of a narrative of the other is fundamental in assessing what the governing classes care about i.e. what they’ll crack down on and what they’ll let slide.

Low but increasingly prevalent levels of violent crime[12] are effectively ignored, with statistical agencies not even able to agree on how to measure such events (leading to farcical situations where the ONS shows higher levels of violent crime in the early 21^st century due to changes in police recording practices, while the CSEW shows a consistent downward trend[13]. Nothing like massaged statistics to make people feel safer in their neighbourhoods). The ethnic division in crime statistics is also ignored, lest it reflect the waste of police resources and the mismanagement of minority communities. Blacks are much more likely to commit murders in London, yet receive disproportionately less police force against them[14]. Blacks are more likely to commit random acts of violence, with the statistical trend showing higher rates of stranger-based violent acts compared to Whites[15]. In general, ethnic minorities commit higher rates of violent crime as well as having a higher likelihood of reoffending and of holding previous charges.

No wonder a situation can develop where in “2022/23, a significantly higher percentage of Asian (69%), black (65%) and those in the other ethnic group (73%) adults were confident that the CJS was effective, compared to white adults (50%)”[16]. It’s easy to have confidence in something so neutered that it will victimise criminals and criminalise victims, especially as the criminals tend to be minorities and the victims are normally natives. Sexual crimes show a similar trend of two tier action. 8 out of 10 convicted of having images of children being sexually abused do not receive a custodial sentence, despite high reoffending rates and a clear lack of rehabilitation[17]. In direct relation to the Southport riots, we see judges happily sentencing rioters for innocuous acts to years in prison, yet when faced with cases of child pornography and paedophilia, choosing to give suspended sentences, even speaking to paedophiles’ “good character” or feelings of remorse[18].

The future of policing and the criminal justice system is not geared toward the punishment of crime for its own sake but instead toward an obsessive focus on rehabilitation, the maintenance of community relations and a lax attitude toward prolific offenders. The police should “work collaboratively and listen deliberatively”[19], a meaningless phrase that when put into action means listening to organised groups (our so-called communities, none of which are White) and working with ideological NGOs and charities to continually deliver failed policies – rehabilitative support schemes (with millions thrown at charitable partners[20] while recidivism rates go up), racial sensitivity and community deliberation. “Policing had shifted away from a strategic focus on the maintenance of public order, towards a recognition of the impact on communities should criminality be seen to go unpunished”[21].

While public order is ignored in favour of community policing (another meaningless slogan), prolific offenders with 100s of previous convictions consistently avoid prison. As O’Brien shows, “Offenders considered prolific between 2000 and 2016 accounted for only 9% of the offending population but received just over half (52%) of all convictions and under a fifth (16%) of all cautions during their criminal pathway”, with a super-prolific cohort committing “9% of all offences committed by prolific offenders which resulted in a caution or conviction”, effectively meaning that “4% of all crimes are being caused by 0.2% of all criminals”[22]. It’s obvious the state could do something about this prolific cohort, as they’ve demonstrated their effectiveness when it came to punishing anyone even remotely involved in rioting. Fair trials and proportionate sentencing were thrown out the window when it came to making an example of people who dared question the prevailing narratives around immigration and crime.

The ideological position of the current regime prohibits such effective action being spread to actual criminals who cause pain and damage every day. If crimes are committed, like the Southport murders, that have no bearing on the state, then very little is really done. If, however, crimes are committed that do have such a bearing, questioning the legitimacy of the state or taking law into one’s own hands, then the full force of authority is brought to bear. The riots show that swift, punitive justice is possible. It’s just a shame it is only directed at one group.

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11812017/Police-delete-data-held-four-school-pupils-accidentally-dropped-Quran.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy76dxkpjpjo

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1jxmrk11yo

[5] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/05/extra-500-prison-cells-rioters-inmates-move-cobra-mahmood/

[6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13713889/mother-teen-killed-machete-attack-killers-released.html

[7] https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1820881508413899082

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Leicester_unrest

[9] https://www.pimlicojournal.co.uk/p/a-very-british-revolution

[10] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c990rmvy4ero

[11] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmhaff/369/report.html

[12] https://www.statista.com/statistics/288256/violent-crimes-in-england-and-wales/