Like the nation, I felt physically sick and repulsed as news emerged of the butchery of children in Southport on Monday – and outraged at the riot the following day.
The sheer contrast of the innocence of little girls enjoying a Taylor Swift-themed dance club at the start of a sunny summer holiday with the malevolence of a 17 year-old man brutally robbing three girls of their lives and injuring more was deeply upsetting. For many people, the shock of it gave way to both despondency and pure rage. How could this happen in the U.K. in 2024? And yet, it somehow seemed less of a shock in the context where many feel that lawlessness is becoming the norm – that the police, politicians and mainstream commentators seem either indifferent to society spiralling out of control or are powerless to prevent it.
Worse, attempts at a frank discussion about what is going wrong are regularly muted by labelling people’s raw responses of fury and frustration as some variant of extremist bigotry or by accusing them of stoking up those infamous culture wars. So, the particularly harrowing aspect of children being the target of such extreme violence has acted as a lightning rod for all sorts of pent-up fears and fury; an understandable refusal to calm down, be dignified, not to worry our pretty little heads while those in charge sort it out with their platitudes and new repressive laws.
The subsequent malevolent and destructive riot in Southport has muddied the situation further. Most of us looked for some consoling sense of hope in the aftermath of the tragedy, such as the awe-inspiring bravery of ordinary passersby and those heroic dance teachers defending their pupils (so well captured by Fraser Myers here), or the community coming together in an act of poignant solidarity at a thousands-strong vigil on Tuesday evening.
But then, I started to notice some bad faith actors circulating ugly rumours about the 17-year-old perpetrator being a Muslim asylum seeker (with no evidence whatsoever) alongside calls for vengeance at what was called a “protest” at a local mosque. We then all witnessed the chaotic scenes of brick throwing, car-burning, police-under-siege chaos. Those same seaside town streets lived in by a community still trying to process an act of savagery were trashed by yobs who seemed to be revelling in the occasion, rather than expressing the nation’s anger.
But yes, I know, it’s more complicated than that. So here are a few examples of the double standards that make this issue tricky.
On policing: When the recent Harehills riot occurred in Leeds, there was justifiable public outrage that the police seemed to retreat from the scene. Too often, when disorder is taking place – from Just Stop Oil’s anti-social destruction of property to the rampant anti-Semitism on many pro-Gaza demos, from mass shoplifting to the grooming gangs scandal, from normalised machete fights to increased sexual assaults – the police appear to look away. But for once, in Southport, the police heroically charged at danger to apprehend the knifeman and rightly aimed to control a volatile riot. Despite this, the response from too many has been to cheer on as officers were injured and the target of violence. How can that help restore order?
On controlling our streets: The queues of politicians lining up to condemn the Southport riot compares poorly with more mealy-mouthed reactions to the equally nihilistic and violent Harehills riot in Leeds. The full force of the law needs to be equally applied but rarely is. What’s more, in my contribution in the Lords to the King’s Speech on criminal justice – labelled by Keir Starmer as Labour’s “Take Back Control of our Streets” policy – I was the sole voice to speak on events in Leeds. I was also one of a small few to raise the frightening levels of violent, abusive, misogynistic, antisemitic intimidation faced by some candidates in the General Election from organised gangs of Gaza activists and Islamists.
Government Ministers didn’t even bother to reply. So, when Angela Rayner proclaims that “thuggish behaviour” has “absolutely no place in our democracy” after violent scenes in the Merseyside town, we might ask why some thuggish behaviour matters more than others.
On identity politics: There is seething public resentment about the fact that identitarians regularly deploy skin colour and ethnicity to demonise the majority of U.K. citizens for their “white privilege”, divisively pitted against minority “victims” who need special protection. But for a few white nationalists to exploit the horrors of Southport for their own opportunistic power grab is just as sordid and grubby, and benefits no one.
On speech: Identity politics is one effective way that those in charge fence-off open debate on everything from immigration to the growing hold of radical, politicised Islamism. And as it’s become fashionable to promiscuously demonise opponents as far-Right hate mongers – from gender-critical feminists to free-speech supporting academics – any meaningful discussion of real bigotry becomes muted and muddled. And as a minority opportunistically leap on the Southport tragedy to push a racialised agenda that targets people for no other reason than their ethnicity, we need to be free to call this out publicly with no apology. However, it is equally true that when the public are told you can’t say that, or ask that, because it may offend a particular identity group, it results in millions feeling frustrated that issues are brushed under the carpet.
It should be acceptable to ask if undocumented young men arriving on small boats present a threat; to raise worries about immigrant communities that seem unwilling to integrate into British society; to query if there is a relationship between Islamists pledging support for Hamas and Islam as a religion. All these are legitimate questions, and should be the subject of open debate. For the authorities to try and close down discussion is a disaster.
On gaslighting: Indeed, the public are constantly ‘gaslit’ by authorities, told to ignore the evidence of our own eyes. There’s “nothing to see here”. Those who wanted to be righteously angry about the Manchester Arena bombing or the murder of Sir David Amess MP are told to repress public outrage and mourn quietly. Those who asked about the brutal slaying of a Hartlepool pensioner or the contradictory accounts of recent events at Manchester Airport are told to shush and calm down. And if you dare worry about terrorism when a soldier is knifed in broad daylight, you are treated as some sort of threat to civil order for raising your concerns. Yet, in reality, there has been a collapse of civility and order in society and official attempts at controlling information about such incidents creates suspicion and a further breakdown of trust.
On repression: Forcing difficult issues out of the public square to bubble under the surface only allows them to fester. People end up retreating down conspiratorial ‘rabbit holes’, until eventually they erupt in an unruly and unholy manner, as we are witnessing this week. And yet, silencing, gaslighting and repression are the only political weapons the political elite feels at home with. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, is said to “be looking at” whether the English Defence League (EDL) should be proscribed under terrorism laws following the riot, while cabinet ministers and their Antifa cheerleaders are falling over themselves to call for the strengthening of the Online Safety Act, with greater clampdowns on disinformation online following false reports about the perpetrator’s identity.
That the only solutions to the horrifying events in Southport are more bans and censorship is more likely to fuel new depths of anger and resentment – far more than any hard-Right memes. It will also give far more glamour and credit to the decrepit EDL and its supporters by pretending it is they – and only they – who are responsible for the febrile mood of betrayal felt by millions, let down by the Westminster bubble, regardless of which party is in power. As I write this on Wednesday evening, crowds are gathering at Downing Street and Hartlepool as copycat skirmishes break out.
These are serious times, and it can be challenging to discuss difficult issues with so much at stake. Nuance and context can easily get lost in the noise. But we must persevere. Discussing events in Southport with Mike Graham and Tim Montgomerie on Talk TV on Wednesday, I felt I was walking on eggshells, wary of misspeaking. Sure enough, I was labelled from all sides as “centrist mum” and “controlled opposition” by the ‘deport them all’ side; “far-Right, racist enabler” by the ‘multiculturalism is sacrosanct’ brigade. But we need to have these conversations, and thrash them out frankly, to pursue thinking out loud, to try and avoid simplistic sloganeering and screaming at each other. We need to dig deeper than headlines or tweets. We will aim to do so at the Battle of Ideas festival, which we are programming now. Below are just a few articles that are insightful at unravelling a fast-moving mood, with decades of deep, tangled roots.
- Fraser Myers, ‘In praise of Southport’s heroes‘, Spiked, July 30th 2024
- Brendan O’Neill, ‘Condemning the Southport riot is not enough‘, Spectator, July 31st 2024
- Ben Sixsmith, ‘Southport and the inescapability of politics‘, Critic, July 31st 2024
- Tom Slater, ‘Southport and the deadly cowardice of the elites‘, Spiked, July 31st 2024
- Rakib Ehsan, ‘Southport attack has been exploited by conspiracists‘, UnHerd, July 31st 2024
Baroness Claire Fox is a free speech and democracy campaigner, member of the House of Lords and founder of the Academy of Ideas. This article first appeared on the Academy’s Substack page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“The Guardian’s report is worth reading in full”
Well – that makes a change 🙂
However, that was of course untrue!
Mhmm, I used to read almost nothing but the guardian before covid times … now I couldn’t bring myself to open this or any other article and I don’t see myself ever going back.
The Guardian has singularly ailed to live up to its name in any way shape or form, the good news is nobody but the bbc buys it now, it’s a worthless brand. The guardian is doomedIt died of covid19, part of the collateral damage of lockdown.
I have no doubt that, had the Guardian led the charge against lockdown, lives would have been saved, but the strong current of political correctness was too much for it to ignore. So they burned all their principles on an ill fated crusade against human rights. It’s strangely satisfying that a paper founded on support fot human rights should run aground when it abandoned its principles. Good riddance to bad rubbish, my only regret is that I was a loyal reader for 30 years. I even used to buy it at Munich Hauptbahnhof, when I lived there – more fool me, they abandoned me, though. They are too childish now.
The Groan went over to the dark side a while ago – when the Scott Trust was folded and the editorship changed. For a while, it wasn’t noticed except by a few who fell foul of its establishment biases and got blanked by its comment columns. Although in earlier times, for instance, it had been leaned on by the Israel lobby, it suddenly wouldn’t report its doings.
Thus the epithet ‘The House Journal of MI6’ – i.e – a safe channel for stuff coming out of government and the establishment.
Correct. I used to do that every day (even back in paper days), but I’m glad I never subscribed to it online.
“Understanding these drivers is important, because without this understanding you can’t implement any interventions.”
Why would they want to implement interventions? How about leaving it to individuals to make up their own minds and then respect that decision?
Come, come, if people did that then we would be back on the path to at least some hint at democracy!
Exactly – I don’t see myself and my attitudes as being a ‘problem’ they must ‘tackle’.
Unfortunately for us they see our attitudes and ourselves as problems!
Too true – but long may we remain a pain in their collective arse!
People are too ignorant for that policy, that is why we have to be governed.
Ja wohl!
Could you imagine the chaos if we let people decide for theselves whether to drive on the left or the right side of the road ? Or whether to pay tax or not. Or when they are sober enough to drive. Use you head, George! No, sometimes it is quite right for a government to make a law, we need that!
Why are you on this site?
It’s here because it’s on duty.
I’d love to know how much they’re getting paid.
“sometimes” – No one had argued for never. The discussion is specifically about coerced / forced medical experimentation. If you read back your comment, I think you’ll recognise it wasn’t making any relevant point.
These comparisons are completely missing the point. Laws need to be based on sound principles and practices, be evidence based, proportionate, logical, practicable and reasonable. They also need to be adjusted, refined, or repealed (removed) as experience of the outcomes of their implementation materialises. Nothing about the official government narrative meets any of these criteria.
The rule of law is important in a democracy, Fon, and it’s a shame you haven’t experienced one of those. But totalitarianism in which lies are a tool of government, the people have a duty to refuse to obey and to rebel. This is true in Communist China, which you admire.
Aren’t you the one who posted that emotional comment above about loss of human rights?
Are you sober enough to drive?
“Key reasons include concern about the speed of vaccine development, presuming Covid immunity because of previous infection and a lack of trust in the Government.”
Valid concerns and nothing whatsoever to allay them.
Another reason may be that many of them are intelligent and informed enough to ask questions, and not to buy things off door to door sellers etc. After all, “lack of trust in the Government” is a wise position to start with, especially now.
Maybe they have also seen some adverse reactions.
No mention of the 1047 people – that we know of – having died from all causes following the vaccine in the UK, according to the Yellow Card scheme. Amounting to 1 death per 42,500 doses of vaccine.
As can be seen from using the Oxford “COVID death risk” online calculator, for the majority of people under 50 the risk from the vaccine is higher than the risk of death from COVID.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/982474/Covid-19_mRNA_Pfizer_BioNTech_vaccine_analysis_print2.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/982453/COVID-19_AstraZenenca_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/982455/Covid-19_Moderna_vaccine_analysis_print.pdf
Little wonder that people in the Health Service who are more likely to be aware of the Yellow Card scheme are opposed to having the vaccine. Not hesitant. Opposed.
Super post.I’m under 50,just,NHS worker-Paramedic-,this is exactly the reason I haven’t taken up their offer.
I went from taking covid patients to hospital to taking people having adverse reactions to hospital sometime in Feb iirc.
I didn’t know it at the time,but that was when the MHRA algorithm as missing the bad news.
I’d lvoe to see the figures for people dying within 28 days of the vaccine.
Thank you for posting, Rigger. Love the last sentence.
I read in a BMJ letter from a pharmacist that a drop in platelets – probably usually transitory? – is a common effect of AZ, between one in 10 and one in 100.
The figures for the rna vaccines on this need to be urgently publicised. We know they do it too.
Those with existing low platelets, which is one in 10 of those with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia, a disease which is woefully under diagnosed in the UK, do they know that?
Those young women with anaemia, do they know that?
Informed consent, anyone?
If I’m reading those links correctly, there are over 1000 deaths reported, for around 30 million people vaccinated. That would be one death in 30,000.
According to Ofxord’s QCovid Covid death risk calculator, a healthy 49 year old has around the same chance of death from Covid today.
According to the statistics presented by JVT on the 7th April, chances of ‘severe harm’ for 50+ is less than 1 in 250,000 (<0.4 per 100,000):
https://dailysceptic.org/first-do-no-harm-means-not-vaccinating-young-people/
I wonder what methodology they used for that then.
Is it reasonable that that chances of ‘severe harm’ from the vaccine are 10x lower than the Yellow Card reported fatality rate? Possibly, but equally I don’t think the attribution of ‘covid deaths’ was done using such a high bar.
JVT’s slides also show that chances of severe harm for 30-39 year olds is 4x greater than for 60-69 year olds. So it’s not like the vaccination risk is decreasing as the vaccination is rolled out to lower age groups. It is increasing.
“Informed consent”?
I really hate that “vaccine hesitancy” phrase. A lot of those people will have, in the months they have probably been pressured to have the thing, firmly decided what they want to do, which is, take the “safe” option, operate under the “precautionary principle” and let their immune system look after them, uncontaminated by an experimental “novel” gene technology.
Many, probably most in the NHS, have had Covid. They don’t need the vaccine. They know that.
Vaccinating those who are already immune is one of the key betrayers of the Big FatLie for pharmaceutical profit which now rules us all.
Ban the word “hesitancy”.
Thank goodness some people have some sense and ability to assess risk. I’m pleasantly surprised the number’s that high considering what completely hysterical muppets most people are.
People trust the media. They trust the NHS. They trust experts presented by the media. Aside from petty corruption, such as expenses claims, they even, more or less, trust politicians.
When all these “independent” pillars of our society (government and “opposition” in unison) collaborate to deliver Project Fear, it’s no surprise that we become a nation of “hysterical muppets”.
A few of us haven’t been taken in. Maybe we were abnormally cynical, perhaps from bad experiences we’d happened to have had. I believe most of us need to accept we’ve just been lucky, as regards the psychological operation. In many cases, it’s not down to us being super smart.
It’s not ‘luck’ it is common sense, sadly lacking everywhere seemingly..
Actually, “common sense” is a tool of the flimflam. Propositions can become accepted by asserting they’re just “common sense”, similar to Gary Lineker asserting that face nappies were a “no brainer”.
I’m an ex nurse and have no faith or trust in the NHS having seen too many patients persuaded to accept treatment where the side effects or life changes are sugar coated by doctors and people are talked into having procedures which many wouldn’t have agreed to if they’d known the truth.
I was never duped by the Covid hysteria and had a fairly shrewd idea how this debacle was likely to pan out. No one would describe me as vaccine hesitant as I’m absolutely resolute I won’t be having the job jab. As someone with no health problems whatsoever I certainly don’t wish to engage in a game of russian roulette.
“Research by the University of Leicester” – yet another institution that has taken cash from Mr Vaccine.
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=University%20of%20Leicester
“As expected, ethnicity was also a major factor.” Sounds a bit patronizing!
Or racist.
No. It’s just description – of a fact that is well known. Some ethnic groups have, objectively and quantifiably, shown a more intelligent response to the vaccines than the white British.
Whatever it is, it’s deliberately devisive, like so much these days.
Yes, when I read about Ebola, and the locals doing their very best to avoid the white guys in Hazmat gear with their Western treatments, I sorrowfully admit that I felt a moment of patronising superiority.
I would like to sincerely apologise. Their instincts were far better than mine. I was being very dim.
I’d like now to read a careful investigation on the Ebola outbreaks, focusing on how much money was poured into that, and who profited and by how much. Looking back, massive psy ops may have been going on there too – it was the same crowd.
Ebola exists … but who profited from it, and how?
“Understanding these drivers is important, because without this understanding you can’t implement any interventions,” said Dr Manish Pareek, Associate Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at the University of Leicester who led the study.
And herein lies the problem. Instead of “implementing any interventions” , how about just accepting that some people have a different view, have done their own research and will not be coerced into this?
“how about just accepting that some people have a different view”
As considered public health strategy documents have recommended : leave it to individuals to assess their risk on the basis of good information rather than government and Big Pharma PR campaigns.
… and recognising that, since the end of WWII, it has been against medical ethics to coerce people into medical treatment. Basic stuff. Otherwise you’re with Mengele, not civilisation.
So 23% of healthcare workers have a brain after all !!!
Going to be some serious pressure and guilt applied to them that’s for sure. Good on em.
I didn’t read the article because…well, I didn’t think it was probably worth reading in full. So I don’t know if the study made any reference to first versus second injection, but a cursory glance at published stats suggests that the gov are going to face increasing difficulties persuading people to have a second dose of experimental “vaccine”, presumably because of adverse reactions people are having to the first, and increasing awareness of serious adverse reactions and deaths. In terms of reported deaths, I note that the growing numbers are not slowing down, contrary to the MHRA’s insistence that these deaths are predominantly among the elderly and those with underlying illnesses. Given that those groups were “vaccinated” some time ago, the growing numbers of post injection deaths suggests younger and healthier people are also dying.
There’s a possible explanation for why the government switched strategy to increase the rate of people receiving first shots, at the expense of fully “protecting” the supposed vulnerable group (which, originally, were the only ones for whom the experimental injections were intended). Get as many people as possible done once, before news of the adverse reactions builds and spreads.
We know our government, and the WHO, are keen to inject us all. What we don’t know (aside from exactly why) is the extent to which one shot each is sufficient for their purposes.
Anyone who has had no immediate ill (or significant) effect from his first injection is likely to think “in for a penny, in for a pound”, I suspect.
Are such groups, including also non health workers at other large work places where vaccines are encouraged able to get together to support each other and/or form a large group that represents all of them?
E.g. I imagine if the boss and/or human resources speaks to an individual and tries to persuade them to get the jab it would be easier for that individual if they could ask that another employee they nominate is present (that was common practice in my company that you could do that if you wanted for any uncomfortable discussions), or better still everyone insist the company have to speak to all 10, or 100 of them at once, or a nominated committee to ensure all the points are properly raised, the meeting minuted and pressure put on the employer etc to rethink.
I’m not sure where unions are on all this, I’m seeing mixed messages, so perhaps not much help, but it would be nice if there was some national group set up with suitable knowledge they could all contact who could help them in discussions with their employers and explain to them why attitudes like “Understanding these drivers is important, because without this understanding you can’t implement any interventions,” or “We urgently need strategies to build trust and dispel myths….” are missing the point.
Group action would certainly help, but it brings the risk that your “representatives” concede on your behalf.
If, and when, it comes down to it, you need to stand up for yourself. If your boss demanded you played Russian Roulette, to keep your job, you’d surely stand quite firm.
Who knows how long a job is going to last, anyway, nowadays? If we ever return to sanity, you should be entitled to an unfair dismissal payout, from your firm – if it still exists by then!
Top advice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkQXnQ0plDA
“brings the risk that your “representatives” concede on your behalf”, yes, I agree, very good point. I’m imagining if I was still at work and put in this situation I’d want for at least several of us to be present at once and not feel I’m the only one. I think I’m seeing it not as a negotiation, more a communication and putting the pressure back on them to back off and leave us alone.
And to counter the issue that a survey like this is perhaps in effect controlling the message that gets back and not letting those surveyed control that message.
And health care workers are more qualified to comment on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. They know a thing or two about a thing or two.
Either that or my nephew is a monkey.
No surprise. The ONS ‘hesitancy survey’ showed that they expect younger groups to be more likely to say ‘No’, without taking into account the competence & intelligence of them in any specific group.
Jab enthusiasts are white supremacists by their own woke standards.
Take the white mans vaxx savages
What are you talking about? The vast majority of those who’ve been coerced into getting this jab have been white.
‘…or assuming immunity to Covid because of previous infection were some of the key reasons cited.’
That seems a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.
Medics and nurses and care workers are the witnesses to the huge amount of adverse events and deaths post vaccine. That is why they are staying away from this poison. Read cdc VAERS. The numbers are going up so quickly in just a few short months. Same in the UK. Funny MSM refuses to write anything about this well kept secret.
Excellent point!