Sir Mark Rowley has said claims of “two-tier” policing are “absolute nonsense” and are putting police officers in danger. The Telegraph has more.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said the suggestion that some groups were being treated more harshly than others was putting his officers in danger as they policed the violence that has erupted in the wake of the Southport killings.
It comes after Sir Mark was caught on camera grabbing a reporter’s microphone following a question about two-tier policing.
The Government has insisted there is no “two-tier” system – whereby far-Right groups are supposedly dealt with more harshly than protesters on the Left – in Britain.
But some have continued to question the policing of the riots, with Robert Jenrick, the Tory leadership contender, accusing Sir Keir Starmer of not being “as clear as he could be” that some of the disorder on Britain’s streets emanated from “sectarian gangs”.
On Wednesday, responding to allegations that far-Right riots have been dealt with more severely than other recent unrest, Sir Mark told broadcasters: “It’s complete nonsense.
“We have commentators from either end of the political spectrum who like to throw accusations of bias at the police because we stand in the middle, we operate independently under the law without fear or favour.
“And if you’ve got crazy views over there, you don’t like it, and if you’ve got crazy views over there, you don’t like it. We will continue to do that.
“The serious voices who echo those are of more concern to me, because the risk is they legitimise it, and they legitimise the violence that the officers I’m sending on mutual aid today will face on the streets.
“They are putting them at risk by suggesting that any of those officers are going out with any intent other than to operate without fear or favour in protecting communities.”
Worth reading in full.
Those who think the police treat disorder by white people and minorities differently are “crazy”, apparently.
Among the crazies is Times columnist Melanie Phillips, who in a blog post yesterday on ‘Britain’s multicultural disaster‘ (also definitely worth reading in full) summarised some of the “egregious” double standards that are “driving people absolutely wild”:
The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, speaks as if the only problem is “Right-wing” thuggery. Certainly, that problem has been shockingly evident and should be dealt with. But so too should Muslim and Left-wing thuggery. There have been numerous examples during these riots of Muslim mobs gratuitously attacking white people. Yet Starmer never calls these people “thugs”.
One of the incidents that sparked the current disorder took place at Manchester airport, where a police officer was filmed kicking the head of a Muslim man who was lying prone on the ground. That created understandable outrage and the officer was rightly pulled up on a disciplinary charge. But it took nearly a day before the rest of the video footage was released, revealing that the police had just been viciously attacked, and a female officer’s nose was broken, by a group of Muslim thugs of whom the kicked man was one.
It is the profound sense of injustice and double standards that has finally ignited the already combustible public resentment over race and immigration, and enabled neo-fascist and other agitators to exploit this situation.
Starmer’s strictures against “Right-wing thugs” are in stark contrast to the solidarity he expressed with the Black Lives Matter anti-police, anti-West, anti-white rioters in 2020 who destroyed poor neighbourhoods in Portland, Oregon and elsewhere — and to whom he actually ‘took the knee’ and proudly tweeted the picture.
The double standards go wider and deeper. During those violent BLM riots, liberal commentators earnestly asked what lay behind such black anger. Yet those liberals wouldn’t dream of asking what lies behind the anger of today’s white rioters.
Liberal commentators have claimed that demonstrators screaming for jihad, the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews on the weekly pro-Gaza hate marches are just a few extremists who shouldn’t tarnish the majority of those demonstrators who are all decent people marching for a worthy cause. Yet the same liberals claim that if any decent people are on the anti-immigrant riots, these are utterly compromised by the participation alongside them of the tattooed thugs performing Nazi salutes.
On those pro-Gaza hate marches, police arrested Jewish counter-demonstrators simply because their very presence was said to be a provocation to the Gaza supporters. Yet in the current disorders, Muslims aren’t being arrested on the grounds that their very presence is a provocation to the anti-immigrant mobs.
But since, according to Rowley, accusing the police of a two-tier response puts officers at risk, such accusations will presumably now need to be banned as dangerous misinformation. Which I imagine would suit Sir Mark Rowley just fine.
Stop Press: John Hayes, the businessman who bravely tackled the Southport knife attacker, has told the BBC that he doesn’t think the rioting has “got anything at all to do with the Southport stabbings” but rather stems from a “strong under-current of discontent for some time about the levels of immigration” which Starmer needs to address as “the cause rather than the symptoms”.
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.
Thank you Toby for a cracking ‘taster’ into what is becoming an extremely invidious subject. Although I fell out with the Catholic Church many years ago and my anti-stance has hardened these last 2.5 years I remain a Christian and very much support Christian beliefs. I have nothing to say in favour of Islam and it is unquestionably, diametrically opposed, I believe to the Christian way of life. So I agree the undermining of Christianity seems to have been matched by the growth of wokery and the results are bad and getting worse.
The trans / alphabet brigade are very much a minority within a much larger group of people but unfortunately make far too much noise. The vast majority of trans people would I am sure prefer to live quiet lives under the radar.
If the Church went back to basics and ensured the Christian basics were reasserted once more a firmer push back against wokery might commence. Unlikely I know and especially with their current hierarchy.
The wokery infecting our society is evil and unless stopped will grow. It is certainly a nasty element in the push to break apart our society and like all other attacks we must resist and stand up for basic common sense.
“After a brief flurry of feminine freedom towards the end of the last century, once again men are the self-appointed experts on everything female.”. A “brief flurry”?. “towards the end of the last century”?. Not a single word of blame goes to the swivel-eyed loons that are ‘progressive’ women. We’re into the 9th decade of increasingly aggressive feminism and it’s no coincidence that life is becoming increasingly shite. Men must give up their masculinity and women must be more masculine (so few people seem able to see the bizarrely obvious double speak). Where could this campaign possibly end? Men wanting to be women, and women wanting to be men. Suck it up Julie, you’ve got a lot to answer for. Get comfortable in that bed.
Why has she got a lot to answer for?
Look up her previous rants about men. This woman absolutely hates males – hates with a venomous passion. That hatred has consequences – 60+ years of consequences.
Yes, I’m blaming womem like Julie; I’m just saying it out aloud. You sometimes have to dig deep to fnd the roots of a problem.
Well I don’t know anything about her. And I don’t even know if a word exists which is the female equivalent of ‘misogynist’. But I do like men, as long as they aren’t tossers. Women can be complete tossers too. What I will agree with this woman on is her opinion of a man being appointed as “Period dignity officer”. No idea what that job entails but it does sound like something straight from a Babylon Bee skit. I can imagine JP having a lot of fun with that one too.
“Rise of the New Puritans”.
For some time I have been imagining members of this new cult asking (in a “Southern” drawl): “Are you woke? Do you accept woke as your personal…” etc.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…
Four hundred years ago, one could say that the difference between the Catholics and the Protestants was that one set wanted to follow rules, while the other set wanted to think.
The same two sets exist today. Instead of it being Protestants and Catholics, what should it be? Sceptics and Wokesters?
I don’t know. Some Catholics are very sceptical. Have you read The Song Of Bernadette? And some Protestants for that matter are not very sceptical ( the clergy at Durham Cathedral?).
Note that the religious tend to not fall for the wokerati tricks — and the more religious they are the more they’re immune.
Perhaps society needs a religion, and in the absence of any of the traditional theologies people will get suckered into ‘belief’ in whatever is being pushed by the media.
Depends what one means by religious. I tend to consider some of the atheist cults as religious. And by the way, I don’t particularly buy the distinction that the atheist crimes of the 20th century were not in the name of atheism .Even if they were not specifically in its name or about converting the world to atheism, it won’t make much difference to their many victims, but I suppose the likes of Dawkins have to try and distance their religion from these crimes, and I suppose some are bound to buy it. Meanwhile, the maxim that if people cease to believe i n God, they don’t believe in nothing but rather in anything, seems to have a lot of truth in it. Innit? No coincidence that there is a big interest in “the aliens” in post Christian towns in South Wales.
If I say I have no idea about any gods and just want to focus on doing what I believe is the right thing for myself and those I love, what does that make me?
A Christian.
Agnostic I suppose if you don’t claim to know for certain. Nonetheless, there are likely to be other things that you do believe for certain without having seen. These may or may not include “aliens” (as I said), the origin of life, the provenance and age of fossils, whether or not Scottish shrimps are really likely to remain unchanged for 300 million years if molecules to man can allegedly happen in 4,000 million years (according to “the science”), whether T-rex DNA is really likely to survive for millions of years, where matter came from and how much there is and why, what the mind is (atoms arranged in a certain way (which would mean you could theoretically be duplicated and thus one person with two bodies), your own atoms (even though almost all are replaced over a life time), your own DNA (which would mean identical twins were one person with two bodies), or perhaps the dwelling place of the soul), whether the “big bang” is scientific (the universe came from a dot and the dot came from nothing and that idea gets printed in a journal as “science”), how much space, time and matter there is and why (if they are infinite, could anything happen (if so, why isn’t there more than one of me, and if not why not, how much of them is there and why?). why the missing links that Victorian amateur naturalist fretted about remain missing (and what said naturalist would have made of the stunning discoveries of DNA and the mindboggling complexity of the cell), about whether macro-evolution can happen by random chance despite lack of proof and seeming statistical impossibility (amino acids to protein, an eye forming etc.), and why the many natural laws (and many conditions of the unique planet Earth in its unique solar system) just happen to be perfectly calibrated to allow life to exist.
My point is that, whilst atheists and agnostics and “nones” might traditionally be considered as non-religious, they may very well be believers, simply arguing on essentially philosophical grounds that their belief is more reasonable than other beliefs (as indeed most people do to be fair).
And I should add that those atheists who place themselves at the centre and effectively make gods of themselves are effectively atheistic satanists (man made god is a key definition of this). Christians on the other hand aspire to love their enemy and do good to those that hate them. This is a very difficult thing, but very commendable (and to be fair, some atheists and agnostics try to do this. Always worth learning from other beliefs as our old friends the Amish have shown us with “vaccines”).
Which athiests make gods of themselves? So now they’re satanists?
And loving your enemy is commendable, doing good to those who hate you?
Sounds like being stuck in an abusive relationship to me and makes somebody a massive mug.
Just more sanctimonious cobblers and further proof that those of us without religion and happy in our lot seem to really rub the devout up the wrong way. The fact we do not feel we are lacking in the slightest and can have a fulfilling existence without subscribing to organized belief systems really gets up some noses doesn’t it?
Loving your enemy= treating them with respect and recognizing their humanity and agency; not snogging them and giving them your wage packet.
What has characterized all the lockdown protests and resistance movements (e.g trucker protests) has been their decency, kindness and good behaviour.
The religious are not, on the whole ‘rubbed up the wrong way’ by atheists. What rubs many of us up the wrong way is the mealy-mouthed caving-in of some of our own leaders -like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Kudos to the Canadian pastor who roared at the cops who tried to close his church.
Why on earth would you treat your enemy with respect?? What humanity? Surely if they had any they wouldn’t be considered your enemy? No offence but I’m not someone who enjoys being treat like a doormat because I get to polish my halo and earn some brownie points before I reach your pearly gates. Nope. Treat others as you want to be treat yourself. Simple as.
But I do agree with that Bishop, and the pope actually, being utterly disingenuous in their preaching, and the Polish dude totally rocks. Got all the time in the world for people like that. His video went viral for a reason.
It makes you a decent and compassionate human being, and you do not have to belong to any particular club to be one of those. We aren’t living in primitive times where our very life depended on choosing a side.
“We aren’t living in primitive times where our very life depended on choosing a side.”
We have come very close Mogs. In places like Canada, New York, Australia and the others with ‘vaccine” mandates, for many they really did have to pick a side.
I am an Atheist, i.e. I do not believe in God(s), Angels, Archangels, etc.
That is all being an “Atheist” means.
To construe “not believing in God” as “believing in nothing” is illogical.
To construe “not believing in God” as “believing in anything” is merely puerile.
BTW Christian Cults have been murdering each other throughout history.
There’s always the English Divine Liturgy. Mar Mari Emanuel would get me back into a church.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i1QgjDenQ_s
“Note that the religious tend to not fall for the wokerati tricks”
Well that is a mile off the donkey’s nose. I come from a large and committed family of Catholics and unfortunately they have fallen for the scam hook…
Two churches I know well – Catholic and Baptist. C1984 believers up to their eye balls.
There are smaller groups within Christianity standing up to the nonsense (including that Canadian pastor and certain Catholic groups), however it is hard to think of leaders of any of the major Christian denominations who have made a stand, and many of them inspire little (or no) confidence. What I would say is that the Church is better than its leadership at any given time, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I trust Christ, even if I do not trust some Christian leaders so much.
I’m not alone in being both not religious and impervious to woke claptrap. Society “needs” religion like it needs mask mandates or a harnfull novel injection. All examples of completely unnecessary belief systems in order to live as a decent human being in a functional and civilised society.
But what people will use to virtue signal to the max nevertheless.
Ok… Except for “the child-raping of the Catholic Church”. I am aware of the scandals that prompted Ms Burchill to smear the whole Church in this way, but child rape is NOT part of the (Catholic) Christian religion.
“Far safer to kick the Christians instead” indeed.
I think I’ve spotted a typo in “…bullying cults…”