These people have never been in a life-or-death situation like the arresting officers
One would think that even when the police successfully detain a suspect who was alleged to have been conducting a marauding knife attack, the professional activists would have a day off.
But you would be wrong. Amid all the ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’ cliché bingo, voices of criticism were heard. Among them, the blue-tick career race-baiter Shola Mos-Shogbamimu. She was quick to take to X following yesterday’s attack on the Jewish community in Golders Green, north London. The 45 year-old suspect, a British national of Somali origin, had reportedly stabbed two Jewish men at random. The suspect – depressingly, inevitably – had previously been referred to the Government’s counter radicalisation programme, Prevent.
Shola Mos-Shogbamimu criticised police officers who are shown kicking the suspect in the head while he is on the ground. She opined:
Contemptible abuse of police power. Why kick him in the head several times when he’s already Tasered and in your control? Should he not be alive to be brought to justice in a court of law for stabbing two Jews??!! Disgusting.
Also, Green Party leader Zack Polanski, still playing at politics, was quick to condemn the actions of the arresting officers, using a retweet to maintain that:
Essentially his (Commissioner Mark Rowley’s) officers were reportedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was already incapacitated by taser.
What Shola, Zack and other commentators do not understand – because they have never been in a life-or-death situation – is that force is not judged by how it looks in a six-second clip. It is judged by necessity in the moment. These keyboard warriors have no idea what it’s like to face immediate and possibly lethal violence armed with often nothing more than some irritant spray and a stick. Your priority is to keep members of the public safe, followed by yourselves as much as possible.
These officers would have had no idea in such a fast moving situation whether the suspect was acting alone or as part of a cell. He needed to be neutralised as soon as possible in order to keep people safe. He wasn’t showing his hands; he was still holding a bloodied weapon that he had just used to attack Jewish members of the public; he had been moving rapidly towards them, and they would have had no idea if he was wearing an explosive vest (wearing a coat on a warm day is never a good sign).
Policing is not theatre. It is not performed for social media approval. It is messy, fast and often brutal. Because the people officers deal with are messy, fast and often brutal. A man armed with a knife who has already stabbed two people, who refuses repeated commands to disarm and who continues to pose a threat even after being tasered, is not “under control”. He is an active danger until the weapon is removed. That is the reality, no matter how uncomfortable it makes Left-leaning commentators feel.
The idea that officers should politely wait or somehow apply ‘gentler’ tactics while a suspect still has the capacity to kill is not just naïve in the extreme, it is dangerous. It puts officers’ lives at risk. It puts the public at risk. And it reveals a complete detachment from reality (I am reminded of the occasion when then Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, declared that Islamic State murderer Mohammed ‘Jihadi John’ Emwazi should have been arrested in war-torn Syria rather than killed.)
This is the gap at the heart of modern public debate on policing. One side deals in real-world consequences. The other deals in optics. The officers in Golders Green had seconds to act. Not minutes. Not the luxury of hindsight, slow-motion replays or viral commentary. Seconds. In those seconds they made unquestionably the right decision: remove the threat as quickly as possible, by whatever means necessary short of lethal force. And that point matters. Because the same voices now condemning ‘excessive force’ would be the first to demand answers if those officers had hesitated and others had been stabbed.
There is also an uncomfortable truth that many would rather avoid: this attack was not just violent, it was targeted. Two visibly Jewish men were attacked in broad daylight in a part of London with a large Jewish community. That context matters. It should matter. It’s part of an ever growing pattern of antisemitic attacks carried out by people holding extreme Islamist ideologies.
Yet instead of sustained outrage about antisemitic violence, the conversation was almost immediately derailed, redirected toward the conduct of the officers who stopped it. That inversion of priorities is telling.
It reflects a culture where the instinct is no longer to back those who confront violence but to scrutinise them first, and often most harshly. Where the benefit of the doubt is extended to offenders, those enforcing the law are expected to meet an impossible standard of perfection under extreme pressure – often from their own senior management.
And it is precisely this culture that erodes effective policing. If every split-second decision is second guessed by people with no operational understanding, officers will become more hesitant. More risk-averse. Less pro-active. That is not compassion. It is a recipe for more victims.
None of this means police should be beyond scrutiny. Of course they shouldn’t be. But scrutiny requires context. It requires full evidence. It requires intellectual honesty. A selectively edited clip on social media is not scrutiny. It is propaganda. That is the real issue here.
Not just one commentator getting it wrong, but an entire ecosystem that rewards outrage over accuracy, speed over truth and narrative over fact. The Metropolitan Police, to their credit, did something increasingly necessary: they put out the full body-worn footage. They showed the public what actually happened. And when people saw the complete picture, the narrative collapsed. Because reality is stubborn like that.
In the end, strip away the noise and the incentives of social media and the situation becomes very simple. A violent attacker stabbed two innocent men. Two unarmed officers confronted him. They stopped him. They went home alive, and so did everyone else.
That is not a scandal. That is policing working exactly as it should.
Paul Birch is a former police officer and counter-terrorism specialist. You can read his Substack here.


Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
Par for the course remember Manchester airport
Islam is not compatible with Western societies.
I would say the lunatic should thank his lucky stars 2TK didn’t turn up and threaten him with a writ.
In the video I’ve seen the officer who kicked the scum in the head then put his knee on his head/neck, no doubt the right thing to do. I’m surprised the loony lefties haven’t picked up on this and compared it with the arrest of George Floyd.
Thank goodness the nutter survived, the last thing this country needs is a repeat of the BLM nonsense if a black criminal died while resisting being arrested by white officers.
Zack polanski states: “Essentially his (Commissioner Mark Rowley’s) officers were reportedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was already incapacitated by taser.”
This is where the police were at fault. They should have engaged the madman in dialogue. “I say old chap, are you feeling OK? Are you possibly suffering from a mental illness which is affecting your judgement? Can we help you in any way? Would you mind awfully handing over that knife you are waving about and then we can discuss what is troubling you?
Paul Birch’s comment is spot on. “These keyboard warriors have no idea what it’s like to face immediate and possibly lethal violence armed with often nothing more than some irritant spray and a stick.” I wonder how Shola Mos-Shogbamimu and Zack Polanski would react if a mad knifeman were racing at speed towards them. Probably screaming for the police to come and defend them – but not, heaven forbid – use violence. I can only hope that this incident leads to a change of policy from senior officers who will start to defend their officers when they meet force with force to take down madmen.
God knows I’m no fanboy of the mets finest but in this case, no complaints.
Good job, lads.
I absolutely support the actions of the police officers involved in this appalling violence and the Turd Worlder was lucky he was still breathing at the end of it. I disagree with the author on a couple of points.
“The 45 year-old suspect, a British national of Somali origin…”
He is NOT a British national. At best possibly he could have been described as a Somali man holding a British passport, if he has one, which I’m sure he has for holidays back in Somali, but British he ain’t. Words matter.
“extreme Islamist ideologies”
Should read…”islamist ideologies”. Islam is incontrovertibly extremist.
Cowardly violence such as this where guilt is not an issue need to be dealt with in the American way – terminate with extreme prejudice.
Hear, hear sir
This shows the real value of the Shomrim Security Volunteers, who patrol and protect Jewish communities around the world. All Ethnic Europeans should emulate this fine Jewish example, and set up teams of Security Volunteers to patrol and protect our communities from Third World Ethnic attacks.
But wait! Wouldn’t ours be instantly vilified as “racist far-right knuckle-dragging Nazi thugs”? Or “Neanderthal KKK Vigilantes”? Why is that, do you think?
But wait again! What’s this news just now?
Met chief: We need special police force to protect Jews
Compare and contrast the following:
— Golders Green stabbing of 2 Jewish adults: PM Keir Starmer, Home Secretary Mahmood & Met police chief Sir Mark Rowley all went to Golders Green to discuss the situation with the Jewish community. Sir Mark proposed a new police force of 300 officers whose sole task would be to protect Jewish people, in addition to the Jewish Shomrim Security Volunteers already partially funded by British Taxpayers.
— Southport Stabbing of 11 children & 2 adults: PM Keir Starmer visited in order to lay a bouquet of flowers, ignored all the mourning Southport citizens there, refused to say a word or listen to them, and cleared off back… Read more »
You may be interested to know that there is already such a force in place in Bournemouth. It is called “Safeguard Force” and it is run by volunteers. See website here: https://www.safeguardforce.co.uk/
It’s been going for just under a year now. Volunteers walk the streets of Bournemouth at night in response to a rise in knife crime and assaults as well as helping those who are a bit “the worse for wear” and need help getting home. What is disgraceful is that Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP) refuse to have anything to do with them. Safeguard have also been targetted by “Hope not Hate” an oxymoron if ever there was one.
Incidentally, Bournemouth has a large Jewish community.
I read that firearms officers were moments away from the scene when the miscreant was neutralised by a few applications of ‘size nines’ to the bonce. Better that than a few rounds of gunfire.
And then having the bleeding heart muslim-loving Far Left and their tame legal people then demand the police officer be tried for murder. And it turns out the Somalian has a conviction for stabbling a police officer…
Bloody hell. Who let him out?
The police officer was stabbed in 2008, while trying to prevent the lunatic from stabbing another person. He was initially detained under the mental health act, hence why it’s claimed he has a history of mental health problems. While detained he stopped using illegal drugs, I bloody well hope so, and according to a judge his mental health improved to the point where he could face trial.
I don’t know the length of his sentence or how long he actually served but I guess that by now would of served an appropriate amount of time and should be back in Somalia.
I’m sure a lot more details about his background will be revealed in time. Has he been suspected of other acts of violence, in addition to being the suspect in an attempted stabbing in Southwark on the morning of the attack, or any other crime?
Has he had contact with mental health professionals since being released from prison? Let’s not forget that doctors wanted to detain the Nottingham stabber but were told not to because blacks were over represented in the number of people detained. Sadly I wouldn’t surprised if the same thing happened with this maniac.
Oh, I believe a few rounds would have been decidedly appropriate under the circumstances. And let’s not forget once this POS appears in court in a couple or five years – cf Manchester Airport scum – and the judge releases him cos mental elf he will undoubtedly have another go. Should have eliminated the risk for all our sakes.
Actually, no.
Better 9mm than size nines.
Also deserves to be mentioned here: The usual outcome of kicking against someone’s head for a couple of times is a mild to moderate concussion which is a pretty effective and pretty harmless way to put someone out of action for the moment (as I know all to well from having been at the receiving end of this a couple of times). Just about anything else the two officers could have done from a distance, eg, kick the guy in the torso, had carried a greater risk of him suffering an actual injury.
The two commenters mentioned in this text clearly don’t have any clue about the matter and the officers are to be congratulated for handling a dangerous, difficult sitation very well and as calm as they possibly could (they’re – after all – only people and not robots).
Thank you for clarifying that for me RW. When I first saw it, I did wonder if these kicks were necessary, since the guy had already been Tasered. But your explanation makes perfect sense. It was the Shomrim who eventually removed the knife from the attacker’s hand. Frankly, given the circumstances, I’d have shot the bar steward.
”whatever means necessary short of lethal force”. I’m sorry, but this is not good enough; the first port of call when dealing with a person bent on murder is the application of lethal force, with prejudice. Sure, if he surrenders, immediately, and instantaneously discarding all weaponry, and NOT looking like he’s wearing a suicide belt etc, handcuff his proffered hands and deliver the judicial process. Anything short of such a surrender requires lethal police action, otherwise the safety of each of us, and our communities is gravely endangered.
It requires an incapitating police action and should that turn out to end lethal, there’s certainly no reason to criticize that.
An ex-Hong Kong police officer I know spoke to us about ‘shoot to kill’ policy. If the decision has been made to deploy lethal force (armed cops) then someone is expected to die. If a cop has to shoot then if the target does not die the cop may have failed (missed or delayed too long). Sure, try to save the perp’s life after the threat has been neutralised but don’t expect to be able to do so.
I have no idea what police procedures in Hong Kong are but the point of shooting at someone is to deliver a sufficient kinetic shock to his body to put him out of action for now. This depends on the energy of the bullet on impact. If this energy is sufficient, the bullet is said to have stopping power and otherwise, it hasn’t. Whether or not this also results in a physical injury which will eventually (possibly days later, depending on which part of the body got hit) cause death doesn’t matter.
If the part of the body that got hit was not the part of the body the cop was aiming at it’s a miss.
Guns aren’t laser pointers and bullets not light. They don’t move on a straight line from the muzzle to the target. Whatever the point of this discussion is supposed to be …
Which is why in doubt go for centre of mass, hard to miss from 10 feet… one in the head is better if he looks to be going for a bomb detonation, you do what you can.
Against terrorists and terrorist adjacent individuals we need to be less squeamish.
It usually sufficient to simply score a hit. That’s the whole point of this exercise. People aren’t so easy to kill with relatively small bullets as people who’ve only ever seen that in movies tend to assume. That this thing about stopping power I wrote about: Take someone out of action with some wound which may or may not be lethal but which ensures that he won’t do anything for quite some time.
Thats the problem with 9mm not great stopping power, but you get more goes with a 15 or 17 round mag instead of what 7 or 8 rounds of .45 ACP . TBH 9mm isn’t a bad choice really for various reasons you can always give them 2 or 3, just to be sure.
Seconded 👍
One in the head and 2 in the heart, leave nothing to chance.
Against these scumbags unfortunately dixon of dock green tactics no longer apply.
Islam must be banned. Muslims deported where possible or securely segregated from society if not.
100%. Empty this country of the Muslim invaders.
I’d suggest that this should also apply to the rest of Europe.
I live in an area where there’s a large number of Turkish muslims. They’ve pretty much bought up the whole of the high street & it’s filled with barbers, hairdressers, a couple of their supermarket’s (complete with halal butcher) & various shit shops selling vapes and weird looking fizzy drinks…oh, there’s also the six kebab shops. It’s absolutely f…ked.
But what I really don’t like about it, is the fact that you can’t trust ‘em..
I like this essay because the author’s a realist, like me. Whereas you appear to be a fantasist. Whether we like it or not, Islam isn’t going anywhere and Muslims will always be part of our society here in Europe. I say this as somebody who also cannot abide Islam, however, we have to work with what we’ve got and this is our reality now;
”One thing that makes people more likely to take fundamentalist stances on religion and behave in radical authoritarian ways is the normality of this in culture. Many Muslims come from cultures where this stance is normal and form subcultural communities where it remains normal. Muslims regularly poll as having much higher views in opposition to the rights of women and same-sex attracted people and as being particularly hostile to freedom of belief and speech when it comes to criticising Islam. They are overrepresented in terrorist attacks which is surely related to a belief that being ‘martyred’ in such a way enables one to access Heaven. Honour violence, forced marriage, the covering up of sexual offences and female genital mutilation remain a significant problem in Muslim communities.
It can be very difficult for liberals to acknowledge… Read more »
The problem is that there’s now a huge number of second and third generation British citizens, which country is going to take them?
The best solution would be to make life very difficult for them e.g. shut every mosque, put a strict limit on how many can gather together, ban all arranged marriages, ban Halal slaughter etc. Hopefully this will make a lot of them leave voluntarily if Muslim countries offer them asylum because they’re facing religious persecution in the UK