The riots are over, the troublemakers are locked up, the think pieces are written. But this isn’t over. All of the underlying sentiments are as raw as ever and there is no indication from Keir Starmer that he understands what has happened and why. One gets a sense that he does not want to know. Meanwhile, the conveyor belt of show trials just looks hamfisted, tone-deaf, draconian and unfair.
As it happens, I keep a watchful eye on things like this. I’ve had one or two run-ins with the police for comments I’ve made on Facebook. It’s easy to make ill-advised remarks when among friends online.
Admittedly, implying that somebody should burn down the offices of South Gloucestershire Council was probably not the most erudite thing I’ve ever committed to the internet, but at the time, I’m pretty sure I meant it. This was about the time when I was challenging the council over its lawless bailiffs making up unlawful fees for council tax collection.
I can’t even remember what the other time was about. Two young female PCSOs called at the door to discuss what I’m sure were Blossom Hill fuelled tweets around the time of Brexit. Since I’d broken no laws and they clearly weren’t there to arrest me, I told them in less than polite terms where they could go.
With that in mind, I chose my words very carefully while following events of the last week. There’s also been a lot of personal growth since my unguarded remarks about the possible contents of a certain professor’s hard drive.
On immigration, though, if they’re intent on locking up everyone with a counter-orthodox opinion, then they’re going to need thousands more police officers. This sentiment is unlikely to be contained with exemplary prosecutions.
The reason for this is that locals don’t take very kindly authorities overriding local concerns and operating in secrecy when dumping third world immigration cheats in their backyard. It was only a matter of time before we saw the kind of direct action we’ve seen in Ireland lately.
It certainly has not helped matters that Labour has abandoned any attempt at deterrence, instead pegging their hopes on “smashing the criminal gangs”. But as one tweeter observed today, this is as likely to succeed as the war on drugs. For as long as there is profit to be made, criminals will continue to run the gauntlet.
Exacerbating public sentiment is an announcement that the use of military bases for detention will end and migrants will be “equitably distributed”. Whatever that means. In all probability, it means dumping migrants in left behind places like Mexborough rather than the leafy suburbs where liberals reside.
There is also the broader issue of immigration and integration. The mobs of armed Islamist gangs we saw patrolling the streets of our towns cannot be separated from the rising sectarianism in local politics. While lower working class white people (and gobshite bloggers) can expect a knock on the door from the police, we can expect all levels of government to “engage” with “community leaders” in Muslim areas.
At no point will we see any public admission that multiculturalism has failed, or any serious renewed attempt to stop the boats. When parliament returns from summer recess, they will talk about anything but. First on the agenda will be new amendments to online safety legislation, with accompanied finger-pointing at Nigel Farage, Russia and Tommy Robinson. Labour cannot solve problems it will go to extended lengths to avoid mentioning.
As such, I’m not very optimistic about the future. There is no sign of the state taking the issues seriously. There are off-ramps on the road we’re heading up but Starmer will put the pedal to the metal and race past each and every one of them.
The bottom line is that multiculturalism barely works at the best of times. For a little while, during the consumer credit boom, it kinda worked and people rubbed along together quite well, even though there were immigration anxieties. People are less concerned when everyone's getting a slice of the pie. But that just won't happen under this government.
The kind of growth we need to see simply cannot happen under a high tax regime, and it certainly cannot happen when the ruling party has an ideological determination to abolish cheap forms of transport and energy. Worse still, with living standards already declining, there simply won't be the disposable income to sustain the service sector jobs performed by immigrants. There'll be no money for Ubers and takeaways. Then you have a major problem with unemployable surplus males in urban centres. They will either turn to drugs or organised crime.
At that point you start to see an epidemic of street crime and growing mistrust between ethnic groups. We already have open gang warfare between ethnic groups along tribal lines but it's only going to get worse. As conditions deteriorate we'll see wealthier immigrants leaving our shores, leaving the dregs to fight it out between them.
It's also reasonable to assume, with rising tensions in the Middle East and ethnic tensions breaking out between Muslims and Hindus, we will see a surge of sectarianism, and we cannot rule out further rioting. The hate marches will likely continue and the sectarianism at the ballot box will worsen.
I also assume that with increasing numbers of African ferals aimlessly roaming the streets, that another Southport style atrocity is a statistical probability. The police will need to be on high alert for the duration. A WeThink poll this week suggests at least a third of the public are sympathetic to rioters, and it can no longer be assumed that localised outbreaks of violent protest are orchestrated by shadowy far right groups. If the government is intent on housing migrants in deprived white communities, all bets are off.
This, I think, could set in for the long haul. It is widely assumed that Labour’s incompetence and vindictiveness will cost them the election in 2029, but there’s no guarantee of that. The public is further right on immigration than the Tory party dare go, and Reform won’t step out of the way for them. I don't see the Tories being able to dislodge Labour.
With a truly obnoxious Labour government, and a dysfunctional Tory party unable to resolve its internal differences, it feels like there is no political remedy. Without a radical change of direction and genuine leadership emerging, it looks like we're on a slow march to Troubles style low-grade civil war. Labour can crack down on freedom of speech, but there is little they can do to quell the anger. Little by little, we are losing a fragile peace.
While this is at a slight tangent to your post it is connected.
I find it odd given the case of " Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733 "
The main thrust of the case being.
"The case established a strong precedent for protecting freedom of expression, even when that speech is provocative, irritating, or offensive. The court emphasized that a free society requires the right to express unpopular or even hateful views.
However, it's important to note that this right is not absolute. The case also clarified that speech can be restricted if it is likely to incite violence or breach the peace. So while offensive speech is generally protected, it cannot be used to directly provoke disorder."
How and why did so many of those going through the show trial plead guilty?
The case of David Spring is all very odd. This is worth viewing https://x.com/Politic56721677/status/1824072939307720956
Two things spring to mind. There is either a sinister drive to fabricate charges that lead to convictions of people who are naïve and plead guilty [most likely] or there are crisis actors being taken through show trials to provide startling sentencing outcomes to provide a deterrent effect.
Always worth remembering to say nothing to the police. Even wholly innocent people can be made to look guilty by them.
If questioned [under caution and being recorded] ask "do you have reasonable ground to suspect I have committed an offence" and if they say yes , ask "Please specify the detail of the reasonable grounds you have of suspecting I have committed the offence?"
If they had enough proof of the offence you would be charged but they won't have so they will go on a fishing trip and will question you to gain that evidence. They are not your friends they are questioning you to prove your guilt [even if you are not guilty] so keeping quiet is the best option. You don't [yet] need to prove your innocence.
When they start to question, politely and firmly [assertive not aggressive] reply "I will be happy to answer specific question once you put a specific allegation with supporting evidence to me".
This helps mitigate any later negative inference that you failed to cooperate. You have not refused to answer questions merely just refused to answer questions that might incriminate you. And one does not need to be guilty of an offence to say something in a police interview that in the hands of a prosecution barrister is very detrimental to your freedom!
Anybody who is frankly naïve enough to believe the old adage 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' has never come into contact with the police.
It certainly looks like some of those going through the courts might be guilty of crass and crude comments but as the case above states these comments have to pass a high threshold to become crimes. Pleading guilty allows the state not to bother having to prove someone has passed the threshold of accepted and protected free speech. Don't be like Dave Spring!
Reform came second to Labour in around 100 constituencies. It might not be the Tories that Labour have to contend with. I think next year's local elections will be a bellwether. If Labour get pasted then 2TK's authority will disappear overnight.