Britain riots: two-tier policing, media bias & Keir Starmer exploits the situation

[C C]

Continued from: UK Riot Updates

---

I guess enough time has elapsed that the other side -- excuse me -- that's the EVIL side -- can be given some limited representation.
- - - - - - - -

LEO KEARSE
https://youtu.be/Nh5iekXMsss

VIDEO INTRO: Britain exploded into riots recently following the killing of three little girls by a second generation Rwandan immigrant at a Taylor Swift dance class in Southport, for a motive we haven't been informed about yet.

Following the murders of these kids British leader Keir Starmer cracked down hard on people angry about kids being murdered. In an information vacuum, rumors flew around and British people understandably furious that the government yet again couldn't keep British children safe.

They came out onto the streets to protest and some of them rioted. And Muslim mobs came out on the street as well, to counter protest, and some of them were armed.

Instead of acknowledging people's concerns, Keir Starmer inflamed the situation and called everyone far-right thuggery.

The police saw an opportunity to finally whack some protesters over the head without getting called racist.

Dogs and baton charges were deployed. Men were punched in the face, pension age women were cuffed, and arrested.

Let's just take a moment to appreciate the amazing job the police have done keeping armed Muslim mobs safe from these women...

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Nh5iekXMsss

[C C]

Since the issue was mentioned in the first video above...
- - - - - - - - - -

Does the UK have two-tier policing?
https://youtu.be/ck5i_ihggzg

VIDEO EXCERPTS: Ben Habib --former deputy leader of Reform UK. Good to have you back on the show.

[...] What is this two-tier placing? Is it really in existence?

Yeah, it absolutely is. We have a two-tier society, and I thought Phil Harris explained it extremely well in the way that he set it out.

[...] We shouldn't have [culturally isolated] multiple communities in this country, we should be one settled British culture.

[...] It's the establishment of this DEI act -- the protected status for certain minorities, that has created this. And of course the police have been trained to protect and promote and celebrate diversity, as they call it.

So of course there's two-tier policing. And it's the white majority who are being prejudiced against... 

Does the UK have two-tier policing

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ck5i_ihggzg

[C C]

This footage below occurred well before the riots -- it's not related to the first video, but is to the two-tier complaints of the second one.

Basically an Islamic march springs up in London, which -- if going by police discussing things amongst themselves after the 4:08 mark -- was apparently never submitted for approval to the proper authorities. Or for whatever reason, was not announced beforehand, so that they were not informed of it. The police accordingly respond to the event late, but just passively accept the situation. Under other circumstances, unplanned and unsanctioned displays might lead to arrests or attempts to break up the traffic disruption, including those of Extinction Rebellion.

The demographic that "The Wondering Englishman" is referring to below is presumably the circa 1,400,000 Muslims residing in the city in 2024.
- - - - - - - - -

THE WONDERING ENGLISHMAN
https://youtu.be/_WQ0J9OfPgc

INTRO: In this video, I find myself at an Islamic march that managed to shut down central London, sparking debate about potential two-tiered policing by the London Metropolitan Police. Is the Met Police politically biased? Is this march a clear example of favouritism in their response to certain groups the London Mayor can relate to?  I think we should all examine whether certain groups receive preferential treatment from the Metropolitan Police.  Is the dramatic demographic change in London beneficial or detrimental to the nation’s social cohesion?

Islamic March Shuts Down London: More Evidence of Two Tiered Policing?

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_WQ0J9OfPgc

[C C]

Now the Musk and X aspect of the riots.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Labour MPs consider leaving X after Musk clash with Starmer (Aug 14, 2024)
https://youtu.be/JtpbttNwPFc

VIDEO INTRO: In the last few days Labour has taken to complaining about how Elon Musk runs Twitter, now X. He's responsible for the riots. He's trying to stick up for Trump. He's a disgrace [they say].

We've got a great gentleman next on the show, Kristian Niemietz, who's the IEA editorial director.

They're now railing against X and saying. It's all about propagating far right wing stuff.

No, it's certainly not. At least in Britain, Twitter is still predominantly a left wing progressive platform.

At least in so far as we're talking about political Twitter, there has always been a left wing dominance, and that remains the case today.

And for that, it doesn't really matter who owns it. It's not as if Elon Musk was clamping down on left wing accounts.

Well, what he's done is simply relaxed content controls, and he is sometimes himself trolling leftist Twitter users.

So he has this viewer role. You could say he is the owner of the platform, but he's also an active user of it.

And of course, he's a bit of a contrarian. He likes to wind people up, and why not?

[...] But nonetheless, this is what we see now, these concerns about fake news on Twitter or disinformation on Twitter.

That strikes me as a bit of a moral panic by people who have simply got used to getting their way on Twitter. And who see it as their platform, who think that this should be their public space, where they can voice their views -- which they still can.

But now they are no longer the only game in town, and that's what they're upset about....

“Moral Panic” Labour MPs consider leaving X after Musk clash with Starmer

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/JtpbttNwPFc

[confused2]

Britain exploded into riots

Why should the response to rioting (setting fires, looting) be any different to (say) blocking traffic?
Call me old-fashioned if you like.. I've always thought people who set fire to things .. particularly when the fire-setting is 'sending a message' rather than just a random bit of fun .. that the folks who start fires are in a different league to those who block the flow of traffic thereby causing inconvenience to persons unknown to them.

[C C]

Britain exploded into riots

Why should the response to rioting (setting fires, looting) be any different to (say) blocking traffic?
Call me old-fashioned if you like.. I've always thought people who set fire to things .. particularly when the fire-setting is 'sending a message' rather than just a random bit of fun .. that the folks who start fires are in a different league to those who block the flow of traffic thereby causing inconvenience to persons unknown to them.

From the second video, which addresses this idea of two-tier policing -- whose origin long predates the riots (as the older 3rd video exemplifies in raising the question in a non-riot situation):

Habib: These riots involve some criminals obviously -- people who tear up hotels, set fire to vehicles and all that -- they're criminals. But there's no way that Starmer can say they're far-right. He hasn't done a census of the political disposition of all those people

The rioters are the white working class, from deprived areas of this country, who if I were to hazard a guess would typically vote Labour. But it's the Labour Party that's turned its back on the very people that it should be promoting and protecting. The Labour Party has lost its compass completely.

Question: But some of those people will still vote Labour, won't they? Do you think they will hang on? How do you feel about the way the mainstream media is trying to paint them into as extreme right-wing corner?

There's arguably a point there. Since the party is stuck with a classic left-wing name like "Labour", it can't easily sever a traditional focus on the proles. In contrast to the Democratic Party in the US, which shifted to being a paladin for marginalized population groups and waved adieu to the blue-collar and rural sector as they gradually transited to Independents and the Republican Party.

But Labour apparently is trying to mimick the Dems when it comes to illegal migrants. So in response to that, how much are UK proles like US proles? Formerly (and maybe partly due to the lingering influences of that classic Peter Sellars film I'm All Right Jack ), my percerption of the working class in Britain is that they were far more unionized and thereby heavily devoted to Labour, no matter what.

But apparently that might not be the case.

How Labour lost working class support in UK’s ‘left behind’ regions (2019)
https://theconversation.com/how-labour-l...ons-128332

Labour, the unions and the breaking of the British working class (2013)
https://theconversation.com/labour-the-u...lass-14506

"... a recent report from the think tank British Future found 57% of the public consider themselves working class compared to only 36% who identify as middle class."

So maybe a good chunk of them are already long gone from Labour (justifying Starmer's use of "far-right"), or maybe could be after this, as Habib -- or I guess it was the other guy, floats out there.

In the US, there's arguably a difference between white proles and minorities (excluding Latino descended citizens). The whites (and a non-trivial slice of Hispanics) are capable of leaving a Party when it feels they have been done wrong, as illustrated by how the Southern Democrats departed after the policies of Lyndon B. Johnson.

As a contrast to that, while inner-city Black people in Chicago are angry about Dem leaders giving preferential treatment to the 43,000 illegal migrants, the majority will nevertheless still keep voting Dem, just as the whole city has robotically done so since the turn of the 20th-century, if not before.

But again, it's hard to say if proles in the UK are loyal to a left-wing party after the latter strays from its classic socialist roots of principally supporting them. Those articles, however, seem to suggest that they're similar to the US variety in Red States and the less urban areas of Blue States (i.e., are capable of waving "bye-bye").

[stryder]

Britain exploded into riots

Why should the response to rioting (setting fires, looting) be any different to (say) blocking traffic?
Call me old-fashioned if you like.. I've always thought people who set fire to things .. particularly when the fire-setting is 'sending a message' rather than just a random bit of fun .. that the folks who start fires are in a different league to those who block the flow of traffic thereby causing inconvenience to persons unknown to them.

From the second video, which addresses this idea of two-tier policing -- whose origin long predates the riots (as the older 3rd video exemplifies in raising the question in a non-riot situation):

Habib: These riots involve some criminals obviously -- people who tear up hotels, set fire to vehicles and all that -- they're criminals. But there's no way that Starmer can say they're far-right. He hasn't done a census of the political disposition of all those people

The rioters are the white working class, from deprived areas of this country, who if I were to hazard a guess would typically vote Labour. But it's the Labour Party that's turned its back on the very people that it should be promoting and protecting. The Labour Party has lost its compass completely.

Question: But some of those people will still vote Labour, won't they? Do you think they will hang on? How do you feel about the way the mainstream media is trying to paint them into as extreme right-wing corner?

There's arguably a point there. Since the party is stuck with a classic left-wing name like "Labour", it can't easily sever a traditional focus on the proles. In contrast to the Democratic Party in the US, which shifted to being a paladin for marginalized population groups and waved adieu to the blue-collar and rural sector as they gradually transited to the Republican Party.

But Labour apparently is trying to mimick the Dems when it comes to illegal migrants. So in response to that, how much are UK proles like US proles? Formerly (and maybe partly due to the lingering influences of that classic Peter Sellars film I'm All Right Jack ), my percerption of the working class in Britain is that they were far more unionized and thereby heavily devoted to Labour, no matter what.

But apparently that might not be the case.

How Labour lost working class support in UK’s ‘left behind’ regions (2019)
https://theconversation.com/how-labour-l...ons-128332

Labour, the unions and the breaking of the British working class (2013)
https://theconversation.com/labour-the-u...lass-14506

"... a recent report from the think tank British Future found 57% of the public consider themselves working class compared to only 36% who identify as middle class."

So maybe a good chunk of them are already long gone from Labour (justifying Starmer's use of "far-right"), or maybe could be after this, as Habib -- or I guess it was the other guy, floats out there.

In the US, there's arguably a difference between white proles and minorities (excluding Latino descended citizens). The whites (and a non-trivial slice of Hispanics) are capable of leaving a Party when it feels they have been done wrong, as illustrated by how the Southern Democrats departed after the policies of Lyndon B. Johnson.

As a contrast to that, while inner-city Black people in Chicago are angry about Dem leaders giving preferential treatment to the 43,000 illegal migrants, the majority will nevertheless still keep voting Dem, just as the whole city has robotically done so since the turn of the 20th-century, if not before.

But again, it's hard to say if proles in the UK are loyal to a left-wing party after the latter strays from its classic socialist roots of principally supporting them. Those articles, however, seem to suggest that they're similar to the US variety in Red States and the less urban areas of Blue States (i.e., are capable of waving "bye-bye").

Not all Brits wear Jackboots... and Dr Martens haven't really been trending like they use to. Most of todays youth know nothing of Moonstomping.

As to the political affiliate of those that use to Trend back then... I don't think they really cared much about the politics, it was more about the ability to create a local pocket of resistance to whatever they felt threatened by. Modern day social media though fans the flames too quickly and wildly though for it to burn out on it's own.

[confused2]

I don't feel qualified to even attempt a description of the English class system.

Possibly many (some?) would agree that there is an underclass. If you keep a dog chained up for a year and then let it go .. what politics does it exhibit?