Shocking Truth Exposed: UK Riots Reveal Two-Tier Policing Reality! Myths Debunked—Get the Facts Behind the Headlines and See What They Don't Want You to Know!

Hi and welcome to this Op-Ed on recent claims of two-tier policing in the UK:

In recent days since the outbreak of disorder and violent protests in the UK, social media has blown up with claims of “two-tier policing”. Even the owner of X, Elon Musk posted “two-tier Keir”, insinuating that Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer is somehow to blame for the supposed two-tier policing.

Responding to this contentious issue, this Op-Ed will fearlessly expose the legal realities surrounding the alleged fast-track sentencing, denial of bail, as well as the broader implications for the UK’s legal system.

But first, an essential recap: on July 29th, 17-year-old Axel Muhanwa Rudabkubana, born in the UK to parents from Rwanda, attacked a dance class in Southport, UK with a knife, killing three young girls and injuring others.

In the aftermath of the tragic fatal stabbings widespread civil unrest and rioting erupted across several cities. It was fuelled by the spread of false information about the identity of the alleged perpetrator—wrongly identified as a Muslim asylum seeker — added to by the widely-held view that the police were very slow to release his details. The legal understanding which many commentators lacked was that it is routine to not release the name of a suspect who has only been arrested, and not yet charged. Even if realistically they knew they had not got the wrong person by accident, they still don't normally name people arrested. Further, people under 18 who are charged are usually still entitled to anonymity.

Fuelled by misinformation and distrust of official sources, the civil unrest that ensued produced disturbing scenes and led to many arrests, sentencing and charging.

There is great public interest in this matter, but not all news sources have dedicated themselves to providing the public with full information in an unbiased and impartial manner. I would like to correct for how they may have failed the British people, by correcting a few misconceptions circulating online.

Myth 1: New Laws Have Been Created to Deal with Violent Protestors

One of the most pervasive narratives surrounding the recent riots is the claim that the Labour government has introduced new laws and powers specifically to deal with violent protestors. This is categorically untrue. In reality, the government is applying existing laws more firmly and stringently in response to the heightened public interest and the severity of the recent unrest.

For fairly understandable reasons, for every English or British government, ever, rioting has always been seen as a very serious offence.

The legal framework being used to address these riots includes the Public Order Act 1986, which gives the police and courts the authority to take action against individuals involved in violent protests. This Act has long been in place to manage public order offenses, including those involving violence or threats of violence. The recent application of this law is simply a reflection of the seriousness of the offences committed during the riots, not the creation of new legal provisions.

While the two-tier policing claim is based on people believing that the far-right protestors are being treated much more harshly than other minority groups, the only real new laws to be brought out in recent times relating to protests were back in February this year, where new laws were announced to give police more powers to arrest people wearing face-coverings at protests. In this way, new laws, or alterations to existing laws, can be brought in to deal more effectively with modern realities. Or to respond to modern concerns: following on from scenes where pro-Palestine activists created scenes causing public outrage, flares and other pyrotechnics were also banned at public gatherings such as protests and climbing on war memorials was made a specific public order offence.

So, while laws can be adapted and amended to meet new challenges and concerns, rioting is not new in any way and has, by and large, not been dealt with by any new laws.

Myth 2: Cases Are Being Overzealously Fast-Tracked

Another common misconception is the normal legal system has been massively disrupted in a desperate move so that that the cases of those arrested during the riots can be fast-tracked through the courts, in an overzealous manner. The truth is far different, and much more nuanced.

While it may appear that these cases are being processed quickly, this is primarily because many of the defendants have pleaded guilty to the charges against them, in the face of overwhelming, conclusive evidence, such as video gathered from CCTV depicting them committing violent acts.

When a defendant pleads guilty, the case naturally accelerates, as there is no need for a trial.

Not all defendants are pleading guilty, and according to latest statistics, it appears 32% of the 576 individuals charged with crimes related to the riots pleaded not guilty, which usually means their cases will proceed to trial by jury at Crown Court, which may be scheduled to occur as late as early next year.

However, for the 68% who pleaded guilty, their cases have moved directly to the sentencing phase, which can take place days after them being charged. This is a standard legal procedure and not an example of fast-tracking.

Moreover, of the 576 individuals arrested, 230 have been sent to the Crown Court for sentencing, where 130 have already been sentenced—120 of whom received custodial sentences. Another 111 are waiting to be sentenced at Magistrates Court, with 50 already sentenced. These numbers illustrate that while some cases are moving quickly due to guilty pleas, others are following the standard timeline for more complex trials.

Myth 3: Bail is Being Unfairly Denied

The suggestion that bail has been refused to many of the rioters, and the implication that people are being locked up, potentially for long periods, before they have been found guilty, has also sparked considerable debate, with some suggesting that the courts are being excessively harsh. However, the truth lies in the application of existing legal principles, particularly under the Bail Act 1976.

Of the 576 individuals charged, 30% were released on bail- a number very similar to the number of those whom pleaded not guilty (32%). This statistic challenges the narrative that bail is being systematically denied to those who plead not guilty. Further, the decision to grant or deny bail is based on well-established criteria, including the risk of the defendant absconding, interfering with witnesses, or committing further offences while on bail.

To properly understand the figures of those supposedly'denied bail, we need to understand that for those who pleaded guilty—accounting for the majority of cases—the courts often decide to remand them in custody until sentencing, particularly when the offences involve violence or threats of violence, and it is difficult to claim that these few days in custody - which are counted as part of their sentence - represents any real hardship to people who are, in most cases, destined for prison.

Where individuals who plead not guilty were remanded in custody at their first court appearance, this reflects the courts’ concern over public safety and the likelihood of reoffending. However, it is important to note that 170 individuals charged in connection with the riots were released on bail, underscoring that bail is not being denied indiscriminately but is being carefully considered on a case-by-case basis.

As Jay King rightly pointed out in his analysis, “In the case of rioters, the violent nature of their actions during periods of unrest can potentially lead to decisions to keep them in custody until sentencing.” This is standard legal practice, applied routinely in cases involving serious offences, and not an extraordinary measure reserved solely for the recent unrest.

Figures suggest that there is no use of the threat of custody while awaiting trial to "blackmail" defendants into pleading guilty, so as to be dealt with speedily.

The number of defendants released on bail matches very closely the number of people pleading not guilty (30% vs 32%).

Myth 4: Dangerous offenders are being released from prison in place of people posting on social media.

Many have seen the news regarding British prisons being full and that is true. However, the myth comes when they claim that dangerous offenders are being released in place of people who only posted on social media. Firstly, the media doesn’t give full details of the offences of those arrested for posting. In fact it is already against the law to post inciting violence, threats to life or just things such as racism. Those being arrested were breaking the law.

Prisoners have been being released at around 18 days early since 2023 under the Tory government due to our prisons being overcrowded, so this is not a new thing. It’s being amplified by the left who want to scare potential criminals, and the right to push the two-tier policing claim.

When people see a case of someone being released early and feel outraged, their anger should be directed either at the length of the original sentence, or at the long-standing problem of lack of prison capacity. Offenders are only ever being released marginally sooner to clear prison space, and while this is never ideal, and it is right for it to be scrutinised, examined and criticised, it is not being done at random, but as part of a careful process.

The public should speak up and express their concerns or outrage when things happen which go against their sense of justice, but it is important to examine all claims for bias and to see what factual basis there is.

The Broader Context and Future Implications

The handling of these cases also raises questions about how the legal system might respond to similar unrest in the future, particularly in protests involving other groups. The government and judiciary will need to ensure that the law is applied consistently, regardless of the political or ideological motivations behind the protests, to maintain public trust in the justice system.

For example, if similar violence were to occur during pro-Islam or pro-Palestine protests, the government would be expected to apply the same rigorous standards to ensure fairness and equity in the legal process. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration could face significant backlash if perceived double standards emerge, potentially undermining the deterrent effect of current legal actions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the myths surrounding fast-track sentencing and the denial of bail in the recent UK riots are not supported by the facts. The government is not using new laws to punish certain groups but is instead applying existing ones with greater rigour. The swift processing of cases is largely due to the high percentage of guilty pleas, and bail decisions are being made in accordance with the law, taking into account the specifics of each case.

Admittedly, to the average person without the above facts, it can seem as though there is “two-teir policing” when the public are seeing so many arrests on one side in the media but none on the other. However, the reality is that both sides are being arrested, and as Jay mentioned in his latest article some of the Pro-Palestinians involved in the recent Birmingham arrests are being looked for, and an investigation is ongoing.

The simple fact is, that it’s too early to make these kind of assumptions, and it’s imperative that we all keep our faith in the Judiciary system of our country in order to prevent more civil unrest.

As these cases continue to develop, it will be critical for the legal system to apply these principles consistently across all groups involved in civil unrest to ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done.

Well, that’s all for now, but until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.

Natalie Smith

Black Country News Desk

Twitter (X) @natalie_Zion

natalie.bcnews@gmail.com