The new report from the police, or specifically His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, has created a stir on the Internet, though not so far in the mainstream media, by concluding that there is not (and never was) any evidence of the involvement of Far-Right groups in the protests after the Southport massacre, and that most of the disorder involved angry locals, and not mindless thugs traveling in on buses and trains.
Those with a memory longer than a goldfish will remember that this is all the exact opposite of the story spat out angrily on camera by Keir Starmer (whilst the press was silent on alternative views). Just to refresh your memory, the Prime Minister, with access to all the information from the police and Intelligence services, said they were not protests, and that they were more or less entirely the work of far Right groups traveling into cities on buses and trains, and specifically members of the English Defence League founded by Tommy Robinson (real name Etc-Etc), and, as many pointed out, disbanded by him a decade ago. And nobody in the security services contradicted him.
I did a few blogs on the matter over the weeks. To cite a few, this one built on the public frustration at knowing that not only was there no EDF in existence to be involved, but that there is no significant Far Right movement in Britain today. Not only was Starmer “misinformed,” but the only mass-mobilisation of political activists was instigated by government-funded and MI5-supported Hope not Hate, as a propaganda exercise well-reported in the press to pretend that plucky Joe Public had united to scare off the Fascists. Incidentally, we’ve still not heard of punishment for the Labour councillor, Ricky Jones, who at one of these events called on people to cut the throats of the Nazi fascists. Perhaps he will now claim that it’s OK to make death-threats against non-existent people. No doubt the impartial judge will agree.
In a similar vein, this piece questioned the fact that the only apparently organised, and certainly the most violent, actions after Southport were by small gangs of black-clad and hooded figures who efficiently overturned and burned a single car at several protests, always in sight of the mainstream media, but never in the sight of the police. Angry locals do not issue uniform codes and disguises, nor train to overturn and burn cars. Now we know from the Police that there is no evidence that Far-Right groups were involved, nor even groups of anarchists or leftists:
[W]e found no conclusive or compelling evidence that the 2024 disorder was deliberately premeditated and co-ordinated by any specific group or network.
And so their report bumps up the likelihood of state-organised agents provocateurs considerably, does it not? Make legitimate protests look more like Starmer’s mindless thuggery, and draconian crackdowns seem more justified, don’t they? And we would hardly expect HMICFRS to conclude in a public report that “MI5 exacerbated the riots for political reasons.”
A third article of mine reported how the extension of the D-notice system in recent years made it very probable that the mainstream press was leaned on to suppress not only the facts about the killings and the killer, but about what was truly going on at protests (whereas one could see from the citizen-journalism that there was little violence at most of them, except from the heavy-handed policing). It’s also emerged that local witnesses in Southport were subjected to gagging orders to enable the State to curate public perceptions instead of dealing with the truth.
If you glance at that article, you’ll be reminded how many other events around that time were similarly buried by the press. Since the new report has not, according to my Radio4-addicted wife, been mentioned on BBC news, perhaps that too has been made the subject of a D-notice.
Anyone who has been following this story, or other spun and suppressed stories (one of the most recent being the news blackout on the identity and immigration status of alleged, and still uncharged, Iranian terrorists) will be aware how damaging this is to the body politic. You may succeed in curtailing a bout of spontaneous protests, but you are stoking up a pressure-cooker of public resentment which, history suggests, could destroy the State altogether. Once the risk of public unrest is made grounds for censorship (not to mention draconian punishments), then almost everything ends up being kept from the public because almost anything could trigger revolution. This is called “totalitarianism,” and never ends well.
For let’s spell out simply what this report demonstrates, in conjunction with what we already knew. Because the Southport attacks risked blowing the gaff on a whole raft of political failings, from mass immigration to fostering Islamism, the truth was rapidly and systematically suppressed in the media. Instead of that truth, Keir Starmer (and let’s not pretend he doesn’t speak for the Uniparty and the Blob) purposefully stirred up public hatred of hurting communities with confabulated lies about non-existent Far-Right thugs instigating riots, pre-conditioned the courts to find accused offenders guilty and maximise their punishment, and has compounded those lies even up to the recent past.
Every trick in the book was used (and is habitually being used) to tame the public, from spurious scruples about impeding investigations, trials and contempt of court, and silencing the local police in their information-sharing, to turning the Crown Prosecution Service into a modern-day Bloody Assizes, complete with Judge Jefferys wannabe judges.
One of the more alarming aspects of the new report is that it remarks on the rapid spread of unrest via social media. It fails to mention that social media was also almost the only source of genuine information about events. It hints that “next time” more effective control of said social media might be required. But the idea that sharing information is a cause of social unrest that must be suppressed forgets that opposition to bad governments has spread effectively by word of mouth since tyrants first existed. It also loses all plausibility as a policy for harmony when we now know that silencing the truth was accompanied by the government’s trumpeting of bizarre, and socially divisive, lies. Why should the people of Britain ever forgive that betrayal?
But a house built on such cynical lies cannot stand for long.
