Dear Commissioner, You Have Lost Your Mind

This week, the Home Secretary, a devout Pakistani Muslim in a Christian country, arbitrarily banned seven speakers from addressing a peaceful protest because she didn't like what she imagined they might say before they'd even said it. Four months after introducing the most severe and intrusive surveillance London has ever seen. She even stated, brazenly in public, her intent was to:

...achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his panopticon.

We will apparently be getting the "National Police Force" quango in this Parliament. As a spectacularly dumb idea, is rates about No 17 in the list of bad ideas during this term: bad, but not catastrophically bad; bad in a foolish, silly way; not ruinously someone-call-for-Cromwell-to-be-reincarnated-by-witches way.

This is a left-wing government who arrested grandparents and people in wheelchairs lawfully expressing their deep anger at a foreign government's behaviour. Its Prime Minister, despite having no further mandate or authority, took to social media to engage in partisan student ideology claiming hundreds of thousands of ordinary Britons "don't speak for" Britain, while the British military is under genuine threat. And let's not even mention trying to fine foreign websites via the threat of censoring their own citizens after championing a National Suicide Service

Let us, to indulge in the cliché, be unambiguously clear. England is a free country, whether politicians or police like it or not; whether they agree with it or not. or whether they accept it or not. It is not their decision to make. Office is leased by the British public. Is it not granted so we may be "ruled."

• The political Left have a natural negative right to freely associate, protest, speak, shout. and offend; in any way they like, at any time they like, for any reason they like. That includes expressing the normal human emotion of hate, and every one of their terrible ideas.
• The political Right have a natural negative right to freely associate, protest, speak, shout, and offend; in any way they like, at any time they like, for any reason they like. That includes expressing the normal human emotion of hate, and every one of their terrible ideas.
• The political centre have a natural negative right to do absolutely nothing at all, ignore everything, and head to the Winchester for a pint until the whole thing blows over. That includes expressing no emotion whatsoever, keeping calming and carrying on, and just getting it on with it.

There is no legal or moral basis for, – yuck, a ... politician, of all people; a stupid, meddling little grey person in a suit –, to decide what we may think or say. We decide; we rule; we participate in our governance. Boudicea explained this principle to the Romans, in fire.

Mr Rowley, You Are A Disgrace

Ahead of lawful protest in London, our second-worst commissioner in living memory – and that is saying something considering the Met's tawdry history – decided he would write to the nation and explain their new self-appointed role as social mediator for the country's divided mind.

Along with his disgusting future cellmate, the man whom Traitor's Gate was built for – Richard Hermer – they make quite the pair. They both think they can publicly insult the US President as part of the job.

This weekend will test London. Large crowds, opposing views and heightened emotions will converge on our streets at a time of global instability and rising tension at home.

No, it will set London alight with speech. You are a policeman. "Global instability" is not your concern. At all.

Thousands of officers will be deployed across the capital as we police two large and potentially volatile protests alongside the FA Cup final at Wembley. This will be one of the most significant policing operations we have stood up in recent years.

Good. Get to work.

My duty, and that of every officer I lead, is clear: to police lawful protest, protect communities, uphold the right to free speech and take decisive action against criminality — without fear or favour.

No. Your duty is set out in the Peelian Principles. It is not to act as a "social mediator" of protest, be concerned with "communities," or "uphold" rights you have no jurisdiction over. Your business is crime. That is it.

Let me be unequivocal about what that means. This is not “two‑tier policing”. It is the complete opposite. There is no difference in approach, no separate standards and no preferential treatment. Both protests are being policed on the same basis, under the same legal framework, with similar conditions and timings and the same expectations.

Lying in public office is unacceptable. It is abundantly clear the approaches are different.

Our officers will enforce those conditions in exactly the same way at both events: consistently, impartially and robustly. Where the law is followed, we will facilitate; where it is broken, we will act.

No. Your job is not to "facilitate." Your job is to prevent criminality and arrest it.

That approach does not change depending on who is protesting or why.

Yes, it does. The entire country knows it does.

It is grounded in fairness, in the law, and in our duty to all Londoners. That doesn’t mean our tactics will be exactly the same — each event is different — but the principles we follow are.

Your "tactics" are simple. Enforce the law. You work for us. Arrest criminals. Leave ordinary law-abiding persons alone. Period.

The surrounding context this weekend is set in is key. The national terrorism threat was recently raised to severe, meaning an attack is highly likely, and state threats loom large. In recent months we have seen a terrorist attack, a sustained campaign of arson targeting Jewish Londoners, and a sharp rise in hate crime — particularly antisemitism. Fears within Jewish communities are acutely heightened. At the same time, we are seeing growing concern across other communities, including Muslim Londoners.

And whom, exactly, might be the major source of this Jew hatred? How many Jews have been arrested for attacking mosques?

We know, because Londoners tell us, that previous protests by the two groups involved this weekend can be experienced as intimidating, resulting in some people changing their behaviour, including choosing to avoid central London altogether. This is not acceptable.

No. What is not acceptable is false equivalence, and perverting the telos of the police with sociology. It is manipulative, deceitful, and perfidious.

Taken together, this demands a policing response that is firm, highly visible and unambiguous in its intent: to protect communities, uphold lawful protest and act decisively against hate crimes and any other criminality wherever it appears.

No, it doesn't. Sentiment and worry is neither criminal, nor a basis for police strategy. There is no such thing as "hate crime." There is law, and there is crime. Crime is a violation of natural law. If a law is not broken, there is no crime.

Our policing plan reflects that reality. It includes the most assertive use of our powers, including strict conditions imposed on protests. Our 4,000 officers will be supported by specialist resources including live facial recognition, helicopters, drones, dog units, police horses, armoured vehicles and dedicated investigative teams.

You have no jurisdiction over the natural negative rights of speech, assembly, or protest. None whatsoever. Neither do you have any democratic basis for the use of Chinese Orwellian cameras for speculative pre-crime fishing expeditions, or military armament against people who have committed no crime.

Alongside this escalating threat, we have taken a tougher and clearer stance on antisemitic and anti‑Muslim chanting and hate crime overall. We have been explicit that certain phrases, including “globalise the intifada”, cannot be treated as neutral when they are used in a way that incites racial hatred or invokes violence.

Again, false equivalence is not acceptable. There are 300,000 Jews in England. There are 3.8 million Muslims. It is vile. But it is legal speech – not within your jurisdiction. It is in your scope to deal with imminent incitement to violence or "fighting words." as that is not speech. It is not your place to decide whether speech is "neutral".

We are serious and unflinching in approach. Arrests have already taken place. Charges have been brought and only last week we went from arrest to conviction in under 72 hours.

Arresting people before they protest is not policing. It is tyranny.

On top of this we charged an individual for directing chants of “death to the IDF” at Jewish people in London. That case reflects a clear shift in the criminal justice response — intervening when language crosses the line from protest into criminality.

Yes, it is does. Into dystopia, hell, and the desperate need to withdraw taxpayer money and repeal laws allowing police to disgrace our country.

We have already stepped up our policing presence with more officers and specialist capabilities, but this is not just about physical security. We must also challenge the unlawful conduct and mindsets that create a permissive environment in which violence becomes more likely.

No. You are not there to "challenge mindsets." The law empowers you to deal with action, conduct, and behaviour which is criminal. Nothing else.

Arrests so far have been on a scale not typically associated with events described as peaceful protests. They include racially and religiously aggravated public order offences, stirring up racial hatred and offences linked to support for terrorist organisations.

All of these are ugly and unwelcome speech. None of them are within the jurisdiction of the police.

Our response does not stop at the point of arrest. We are working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service, and I welcome their new approach to accelerating hate crime cases, bringing faster charging decisions based on core evidence so that our investigations have a more immediate impact.

Your job stops at the point of charge, where it passes to HM Prison estate to guard the innocent until a verdict is given by a jury of their peers. Your job is not to have any opinion on process, charging, the telepathic interpretation of others' feelings, or what may or may not have been the motivation for a crime.

But we know more is required.

No. Less is required. We pay the bill and set the budget.

The law must keep pace with what is happening on our streets.

Perhaps, but it is the job of Parliament. Not you. Your job is to enforce the law Parliament writes.

Words matter — especially when they intimidate, incite or normalise hostility.

No, they don't. Actions and imminent incitement matter. Murders, rapes, burglaries, and arson matter. Feelings and vibes are not in police jurisdiction. Nor is the sociology junk theory of "normalisation."

This weekend, officers will take a robust, proactive and interventionist approach wherever hate crime is seen or heard, against any community. If a word, sign or symbol breaks the law and creates fear or intimidation or stirs up hatred, we will act. That includes situations where language may be debated in academic or historical terms but, in the real world, is clearly causing racial or religious hatred.

And the British public will put you out to pasture for it. You are not the National Politeness Service. Words, signs, and symbols are not within the jurisdiction of the police.

The sentence above used by this man is possibly one of the most extreme, ideological, and disgraceful sentiments uttered by a British official in recent memory. It is outrageous a public servant would even dare to say this.

This approach applies equally to all communities. While there is understandably a strong focus on protecting Jewish Londoners, I expect exactly the same robust action against anti‑Muslim hate crime. Chants or language that demean, distress or intimidate Muslim communities are unacceptable and will be dealt with.

It is not applied to Muslims in case they riot, and the police end up being called racist. Chants or language are speech. They are not within the jurisdiction of governments or the police. They are not something to be "dealt with."

Policing without fear or favour means exactly that.

No, it doesn't. It means following the Principles, the law, and dealing with crime.

It is also completely unacceptable that officers policing these events have themselves been subjected to racial abuse. No officer should face discrimination or hostility for doing their job, and we will take action against those responsible.

Yes, it is acceptable. That is the job. If you do not like it, get a different one. It's the price of doing business. Yes, criminals discriminate and insult constables (not "officers") every single day. The police are not "victims."

This weekend will test London. I will make sure the police will play its part in meeting that test and keeping the capital a place where everyone can feel safe to live, work, travel and worship.

No, it won't. 95% of the city who held off the Blitz don't even know there are protests going on. They are too busy trying to scrape together pennies to pay rent and not let their overdraft get any worse.

The Arrogance Of These People

At what point did the British people authorise the Home Office or the police to use live facial recognition in a re-run of Tiananmen Square? At what point did they authorise the arrest of grandmothers or disabled people? At what point did they authorise officials to ban speakers on the basis of their own personal opinion and student politics?

This is not protecting or enforcing order, despite it being claimed as so. This is indulging in a fictional pantomime of the governmental state as ministerial property – which is the precise inverse of what our constitution is written for.

This rot keeps spreading. From the Home Secretary down to the contemptible Met police cupboard office, down to the primary schoolteacher.

If they want to offend us with their Nakba, so be it.

If they want to offend us with their rallies, so be it.

At no point it is for ministers of state, or the police, to decide they will assume the unlegislated title of pastor or social priesthood; attempt to interfere with the expression of individual conscience; or take it upon themselves to decide what the taxpayers who fund their salaries, may, or should, say or hear. The reasons they give are irrelevant and immaterial; the intellectual justification they invoke is farcical; the powers they conjecture are non-existent; and the time for this aggravating vanity from our political trench-class is drawing to a fast-accelerating close – whether they acknowledge it or not.

Peele set this out. We have no need to change it.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Like Hermer, who believes Parliament needs to seek his approval, you are assuming authority the British public have not granted you.

If a right pre-existed government itself, then you have no jurisdiction to interfere. If a power does yet not exist in law, then your imagined mandate is ultra vires. If they have committed no crime, then you have no business at all.