Hi and welcome to this JK B'HAM: Editorial for VPN.
In this article I will share my response to recent riots or planned protests and the movement seeking to enact political change on the streets of Britain through through threat and force. But I begin a focus closer to home, as recent events in Birmingham reveal troubling realities about the complex issues of policing and protest effectiveness.
On August 5th, a group of Muslim youths took vigilante style action near a Bordesley Green mosque, believing they were protecting it from a far-right protest which failed to materialise. The aggressive behavior of some of these counter-protesters led to intimidation and violence against locals, leading to much negative attention..
The West Midlands Police’s decision to depend on community leaders rather than a visible police presence has been heavily criticized, with many online labelling it "two tier policing". Their approach, intended to leverage local community cooperation, apparently backfired as the young counter-protesters ignored their elders and engaged in a show of strength, possibly escalating tensions.
Superintendent Emlyn Richards has now spoken out with a clear and unequivocal message for anyone tempted to come out on 'patrol' to instead stay home and "leave policing to the police".
Ultimately, the effectiveness of this reliance on community ties will be tested as police appeal for those responsible for disorder or who committed crimes by carrying weapons in public to be identified by their peers and presented to police.
The incident has been further complicated by misinformation spread online. Social media platforms have amplified false narratives about the events, distorting public perception and fueling division.
There was no police intention for any sort of militia or vigilante group to be out on the street.
Under fire, Superintendent Emlyn Richards hit out against misinformation, highlighting the need to take information from reputable sources. While this applies to the wider context of the disorder, based on the Southport stabbings being falsely attributed online to a fictional Islamist channel migrant, online misinformation continues to accompany reports of the aftermath of the Southport attack.
A recent post about a supposed 'storming' of the Greville Arms pub in Solihull by 'Asian lads' was written to fire up readers by suggesting that a corrupt mainstream media could not be replied upon to share the unsourced report. The irony is glaring: news organisations which have built up a reputation over time for telling the truth would indeed not have printed this false story, which, like the Al-Shakati rumour and the supposed witness testimony from other unverified sources on social media accounts, did however make a considerable impact on Elon Musk's platform, with the Solihull post tallying up over 700k engagements before being deleted.
Due to mechanisms incentivising online engagement, those who join the likes of Texas-based Elon Musk in mocking the UK's longstanding laws against inciting violence and hatred and who buy into the illusion that social media platforms are a place where people are free from accountability, may mistakenly perceive that they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain from spreading fake news. While inaccurate content which may vilify minority communities does appeal to a disenfranchised audience not served elsewhere, the real winner is perhaps $3.4B-a-year-revenue X Corp. In any case, the winner is not democracy, which relies on individuals making decisions based on reliable information, not on whatever information, true or false, that the audience want to hear, which social media algorithms are designed to supply.
But perhaps the greatest myth perpetuated on social media is regarding the riots themselves, in terms of myths both around their effectiveness, and the ability of individuals to engage in potential lawbreaking acts (which, in the case of attacks we have seen on asylum seeker accommodation, may legally be not different from terrorism), without facing accountability by hiding behind the mask of anonymity.
Advanced surveillance technologies in the UK, including CCTV and facial recognition, make it increasingly difficult for participants in violent protests to evade detection.
Despite popular impressions, police do not rely solely on boots on the ground, and where police officers may be outnumbered and make a retreat, this apparent show of weakness is, in the modern age, a retreat only by ONE of the many arms of the law.
Rioting with anonymity in the modern age would be an extremely difficult undertaking, requiring high levels of technical knowledge and a great deal of discipline.
Signals from mobile phones are hust one formidable tool for identifying those at the scenes of disorder.
Capabilities of Facial Recognition technology are widely underestimated; faces which may not be identifiable to our eyes may yet be correctly identified by algorithms.
But this discussion on the practicalities of rioting is largely unnecessary as most of all it needs to be understood that rioting is not a practical means of bringing about change.
For one thing, non-peaceful, non-democratic efforts to change government policy are extremely high-risk, and as it dawns on more and more people that, for example, attacking an asylum seeker accommodation centre may fall into the category of terrorism, these actions will have less backing.
Also they are extremely unlikely to succeed in a country with such a strong democratic tradition, as it would not necessarily be possible to take non-democratic action against Keir Starmer without also going up against the police, specialist Ministry Of Defence Units, and ultimately, the authority of the King and the might of the army that is duty-bound to protect him.
I would like to condemn all rioting and strongly oppose the anti-democratic vision of those who seek political change through intimidation, threats and violence.
Fringe parties backing such measures have long existed, frequently with a long history of anti-western rhetoric. A current representative is controversial influencer and unironically self-declared ''pimp and mafia associated criminal" Andrew Tate, who denies the allegations of sexual exploitation and organised criminal activities that he currently faces in multiple countries. Andy Tate is highly likely to face charges down the line for inciting hate/ terrorism, for his recent online online outbursts, and it remains to be seen what evidence is presented against another figures with a cult-like following who has recently been charged with terrorism offences, Tommy Robinson.
One fact that the significant stature and notability achieved by Tommy Robinson and other highly polarising contentious political figures undoubtedly shows, is that there is a large body of British people who have serious concerns about immigration and the role of Islam in the UK, many backing Reform UK or the Conservative Party in the last election, but with a significant number of them rejecting the opportunity to determine the fate of the country by getting behind a party willing to enact policies to curb immigration. People who hold these positions will have to question themselves and search hard for ways to unite to become a real force for democratic change.
As we bring this article to a close, we want to reaffirm our commitment to responsible journalism. With a strong history of reporting on crime, we will continue to cover any future incidents of violence, ensuring the public remains informed. Our duty is to present the facts as they unfold, especially in times of unrest. We want to be clear that our reporting will maintain a standard of fairness and respect, avoiding any intention of bias or provocation. Our objective is to provide accurate and balanced coverage, allowing our audience to stay informed without fuelling further conflict.
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.
Jason King
Birmingham City-Desk
Twitter (X) @JasonKingNews
Comments