
This is how justice has gone so awry in twenty-first century Britain
I think of them when I see stories about some of the people who are allowed to stay in this country by our courts. The Ugandan murderer who clubbed a man to death in the back of an ambulance but was allowed to stay because of his mental health. The Pakistani paedophile was allowed to stay because his life would be at risk back home. The Jamaican murderer who can't be deported because a rival criminal gang in his native country might harm him.
Welcome to justice in twenty-first century Britain. Judges, some of whom are also pro-migrant activists, have decided that the rights of foreign criminals are more important than the right of everyone else to live in safety; there are more than 10,000 foreign national offenders living in the country.
There's a pattern here. The British state persecutes the law-abiding while coddling dangerous people. This worst-of-both-worlds has been dubbed 'anarcho-tyranny'. Examples of it abound. Take Martyn's Law.
Security Guard Kyle Lawler was suspicious of Manchester bomber Salman Abedi, but did not confront him because, he says, he didn't want to be branded a racist. Rather than confronting this real problem, Parliament instead passed a law requiring village halls and small events to draw up bureaucratic terrorism action plans.
Exactly as predicted, the cost of this bureaucracy has led to events being closed for the law-abiding population: Shrewsbury Flower Show (started in 1875) has folded, to some extent, because of the extra costs of security.
Horrific knife crimes have become common. In July 2015, we passed a law saying adults convicted for a second time or more of carrying a knife must receive a minimum six-month prison sentence. But judges are ignoring it – four in ten are not jailed, despite the clear view of Parliament.
Instead of fixing the problem, the BBC and others are promoting an absurd campaign to ban pointed kitchen knives, with celebrity endorsements from people like Idris Elba. That's anarcho-tyranny in action: don't jail criminals but take away granny's cheese knife instead.
If you, a law-abiding person, want to open a bank account or invest money you will face layers of bureaucracy. God help you if you are self-employed. But if you want to set up a blatant money laundering operation like some of the candy stores of Oxford Street or open the 14th 'Turkish Barber' in a tiny town, then HMRC will barely touch you.
I get my train ticket checked every day. But staff on the tube stand idly by while people jump over the ticket barriers. When Robert Jenrick made a film pointing this out, Transport for London (TFL) threatened to prosecute him for 'filming illegally'.
Recently, tube trains on the Bakerloo and Central lines have been covered in graffiti. Various groups have started cleaning off the graffiti. What has been the TFL's response to this? They complained about people cleaning up the graffiti and then claimed they had put it there themselves.
This is the instinct of anarcho-tyranny. Attack the law abiding and the victims, rather than deal with the problem; in two tier Britain, not all protests are equal.
Women protesting the Sarah Everard case had their faces squished to the floor. BLM protesters were treated with kid gloves; while everyone else was instructed to stay home to stop covid, they were allowed to gather in Whitehall for a protest that turned into a riot.
British police arrest more than 30 people a day for online posts, double the rate in 2017. Even the ultra-liberal Economist magazine argues Britain has a problem with free speech. One of the worst things about anarcho-tyranny is its arbitrary nature.
According to a Policy Exchange report, in 2023, Essex Police recorded 808 'Non-Crime Hate Incidents' (NCHIs). Meanwhile, West Yorkshire Police, a force with 38 per cent more police officers than Essex, recorded only 146 NCHIs.
In the last three years Essex police spent time logging two NCHIs every single day – but only solved 6 per cent of burglaries and 3 per cent of rapes.
It is terrible that free speech is being policed like this, but somehow even worse that what you can say now depends on where you happen to live, and the whims of local officials. But then, that's the whole point. Persecuting the law-abiding makes officials feel powerful and important.
The numbers arriving in small boats are soaring under Starmer, and the number of terrorists and criminals who we can't deport because of human rights is ever-growing.
At least ugly new barriers have been recently put up around Parliament to protect us MPs and Peers. By a quirk of timing the work started in the week when the Mayor of London gave a stirring speech declaring that we must 'build bridges, not walls'.
He said this after spending recent years having to install ugly concrete anti-terrorism walls on the ends of all of London's bridges, which law-abiding people must walk round.
The mayor spent money on an ad campaign declaring 'London is open', but for the law-abiding London is less open: when I was born you could walk up Downing Street, or go into parliament without airport style security.
In the grooming gangs scandal, we saw how the authorities turned on the victims and those who tried to blow the whistle. People like detective Maggie Oliver, youth worker Jayne Senior and even Labour MPs Ann Cryer and Sarah Champion paid a career penalty for speaking out; Champion was made to quit her job in the Labour front bench in 2017. Labour first tried to block an inquiry and are now pushing through a definition of 'Islamophobia' that I'm sure would have been used against those whistleblowers.
Our politics are upside down. We pamper those who do the wrong thing, while we punish those who try to do the right thing. It's anarcho-tyranny. Don't like it? Well, choose your words carefully, or you'll end up in jail.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Tread carefully with reform of bank ringfencing, chancellor
Rachel Reeves called it 'the biggest set of reforms to financial regulation in a decade', and, in one narrow sense, her Leeds Reforms would qualify for the description. If the ringfencing regime for banks were to be scrapped, we really would be entering a new era – or going back to an old one, since the separation of banks' retail and investment banking activities was the single biggest regulatory change introduced after the 2008-09 crash to try to prevent another blow-up. Reeves on Tuesday, however, merely announced a review to look at how reforms to ringfencing could 'strike the right balance between growth and stability, including protecting consumer deposits'. One hopes that does not mean outright abolition, which is what banks such as HSBC, Lloyds and NatWest have been urging on the grounds that the rules trap capital and impede growth. The stout defence of ringfencing from Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, has always felt more compelling: the regime has made banks safer and removal would increase the cost of loans and mortgages. It would surely be hard for a chancellor to override the Bank on this core question, especially when Barclays – which, in theory, might have most to gain from abolition as it has the largest investment bank – is also in the defence camp. A fudged outcome would see more activities allowed within the ringfenced entity. It is technical stuff, but also deeply important. Get it wrong and the cautious voices sounding the alarm over a government in search of a sugar-rush of growth via financial deregulation would have a point. Tread carefully, chancellor: ditching ringfencing in its entirety risks unlearning the lessons of the last crisis. In other respects, however, Reeves's red tape-slashing, investment-boosting, obstacle-removing reforms can be criticised in the other direction: yes, some changes are sensible tidying-up exercises but others are underwhelming. Take the showbiz headliner: the advertising campaign to encourage over-cautious savers to push a few quid into the stock market. The goal is admirable in itself for the reasons the Treasury gives: savers are doing themselves long-term financial harm if they do not understand that shares beat cash over most long-term periods. • Looser mortgage rules, which allow lenders to provide bigger mortgages worth more than 4.5 times borrowers' annual income. The move could help another 36,000 first-time buyers per year, according to the Bank of England • A permanent government-backed mortgage guarantee scheme, in which taxpayers will pick up the bill when a borrower defaults, in an effort to encourage participating banks to offer more 91-95% mortgages • A government-backed but industry-funded advertising campaign to encourage consumers to invest their cash savings in shares • Plans to allow banks to send information about 'investment opportunities' to savers that have cash sitting in low interest rate accounts, encouraging them to shift money to stocks and shares • A fresh review of ringfencing rules which were introduced after the 2008 financial crisis in order to protect consumer cash from a bank's riskier activities • A review of warnings attached to investment products to ensure that people are 'accurately' judging risk levels • Plans to 'radically streamline' accountability rules for senior bankers and finance bosses • Reining in the powers of the Financial Ombudsman Service, which settles complaints between consumers and businesses • Cutting the rate of interest – and therefore total compensation – paid out to consumers wronged by City firms and imposing a 10-year limit for claims • A new 'concierge service' to court international investors and create a one-stop-shop to promote the UK and provide tailored support to help businesses plan where to invest. But it's not as if the Treasury itself is doing much more than cheering from the wings. The ad campaign will be funded by the industry, which presumably could have launched the thing itself without government endorsement. At the very least, Reeves could have given the volunteers a hand by abolishing stamp duty on shares for purchases within ISAs. Even that gentle step was conspicuous by its absence. Tweaking risk-warning messaging may help at the margins. So will better access for retail investors to corporate debt and corporate fund-raising, as announced by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). But if Reeves is truly alarmed (as she should be) by the statistic that the UK has the lowest level of retail investment in the G7 group of rich economies, bolder measures are needed. It could take a generation to change saving habits to encourage 'informed risk-taking' but the crisis in the London stock market is happening now. Stamp duty remains the drag in the background, and is the real test of the Treasury's seriousness. Elsewhere, several reforms look justified: help for 'challenger' banks on capital rules; some loosening of rules to help first-time buyers; a trimming of the size of the authorisation regime for bank senior managers in the interest of efficiency; changes to allow the London Stock Exchange to quote dollar- and euro-denominated shares. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion A third pot of policies are straightforward lobbying victories for the City. That lot includes the neutering of the financial ombudsman service, but the banks may have had a point about the body acting as a 'quasi regulator' within the FCA. The timing of the reform looks terrible while the unresolved car finance affair rumbles on, but the regulatory setup did look basically confused. The onus now falls on the FCA to act sooner to spot looming scandals, which is not a wholly reassuring thought. But let's not overstate the significance of the Mansion House speech. Yes, the financial services industry deserves its place as one of the eight growth-driving sectors within the government's overall industry strategy; it's too big to ignore. But, despite some of the rhetoric, it's not as if the City is currently being strangled by regulation in the way that purer industrial sectors are being hampered by high energy costs. So don't go overboard on ringfencing reform: it is the bit that matters the most.


Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
Britain's Moore handed four-year ban after CAS upholds ITIA appeal
July 15 (Reuters) - Britain's Tara Moore, who was previously cleared of an anti-doping rule violation, was handed a four-year ban on Tuesday after the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld an appeal filed by the International Tennis Integrity Agency. Moore, Britain's former number one-ranked doubles player, was provisionally suspended in June 2022 due to the presence of prohibited anabolic steroids Nandrolone and boldenone. Moore said she had never knowingly taken a banned substance in her career and an independent tribunal determined that contaminated meat consumed by her in the days before sample collection was the source of the prohibited substance. Moore lost 19 months in the process before she was cleared of the ADRV but CAS upheld the ITIA's appeal against the first instance "No Fault or Negligence" ruling with respect to nandrolone. "After reviewing the scientific and legal evidence, the majority of the CAS Panel considered that the player did not succeed in proving that the concentration of nandrolone in her sample was consistent with the ingestion of contaminated meat," CAS said in a statement. "The panel concluded that Ms Moore failed to establish that the ADRV was not intentional. The appeal by the ITIA is therefore upheld and the decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal is set aside." Moore had previously said how she saw her reputation, ranking and livelihood "slowly trickling away" for 19 months during her initial suspension. The 32-year-old had also filed a cross-appeal at CAS "seeking to dismiss the ITIA appeal, dismiss the nandrolone result in the ADRV or alternatively confirm that she bears no fault or negligence". However, CAS said the cross-appeal was declared inadmissible and her four-year period of ineligibility would start from July 15, with credit for any provisional suspension that has already been served. "Our bar for appealing a first instance decision is high, and the decision is not taken lightly," ITIA CEO Karen Moorhouse said in a statement. "In this case, our independent scientific advice was that the player did not adequately explain the high level of nandrolone present in their sample. Today's ruling is consistent with this position."


Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STILL a turn off! Fewer than one in eight watched BBC Scotland...despite it costing £200m
Fewer than one in eight adults watched the BBC Scotland digital channel each week last year - despite it having cost licence-payers more than £200million since its launch. The channel reached only 13 per cent of the population, the same figure as the previous year, and was watched for only an hour and 33 minutes a week by the average viewer. According to the latest BBC annual accounts for 2024/25, the cost of the channel, paid for by the licence fee, rose from £40million a year to £42million in the past year - and the cost per 'user hour' for the BBC Scotland channel and BBC Scotland content on iPlayer was 45p. Earlier this year, BBC Scotland's flagship news show Reporting Scotland: News at Seven was launched on the digital channel, replacing The Nine, which was axed after a row over low viewer numbers and too many repeats, with the new show attracting fewer than 30,000 viewers for its first episode. Last night Scottish Tory culture spokesman Murdo Fraser said: 'BBC Scotland bosses must address why Scots are not getting value for money when it comes to this channel. 'Given the sums involved they must ensure that they are investing in high-quality content that resonates with and reaches a far wider audience in Scotland.' News at Seven, a 30-minute show airing every weeknight on the BBC Scotland channel, aims to complement Reporting Scotland, the BBC One news programme which is screened at 6.30pm. It is presented by Laura Maciver and Amy Irons, who take turns fronting the show. The total cost of the BBC Scotland channel since its launch in 2019 is £204million. The Nine - which at one point reached just 1,700 people - ended last year along with entertainment news programme The Edit and weekly news review Seven Days. Last year media commentator and former BBC editor Professor Tim Luckhurst said: 'The number paying the licence fee has declined and the BBC faces financial challenges that can only be met by making staff redundant. 'For BBC Scotland to spend millions of pounds on a channel that attracts a tiny minority of the population in these circumstances is unreasonable. 'The BBC Scotland channel should close immediately - it costs money the BBC cannot afford.' The BBC was contacted for comment on funding for the digital channel. Meanwhile, the annual report said the BBC as a whole had screened 'content reflecting all of Scotland', including dramas Shetland, starring Ashley Jensen, Rebus – with Richard Rankin in the title role - and Granite Harbour, as well as documentary series Murder Trial, Inside Barlinnie [prison], and Sir Alex, about Sir Alex Ferguson, Britain's most decorated football manager. Award-winning The Agency: Unfiltered returned for a third series searching for Scotland's top influencer and attracting younger audiences. The report said 'Scotland-produced audio content' performed well on BBC Sounds and BBC Sport with Sportsound at six million plays. BBC Radio nan Gàidheal launched a 'celebration of new Gaelic song and composition', Òran Ùr. The report said 56 per cent of adults in Scotland consume BBC Scotland content on average per week, down from 57 per cent the previous year. Muriel Gray, chairman of the Scotland committee of the BBC, said: 'During the year, the committee has discussed and reviewed a number of critical areas, including major news changes introduced by BBC Scotland in January, BBC Radio Scotland's audience performances, the role of television drama in driving iPlayer growth, and the renewal of the BBC's partnership with MG ALBA.' In January, the BBC's new boss in Scotland claimed people may not be paying for a TV licence because of the cost of living crisis and the wide choice of programmes across streaming services. Ms Valentine, who became Director of BBC Scotland in October, defended News at Seven when she appeared before MPs at the Scottish Affairs Committee in the Commons. A BBC spokesman said: 'Fluctuations in recorded spend can be due to several factors including variations in the transmission dates of scripted content and special content, for example related to the Euros. 'This is reflected in the accounts. 'The BBC Scotland channel is the top performer after the leading 5 channels - BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, C4 and C5 - and audiences also watch the channel's content on the iPlayer. 'The cost per user hour for the channel has fallen year on year and in 2024/25, and BBC Scotland content had 1million weekly active users on iPlayer..'