Really interesting piece not least because the untrained legal mind can see the flaws in the system without taking it to a jury
The 1980s public demand for action over disorder largely centred on the publicity of football hooliganism which I, perhaps naively, thought at the time was an extension of a culture spawned between mods and rockers and organised crime ie If you weren’t looking for trouble you wouldn’t find it Then of course Heysel was followed by Hillsborough and the crackdown was justified plus the complete anaesthetising of football ahead of the Premier League and Sky TV’s dominance that continues to this day
Why did so many Liverpool fans travelled without tickets to Hillsborough ? The book ‘No Last Rights’ casts an inquisitive eye on this and what possessed the police to open the gates when anyone who has been to Hillsborough knows the away end was like a funnel, least of all the local plod
I reference this as an preface to the latest move by government to crack down which I think has backfired, why Keir Starmer is despised and this Labour government plummeting in its honeymoon period
The Southport murders were jumped on by Starmer to justify censorship not because of the victims, but to avoid creating tensions The reason this did not explode was as it transpired that the so called ‘right wing’ protesters were told not to show up via social media because it was a trap and the machete wielding thugs who were allowed to assemble to meet them, eventually dispersed with relatively minimum fuss especially from the local police who seemingly forgot the law about offensive weapons for that day only
When the State is losing control of a narrative, it can resort to two actions Openness ( ‘perestroika’ as the collapsing Soviet Union leadership called it) or censorship (which works when the State controls 90% of media output with only Evelyn Waugh’s ‘Scoop’ in dissent
I rather think this British government are beyond the point of return in either case
You are absolutely right John, because the Public Order Act included the ability to ban individuals from sporting events, i.e. football matches. It also allowed directing trespassers to leave land and we know who that was directed against.
When meaningful numbers take to the streets, a sensible government considers why and responds accordingly. Clamping down on "rioters" after the Southport murders was media fodder, but being able to charge only two of over 1,000 arrested with riot is telling.
The Home Secretary has announced a review of the evidence on grooming gangs but not a statutory inquiry. Louise Casey is going to investigate the "cultural drivers" behind grooming. Again, we know what they are, but what chance the government admitting it.
Really interesting piece not least because the untrained legal mind can see the flaws in the system without taking it to a jury
The 1980s public demand for action over disorder largely centred on the publicity of football hooliganism which I, perhaps naively, thought at the time was an extension of a culture spawned between mods and rockers and organised crime ie If you weren’t looking for trouble you wouldn’t find it Then of course Heysel was followed by Hillsborough and the crackdown was justified plus the complete anaesthetising of football ahead of the Premier League and Sky TV’s dominance that continues to this day
Why did so many Liverpool fans travelled without tickets to Hillsborough ? The book ‘No Last Rights’ casts an inquisitive eye on this and what possessed the police to open the gates when anyone who has been to Hillsborough knows the away end was like a funnel, least of all the local plod
I reference this as an preface to the latest move by government to crack down which I think has backfired, why Keir Starmer is despised and this Labour government plummeting in its honeymoon period
The Southport murders were jumped on by Starmer to justify censorship not because of the victims, but to avoid creating tensions The reason this did not explode was as it transpired that the so called ‘right wing’ protesters were told not to show up via social media because it was a trap and the machete wielding thugs who were allowed to assemble to meet them, eventually dispersed with relatively minimum fuss especially from the local police who seemingly forgot the law about offensive weapons for that day only
When the State is losing control of a narrative, it can resort to two actions Openness ( ‘perestroika’ as the collapsing Soviet Union leadership called it) or censorship (which works when the State controls 90% of media output with only Evelyn Waugh’s ‘Scoop’ in dissent
I rather think this British government are beyond the point of return in either case
You are absolutely right John, because the Public Order Act included the ability to ban individuals from sporting events, i.e. football matches. It also allowed directing trespassers to leave land and we know who that was directed against.
When meaningful numbers take to the streets, a sensible government considers why and responds accordingly. Clamping down on "rioters" after the Southport murders was media fodder, but being able to charge only two of over 1,000 arrested with riot is telling.
The Home Secretary has announced a review of the evidence on grooming gangs but not a statutory inquiry. Louise Casey is going to investigate the "cultural drivers" behind grooming. Again, we know what they are, but what chance the government admitting it.