The United Kingdom stands at a crossroads, grappling with a crisis of confidence in its police force and a creeping expansion of state surveillance. Allegations of police failing to protect vulnerable populations, shielding the guilty, and intimidating peaceful protesters have led to public outrage. This unrest is compounded by media narratives framing dissent as "far-Right" extremism and government policies that leverage chaos to justify authoritarian measures. From migrant hotels to grooming gangs, the issues of two-tier policing and intersectional division are driving a wedge between communities and the state. There I will discuss these failures, examine the role of bad actors, and critique government-touted solutions like digital ID and facial recognition, while proposing privacy-focused alternatives to resist overreach.

The UK police have faced intense scrutiny for their handling of serious crimes, particularly those involving grooming gangs and migrant-related incidents. In Dewsbury, protests erupted against Irfan Khan, a convicted child rapist, with some demonstrators defending him and denouncing trials as "racist." In Epping, locals protested outside the Bell Hotel, which houses asylum seekers, following the arrest of Hadush Kebatu, an Ethiopian migrant accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl. These incidents highlight a perception that police protect certain groups over vulnerable women and children.

Historical failures, such as those in Rochdale and Rotherham, where police hesitated to act against grooming gangs due to fears of racial profiling, have eroded trust. The 2023 GB News documentary Grooming Gangs: Britain's Shame, exposed systemic lapses, with victims ignored for years. While recent convictions signal progress, the damage to public confidence persists. The Daily Mail reported that some Dewsbury protesters used derogatory terms like "dirty b****es" against victims, complicating claims of wrongful convictions.

Public frustration is exacerbated by allegations of police intimidation against peaceful protesters. In Epping, a police officer's remark, "I know where you live," captured in Billy Moore's All or Nothing Podcast, sparked outrage as an overt threat. Clips from citizen journalist Wesley Winter, show police using force against non-masked protesters while seemingly ignoring masked youths vandalising police vans, raising questions about selective enforcement.

The Public Order Act 1986 and the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act grant police broad powers to manage protests, including Serious Disruption Prevention Orders. Amnesty International has criticised these laws for criminalising peaceful tactics, such as "locking on," potentially chilling free speech. The organised presence of counter-protesters from Stand Up To Racism (SUTR), with professional signage and ties to the Socialist Workers Party, suggests external coordination, though no definitive evidence of illicit funding exists. In Epping, counter-protesters from London clashed with locals, escalating tensions, while police appeared to protect them, producing perceptions of bias.

The lack of intervention against vandals is puzzling, possibly a tactical choice to avoid escalation, but it contrasts sharply with force used against non-violent protesters, as seen in footage of an officer knocking out a man's teeth with a riot shield. This inconsistency undermines the principle of policing by consent and lends credence to claims of intimidation.

The concept of "two-tier policing" has gained traction, with critics like Nigel Farage arguing that far-Right protests face harsher treatment than others, such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstrations in 2020. A Guardian analysis notes that 21 of 24 marches banned in the last 30 years were far-Right, supporting this perception.

Media framing exacerbates tensions, labelling anti-immigration protesters as "far-Right" and ignoring legitimate concerns, as seen in Epping, where locals cited specific safety issues. Misinformation, like false claims about the Southport suspect's identity, inflamed riots, highlighting the media's role in flaming narratives.

The UK government has proposed several policies to address social unrest, but these pave the way for a surveillance state:

Digital ID ("Britcard"): Labour Together's proposed "Britcard" aims to verify work eligibility to curb illegal immigration, but risks normalising biometric surveillance. It could exclude non-compliant citizens from services, aligning with global trends like the UN's Agenda 2030.

Facial Recognition Technology (FRT): The Metropolitan and South Wales police's use of live FRT has drawn criticism for inaccuracy, particularly for white individuals, and its chilling effect on protests. A 2022 University of Cambridge report found LFR deployments often violate legal and ethical standards.

Online Safety Act: Enforced in 2025, the Act mandates age verification, potentially requiring biometric data. Reform councillor Laila Cunningham argues it's about monitoring adults, not protecting children.

Predictive Policing: Tools like the Met's Gangs Matrix have been criticised for entrenching racial biases, over-targeting marginalised communities. A broader SMART grid could enable CCP-"social credit" scoring, integrating with a cashless society.

These measures exploit public fear post-riots to manufacture consent for control, as seen in COVID-19 vaccine passport trials. While addressing real issues, they risk overreach, with FRT and predictive policing amplifying existing biases.

The government and media are accused of engineering divisions, racial, gender, and ideological, to justify authoritarianism. Migrant hotel protests and grooming gang trials are framed as "far-Right" versus "migrants," ignoring local safety concerns. The COVID-19 vaccine passport trials tested compliance, setting a precedent for digital ID. SUTR's organised counter-protests, with ties to political groups, escalate tensions, potentially justifying police crackdowns.

To counter government overreach, privacy-focused solutions are essential:

Community Engagement: Volunteer patrol groups could address safety concerns but risk vigilante justice. Engaging police in community-based initiatives, as suggested by Sir Hugh Orde, may rebuild trust.

Legal Challenges: Advocacy groups like Liberty recommend challenging vague laws and FRT use through judicial oversight, as seen in the 2020 Court of Appeal ruling against South Wales Police's unlawful FRT.

Privacy Tools: Decentralised VPNs (e.g., Mullvad), encrypted storage (e.g., Veracrypt), and alternative operating systems (e.g., LineageOS) protect against surveillance. Decentralised platforms like STORJ reduce reliance on centralised systems.

Public Awareness: Grassroots campaigns exposing bad actors, like SUTR's contradictions, can counter manufactured consent without violence.

These solutions require technical literacy and coordination, but offer a path to resist surveillance while addressing community concerns.

In conclusion, the UK's policing crisis, marked by failures to protect the vulnerable, inconsistent protest management, and perceptions of two-tier policing, has deepened public distrust. Media narratives and government policies, from digital ID to facial recognition, exploit unrest to justify surveillance, risking a technocratic state. While community-driven policing and privacy tools offer hope, they must be implemented carefully to avoid further division. Critical engagement with narratives and advocacy for transparent policing are crucial to reclaiming trust and resisting overreach, if it is possible now at this late stage of the game.

https://nicholascreed.substack.com/p/uk-police-state-division-and-provocation