Nick Timothy writes in the Telegraph:
It was last summer when Aston Villa drew Maccabi Tel Aviv in the Europa League. Immediately, the local, “Gaza Independent” MP Ayoub Khan launched a campaign to cancel the match. His petition demanded the match be cancelled because Aston is, in his words, a “predominantly Muslim community”.
After police planning started for the match, due to be played on November 6, officers met Birmingham councillors and officials at the Safety Advisory Group meeting on October 7. Two local councillors present said the “community want it stopped”. They met behind closed doors, but the minutes now show the truth. Even in the “absence of intelligence” the “planning assumption” of the police was that no away fans would attend the match.
The chairman of the Safety Advisory Group contacted the police two days later asking for a “more clear rationale”. A position had been reached, but the police were asked retrospectively to drum up a justification. The chairman warned the police to make sure the decision did not look like “anti-Jewish sentiment”.
When the committee met again on October 16, the police magicked their “significant intelligence” about the supposed violence of the Maccabi fans.
The police thought they could get away with it. Instead, their case has utterly collapsed. The “intelligence”, which the Chief Constable said had “changed the assessment”, focused on disorder in Amsterdam in 2024. It said the Maccabi fans were “linked to the Israel Defence Force” and targeted Muslim areas, throwing people into the river. Their report claimed the Dutch police sent 5,000 officers to tackle the violence. But none of it was true.
The fabricated “intelligence” supposedly came from an unminuted meeting between West Midlands Police and Dutch commanders on 1 October. This meeting was held six days before the meeting when the police said there was an “absence of intelligence”.
Amsterdam’s mayor, local police chief, and chief public prosecutor have all contradicted the “intelligence” – even calling it “nonsensical”. The disorder in Amsterdam was in fact violence against the Maccabi fans, which was described as a “Jew hunt”. It was an Israeli who was pushed into the river. Only 1,200 officers were deployed.
And it gets worse. West Midlands Police received intelligence on September 5, before the Safety Advisory Group meetings, saying local Islamists planned to “arm themselves” and attack Maccabi fans. But this information was suppressed, seemingly because the police did not want to admit that the true source of the threat lay closer to home. Instead of confronting the mob, the police gave in and banned the Israelis.
In modern times, the British social contract was meant to be that we, the people, give up the right to use force to protect ourselves in exchange for the police protecting us. Cue Libertarian grumbling “I do not recall signing this contract”, but that is the Britain we used to live in. It wasn’t ideal but it wasn’t bad either. It was one of the better societies that have ever existed.
The social contract relied on the idea that the only people permitted to arm themselves were servants of the state such as police officers or soldiers. If the state got wind that members of any other group – a white nationalist militia for example – were preparing to arm themselves in order to attack their enemies, an armed response unit would be kicking down their doors faster than you can say “Terrorism Act 2000”.
Now that some sections of the police have acquiesced in other groups taking the right to arm themselves, and, worse yet, have covered up their shame by portraying the aggressors as victims and vice versa, what reason do we have to continue to grant them special status as the sole holders of the right and responsibility to bear arms? Without the majestic aura of the law around them, the police are just another gang. They are not even the dominant gang.
Speaking from what admittedly may well be an incomplete and faulty observation of Western Europe [including britain] from the west side of the Atlantic; but it seems to me that the key points of the former Western Social Contract, laws made with the consent of the governed equally applicable to all, just are not there. I suspect that the absence of an agreed upon Social Contract is going to get exciting over there.
Subotai Bahadur
I think you made one major error, people do NOT give up their right to defend themselves in a free society, they give up the right to seek revenge for wrongs, and let the state impose impartial punishment instead. Defending yourself is not just in your own best interest but also acts as a general deterrent towards criminal behavior.
That social compact isn’t a suicide pact, but they’ll keep pushing you to find out when it ends.
Long ago, I had a client in for armed robbery/strongarm robbery, who told me that people in the suburbs were too civil to argue with him and just usually handed stuff over. He said it wasn’t actually fear, just the fear of conflict and impoliteness.
That’s what they count on. You’ll walk politely to the cell.
Jethro, in fact I agree with you on self defence, and I have argued many times that the UK was both more free AND safer before the passage of the Firearms Act of 1968 – but in the view of the great majority of British people the social contract as it operated prior to about 2020 was as I described, and was acceptable to them.
I have edited “The social contract was meant to be that…” to “In modern times, the British social contract was meant to be that…” to reflect your comment.
The evidence the Chief Constable (the head of the West Midlands Police) used to justify banning the Israeli fans was FAKE – and he admits it was FAKE. He cited their behaviour at an Association Football match that did-not-happen – an Association Football match that did-not-exist.
That is more that a resigning matter – that is “Misconduct in a Public Office” which is a criminal offense.
As for “Diversity”, i.e. population displacement (the replacement of the English by other groups), in Birmingham and elsewhere.
The late John Enoch Powell predicted this almost 60 years ago – and was savagely denounced by the establishment.
Even today, when it is obvious that he was correct, some people are sent to prison for pointing this out.
And children are taught in school that it is “terrorism” to point out the obvious.
It is hard to see how this nation will survive.
As for weapons – some population groups are, de facto, allowed to have weapons – and the English are not.
It should be remembered that the British public, all over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, overwhelmingly supported Enoch Powell on immigration – and on opposition to Acts of Parliament that criminalized Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech. The education system and the media had not yet had time to indoctrinate the public – and ordinary people were, back then, not afraid to state their real beliefs.
In a democracy the people determine government policy on matters they regard as of vital importance. Government policy, in a democracy, reflects the opinions of the people.
In the United Kingdom, and other Western nations, since at least the 1960s – an “enlightened” elite has determined policy and has demanded that the public be “educated” to support their decisions.
That is not democracy.
No more than the of crushing of Freedom of Speech is liberty.
Yet Western nations claim to stand for both freedom and democracy – these are, supposedly, “core values” – even though the establishment clearly do NOT believe in either one.
What we have in a sort of Rousseau system – where his “Law Giver” despises the “Will of All” (what ordinary people believe and want) and, instead, pushes the so called “General Will” which turns out to mean the desires of the “Law Giver” – the “enlightened” elite (much like Plato’s Guardians).
And in education the teaching of facts and skills is clearly no longer the main objective – instead we have Rousseau style education (his novel “Emile”) where the objective is to teach “Progressive” attitudes – and to get the students to defer to the “intellectual” teacher in all things.
Even when the boy is grown up and has, supposedly, become a man – he still begs the tutor to stay and guide him, and his wife, in everything.
The old idea of preparing a child to become an independent adult, turned on its head, utterly subverted.
“What should I believe about…… – I will watch the BBC and they will tell me what my beliefs should be” – the leftist hive-mind.
Yet, the terrorists among us are told by the police “Return your arms to the mosque, brother”. Presumably because then (the summer of the Leeds and Southport riots), was not the time.
Since when did the followers of Mo the Pedo get a pass on armed force?
“the British social contract was meant to be that we, the people, give up the right to use force to protect ourselves in exchange for the police protecting us.”
Because history shows that always works out well.
Two fatal assumptions here:
1: That the state is even a little bit capable of “protecting” each citizen against crime and violence. Cops cannot prevent crime, there simply aren’t enough of them. They can only investigate crimes after the fact and attempt to hold the perpetrators accountable…which they fail at often enough to be no deterrent at all. Britain had the illusion that the cops were keeping the citizens safe for a while because it was a high trust, low crime culturally homogeneous society. It was the culture that kept the criminals in check, not the cops. When the cultural homogeneity became diluted enough, so did the “high trust, low crime” part. Had nothing to do with the cops.
2: The assumption that the state would remain motivated and committed to “protecting” the citizens. The state is a political creature, not a moral one. It isn’t going to do the right thing because it’s the right thing, it’s going to do what protects it and maintains or expands its power. Period. You are the frog trusting the scorpion. Not wise.
Header edit: When the state moves its focus off of justice, the police are just the second biggest gang.
The state’s judicial and law enforcement systems should exist solely to ensure/enforce justice, nothing else.
Dab Souter – as you know, the police would never have said to an English mob “return your arms to…..” they would have taken the weapons, by force, and arrested the people concerned.
The establishment made their attitude brutally clear in the summer of 2024 – with arrests and kangaroo court procedures against people who had committed no acts of violence, but had the “wrong” opinions. And this was, at least seemed to be, endorsed by the nominal head of the British branch of the establishment in the Christmas broadcast in 2024.
The evidence the Chief Constable…used to justify banning the Israeli fans was FAKE
Well, partially fake.
Very grave riots and disturbances DID happen in Amsterdam. He was diametrically wrong about which side started the riots and who used violence. It’s not that he didn’t know, it’s that he distorted the truth, intentionally.
But he was right to surmise that the same riots were going to happen in Birmingham. And, given the (in)capabilities of his police force, maybe the decision to ban the fans from the match was correct.
He should have been even-handed and ban all fans, not only those of Maccabi. Or demanded that the match be moved to another venue.
What happened to the Peelian Principle?
“we, the people, give up the right to use force to protect ourselves in exchange for the police protecting us”
I don’t know about Britian but in the US, the police have no duty to protect anyone. It’s not part of any social contract. The courts have confirmed this.
Jmg:
“What happened to the Peelian Principle?”
LONG gone the way of the “presumption of innocence”. See if you can find ANY Law, or Regulation to an Act, that cleaves firmly and tenaciously to the “presumption of innocence”.
Wait until “trial by jury” is completely abolished.
Jacob – he cited an Association Football match that did not take place, that did not happen, that did not exist.
Had that been in a court case he would be guilty of “Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice” – which carries a sentence of up to life imprisonment.
As it is he is guilty of “Misconduct in a Public Office” – which still carries a custodial sentence, he should not be Chief Constable, he should be in prison.
Bruce – yes things are bad and are getting worse, and they have been getting worse for a long time.
My old opponent (yes opponent) Dr Sean Gabb, is correct that there was even a move away from the principles of the Common Law in the 1980s – it was nothing like as bad as today, but the move was there – and I failed to see it.
What I had in mind was number 7 (according to Wikipedia):
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.
Jmg – that principle, if it ever fully existed (and we could discuss that) went away long ago.
But there is also the vagueness of language – what does “the interests of the community” mean? And what does “welfare and existence” mean?
The Common Law is about opposing the violation of bodies and goods – it is the non aggression principle (private property rights and voluntary, voluntary, contracts) put into practice.
The “interests of the community” (and so on) is horribly vague.
For example, the modern police can (and do) hold that appeasing Islam is in the “interests of the community” – even if it means turning a blind eye to Common Law crimes.
Seems the chief constable has announced his retirement.
Mr Marks- Yes, there is the usual fatal ambiguity in that. However, it certainly contradicts the notion that the State is granted a “Monopoly of Force”. Holmes and Watson with his trusty service revolver. I take the stress to be on the word “duties” ,which at the time would have meant to uphold the Common Law, as you would say, with the rest being mere rhetorical flourishes. (“ a well regulated militia…”. Curse those rhetorical flourishes!)