States & Sponsors

Pertinent problems arise with the political polarisation we are currently experiencing, but the most potent and concerning of these manifestations is the inability to reconcile partisan ideologies with state functions and public services.

Recently, I have been embroiled in two separate incidents that have necessitated involvement by the Metropolitan Police. The first happened outside of UAL's LCC building in Elephant & Castle, in which two alt-right grifters arrived to debate students a la the late Charlie Kirk. Needless to say, these culture vultures were roundly told to fuck off -- which prompted one of them to begin harassing students. This, in turn, forced university staff to contact the Police, who promptly arrived -- and immediately turned what should have been a farcical but humorous insight into political posturing into an actual incident.

Upon the Police arrival, the alt-right grifter became irate, swore at an officer, and was very swiftly arrested by five PCs and wrestled to the ground. As he shouted vulgarities, carried to the back of a police van to the chorus of "We are Charlie Kirk", beautifully delivered by UAL's student body, many cheered his arrest. One remarked that he "deserved it". Personally, I think he did too -- though, I concede the grifter did simultaneously achieve his perrenial purpose. Provoke a hostile reaction, intentionally, as a means to justify the view that the Gen Z Left is intellectually and discursively illegitimate. Chanting Charlie Kirk, an actual victim of political polarisation, was not immediately helpful or productive in hindsight. In this example, the UAL student body celebrated this arrest as it affirmed a pre-supposed political position -- the Police, therefore, were operating in accordance to a left-wing populist perspective, at least in the view of those present. However, operationally, the Police were carrying out a civic duty that should ostensibly be un-political and non-partisan.

An offence was committed, therefore an arrest was inevitable. But, as the crime happened within the context of political discourse, the arrest -- and the Police's role in it -- become inherently political actions by association. No one would accuse the Left-wing as being pro-police, yet the caveat exists in which the Left is pro-police insofar as the police serve Leftist political aims. Left-wing populism (best embodied by Polanski's Green Party), a movement I personally count myself a member of, should be careful about this. It risks contributing to the mainstream view that public services, and civic duty, are only righteous and legal insofar as they benefit a certain wing of the political spectrum. This is not an issue inherent or specific to the Left -- as it was, in fact, first popularlised on purpose by the Right-wing.

That, though, is getting ahead of ourselves. The second incident I have recently had involving the Police is one in which I was inextricably a part of, rather than being a spectator as in the aforementioned example. I was a victim of an assault and criminal damage outside of a pub in southeast London. Dear reader, I am physically fine as a fettle -- though, the material recompense I am owed as a result of the damage is significant. That is not the important or relevant part to why I'm writing about this, no. I called the police, and I gave a statement to two officers inside this pub. During my statement, an old man -- a geezer with neck tattoos and a puffer coat -- comes up to us. He looked like he'd just rolled out of Ebeneezer Scrooge's bed, just in time for his Oasis reunion concert. He said, directly to me, "are you proud of yourself?"

My response was, "of what?" -- to which he elaborated, "there's an innocent woman in cuffs because of you". I pretty much immediately told him to fuck off, but that is beside the point. He was objectively wrong, as she was bang to rights guilty of at least three offences (all committed within a 30 second period, mind) that night. She was arrested not only for an assault on me, but for others in attendance. Still, he felt the need to throw his weight around for, what I have surmised, are two reasons:

I'm young, white and middle-class. This woman is middle-aged, working class and black. Inherent to that dynamic, there are social and political considerations and narratives that must be recognised -- anything involving the Police, a white man, and a person of a minority ethnic background must be understood within the contexts of racial discrimination, white privilege and the role of the Police as a domestic arm for state control and law enforcement. All of these issues are integral parts of any situation involving the Police, especially a situation involving the Police in which non-white citizens have been affected or involved. The second reason, is that I imagine he has had a long-standing distrust and hatred for the Metropolitan Police Service. After I told him to fuck off, he did cite his right to free speech. I told him that I support his right, but that it was also my right to call him a gobshite wanker -- which, based on his logic, he should have no problem with whatsoever.

I do not discount, in any shape or form whatsoever, that these political and social problems absolutely need to be addressed and recognised within the context and execution of law enforcement. For the record, I am not a supporter of the Metropolitan Police Service -- and I voiced this to the officers responding to my case. To which, they were surprisingly understanding.

What I do reject, however, is that -- as a victim of a crime -- I am liable to not report said crime based on an external, socio-political criterion. Nothing about my call to the police was in and of itself political, it was a direct reaction -- in my self-interest, and the people there -- to have this situation dealt with professionally, and for what is owed to me to be restored to me. This is not political, this is fundamental Christian ethics (which, I hasten to add, forms the basis of our legal system). However, the mere presence of the Police made this an issue larger than myself and my destroyed belongings. I suddenly became an indexical reference point for a much larger system that I have zero control over, but, due to my circumstance and provenance, briefly became a node for.

An offence was committed, therefore an arrest was inevitable.

If you disagree with that statement, then there are two ways in which disagreement can be had with it. One, the offence -- as defined in legislature -- is bullshit on first principle. For instance, if a law was designed to target a very specific group of people, let's say -- magicians -- and that carrying a pack of cards on you was now an offence, that would be ridiculous. The law was designed in bad faith, and implicitly reveals the party-politicisation of law enforcement to target a group. It does not render a public service, nor is it made in accordance to civic duty, and it is inherently biased toward a certain demographic. Logically, that criticism is sound. The second approach is that an "arrest", the action the Police took, was not the correct reaction to whatever incident occurred. There is absolutely merit in both.

At this juncture, I'm going to start talking about something that might make the less judicious readers angry at me. If you count yourself as a Left-wing populist, and you believe in democratic values, then you cannot celebrate the arrest of a Right-wing political agitator, when, at the same time, you admonish the arrest of Palestine Action protesters. I think arresting the latter is wrong and disgraceful, but for that argument to have legitimacy it MUST apply to those we disagree with as much as the people we DO agree with. It also means that people that SHOULD be prosecuted, AREN'T, due to the fear of the perception of bias or "lawfare". Why the fuck was Boris Johnson not arrested following the revelation he had leaked classified information to Russian intelligence services? Or, ALL of the corruption that happened during his premiership?

Civic duty is based on a principle of non-partisanship. The Police have a responsibility to uphold this, as do the courts. When we celebrate the abuse of Police powers, or the legal system, insofar as it accomplishes party-political aims, we end up with the end of democracy. You may only look across the Atlantic to see the consequences of this style of governance.

I spoke of Boris. Let's talk of Trump. When Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace following Watergate, his successor and former-VP -- Gerald Ford -- pardoned him. The reasoning for this was that, as this was an unprecedented and divisive situation, it would only fuel the fire of political discontent to prosecute Nixon. Therefore, to ameliorate tensions, the view was taken that Ford's DoJ should not pursue Nixon any further. Now, in my view, as an arrogant 23-year-old, I think President Ford's decision was cataclysmically ill-advised. An offence was committed. Therefore, an arrest was -- or should have been -- inevitable. He wasn't even charged.

By doing this, Ford inadvertently set the political precedent that is -- decades later -- shielding Trump from any kind of prosecution over Epstein, or any of his other horrific crimes. If the Republicans think using the DoJ to prosecute actual crimes committed by the President is the Democrats engaging in "lawfare", then what does law enforcement actually mean? And, if the Democrats let Biden pardon his own fucking son, how can they cry foul when the Republicans refuse to co-operate with them on taking Trump down via legislative/legal means? When public service, and civic duty, become partisan in this way -- there is only one natural recourse to reconcile both poles. It's called a civil war.

The road goes both ways, and to fix this issue, we need to pick a direction.