ทวีตที่ปักหมุด
🔥 SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT 🔥
ISSUE 4 – TWO-TIER INJUSTICE
Our government, under the vacuous “leadership” of Keir Starmer, has denied the existence of two-tier policing and two-tier justice since they came to power in the febrile summer of 2024. But those so-called “rumours” did not spread from nothing. Rather, they are accurate summaries of British justice as it stands right now. It is time to explore why those terms are so truthful.
FRESH INSANITY – In 2025, the Labour government introduced new sentencing guidelines for minority defendants. Supposedly, because ethnic minorities are disproportionately arrested and jailed, this is automatically the result of institutional racism against them. They are categorically not ready to discuss who is committing more crimes per capita, to the surprise of none of us. To remove the disparity, the law had to become more lenient towards them. It is no longer about what crime was committed as much as who committed it. The new guidelines require a pre-sentence report for the judge to take into account all the factors around racism, discrimination and “privilege” surrounding defendants. The intention here is to encourage softer sentencing so the government can massage the numbers and present themselves as heroes of multicultural paradise. None of this is reporting is anything which traditional defence in a court of law would exclude. The purpose of this is to provide judges with a convenient third party to defer to, so they can escape any and all accountability for their anti-White prejudice.
Many of us are familiar with the statistic of 12,000 Brits being arrested for social media posts in 2023 and others like it. There are countless more examples of “non-hate crime incidents” the police see fit to record as an intimidation tactic against political dissidents. Outrage over the abuses this has led to have forced the government to shy away from defending it, but make no mistake – they don’t intend to give back us an inch of freedom. Changes announced last week to non-hate crime incidents are just a rebranding. They can still declare posts “illegal” and worthy of intervention as long as such incidents are potentially “relevant to policing”. In other words, nothing has changed. It is anarchy for the foreigner, and tyranny for the native Brit.
ANARCHO-TYRANNY – Author Sam Francis coined the term “Anarcho-Tyranny” in 1992 to describe the situation in which we now find ourselves across much of the Western world. What it means is for corrupt governments and police forces to allow anarchy in their failure to enforce fundamental laws on certain favoured groups in society, whilst ruthlessly persecuring decent and law-abiding people who are disfavoured by the regime. We see very clearly in Britain how the principles of anarcho-tyranny are applied.
The Anarchy: During the 2024 riots, when thousands of British people were arrested for their part in the protests and thousands more were arrested for social media posts, one party to the violence was conspicuous for their relative absence in the courts after the violence had faded. When rumours spread that “far right” rioters were planning to target mosques and Muslim areas in cities like Birmingham and London, aggressive mobs of black-clad Pakistanis and Bangladeshis mobilised. They gathered and picked up an assortment of weapons such as clubs, bats, crowbars and machetes. In Stoke, a mob like this even chased after a crowd of White protesters completely unprovoked, with every intention of assaulting them. Serious bloodshed was only avoided because the rumours about “far right thugs” targeting Muslims were false. We may ask what the police did amid all this chaos. Their focus was entirely on the White protesters – the only protesters who they could trust to comply at some point. The Muslims were asked very politely by the police to put their weapons back inside their local mosques. The message was clear. For them to prepare violence is legitimate. The police will support them, or at the very least refuse to interfere. The “full force of the law” would be reserved only for White Brits.
The police wish to let ethnic minorities do as they please whilst also being desperate to recruit as many of them into their ranks as possible. The disproportionate rates of misconduct among such officers does not bother them in the slightest. It is only inevitable when standards are lowered to accommodate them, and it all has to be worth if the end result is “diversity”. As they reduce their own standards, they likewise impose no standards adhering to basic laws on shoplifters and feral crowds of young foreigners causing frightening scenes of disorder on our streets. Just a few days ago, the latest flash mob in Clapham saw hundreds of mostly Black teenagers rampaging around the High Street, looting shops and actually assaulting the very police who let them run amok.
Only a small number were arrested and temporary dispersal orders will ensure it is only a matter of time before this happens again. Eventually, assuming current trends continue, we can only predict that the police will abandon these areas entirely. In large swathes of inner London and Birmingham, from Luton to Bradford and Blackburn and Oldham, the police are very hesitant to impose any order at all on communities who are far more accustomed to policing themselves and being left alone to do so. It is for precisely this reason that for decades, the police were deeply involved in the rape gang cover-ups. Their actions prevented any kind of justice being served to thousands of heinous foreign criminals who carried out what is, in my opinion, likely the worst atrocity on British soil in centuries.
The Tyranny: The police, and the justice system as a whole, only offers a light touch to their favoured client groups. They have been taught to worship them and submit to them. With honest British citizens, they unleash The Tyranny. White British people are the only ones they trust to submit to any real standard of law. It is fascinating to see what their actions admit. And where better to begin this Tyranny than within their own ranks? After subjecting police officers-in-training to endless ideological propaganda through the College of Policing, career progression is made dependent on political loyalty. Appointments, for example to the rank of Inspector, are often de facto based on political skills rather than genuine merit. This is not something they can legally admit, but it is a reality well known within the police among those still serving and those who have recently left. There have been anecdotes of individuals achieving promotion because they found politically incorrect “dirt” on their own colleagues. This is the environment police officers operate in to save their own skin and feather their own nests. It cannot be surprising that this mindset is what they carry out onto the streets, with barely a fig leaf of legality to cover themselves.
There are enough examples by now to fill several books. In August 2024, Lucy Connolly from Northampton was arrested after an ill-judged post about the riots. There was no evidence of any criminal plot she was involved in to actually carry out any threats to burn down migrant hotels, but it was decided she must serve 31 months in prison regardless. She was released after a year, in large part because of the massive publicity her case generated. Others have not been so lucky. Even placing stickers saying “It’s OK to be white” were enough to land Sam Melia of Yorkshire two years in prison. The treatment of entirely peaceful protesters in the summer of 2025 shows us that it really doesn’t matter whether one tries to stay within the bounds of the law or not because the police will target us anyway.
When Sarah White was arrested for waving a Union flag at the top of the stairs of the Epping Civic Offices or when grandmothers and young children were pepper sprayed at the Canary Wharf protest on 31 August, the police showed to us their true and irredeemable nature. On 3 April of this year, Ryan Bridge, the founder of Raise the Colours, was arrested by Thames Valley Police on suspicion of racially and religiously aggravated harassment for putting up St George’s and Union flags in Oxford. This follows on from the great summer campaign last year in which hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of flags were raised all over Britain to the impotent outrage of left-wing councils. If raising our own national flags is cause for arrest and official condemnation in this country, the only reasonable conclusion we can come to is that we are living under occupation. Such regimes are wont to employ foreigners to lord it over native subjects.
David Lammy, a foreigner of Guyanese descent who was appointed Secretary of State for Justice last September, is intent on eviscerating the ancient liberties enjoyed by the English. It has no value to him. He has no connection with our traditions. Indeed, he outright said that he does not value keeping “tradition for tradition's sake”. The scrapping of jury trials for crimes with a likely sentence of less than three years is designed to further solidify the arbitrary tyranny this government so cherishes. Of course, they prepared the ground for such a takeover through their constant erosion of the quality of jury trials. When better to remove such a tradition than when the tradition itself is rendered less and less useful? Mass migration means that with large ethnic blocs, foreign jurors and those descended from foreigners are more likely to acquit members of their own tribe. It is a well-documented phenomenon all over the world.
The gradual removal of any checks and balances or accountability on judges is both the means and the end to their grand project of suffocating Britain. Nothing can be outside the purview of the managerial state. Everything must be subject to their ideological whims. The excuse given for all this is “expediency”, that this “puts victims first”. Most of us will find this rather lacking in persuasiveness – especially when the Institute for Government published its findings that it will do almost nothing to clear crown court backlogs. The Free Speech Union found in December that juries were about twice as likely to acquit in free speech trials compared to judges acting alone. The unwashed masses must be kept far away from such matters, the Labour regime believes. Let the trusted yes-men deal with it – those who have been marinated in the socialist dogmas of the Fabian Society, those who have no democratic principles or respect for civil liberties. The Managerial State must rule over all.
In keeping with the habits of an occupation regime, access to free media is not something they are best pleased with. A number of Labour officials in recent months have hinted at a ban on X coming in the near future, supposedly because it is too easy to use Grok to produce indecent images, but the truth most of us are well aware of is that the regime has no control over any narrative. Traditional forms of media have long since lost their grip on the national consciousness. Decentralised social media platforms – with far less predictable censorship routines – have given ordinary people access to untold amounts of information. The regime has no convincing answers because they have no convincing methods of control. Increasingly they must rely on brute force, which is not something the pampered bureaucrats of Whitehall really know how to exercise. It is a strategy of desperation wich we are going to see more often going forward, but it is not one which will serve the government well. The inevitable backfiring of this approach is doubly guaranteed by the expulsion of the last competent people working for the police.
PURGING THE RANKS – So many police officers have been wrongfully fired for trying to do their jobs properly that it is unlikely we have much data on how prevalent this is. The Home Office has pushed to remove anyone with a slight hint of disloyalty in the aftermath of the BBC Panorama exposé on “racism” and “misogyny” in the force. Each month, fewer and fewer officers are left who we can call decent and honourable men and women. The case of PC Lorne Castle of Dorset who was sacked for “gross misconduct” is one example of many in which good and competent officers are needlessly eliminated. He was involved in the arrest of a violent 15-year-old in possession of a knife and because PC Castle merely threatened to “smash” him as he restrained him, this was considered a red line by Dorset Police. Presumably they believe it would have been better to let the teenager begin a stabbing spree. There are other stories even more ludicrous.
I have the personal story of a friend to share to illustrate this point. I will leave his name out for obvious reasons. He was off duty one night last October and was walking back to his flat – this was in a sizeable English city. He noticed on one side of the street, a young lady who was perhaps 18 years old walking back on her own. On the other side gathered around a bus stop were a small crowd of young Asian men loitering and leering at her. They were pointing and gesturing towards her and saying something unintelligible about her in their own language. My friend offered to walk with the young woman until they were out of sight of the men. She was happy to accept the offer. The men followed them for a short time. When it seemed safe, my friend continued his way back home.
When he got back home, he rang 101 just to ask his colleagues to keep an eye out in case there were any incidents involving those Asian men and the young woman. For all he knew, something could have happened since he left. All he wanted to do was look out for her safety. The operator on the other end of the phone, however, answered back with a hostile and interrogating tone, more interested in asking my friend why he suspected these people were a threat. The crime that was so unacceptable to the handler was to dare speak from experience. My friend had to think of some way to communicate the urgency of the situation. What came to his mind were the multiple horrific incidents he had dealt with in his time as an officer in that city. Without using a single slur or anything disrespectful, he dared to make reference to the commonplace attitudes held towards women by men like them. That was the end for him. The operator referred him to professional standards immediately.
My friend woke up the next morning to several police outside his apartment building asking to be let in. It was obvious to him to kind of trouble he was in. They came in and had a transcript of the call to show him. Despite the total absence of slurs or anything which a reasonable person would call unprofessional, what he said was deemed “discriminatory language”. This type of language would “damage public confidence” in the police – even though this was a totally private phone call, and one made specifically to ensure someone’s safety. My friend was suspended for gross misconduct. This did mean he was entitled to a solicitor who, despite being a level-headed man, already understood how doomed the case was. He mentioned a Home Office directive he had been made aware of to purge anyone suspected of political disloyalty after the panic over the BBC Panorama exposé.
My friend resigned before he could be sacked formally. Colleagues he thought were his friends suddenly stopped speaking to him out of fear for their own careers. His girlfriend left him. He had to cancel his tenancy at his apartment and move back in with his father. The cost to his mental wellbeing was hefty, to say the least. But as a proud, resilient and patriotic man he is rebuilding his life and looks forward to a brighter future. He went through all of this for trying to look out for the safety of a young woman.
This is just one story, and I only know about it because this is the story of my best friend. You will not find these details if you search online. None of this has been published or admitted. He is also not the only example. This is how police forces in Britain treat their own officers, who risk so much for them for so little thanks. They are not worthy of anyone’s cooperation or respect any longer.
The fundamental violations of justice, order and liberty documented here are just a drop in the bucket. So many more are yet to be unearthed and broadcast. The reality is undeniable. We are living under a regime of two-tier injustice and worse than that, we are living under a hostile force of occupation. The nations of Britain are held hostage to an utterly corrupt and decadent “YooKay” Empire. Regime figureheads and mouthpieces can spend their lives denying it but the proof is overwhelming. There is simply no way they can explain all of this away. We know what we are dealing with, so the time has come to prepare the solutions. There must be accountability, and with that in mind, there must be mass trials held for this criminality when Restore Britain wins power. Absolutely no one who has made a career of perpetuating these sick crimes can be allowed to get away with it. Justice must be served, and one day it will be served. We will keep this promise if it is the last thing we do.
English
