Two-Tier Policing? Wave a Union Jack and You're Far Right. March for Palestine and Get a Different Set of Rules?

Climb the Battle of Britain memorial at a pro-Palestine march and you're “mostly peaceful”.

Hang a Union Jack off a lamppost and you're far right.

Welcome to Britain, folks.

I'm shocked.

Again.

I grew up believing British policing was simple, at least in principle.

You obey the law, the police enforce it, and the rules apply to everyone.

It doesn't matter whether you vote Labour or Reform, whether you carry a Palestinian flag or wave the Union Jack.

Apparently that idea has gone out of fashion.

Nobody told the rest of us.

Saturday in London

On Saturday, 10 October, thousands marched through central London for the “National March for Palestine: End the Genocide”.

The Met expected 7,000 to 10,000 people.

The organisers claimed more than 250,000.

The Met set conditions beforehand: a fixed route from the Embankment to a rally on Whitehall, a finish time of 6.30pm, and Section 60AA powers so officers could make people take off face coverings.

So what happened?

Protesters climbed the Battle of Britain memorial on Victoria Embankment.

That's the memorial to the few who saved this country in 1940.

They climbed all over it.

Let that sink in.

A woman was arrested for making a Nazi salute.

Police were caught up in scuffles.

The Evening Standard ran video of a man saying he'd been arrested for “punching an officer in the face”.

By the end of the day, according to LBC, there were 20 arrests.

Six for criminal damage over the memorial.

Seven for breaching conditions.

Two for Palestine Action placards.

Two public order offences.

One breach of the peace.

One threat to kill.

And just one for assaulting a police officer.

One.

And how was the day reported?

Brace yourselves.

“Mostly peaceful”, with “minor clashes” and “skirmishes”.

Then there's the footage circulating online.

Ben Graham posted a clip on X (and John Cleese reposted it) showing what he called “Protesters openly attacking police officers in the middle of London.”

His point was blunt: “If this were any other protest… riot shields and batons would be out.”

And: “The law should apply equally to everyone.”

The Met's answer, on X, was that it was “aware of social media footage of other possible offences being committed at the protest” and that officers were “assessing and investigating.”

Assessing.

Investigating.

After the fact.

Tell me, would you get that much patience?

Now, let me be clear.

Arrests were made and conditions were imposed.

Nobody is saying the police did nothing.

But it was a light touch, folks.

Featherlight.

And you only need to look at how other crowds get treated to see it.

Now wave a Union Jack

Remember 13 September 2025?

Tommy Robinson's Unite the Kingdom rally in London.

Police put the crowd at 110,000 to 150,000.

The BBC called it “right-wing activist Tommy Robinson's” rally.

That label was in place before most people had even read the story.

There was violence that day, and I'm not excusing any of it.

Twenty-six officers were injured, four of them seriously, with broken teeth, a possible broken nose, concussion, a prolapsed disc and a head injury.

There were 24 arrests.

Now look at how fast the machine moved.

The Met had 1,000 of its own officers out, plus 500 brought in on mutual aid.

Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist called the violence “wholly unacceptable” and promised “robust police action”.

Eight people were charged within two days.

The Met put out photos of 11 people it wanted to find.

Robust.

Fast.

Photos out, charges laid, job done.

Funny how quick they can be when they want to be, isn't it?

Compare that with “assessing and investigating” footage of a pro-Palestine march where the memorial got climbed and an officer got punched.

Then go back to summer 2024, after the horrific Southport murders on 29 July.

There were 246 protests and incidents of disorder.

Some of it was ugly: arson, attacks on mosques and asylum hotels, missiles thrown at police.

I won't pretend otherwise.

But look at what the state did next.

By January 2025 there had been 1,804 arrests and 1,072 charges.

By July 2025, 544 people had been sentenced and 473 sent straight to prison.

Justice was fast-tracked.

When the state wants to move, it moves.

So the question isn't whether the police can be tough.

Obviously they can.

The question is who they choose to be tough on.

And we all know the answer, don't we?

The flag itself is now a problem

This is the part that really gets me.

Across England, councils have been taking down Union Flags and St George's crosses.

Oxfordshire got a High Court injunction on 31 July against people hanging those flags on the highways.

Birmingham is going after one too, and the papers say 20,000 flags could come down.

Our own flags.

In our own country.

When did the flag of this nation become something to be ashamed of?

Who decided that?

The Raise the Colours campaign, which the BBC calls “anti-migrant” and which says it isn't racist, has had its co-founder Ryan Bridge arrested and charged with 14 offences, including racially aggravated harassment and assault.

He's due in court on 3 November, and the courts will deal with that.

In Sheffield on 13 June there were six arrests at a Raise the Colours protest and the counter-protest, and police wouldn't say which side they came from.

But just think about where we are.

Putting up the national flag now comes with injunctions, arrests and the “far right” label attached before anyone has asked a single question.

A Union Jack is a national flag.

It's not a membership card.

Wanting less immigration is a political view.

It doesn't make you a thug.

Worrying about housing, the NHS, schools and your own town changing beyond recognition doesn't make you an extremist.

And yet:

Worried about immigration?

Far right.

Worried about how fast things are changing?

Racist.

Wave the flag?

Get yourself checked for extremism.

One crowd gets called “mostly peaceful”.

The other gets called “far right” before it's even set off.

“Nonsense”, they say

Of course, the people in charge say there's no such thing as two-tier policing.

Back in August 2024, Keir Starmer, who was Prime Minister then, called it a “non-issue” and said policing is carried out “without fear or favour”.

The Met Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, called the claims “complete nonsense” and said they were putting officers at risk.

Former counter-terror chief Neil Basu called it “laughable”.

Starmer has gone now, and Andy Burnham has been in Number 10 since July.

Has anything changed?

Look at Saturday and tell me with a straight face that it has.

Plenty of people don't think it's nonsense.

Nigel Farage said “the impression of two-tier policing has become widespread.”

Robert Jenrick said “We mustn't be squeamish or selective in how we call out violence.”

Priti Patel raised it.

Elon Musk was calling him “Two-tier Keir.”

And here's the thing, folks.

Nobody publishes official figures comparing arrest rates at different kinds of protest.

Not one set.

So when the Met's own pre-march notice says there have been 35 big Palestine Coalition protests since October 2023, most of them peaceful and lawful, with arrests limited to “a small minority” for racially aggravated offences, stirring up racial hatred and supporting terrorist organisations, we're told to just accept it.

Thirty-five marches.

Arrests for supporting terrorist organisations.

And still “mostly peaceful”.

Are they having a laugh?

If you're so sure there's no double standard, publish the numbers side by side.

Show us.

Because people have eyes, they have memories, and they have phones full of footage.

Two children in one house

Let me put this in a way every parent will get.

Picture two children growing up in the same house.

One gets told off every time they put a foot wrong.

Sent to their room, no pudding, the lot.

The other gets away with everything.

Talks back, breaks things, and gets a pat on the head and “never mind, love.”

Now tell me.

What happens to those two children?

The first one watches.

And watches.

And learns that the rules were never about what you did.

They were about who you were.

First comes resentment.

Then bitterness.

Then hatred.

In the end you've got two children who can't stand the sight of each other, and a parent standing in the wreckage wondering how the house ended up at war.

Every parent in the land knows how that ends.

It isn't a mystery.

You breed it.

You build it with your own hands, one unfair telling-off at a time.

And that is exactly what's being done to this country.

Britain is the parent.

We're the kids.

And one of us has been sent to their room for years.

One part of the population gets told off, labelled, filmed, charged and jailed in record time.

Another gets a “mostly peaceful” headline and a promise that footage is “being assessed”.

Leave that unchecked and you don't get harmony.

You get hatred.

And it doesn't fade.

It builds, in pubs, round kitchen tables, in group chats and comment sections, year after year.

So where does this end?

I keep coming back to this, and I can't shake it.

Why?

What's the end game?

Honestly, if you set out to divide a country, if you wanted people angry, suspicious and turning on each other, could you come up with a better plan than one law for some people and another law for everyone else?

So I'll ask it straight.

Where does this end?

Do they want civil war?

Because whether they want it or not, that's the road you head down when half the country stops believing the law belongs to them too.

I don't want it.

I don't know anyone sane who does.

I don't want officers hurt, communities set against each other, or ordinary people afraid to walk down their own high street with a flag.

But somebody at the top needs to answer the question.

Mr Burnham?

Sir Mark?

Anyone?

Because from where I'm sitting, nobody is even listening.

The solution? Treat everyone the same!

It isn't rocket science.

It's the simplest thing in the world, and they still can't manage it.

Everyone gets treated the same.

Assault an officer and you face the same consequences, whether you're carrying a Palestinian flag, a Union Jack or no flag at all.

Climb on a war memorial and the same rules apply, whatever your cause.

Make a Nazi salute or chant hatred and the law comes down on you just as fast as it came down on the rioters of 2024.

If footage turns up, it gets the same “robust police action” the Unite the Kingdom crowd got.

Photos out, charges in two days, no “assessing”.

Put the same label on the same behaviour.

If one crowd is “mostly peaceful” with minor clashes, say the same about the other.

If one is “violent disorder”, call the other one that too.

And publish the figures.

Every protest, every arrest, every charge, side by side.

Let the public judge.

Same conduct.

Same standards.

Same law.

That's how Britain used to work.

That's the Britain the few on that memorial fought for.

Look at what we've got instead: flags pulled down, memorials climbed on, and ordinary people told they're imagining it.

Well, I'm not imagining it.

Neither are you.

And I'm done being quiet.

One law.

For everyone.

Or don't come crying to us when the house burns down.

And Remember:

Trust no Single Source

Trust Your Gut

and Stay Curious

Sally Joe

For media enquiries, please contact:

UK - 020 3404 2295

USA - 0650 702 7445

AUS - 02 9072 9499

theanonymouspublishinghouse@gmail.com

Help Support Sally Joe and the rest of our Authors by visiting the store to get your copy of the latest Anonymous Author Novel or Anything Anonymous.

Visit the store