The Scroll

2/8/24

Morning, back to it, but it’s Friday and I’m ready for it!

Depressing as it is I think we do need to talk about yesterday.

Keir Starmer's speech yesterday was a calculated attempt to shift the narrative away from the public noticing violence in the UK. Instead of addressing the horrific stabbing of children and the numerous acts of violence and disorder we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks alone, he chose to focus on knife crime and the supposed rise of the far right. This diversionary tactic is disingenuous and doesn’t credit you with intelligence enough to notice the switch. Knives are inanimate objects, incapable of inflicting harm on their own. It is the individuals wielding them with malicious intent that pose the real threat, but to confront that issue Starmer needs bravery and intent that he and managerial robots like him do not have. By fixating on the tool rather than the perpetrator, Starmer avoids confronting the elephant in the room.

His emphasis on the far right is a gross misrepresentation of the reality on the ground. The truth is, there is no significant or capable far-right movement in the UK, and by invoking this phantom menace, Starmer is effectively labelling all citizens who dare to challenge his narrative on recent events as extremists. By doing so, he is demonising ordinary people who have valid concerns about the direction of the country, and who are simply seeking to hold him accountable for the actions of his and recent governments, who’ve repeatedly ignore the public’s cries for action. This approach is not only divisive, but also perilous, as it risks creating a toxic atmosphere of fear and mistrust, where dissenting voices are silenced and marginalised - we’ve seen this with Covid and you maybe didn’t ‘get it’ then because you weren’t in the out group, but this time, maybe you are. By conflating legitimate criticism with far-right extremism, Starmer is playing with fire, and undermining the very fabric of the nation. This kind of rhetoric has the potential to alienate and radicalise individuals who feel their concerns are being ignored or dismissed, and could ultimately lead to the very kind of social unrest and division that Starmer claims to want to prevent. The action is so blatant and so stupid, that I’m less and less inclined to believe it’s accidental.

Starmer's response is also troubling in its implications for civil liberties. His advocacy for facial recognition technology is a thinly veiled attempt to usher in a surveillance state. The notion that this will somehow prevent knife crime - if you believe him when he says that’s the problem - is speculative at best. In reality, it will only serve to erode individual freedoms and pave the way for a digital ID and all that follows from that. How long have I been talking about this pathway on Horizon Scan? You’re watching it happen. A united and peaceful UK wouldn’t accept that intrusion into their lives, a scared and divided one will beg for it. Please remember also, that we’re not talking here about you and I, we’re talking about the general public, to them it’s an easier sell.

We better talk about something that I think is impossible to avoid now, but the policing response to recent events has laid bare the two-tier system that exists at times in the UK. As ever, those on the ground must do as instructed and I feel for you, but something is very wrong with those instructions. I summarised my view here:

It’s infuriating to have to say it, but it’s what I see with my own eyes. When predominately white, native communities are involved, we’ve seen the police respond with batons and dogs, ready to crack down on any perceived disorder. However, when minority communities or social causes are involved, the police response is often characterised by inaction and appeasement. They either run away from the situation or allow the chaos to continue, citing concerns about "community relations" or "safety." We cannot have this selective policing. It is a stark reminder that the rule of law is not applied equally, and that certain groups are afforded more leniency and protection than others. The public are now noticing en masse and it will not end well. Ultimately, Starmer's speech was a missed opportunity to address the real issues facing the UK. By failing to confront the root causes of violence and instead opting for a divisive and misleading narrative, he demonstrates a profound lack of leadership. His vision for a safer society is, in reality, a thinly veiled attempt to consolidate power and control.

One thing we did see a perfect example of over the past few days is something I’m sure I’m boring you with by now, online literacy. To navigate the internet and social media effectively, you need to be able to critically evaluate information and identify biases and agendas. This includes considering the motivations of governments - to include your own - and other malicious actors who may be trying to shape public opinion. If you can't do this, you're vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation. We saw this when almost immediately after the Southport attack there was speculation as to the identity of the attacker. Many people have tried to play this down, ‘why does that matter, who cares about background’, but that’s moronic. If you want to understand why something happened you need all the information, especially if you seek to stop it happening again. We’re used to 'hearing the phrase ‘no description is a full description’ and what we take from that is the identity of the attacker is inconvenient to the government. There is an undeniable pattern with this so with the best of intentions I don’t think we can blame people too much anymore for jumping to conclusions. But with that pattern being established, it’s much easier for those with bad intentions whether they are anarchic or state actors to spread information that reenforces biases and sets off a reaction. In this case the pattern we see in the UK - generally for this type of crime- is probably muslim, probably non white - you don’t have to like that, but that’s what experience has shown the UK population. There was soon information spreading online about the attacker being muslim and a recent asylum arrival. The site with the information - which to be frank was so smelly looking that I don’t know how people took it seriously - was based outside of the UK, I’ve seen Russia and Pakistan given as locations for it. So you can go for foreign interference maybe immediately, but then does location really mater now? Can’t we fake that, and can’t an individual from any nation work from another country location? Couldn’t it be anyone, couldn’t it also be from the UK? Either way it had effect on how the country reacted, I saw it did two things. It riled up - or activated 👀 - the TR types who religiously spread it and then took to the streets for a fight, and it undermined any legitimate protest response to the genuine concern every day people have with their children being chopped up on the streets, along with providing many gotchas for the left who were able to enforce their narrative that anyone interested in the attackers background was thick and racist, an easy win for them. Those who spread it did a huge disservice to any pushback against where the government has taken us with its policies. That movement needs leadership, discipline - physical, informational and in communication - and a commitment to truth, unsavoury or not. We do not have that currently, it’s very likely some of those who are seen as leaders of ‘the right’ are nefarious, they certainly don’t posses the qualities I just stated.

As it turns out the attacker was born in Wales to Rwandan parents who arrived through an asylum route I believe around 25 years ago. He was also under a Deprivation of Liberty Order, feel free to google what that is and why it’s relevant. He was expelled from school for carrying as knife and apparently known to have made inconvenient comments about bringing Rwandan history to the UK. I think that’s all pretty relevant, but also rather inconvenient for a government trying to control a narrative after an attack of this nature. That narrative control was interesting in itself, to include that fact that any picture being shared of him shows him as close to the ages of the murdered girls as possible, there’s nothing accidental about that.

Controlled spontaneity, when applied to narrative after terrorist attacks, refers to the deliberate creation and dissemination of pre-planned responses that mimic organic public reactions. This tactic is used by governments or other entities to shape public opinion, divert attention from key issues, or manipulate the narrative surrounding an event. By controlling the messaging and framing the conversation, authorities can steer people away from critical questions and promote their own agendas.

This time around the ‘Controlled Spontaneity’ playbook was either poorly performed or the public have noticed and it’s now not so effective. That Starmers’ speech last night had such a negative response, tells you something has changed and it’s a combination of public confidence in their own eyes and passage of information on social media, and the government will have noticed. So you can be sure Starmer’s attack on social media disinformation is a Trojan horse for greater government control over internet freedom. You only have to look at the EU to know where this is heading. His rhetoric echoes authoritarian regimes seeking to suppress dissent and control public discourse. The UK's ‘online safety’ push is a pretext for censorship and restrictions on free expression, undermining democratic values. We must always push back against attempts to erode our rights.

Anyway, another real ranty one, but I know I’m not the only one pissed off by where we are.

Enjoy your weekend, stay out of cities.