Key move stopped social media liars from endangering peoples' safety last week

When I watched tv as a kid and a crime was reported on the news I'd tense - praying the suspect was not Black.
Why? Because the negative stereotyping of Black people back then was the done thing. Anything reinforcing those labels crystallised the false fears that the xenophobes were hell-bent to pushing.
We are back there now because of Reform and the Far Right who are determined to do the very same thing.
We are there because a Labour Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer's repurposing of Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech has helped to fuel it.
We are back there now because of the systematic attempts of the extremists in plain sight, determined to frame everyone non-white as a danger to you and this country.
The racists and xenophobes want to dress us all up as threats to be feared and fought against.
So the speed with which the police revealed the details of a 53-year-old white man, charged after a car was driven through crowds at last week's Liverpool parade, is significant.
They did it to get ahead of the liars and troublemakers on social media who would have poured the poison into the breach if, as in the past, the particulars of the suspect had been withheld.
The police did it because they knew that without those important facts, the misinformation specialists would have sparked the kind of violence which saw Black and Brown people indiscriminately beaten in the streets after Southport last summer.
It was falsely claimed last July that the three young girls killed had been attacked by an illegal immigrant.
The lie was amplified millions of times on social media before it could be proven untrue. By then the damage had been done.
It is a damning indictment on our society that releasing a person's ethnicity immediately will now have to remain a strategy for UK law enforcement going forward.
But when high profile commentators and politicians remain determined to lie and misrepresent the truth as so many are doing on a day to day basis, police have no choice.
Starmer revealed in January that the government would look to plug the information vacuum that allowed the blitz-stirrers to wind people up last summer.
But it beggars belief too that there is only calm on our streets because the person held after last week's Liverpool horror - the facts of which have traumatised us all - is not Black.
We've gone back to the future. We are back to the days when extremists in the seventies put out leaflets warning: 'if you desire a coloured for your neighbour vote Labour'.
You wouldn't now suddenly think negatively of every 53-year-old white man but the racist agitators on social media want you to judge every Black or Brown person on the basis of what any single person is suspected of.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

10 minutes ago

• The Independent

In the wake of Trump's strikes on Iran, what are Keir Starmer's options?

The choices Keir Starmer makes in the next few days could define his premiership. Tony Blair never escaped the accusation he had been George Bush 's 'poodle' over the invasion of Iraq. And how far the current Labour PM goes in backing another US president in another foreign conflict could help or haunt him for years to come. Despite the prime minister last week repeatedly saying ' de-escalation is the priority ', the Trump administration pressed ahead with strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran overnight on Saturday. The prime is now walking a tightrope between supporting the UK's closest ally and attempting to call for calm. In the wake of the strikes, Sir Keir appeared to give the US his cautious backing – describing Iran's nuclear programme as a 'grave threat to international security'. But he has also issued stark warnings about the conflict escalating beyond the region. As the situation in the Middle East continues to escalate, the prime minister is caught between a rock and a hard place. He is currently sat firmly on the fence - with his most senior ministers refusing to say whether Trump's strikes were either legal or even 'the right thing to do'. And while the US did not ask Britain for help in its first round of strikes, at some point, the prime minister will be forced to make a decision. So what are his options? One option – albeit the most diplomatically tricky – is to withhold support entirely. Sir Keir has spent months trying to build a special relationship with President Trump. Anything less than support for their actions is likely to go down badly in the White House. However, the Attorney General Lord Hermer, a close political ally of Sir Keir, is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies. Lord Hermer is reportedly reluctant to sign off any offensive operations, with a source telling The Spectator: 'The AG has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies.' The weight the Labour leader places on his old friend's legal judgement could limit the extent of any support for the US, if Trump does decide to act militarily. The PM's own background will also play a role in the decision. The energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh said on Thursday that he 'who is a lawyer and a human rights lawyer, he will obviously do everything that is in accord with international law.' But will he really risk infuriating President Trump at a time when the Republican's tariffs on goods entering the US have already led economists to downgrade their forecasts for the UK economy? Another option, considered the most likely, is to allow the use of the UK-US airbase at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. On Saturday, Trump's strikes on Iran were launched directly without the use of the Diego Garcia base. But in future military actions, the US may ask Britain's permission to use the joint airbase in the Chagos archipelago. The type of B-2 stealth bombers which are often based there are the ones that are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which were used in the operation over the weekend. This is a middle ground seen as the most likely option for the UK government to back. It would not require action from the UK, but could protect the relationship with the US by seeming to offer support. He is already under pressure over the issue at home. Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel has said the UK should give permission for the US to use Diego Garcia to launch bunker-buster bombs. One step beyond the Diego Garcia option is to provide logistical support to the US, and what that would look like in practice is being wargamed in Whitehall. The benefit of this option is that it would allow the UK to appear to be more supportive of Present Trump than just simply allowing him to use a US airbase, and at the same time risking only a limited response from Iran. The UK is keen not to allow Tehran a pretext to strike British bases or interests and has sent extra assets to the region, with another six Typhoon jets sent to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, joining the eight already there. The final option, considered the least likely, is full UK military intervention. Britain is still pushing hard behind the scenes for a de-escalation in the Middle East. The UK's most favoured outcome is a diplomatic solution, in which both sides dial down the aggression. Keir Starmer is also, as a politician, a gradualist and as such is considered less likely than some of his predecessors as prime minister to commit the UK military to support this kind of intervention, even if it is in the aid of one of our key allies, the United States.

Spectator

17 minutes ago

• Spectator

Reform can go further in its plan to woo back non-doms

We will hear plenty of familiar criticisms of the plan unveiled by Reform yesterday to bring non-doms, as wealthy foreigners who enjoy a special tax regime in the UK are known, back. It will make Britain a magnate for tax dodgers and money launderers. It will increase inequality. And the only jobs it creates will be as servants of the super-rich. In fact, however, the only problem with the Reform plan is that it doesn't go far enough. The party should be a lot more ambitious as it prepares for a potential government. It will certainly be a major change. After a decade over which all the political debate has been about how to impose higher taxes on the rich, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, will this week set out plans to bring them back. A new 'Britannia Card' will allow both foreigners and returning expats to pay a flat fee of £250,000, in return for which their worldwide income would be exempt from most UK taxes for 10 years. The money raised would then be distributed in the form of a 'Britannia worker's dividend' to low-paid employees, with a bonus worth an estimated £600 to £1,000 a year. Reform's plan has the potential to change the economic argument There are legitimate criticisms of the Reform plan. It may be complex to implement, and earmarking the income generated for a 'dividend', while politically clever, may prove too fiddly. The tax system needs simplification, not yet more complex allowances. And yet, it has the potential to change the economic argument. It is already clear that the Labour-Tory consensus on driving out the non-doms has been a disaster for the British economy, while the Starmer government's determination to put up taxes on the rich has led to an exodus of wealth and talent. Reform has recognised how damaging that has become, worked out that the UK needs to attract wealth, and recognised that the entrepreneurs and business owners who have left the UK need to be bought back. Indeed, extending the tax break to returning British nationals may well prove the most significant part of the package. But Reform could afford to go even further with their plan. The £250,000 flat fee may well need to come down if the UK is to compete with similar deals available in Italy and Greece or the zero taxes levied in Dubai and the Caribbean. A much lower annual threshold may well generate more revenue overall. And it should extend the offer to foreign entrepreneurs, with a far lower rate of Capital Gains Tax to start-ups who want to move from their high-tax bases in Paris, Stockholm or Madrid to a far more lightly taxed London, Cambridge or Bristol. The important point, however, is this. As the non-doms and the wealthy flee the Chancellor's Rachel Reeves's increasingly punitive tax regime, she will now have to defend her decisions against a very clear alternative. As the disaster of taxing success becomes clear, that will become harder and harder – and Reform's alternative will look a lot more attractive.

BBC News

18 minutes ago

• BBC News

Iran still has an off-ramp for diplomacy, says David Lammy

Foreign Secretary David Lammy has urged Iran to take "the off-ramp" and return to the negotiating has vowed there will be "everlasting consequences" following US strikes at the weekend, intended to take out the country's nuclear said he had told Iran that it would be a "catastrophic mistake" for them to retaliate by firing at US bases, or by blockading the key shipping lane of the Strait of to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Lammy said he had told the Iranian foreign minister to take a message to the Iranian leadership to "get serious about their nuclear programme". He added: "They have to get serious about the off-ramp that is being made available to them."There is still an off-ramp and I was discussing that with the Iranian foreign minister again on the phone yesterday."We, alongside all of our partners in the G7, across Europe and across the Arab world and the Levant, are urging the Iranians to get serious both with the E3 - us, Germany and France - but also with the United States."On Sunday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer stressed the UK was not involved in the US strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran - Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo - on Saturday also warned of the risk of escalation, and said he wanted to reassure people that "we're doing everything we can to stabilise the situation".Pressed on whether the US strikes were legal, Lammy responded: "I don't say it's not legitimate" and said there was "no moral equivalence" with the UK's clear stance that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was he also acknowledged that diplomatic efforts had not stopped the Iranians enriching uranium, so "clearly it was not working".The foreign secretary said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had "confirmed the 60% enrichment" and the Iranians were still "obfuscating and engaged in deception".Lammy said that, if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, there was likely to be "nuclear proliferation across the Middle East, the world would be seriously more dangerous, and that's why it must be stopped".He said: "Yes they can have a civil nuclear capability that's properly monitored, that involves outsiders, but they cannot continue to enrich to 60%... Why do they need 60% enrichment if not for a nuclear weapon?"But the foreign secretary said that "ultimately" the only solution to dealing with the Iranian nuclear programme was through diplomacy, "because the expertise still exists in the country, it's likely that some of the material still exists in the country".James Cartlidge, shadow defence secretary, said the Conservatives backed the US military operation."The key message is to show support for Israel and the United States," he told BBC Breakfast."We feel above all else that we can't have a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons."Asked if the UK would get involved in the conflict, he said it was "too early to speculate" but welcomed UK defence secretary John Healey's earlier decision to move planes and military assets to the Middle East, putting them in a position to "respond if needed". Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.