Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Fair - I was thinking of Powell as well. But you're right, the fringes of all sides. Within the mainstream the split was on the left and within Labour primarily - it did ultimately lead to a split in Labour (not sure about the rest of them but for Jenkins, Europe was key).

But on repeated talking points it is fascinating to read about 75 because basically the arguments on both sides are exactly the same in substance but different in rhetoric. So the populist point about elites was made from a left-wing perspective by Barbara Castle against Foreign Office mandarins and Ted Heath, she also strongly argued for more of a Commonwealth focus (again - at that point broadly coded as more left than right) and free trade as tied to international development, while Michael Foot and Benn made arguments about sovereignty and democracy from their radical tradition, but that ultimately weren't that different than 2016. Similarly the arguments in favour of staying in the Common Market were also very much the same as in 2016 just in the hands of Heath, Thatcher, Thorpe and Roy Jenkins.

It is really striking how few new arguments or issues there were on either side between 1975 and 50 years later.

[Sheilbh]

I hope you're right.

Starmer already saying "full force of the law" will be used against rioters and as I say he has experience. I could be wrong but given his record as DPP, I can't imagine a PM better placed to follow on through on that sort of threat.

I could be wrong, but I suspected the ones who were masked are the more organised "traditional" far right. I suspect they know how to and have experience of riots. The people who are unmasked will be a combo of the people brought out by the far-right influencers on social media and, I suspect, a group of people who just fancied having a go. Already seen a few people saying it wasn't politics but them joining in after a lot of drinking - I think that might be true for a few and I'm not convinced the guys looting phone shops or Greggs were there because of far-right memes as much as opportunism. But not sure it makes a difference - whatever their motivations they were participating in a far-right riot.

The Guardian reporting already 400 arrests and the start of them being charged at the magistrates pending hearings at the Crown Court - I think the striking thing here is how often they're being refused bail:

Over two dozen people appear in court after England and Northern Ireland riots
Charges include violent disorder, assault, arson and resisting arrest, after widespread disorder over past week
Mark Brown
Mon 5 Aug 2024 17.41 BST
Last modified on Mon 5 Aug 2024 17.53 BST

More than two dozen people accused of taking part in violent disorder in England and Northern Ireland appeared in magistrates courts on Monday.

The charges included violent disorder, assault, arson and resisting police arrest. The youngest defendant on Monday was 14 years old; the oldest was 69. The majority were local to where the offences took place and most were remanded in custody to be dealt with by a crown court judge in several weeks' time.

The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has said courts are on standby to ensure "swift justice" after the disorder of the past week.

In Belfast the deputy district judge Liam McStay described the violence as "absolutely disgraceful" and said the message had to be that those involved would "face the consequences".

Four men aged between 34 and 53 appeared before him after disorder in the city. They were refused bail and had their cases adjourned until 2 September.

At Teesside magistrates court in Middlesbrough, two defendants appeared in separate hearings before the district judge Marie Mallon on charges of violent disorder in Hartlepool last Wednesday evening.

Both defendants were from Hartlepool. The court heard that Carl Holliday, 30, was allegedly carrying a large piece of metal sheeting that he threw towards police lines during the disturbances.

He was seen doing that four times in the space of seven minutes, the prosecutor Michael Embleton told the court.

David Smith, representing Holliday, who pleaded guilty, said the violence was not politically motivated but due to "drinking extremely heavily". The defendant saw the disorder on the streets and he joined it, Smith said.

Tamsyn Cerr, 21, the mother of a one-year-old child whose birthday was on Monday, was accused of passing a paving slab, or roof tile, to someone who then allegedly threw it at police.

Cerr offered no plea. The judge remanded both defendants in custody until a crown court appearance on 2 September.

At Sheffield magistrates court, Curtis Coulson, 30, sobbed as he denied affray during disorder in the city at the weekend.

The alleged offence relates to an incident outside Sheffield City Hall on Sunday, in which he is said to have waved a stick at a woman in a threatening manner.

Coulson, of Sheffield, was refused bail and will go on trial at the same court on 20 September.

At South Tyneside magistrates court in South Shields, five local men aged between 27 and 48 and a local woman, 43, appeared on charges of violent disorder at Thursday's unrest in Sunderland.

Josh Kellett, 29, of Washington in Tyne and Wear, admitted violent disorder and the court heard he was seen in footage throwing a stone towards police officers while part of a large group.

He was wearing a balaclava but was identified by his "distinctive tattoos", the court heard.

Leanne Hodgson, 43, of Sunderland, pleaded guilty after being seen in footage pushing a large bin towards a police line. She had been out drinking and became involved in the disorder when the pub closed, the court heard.

The district judge Zoe Passfield told her: "This was large-scale mob violence which resulted in fear to the public and damage to local businesses. There is absolutely no justification for it. You chose to involve yourself in it."

All were remanded in custody until 2 September.

The youngest defendant on Monday was a 14-year-old boy who admitted violent disorder during rioting in Liverpool on Saturday.

Liverpool magistrates court, sitting as a youth court, heard he was part of a group of young people setting off fireworks that exploded underneath a police carrier.

He was released on bail until 27 August, when he will be sentenced.

The oldest defendant was William Morgan, 69, who pleaded guilty at Liverpool magistrates court to violent disorder and possessing an offensive weapon in a public place.

The court heard he was in a crowd throwing bricks towards police officers and had a wooden baton with him. He was remanded in custody and will be sentenced at the crown court on 29 August.

In total, 11 people appeared at Liverpool magistrates court in connection with recent disorder.

At Manchester magistrates court, three men appeared in connection with violence in Bolton.

In Bristol, two men were bailed to appear before the city's magistrates court on 5 September.

Adrian Croft, 45, of Holywell, Flintshire in Wales, was charged with a section 4 public order offence and possession of a class A drug. Damien Williams, 39, of Knowle in Bristol, was charged with a section 4 public order offence.

[Jacob]

As I understand it, quick, certain, and visible consequences for breaking the law is the most effective deterrent (more so than severity of punishment, for exammple).

[Sheilbh]

That makes sense - I think speed is key. And was a big thing after 2011. I think we're already seeing it now with hundreds of arrests and already magistrates hearing charges and sending to the Crown Court.

I said broad support for throwing the book and people hating disorder - and here's a YouGov poll. I think the people who are talking about "legitimate concerns" and complaining that Starmer is being rude in calling out "far-right thugs" have misread the public:

[Sheilbh]

Interesting piece from James Ball that ironically Musk's combination of bringing back previously banned far-right posters, blue ticks and not spending anything on non-essentials (like fighting law enforcement seeking details of Twitter users) might have accidentally shafted those far-right Musk fans

Fixing social media in antisocial times
Elon Musk allows Twitter users to fan the flames of disorder - and that may come back to burn him and them

James Ball

The people who have been rioting on streets across the country are adults. They are not toddlers who believe anything they're told – this is rarely true even of toddlers, in reality – or who are led astray by a single false piece of information.

We need to keep this foremost in our minds when we talk about misinformation's role in fuelling this kind of disorder: the people ultimately responsible for acts of violence are those who commit them. If we overplay the role of social media in these events, we can end up providing excuses for the real perpetrators.

That caveat aside, there has been no shortage of inflammatory misinformation in the run-up to the violence. The apparent instigating event for the violence in Southport itself was the entirely false naming of an individual who was supposedly a Muslim asylum seeker as the perpetrator of the attack that killed three young girls and hospitalised several more.

Despite prominent claims that this was some form of Russian-state-connected information operation, the earliest account sharing that false 'fact' so far is a UK-based woman who played a prominent role spreading Covid misinformation, but who was invited on multiple UK radio shows despite (or because of) that. She has given multiple contradictory explanations as to how she came to see the false name, none of which have been corroborated.

Sharing the name of an alleged attacker – let alone outright inventing one, as someone must have done in this instance – is always an egregious act. If it is wrong, it risks vigilante attacks or random street violence against innocent targets. If it is correct, it risks undermining the fair trial that will be needed to bring justice to a real attacker.

But other misinformation in these febrile situations is often shared more innocently. Rumours fly when tensions are high and people have taken to the street. Over the weekend there were false reports of stabbings, acid attacks, and more. Some people share these in good faith to condemn such actions, others share them to fan the flames. Few bother to check whether there is any reliable reporting as to whether they have actually happened.

As the dust settles, there will be questions as to what social media should do in these situations. Until recently, the main problem with social networks was that they did not devote enough resources to tackling misinformation, or acted too slowly to recognise extraordinary circumstances.

That was before Elon Musk bought Twitter and renamed it 'X'. Not only has Musk intentionally brought back many UK far-right accounts that had previously been banned from the site, he has taken their money to give them the verified blue ticks – and with it additional credibility and algorithmic boosting.

Musk has been fanning those flames personally, too – replying to one (blue tick) user that "civil war is inevitable" in Britain. Some of the accounts whose previous bans he reversed have played major roles in fanning the flames over the last week. The blame for much of this very obviously lies with Elon Musk, but in reality there are limits to how much could or should be done to punish him.

The most extreme response would be to shut down Twitter in the UK entirely, but banning a whole social network from a country is overly punitive and against the basic principle of free speech – and In practice is often ineffective because users just shift to networks that are harder for police to track, such as WhatsApp groups, Telegram channels, or even closed Facebook groups.

Former defence committee chair Tobias Ellwood trotted out another familiar solution, which is to ban social media anonymity – but research has shown time and again that people spread hate routinely on real-name accounts (Facebook has had a real-name policy since inception, although it is not difficult to make and maintain a fake account).

Other sanctions on Twitter are limited: Twitter now has few UK-based staff, so there is limited scope for sanctions. Hitting Twitter and thus Musk in the wallet seems to be the obvious response for authorities, and perhaps the most workable.

Elon Musk has emboldened the far right to instigate violence on UK shores. But being emboldened to incite criminal acts in the open has a serious risk of backlashing on the far right themselves.

Musk's emboldening of far-right trolls on Twitter is a particular danger to those behind them, as many of them have spent the money to get their blue tick, even if their account remains anonymous.

That means that Twitter has their real-world details: they have had to show ID to be able to verify their account and hand over payment information tied to their real-world identity, too. Twitter's compliance with requests from law authorities for user data is now almost 100%, as Elon Musk hasn't wanted to spend the money to fight any of them.

As a result, the emboldened online agitators – some of whom think they are being oh-so-clever by staying behind their keyboards rather than taking to the streets – might find the police knocking on their doors sooner than they think. And as recent history with environmental protestors shows, UK law is perfectly capable of dealing with agitators even if they don't themselves break the law on the streets.

Some of those actually on the streets will come to regret the open posting on video on Twitter, TikTok and Facebook too. While it might feel like swaggering confidence in the moment, it starts an open season on identification of people in the footage – many of whom are making no attempt to disguise themselves.

Others are straightforwardly doomed: videos show people carefully covering their whole face, but leaving their arms (with their distinctive tattoos) on show. These public domain videos, coupled with the fact that mobile phones give away your location history with pinpoint accuracy, will together produce a nasty surprise for those involved.

Social media isn't making anything better in this grim week of riots, but it is not at the core of the story – even if a problem that was once neglect is now fuelled by the malice of the world's richest man. But that might not work out the way the people stirring the pot imagine: consequences for online actions can very quickly become all too real.

The open incitement of this violence on social media is horrifying, and is rightly spurring calls for action from across the political divide. But the very fact of it happening in the open might be a blessing in disguise, and make punishing the ringleaders much easier.

The internet is the communication tool of the 21st century, it will naturally play a role in all social unrest and upheaval. How those effects work out – and who they benefit in the end – is not always as obvious as it first seems.

If overconfident and open social media incitement lands keyboard warriors with hefty prison sentences – and riots mean much longer prison sentences for even 'routine' offences than usual – then Elon Musk may accidentally have screwed over the very far right edgelords he bought Twitter to serve.

Worth noting on the well-meaning sharing things that aren't true I saw the comms head of Hope not Hate (leading anti-racism group here) sharing a rumour of an acid attack on a Muslim woman which he later confirmed was untrue - which is just really, really unhelpful from someone who should no better. I get people want to be first or express disgust/support/whatever quickest but it really is worth waiting for serious reporters when it comes to facts like that.

Edit: And wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more online American right-wingers moaning about "Britain has fallen" as posters are prosecuted for inciting a riot.

[crazy canuck]

As I understand it, quick, certain, and visible consequences for breaking the law is the most effective deterrent (more so than severity of punishment, for exammple).

With the caveat that the punishment must be proportional to the crime.  If it is too lenient the deterrent is lost.

[Valmy]

I mean American right wingers have been saying Britain is a Sharia based Muslim theocracy for years now. I am not really sure where they can go from there.

Though I am not sure where we get off saying things about them. I am so desensitized to mass murder as an American that when I heard some nut killed three girls and injured many other people I was like "well yes it is Tuesday".

[Sheilbh]

With the caveat that the punishment must be proportional to the crime.  If it is too lenient the deterrent is lost.

Yeah - and also aggravating factors. In this case a break down of law and order with attempted pogroms against a minority community, regardless of individual motivations deserves heavy punishment.

Although I do find it quite funny that this evening they've arrested a guy caught on various videos in the same shirt looting a phone shop, Lush, Greggs. Not the best and brightest

[Sheilbh]

And the other side of well-meaning untrue rumours, from a journalist in Birmingham:

Jane Haynes
@JaneRockHouse
Spent a few hours this evening in Bordesley Green where a tense but good natured gathering of about 300 people, mostly young men but including elders and a few women, came out to show their opposition to a rumoured far right march. Circling the road island outside McDs.../1
There were sections who looked pretty intimidating, it's true - mostly dressed in black, some with balaclavas or hoodies tied tight, some in those daft masks. I saw a handful of sticks being carried - a bit daft really as it gives ammo to those keen to criticise them as a mob /2
There was a terrifying moment when a Sky TV crew were threatened by a man armed with a knife who attempted to slash  tyres. Another man came over to us and told us all media were scum and responsible for ramping up anti Muslim hate /3
As I walked away at about 8pm I hoped that one incident would be the end of it. So I am now so frustrated and angry to see reports of much more violent and intimidatory acts being carried out by some of those present, of people being seen with knives and machetes. Disgraceful /4
What started off as a strong message to racists and fascists to keep away from Brum has turned into something else. I hope the police use the full weight of the law to come down on anyone responsible for threats and violence tonight. /5

The Sky News footage is alarming and this lot then attacked a nearby pub.

Would note this was the area of Birmingham were Jess Phillips was running against a pro-Gaza candidate from Galloway's party who ran a very, very nasty campaign - lots of intimidation on the streets which Phillips called out in her victory speech. (Worth noting that Jess Phillips actually stepped down from a frontbench position to vote against the whip on Gaza but that wasn't relevant obviously...)

[Richard Hakluyt]

Things nearly got very nasty in Bolton https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c25llwx2dxzo but police managed to contain the situation.

One can imagine the joy of the hard right if a group of Muslim rioters chanting God is great managed to severely injure white rioters.

[Josquius]

I've already seen stuff flying around about someone getting beaten and severely injured by a non existent "Muslim defence league".
It actually happening would indeed be gold but even without it they're trying anyway.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally amid all this, found the clips of Southport's memorial for the three young girls who were killed moving.

On the riots not sure if it works legally but I think there's something to the retired police chief's suggestion that the worst violence and especially organising it should be treated as terrorism. As I say not sure if it works under counter-terror legislation but in principle it makes a lot of sense - particularly for the more organising groups online.

[Tamas]

Incidentally amid all this, found the clips of Southport's memorial for the three young girls who were killed moving.

On the riots not sure if it works legally but I think there's something to the retired police chief's suggestion that the worst violence and especially organising it should be treated as terrorism. As I say not sure if it works under counter-terror legislation but in principle it makes a lot of sense - particularly for the more organising groups online.

Indeed. After all, they want to change policy, people's rights by violence don't they? If a bunch hooded-up Islamists were pulling the same crap while yelling Allahu Akbar, they would be handled as terrorists, so why not these people?

[Josquius]

It's clearly what they're trying to do anyway. Terrorise Muslims.

Not seeing it reported in the press anywhere but apparently overnight 5 immigrant owned businesses in villages near Hartlepool were rammed with vehicles last night. Lots of discussion about this happening on local groups but zero reporting. Very odd.

[Tamas]

Is this whole thing (far-right scum mobilising themselves at the earliest excuse) related or unrelated to the fact that we no longer have a far-right government and/or that the even far-righter party (Reform) is now a thing?