spiked93%

The two-tier policing of BLM Britain 84%

By Hugo Timms82%

7/24/2026, 11:51:33 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.8% saturation with 250 hits. Analysis detected 1,881 faulty-reasoning hits from 571 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.6% and a BS Rank of 84% (3,571 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.70% of the article peer group.

The term ‘two-tier policing’ may have only gained traction in the past few years, but the practice has been well established for some time. 
A newly leaked police memo, issued at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, reveals that race played a major factor in the police’s response to the protests. 
In a sentiment that now feels painfully familiar, police forces across England and Wales were told not to arrest potential criminals, lest the actions of the authorities ‘increase tensions’ with the ‘BAME (black, Asian and minority-ethnic) community’. 
According to the directive issued by the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC), and uncovered by investigative journalist Steven Edginton, arresting protesters for offences such as assaulting police or criminal damage could be a ‘trigger point’ that could lead to more violent unrest. 
You might recall that the police at these protests had their hands full  to put it mildly. 
In response to the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin in May 2020, the Black Lives Matter movement spread from the US to the UK. 
London was the scene of some of the biggest protests, which police allowed to take place despite Covid social-distancing restrictions being in place at the time. 
Significant damage to public property was caused, most notably the desecration of Winston Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square. 
More than 60 officers were injured in the unrest, too. 
The most seriously hurt of these was PC Nicky Vernon, who suffered a fractured spine and punctured lung when she was thrown off her horse after protesters directed fireworks and flares in her direction. 
Faithful to the NPoCC directive, no one was charged as a result of her injuries. 
Other protesters at the time were not treated so leniently. 
In August 2020, an anti-lockdown protest was held in central London. 
Piers Corbyn was fined £10,000 for his role in organising the demo and speaking to those who had gathered. 
Clearly, the police were acting on two sets of standards: injuring officers was fine, so long as it was done in pursuit of the ‘right’ cause, while speaking at a rally was a criminal offence if it advanced the ‘wrong’ one. 
The murder of Henry Nowak in Southampton last year, and the police’s inhumane response to his injuries, remind us just how dangerous two-tier policing can be. 
Officers at the scene would have been operating according to the Police Anti-Racism Commitment, published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in March 2025, which explicitly instructs police to treat members of the public differently, according to their race. 
Anti-racism, it says, ‘does not mean treating everyone “the same” or being “colour-blind” (racial equality)’. 
We didn’t need these documents to ‘prove’ that two-tier policing is a reality, of course. 
Time and again, the police, prosecutors and the courts have responded with extreme harshness to unfavoured groups committing minor offences, and with baffling leniency to even violent crimes when the perpetrator comes from a ‘protected’ group. 
You can now predict with astonishing accuracy how police will respond to a protest, a riot or a speechcrime if you know the race or political leanings of those involved. 
If the police are to ever fulfill their duty to protect members of the public, without fear or favour, then they must exorcise the poison of woke racial identitarianism. 
Hugo Timms is a staff writer at spiked. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 30.6%Hugo Timms: 10.2%spiked: 8.9%Confirmation Bias30.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.4%spiked: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Hugo Timms: 6.3%spiked: 4.0%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 4.9%Hugo Timms: 1.1%spiked: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic4.9%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.3%spiked: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Hugo Timms: 2.0%spiked: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias7.9%This article: 7.5%Hugo Timms: 10.4%spiked: 8.4%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.3%spiked: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.2%spiked: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.3%spiked: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.5%spiked: 0.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Hugo Timms: 2.8%spiked: 2.6%Pessimism Bias9.6%This article: 43.8%Hugo Timms: 11.6%spiked: 13.1%Negativity Bias43.8%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 1.0%spiked: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Hugo Timms: 2.2%spiked: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error7.2%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.3%spiked: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Hugo Timms: 1.9%spiked: 3.7%In-Group Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 2.8%spiked: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.6%spiked: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.9%spiked: 1.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.1%spiked: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.2%Hugo Timms: 1.6%spiked: 1.1%Recency Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.2%spiked: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 3.7%spiked: 7.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 3.5%spiked: 5.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.2%Hugo Timms: 2.1%spiked: 2.6%Appeal to Authority14.2%This article: 7.2%Hugo Timms: 4.1%spiked: 4.0%False Dilemma7.2%This article: 12.4%Hugo Timms: 3.1%spiked: 3.1%Slippery Slope12.4%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.2%spiked: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.3%Hugo Timms: 12.2%spiked: 15.0%Hasty Generalization13.3%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.8%spiked: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 1.2%spiked: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.0%Hugo Timms: 7.7%spiked: 8.0%Appeal to Emotion11.0%This article: 3.7%Hugo Timms: 1.8%spiked: 2.1%Begging the Question3.7%This article: 4.9%Hugo Timms: 2.7%spiked: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.9%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.5%spiked: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.6%Hugo Timms: 0.9%spiked: 1.0%Burden of Proof2.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.1%spiked: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.2%spiked: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 36.6%Hugo Timms: 8.1%spiked: 4.0%Anecdotal36.6%This article: 7.2%Hugo Timms: 0.7%spiked: 0.3%No True Scotsman7.2%This article: 15.9%Hugo Timms: 1.0%spiked: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.9%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.0%spiked: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.2%Hugo Timms: 0.1%spiked: 0.2%Personal Incredulity3.2%This article: 9.5%Hugo Timms: 0.5%spiked: 0.2%Special Pleading9.5%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.0%spiked: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.3%Hugo Timms: 3.7%spiked: 2.5%Unattributed Quote13.3%This article: 2.6%Hugo Timms: 1.5%spiked: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 25.2%Hugo Timms: 26.4%spiked: 25.8%Biased Writer Voice25.2%This article: 16.6%Hugo Timms: 3.0%spiked: 3.2%Indoctrination16.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.5%spiked: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 5.9%spiked: 9.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 1.7%spiked: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

571 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.