Public Order Offences And Two Tier Policing: Police Inaction Over Union Jack Desecration Highlights Double Standards!
MANCHESTER: Police Inaction Over National Flag Destroyed In Public - Legal Protection For Qu’ran, But Not For British Flag?? Monday 24th Feb 2025 By Jason…
Public Order Offences And Two Tier Policing: Police Inaction Over Union Jack Desecration Highlights Double Standards!
MANCHESTER: Police Inaction Over National Flag Destroyed In Public - Legal Protection For Qu’ran, But Not For British Flag??
Monday 24th Feb 2025
By Jason King
Recent events in Manchester have once again drawn attention to what many see as the glaring double standards in the enforcement of public order laws. Responding to a UKIP-led anti-immigration rally in Piccadilly Gardens on Saturday, counter-protesters were caught on camera tearing up a Union Jack in full view of the police, who stood by and took no action.
The rally, led by UKIP activist Nick Tenconi, was outnumbered by counter-protesters, some of whom resorted to violence, including throwing stones at officers. They ultimately succeeded in halting the UKIP rally.
However, it is the desecration of the national flag that raises serious questions about the consistency of policing when it comes to public order offences.
This inaction is particularly troubling given that in recent weeks, individuals have been arrested and charged for burning copies of the Qur’an—acts deemed to constitute public order offences.
On February 1, Martin Frost, 47, was arrested in Manchester for setting fire to a Qur’an. Less than two weeks later, on February 13, Hamit Coksun was arrested in Derby after burning a Qur’an outside the Turkish Consulate. Both men were formally charged.
If police consider the burning of a religious text in a public space to be a criminal act on the basis that it could incite disorder, then why was the destruction of a national symbol—an act likely to provoke strong reactions—met with indifference?
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Comments are moderated before appearing.
Default
Share this article
The desecration of the Union Jack in close proximity to a gathering of patriotic demonstrators presents an obvious risk of escalating tensions, much like the justification given for the arrests of Frost and Coksun. Yet, in this instance, the police did not intervene.
This inconsistency suggests a troubling double standard in the enforcement of public order legislation.
If authorities are willing to prosecute individuals for acts deemed offensive to one community, then they must apply the same standard across the board. Failure to do so not only undermines the legitimacy of the law but also fuels perceptions of politically motivated policing, where certain groups are protected while others are ignored.
At the very least, the refusal to act in Manchester should prompt urgent scrutiny of public order policing.
If burning a religious book can lead to prosecution, then why is the public destruction of the national flag—an act equally capable of causing offence and disorder—overlooked? The selective application of the law risks deepening public distrust in the police and reinforcing the belief that free expression is only protected when it aligns with the prevailing political consensus.
ACCESS TO THE LAW: Understanding the Crime and Sentencing
As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ access and understanding of UK Criminal law, we will be explaining the relevant UK legislation surrounding any case law relevant to our articles:
PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCES EXPLAINED
Public order offences in the UK are primarily governed by thePublic Order Act 1986, which sets out various criminal offences related to disorderly conduct, violence, and actions likely to incite unrest. These laws are often used in cases of protests, riots, or acts deemed provocative in a public setting.
Key Public Order Offences
1.Riot (Section 1)– Involves 12 or more people using or threatening violence for a common purpose, causing others to fear for their safety.
2.Violent Disorder (Section 2)– Similar to riot but involves at least three people acting in a threatening or violent manner.
3.Affray (Section 3)– Engaging in behaviour that would make a reasonable person fear for their safety, even if no violence occurs.
4.Fear or Provocation of Violence (Section 4)– Using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provoke violence.
5.Harassment, Alarm, or Distress (Sections 5 and 4A)– Engaging in conduct that is likely to cause public distress or offense, such as shouting abuse or displaying offensive symbols.
How the Law is Applied
The enforcement of these laws depends on police discretion and the context of the situation. For example, authorities have justified arrests forburning religious textsunder Sections 4 or 5, arguing that such actions may provoke disorder. However, inconsistencies arise when similar acts—such as tearing up a national flag—are ignored, raising concerns about selective enforcement.
Public order laws are designed to balancefreedom of expression (Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998)with the need to maintain peace. However, if the law is applied unequally, it can undermine public trust and raise serious legal questions about fairness and impartiality.
Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.
