BLM Britain policing reveals two-tier enforcement and unequal treatment

Police leaders instructed frontline officers not to make arrests during the summer 2020 protests if doing so might “trigger” further unrest — a leaked memo shows. The document, circulating among forces across England and Wales, framed restraint as a tool to defuse tensions with minority communities rather than a standard enforcement choice, and it has renewed debate over whether policing treated citizens unequally based on race or politics.

The memo resurfaced after investigative reporting revealed guidance from the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) that discouraged arresting demonstrators for offenses such as assault or criminal damage when those actions were seen as potential flashpoints. The disclosure has reignited concerns about a so-called “two-tier policing” system and its effect on officer safety, public order, and trust in law enforcement.

What the leaked NPoCC memo said and why it mattered

The directive from the NPoCC framed arrests as possible “trigger points” that could escalate clashes, particularly when dealing with Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities. Investigative journalist Steven Edginton uncovered the memo, which advised forces to weigh the broader consequences of enforcement rather than treating every alleged offense with a standard arrest-and-charge approach.

Critics argue this guidance represented an explicit policy of selective enforcement: officers were to prioritize preventing unrest over pursuing suspected offenders in certain circumstances. Supporters of discretionary tactics say such decisions can be necessary to keep large protests peaceful, but the memo’s focus on race raised alarm about unequal treatment under the law.

How those choices played out on the streets in 2020

When Black Lives Matter demonstrations reached the U.K. in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, London saw some of the largest gatherings. Large crowds converged despite pandemic restrictions, and several demonstrations turned destructive. High-profile incidents included the toppling and defacement of the Winston Churchill statue in Parliament Square and numerous clashes between protesters and police.

In one of the most severe episodes, PC Nicky Vernon was injured after being thrown from her horse when fireworks and flares were aimed at mounted officers. She suffered a fractured spine and a punctured lung; yet, according to reporting tied to the memo, no one was charged over those injuries. That decision — viewed alongside aggressive action against other, politically different protests — fed perceptions of uneven enforcement.

Examples that highlight contrasting outcomes

• Several officers were hurt amid the 2020 protests, but the leaked guidance discouraged arrests to avoid stirring further unrest.
• By contrast, organizers of an August 2020 anti-lockdown demonstration faced tough penalties: Piers Corbyn was fined £10,000 for organizing and speaking at the rally.
• The disparate handling of protests—leniency for some, harsh penalties for others—helped crystallize public fears of biased policing based on political alignment or identity.

Recent policies and the charge of institutional bias

More recent documents have deepened the controversy. A Police Anti-Racism Commitment published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in March 2025 reportedly urges officers to consider race when shaping their response, explicitly rejecting a “color-blind” approach. That guidance states opposition to treating everyone identically under the banner of racial equality, recommending instead that policies reflect anti-racism principles.

To many critics, that language institutionalizes differential treatment: it encourages decisions that vary by group identity rather than by behavior. Supporters of the guidance argue it is meant to correct historic inequalities and make policing more responsive to marginalized communities. The public debate revolves around whether targeted interventions can be balanced with the principle of equal treatment under the law.

Why uneven enforcement erodes trust in policing

When people can reliably predict whether the police will act based on the political or racial makeup of a crowd, faith in impartial law enforcement suffers. Observers claim the pattern is predictable: harsh responses to unfavored groups for minor offenses, and surprising leniency for violent acts committed in support of causes that command institutional sympathy.

• Uneven enforcement undermines cooperation between communities and police.
• Perceived double standards reduce the legitimacy of legal institutions.
• Officer safety can be compromised when tactical restraint is favored for political reasons rather than operational necessity.

Steps that would aim to rebuild fairness and confidence

Restoring public trust will require clearer, transparent policies that explain when discretion is appropriate and ensure consistency across incidents. Possible measures include:

• Publishing operational criteria for arrests and dispersals during protests.
• Independent review of enforcement decisions tied to large demonstrations.
• Training that balances cultural awareness with commitment to equal treatment under the law.
• Stronger accountability mechanisms for inconsistent application of rules.

For policing to regain public confidence, agencies must avoid policies that prioritize group identity over equal application of the law. That does not mean ignoring the legitimate needs of minority communities, but it does require a single, transparent standard that applies to everyone.

Hugo Timms is a staff writer at spiked.

You might also like:

• Two-tier policing is real: Henry Nowak documents enforcement disparities
• Henry Nowak mistreatment: new details reveal merciless abuse
• Police Transform into Controversial Enforcers for Trans Activists: A Deep Dive into the Shift
• Graham Linehan arrest shows UK needs First Amendment-style free speech protections
• Maccabi Tel Aviv ban justified by police fake claims

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.