Turns to Keir Starmer and says there have been “infringements on free speech” in the UK
We must recall that the USA also allows the carrying of guns as part of its freedoms. By the same logic, if we are talking about South-port, then it is likely that rioting could have been avoided had more information been forthcoming. None of this would have affected the courtroom case that followed. The inciting of violence—whether through speech or by backing up speech with violence—is not legal. However, there should be an inquiry to uncover whether there was a deliberate lack of transparency from the police, government (whether central or local), or other authorities involved.
When civil unrest occurs, one of the key questions that must be asked is whether it was truly spontaneous or if it was a result of a failure in communication. Public trust in law enforcement and the legal system depends on transparency. If people feel they are being kept in the dark, speculation and misinformation can spread quickly, fueling tensions that might otherwise have been contained. While it is not always possible for authorities to release every detail of an ongoing investigation, there is a balance to be struck between protecting due process and ensuring the public remains informed enough to prevent unnecessary panic or violence.
The right to bear arms is often brought up in discussions about public unrest, but it is important to remember that legal gun ownership does not equate to a free-for-all during protests or riots. Laws still govern how and when firearms can be used, and any escalation of violence—regardless of which side it comes from—should be subject to scrutiny. The issue is not just about individual rights but about public safety as a whole. If violence erupts, it is essential to ask whether it was truly unavoidable or whether mismanagement by officials played a role.
An independent inquiry could shed light on whether the authorities acted appropriately or if their actions—or lack of action—contributed to the unrest. Was information withheld intentionally? Was there a failure to communicate key facts that could have reassured the public? And if so, was this done out of negligence, fear of backlash, or something more concerning? These are critical questions that should be answered not just for accountability, but also to prevent similar situations in the future.
Regardless of political stance, it is in everyone’s best interest to ensure that public order is maintained through fairness and transparency. Freedom of speech and the right to protest are fundamental, but so is ensuring that speech does not cross the line into incitement. Equally, the role of law enforcement should be to de-escalate rather than exacerbate tensions. If mistakes were made, acknowledging them is not about assigning blame for the sake of punishment but about learning from the situation to build a more just and stable society.Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!