Nearly a week of threats did not have the desired effect on Sir Keir Starmer, who on Monday announced a policy shift to set up a “standing army” to quell riots wherever they occur.
Normally a confident and well-spoken veteran lawyer, the prime minister seemed at times unsure of his words and lacked his usual energy as he spoke to reporters after leaving a government crisis meeting on Monday.
With a certain amount of bunker mentality appearing in his Downing Street office (the Home Secretary’s husband complained on national television this morning that he had not seen his wife for a week), Sir Keir spoke of agreed next steps: “Firstly, we will set up a standing army of specialist officers… [unintelligible]… So that means we have enough officers in the places we need them to deal with this issue.”
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister seemed sufficiently satisfied with the recording that he released it through official channels a few hours later.
This is not protest, this is pure violence.
We will have a standing army of civil servants.
We will strengthen criminal justice.
We enforce criminal laws both online and offline.
We will not tolerate attacks on mosques or Muslim communities. pic.twitter.com/C1SmjJjo4R
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) August 5, 2024
“Standing army” has a special meaning, of course, referring to a permanent, professional military paid for by the state. This may be the status quo for most nation-states in the 21st century, but in Britain until the early modern period, maintaining a full-time Army was considered prohibitively expensive. Only the really vital elements of national defence, the fighting navy and artillery establishment, were continually paid for, because they would take too long to reorganise in the event of an unexpected war.
Britain’s first standing army was Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army, used to win the Civil War and then implement a period of direct military rule by major generals, and to weaken the enemies of the state, whom Cromwell viewed as dangerous conspirators after the attempted rebellion.
While the nation waited for days to learn details of the mass stabbing of young children a week ago, creating an information deficit that many said contributed to the frenzied atmosphere that led to the protests, Sir Keir made clear today that he would not wait to learn the identities of those charged in the riots. “I have asked for consideration to be given as soon as possible to the names and identities of those who will be involved in this process and who will feel the full force of the law,” he said.
Police release names of child victims killed in mass stabbing attackhttps://t.co/KGI7tULA2N
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) July 30, 2024
Sir Keir, who stutters, was apparently not the only one upset at the COBRA meeting at the Cabinet Office on Monday: Sir Mark Rowley, the UK’s Chief Police Commissioner, was also at the table and was clearly upset by what happened during the meeting, yelling at a journalist as he left the building, snatching the microphone from the man’s hand and throwing it to the ground.
The top cop may have felt insulted by the journalist in question, who asked: “Are you going to end the dual police system?” This refers to a growing number of observers asking why there seems to be such a stark difference in police response in different areas when police are on the streets. But the government does not seem to think this is an issue worth addressing. When asked on television on Monday morning, the Home Secretary avoided the question, and the Prime Minister also avoided answering at his “standing army” press conference.
In response to a question from the BBC, he said: “There is no double policing. There is policing without fear or favouritism. That’s exactly how it should be and that’s what I expect and demand. So it’s not an issue. This is not a protest. This is violence.”
Out of control: London police chief snatches microphone from journalist’s hand after question about dual policinghttps://t.co/9rYT0pNk2p
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) August 5, 2024
