Leaders or followers?

Many years ago, I saw a cartoon in a magazine, and it is stuck in my thoughts now. It showed a scene from the French Revolution with a mob rampaging through the streets of Paris, smashing windows, setting buildings alight, and looting. Walking behind them was a smartly dressed man, looking downcast.

An onlooker approached him and said: “You sir, look like an educated man. Why do you follow the mob?” The man replied: “I have no choice. I am their leader.” We seem to be in those circumstances today.

Unduly lenient

Government policy is, quite rightly in my view, to reduce the numbers in prison by greater use of alternatives to incarceration whenever appropriate, and by shortening the length of time people spend inside by increased rehabilitation programmes. Earned progression. The evidence has been around for years that short prison sentences do no good in deterring reoffending and are instead harmful, whereas options to be served within the community have a far better chance of keeping people from future crimes. There have also been constructive and sensible discussions on the harm of locking up children, and numbers incarcerated have dropped sharply in recent times.

Decades of experience have shown that keeping people inside prison for longer and longer does not reduce offending levels and just damages the life chances of far too many. We have seemed to be travelling, perhaps reluctantly for a lot of people, in a positive direction and finally ended up with the 2026 Sentencing Act. 

That is fine until an appalling case hits the headlines and people who only care about getting their name in the news by appealing to public fears and prejudices come out of wherever they normally lurk and call for punitive measures. Sadly, even those who should know better join in, and everything gets slammed into reverse. Our leaders just give up, cave in, and add their voices to the calls for ‘tough’ action.

One such case is a double rape from Hampshire in which three young boys were convicted. Two boys raped a 14-year-old girl at knife point, then later on they committed another rape and this time a third boy was also involved. In both cases they filmed their actions. The boys were 14 at the time of the incident. It is hard to imagine how distressed and traumatised the victims were. Whilst this happened two years ago, both these young girls and their relatives are clearly and understandably still shocked.

The 1989 Criminal Justice Act created the “Unduly Lenient Sentence” scheme. This gives the right to victims of crime, their relatives and loved ones, and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), to approach the Attorney General with a request to review sentences given by the courts, and if that senior law officer agrees, he or she can send the matter to the Court of Appeal to review. 

It makes sense. Those directly harmed should have that right, as should the CPS as they would have all the facts. It is fair, as those convicted have the opportunity to appeal against conviction and against sentence. However, the procedure also gives random members of the public the chance to call for increased punishment, and therefore offers politicians the opportunity to put their spoke in to generate headlines.

The judge here had listened to the victims’ statements and then considered reports on the three perpetrators. One had ADHD and suffered longstanding anxiety issues. The second had an IQ level in the bottom 1 per cent of his contemporaries. The third had a cognitive disorder. All had been influenced by the type of videos seen on social media.

The judge, Nicholas Rowland, decided not to send them to a Young Offender Institution, but instead to give two of them a three-year youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance. The third, who is still only 14, got an 18-month rehabilitation order. The Judge said he did not want to “criminalise these boys” as it would not bring any form of rehabilitation but would most likely damage them for life.

The families of the victims were not satisfied, and in fact were understandably angry. One of the victims described the sentence as being like a “rock in the face”. The Attorney General, in accordance with the Unduly Lenient rules, considered the case and decided to refer the sentences to the Court of Appeal. All of that is the right way for things to be done. But we also had the Press and social media jumping in with their opinions, ignoring the reasons given by Judge Rowland for taking the action he took. And so, of course, did MPs seeking headlines. I am sorry to say, one of those MPs was the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who said the offences were “appalling” and it was “right” that the sentences should be reviewed. Another Cabinet Minister, Darren Jones, said the Attorney General should conduct his review urgently for the sake of other women and girls.

All the people who should have the right to ask for this to be reconsidered know their choices. The CPS and the victims or families of victims can refer the case to the Attorney General to decide if it should go to the Court of Appeal for review. The Attorney General could decide to look at it without their input. Press and social media can say what they like, that is what they do, but they really should make no difference as the process proceeds. But no one can pretend that an intervention by the Prime Minister will not have an effect. Yet he was not in court and is just reacting to what he has read and heard. Following the mob, because he is their leader.

All this is very concerning as it is happening at the same time as we, as a country, are supposed to be looking at reducing the criminalisation of youths and diverting them into community supervision and programmes, in just the way that Judge Rowland did in this case and for the very reasons he did it. But as soon as there is a bump in the road, all of those fine and sensible intentions fly straight out of the window. The Attorney General has a job to do but really does not need the unhelpful input of others, and they should stay away. This could influence other judges to take repressive action, rather than to give young people with mental health struggles a chance to make amends.

I have daughters and indeed granddaughters. I know how angry I would be if anything appalling happened to them. I may certainly ask for a review. But if I did, I would not expect anyone else to interfere in the process which must surely remain above political influence.

A family’s dignity, the disgraceful actions of others

A second shocking case has led to claims that the police discriminate against White British citizens. It was the tragic stabbing of Henry Nowak, an 18-year-old student from Southampton who had been out for a couple of drinks with his mates on the evening of 3 December 2025. He came across a stranger, a 23-year-old Sikh, and for some reason they had an argument, which led to the older man using what has been described as a ceremonial dagger to stab Henry.

The brother of the attacker called the police and told them that Henry had made a racist comment and attacked the 23-year-old, and officers attended. It was later established that this claim was totally false. Henry had not attacked anyone. The police arrived, and, whilst Henry repeated seven times he had been stabbed, said they could not see evidence of that and handcuffed Henry, whose condition deteriorated quickly. An ambulance came, and meanwhile officers tried to give Henry CPR, but he passed away. Police bodycam footage has been released and Henry’s plea that he had been stabbed can be clearly heard, as can an officer saying that he had not.

It is most distressing to watch a man who was dying being made to sit up and have handcuffs put on to him when he was saying he could not breathe. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating the police actions on the night, and one of the four officers who attended the scene has already quit the force. The attacker was found guilty of murder and given a life sentence with a minimum 21 years.

The public conclusions

Once the trial was over and the guilty party was sentenced, Henry Nowak’s family made a most dignified statement. They pleaded with people not to react to the incident and make it about race. However, of course, people did. One high-profile politician said people should react with “pure, cold, rage” and has since failed to condemn mob violence against the police in Southampton instigated, once again, by social media. He, and others, have said the case demonstrates institutional anti-White prejudice by the police. 

Two names of officers said to be present at the time appeared on social media with their photos and personal details, saying they were involved in the arrest. This led to the two facing death threats, and yet neither were there at the time. One, a woman, had left the police more than a year before the incident occurred. The pair had previously been nominated for a bravery award for their work in an unconnected incident, and it was from the publicity surrounding this that their names were found by Elon Musk’s AI system, Grok, which published them.

The claim has now been made that the police are institutionally racist against White British citizens, even though monitoring of stops and arrests demonstrates that this is far from the truth. But truth does not matter to some people, and too many others are willing to listen to their lies.

So here we have public figures seeking to gain advantage from making claims against the wishes of a grieving family, and well in advance of the outcome of the investigation into a case which was seemingly terribly badly handled by police officers at the time. There have even been ridiculous comparisons with the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence, following which the landmark Macpherson report identified that institutional racism was rife in the Metropolitan Police. However, for any faults in the Nowak case, the truth was quickly seen and the perpetrator identified and arrested, even though some at the time were seeking to cover up for him by blaming Henry for starting the fight. The killer has now been convicted. In the Lawrence case, police failures meant that it took 29 years before anyone was found guilty of his murder, and even then, it was just two of the group involved in the attack. There is no valid comparison at all.

Unfortunately, and disappointingly, the leader of the official Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, has also pitched in. She has used the Nowak tragedy as a reason to call for the scrapping of the key changes made following the Macpherson report, and demanded that the system of Stop and Search that was blatantly used to pick on young Black men be reinstated as was. Indeed, she says it should be tripled. She says it would cut knife crime, but evidence demonstrated that it did no such thing – it just criminalised youths. The police can, of course, search those who they reasonably suspect of carrying concealed weapons.

Ms Badenoch has also called for the scrapping the Public Sector Equality Duty, which was introduced in 2010, and for which she was responsible as Equalities Minister from 2022 to 2024 under the last government. She did not seem to have worried about it at the time. This duty is in place to prevent anyone suffering from discrimination by public authorities, including those with disabilities, women, the elderly, and more. All this before the IOPC has looked at what actually went wrong on the night that Henry died, but getting the type of headline she clearly craves. Very disappointing.

Do not return to The Troubles

These types of statements are the sort of reason people turn out and riot. It gives justification to bigots and confuses others. There was recently a vicious knife attack in Belfast when 40-year-old Stephen Ogilvie was assaulted and stabbed with no apparent motive. The alleged attacker had been granted asylum in 2023. Following this, those identified as immigrants, including Black and minority residents as well as refugees from Ukraine and Gypsies, found their houses being set alight and their windows smashed, by mobs incited to believe that it is in the nature of illegal immigrants to carry out this type of assault and they should be driven out. 

There is no point in politicians shaking their heads and being distressed by seeing these violent outbursts, if their words are being used to justify the actions of a hateful minority. They have to stand up and oppose them. The actions of one person do not typify all immigrants, and it is absurd and dangerous to suggest it does. A man is in prison awaiting trial.

I will give credit to the main political parties in Northern Ireland, who have all come out and said that this is wrong. The rioting mob have torched cars in the streets which belong to immigrants, whether they are legal or awaiting adjudication, and by doing that have burnt down the homes of residents whose families have lived in the country for generations. One protestor managed himself get set alight, presumably not as a willing sacrifice for his warped cause. He is recovering. Mr Ogilvie survived but with life-changing injuries, and his family have stressed that they oppose this type of reaction. Even a breakaway group from the former IRA have said they will defend those immigrant families under attack. 

Yet there are well-known names from the USA saying this is a justified reaction, and they are using their influence, or effluence, on social media to encourage hate. There are also the usual leaders of mobs, one of whom is in Moscow at present and is such a British patriot that he says he supports that country’s way of life above ours, who is justifying and thereby encouraging more attacks. There must be money in this type of work. 

All credit to Scotland, as these same online voices inspired the organisation of what can only be described as a hate rally in Glasgow, but the common sense of the Scots meant that only three people turned up.

Northern Ireland suffered from sectarian violence for decades and does not need more now. The streets from which immigrants are being expelled are the same ones from which Protestant gangs drove Catholics, in living memory.  The accused man is in custody and will go through the proper legal process. Let no one seek to exploit tragedy, injury, and suffering for personal or political gain. That might be a pointless hope, but perhaps in Northern Ireland all politicians from serious parties will continue showing a firm lead. Scotland has resisted the calls for violent reactions. Let England follow.

Lines in the sand

So here are three recent incidents where some politicians have lacked the courage to say and do the right thing. I fear that politicians do not have the guts to get out into the public arena and make the case for what is right. They all too often want to say the thing they think may be popular at the time, regardless of the consequences. 

In Belfast, the actions of one person should not bring judgement on hundreds of others who had nothing to do with it, and in a country where sectarian bitterness caused so much tragedy in the recent past, wise heads should rein in these outbursts of violence. Perhaps then hundreds of particularly young people will stay out of prison for rioting, because that is certainly where many will end up heading.

Here are the lessons. The case against over-criminalising young people is strong, but whenever there is a problem such as in the awful rape cases, it is replaced by bleating from those who really should know better. The process to review sentences is in place, and the outcome should be awaited.

In the Henry Nowak matter, the police reacted to a report from the family of the aggressor that was intended to deceive them. Their initial performance appears from the bodycam to have been inadequate but they quickly realised that, and the killer is in jail. The IOPC will judge them, and we should await their decision. In Northern Ireland, the police reacted and arrested the alleged attacker very quickly.

A lot of people who should know better have already made their comments. A lot of people who do not wish to know better because it suits their cause have also made noises. In a strange way, I understand that latter group because they are staying true to their misguided beliefs, as they make a living from hatred. Those who are just trying to please the public by making populist claims in the hope of harvesting a few votes should be ashamed.

Were it my daughter or granddaughter who was a victim of the rapes, I would I am sure be calling for a longer sentence, but that would not make my wish the right decision, just a natural reaction. However, were it my grandson who was murdered, or my brother stabbed as in Belfast, I doubt I would have had the strength, courage, and decency of Henry Nowak’s family and that of the Northern Irish stabbing victim.

Meanwhile our leaders or would-be leaders should get to the front of the mob and steer them away from violence. Then they would be truly worthy of the job. Real leaders take the tough decisions for the right reasons. They do not just try and curry favour grubbing in the mud for a few votes. 

As for those who make money from social media by encouraging gullible followers to throw bricks at the police knowing they will end up imprisoned, stay away from here. You add nothing to our lives. One day, the tide will turn and you will be washed away for good, like lines in the sand leaving nothing behind.