Policing is messy. It depends on humanity. It is fallible. And anyone who’s ever worn the uniform knows that the fault line running through every shift, every decision, every “why did they do that?” moment is the same: the human beings doing the job. I should know, I was once one of them. Unlike other jobs, operational policing isn’t a seminar or a podcast debate. It’s sudden, volatile, confusing, and sometimes terrifying. Life-and-death decisions are made in seconds, not after a latte and a quick scroll through the comments section. Do cops always get it right? Of course not. They’re human, and humans are a cocktail of instinct, fear, training, and fallibility.
What kept me going at the time – through the assaults, the chaos, and nights when the world felt like it was fraying at the edges – was simple. Fairness, rigour, and the stubborn belief that my job was to protect the public. When others ran from danger, we ran towards it. Not because we were heroes, but because that’s what the oath demanded. So, when I hear politicians peddling the cheap, corrosive slogan of “two-tier policing,” I know one thing for certain… If I were still serving, I’m not sure I could stomach working under that manufactured stain of a slogan like “two-tier policing”.
Discretion isn’t bias – it’s humanity
Wanting to be treated justly by the police isn’t outlandish. A desire for fairness is the bedrock of policing by consent. However, fairness isn’t a rigid, mechanical thing, and it never has been. Back in the early 1980s when I joined, we called it discretion. The law was strict; the people applying it were not. Two identical offences could lead to different outcomes – a quiet word for one, an arrest for another – because context matters. Circumstances matter. Humanity matters.
If you were on the receiving end of the harsher option, you’d probably cry “unfair”, and I wouldn’t blame you. However, that does not mean the system was corrupt, it just means it was human. Then, in 1998, came the Human Rights Act, which did not weaken policing but strengthened it by requiring proportionality and the least intrusive means of achieving a legitimate aim. Twisting that into the conspiracy of “two-tier policing” is not only dishonest, but an attack on the very principles that keep policing accountable. Society changes and the law along with it. When I joined the police, gay men could still be arrested and stripped of their humanity under archaic laws. Today, we celebrate same-sex marriage. That’s not “wokeness”, this is called progress. Policing has evolved too. Training now recognises that some communities have been historically vilified, meaning officers must combine legal knowledge with compassion
The hijacking of Henry Nowak’s death
The pretence that treating people with dignity is some sinister plot is laughable; or, at least, it would be, were it not so damaging. Strict, robotic “equality” of this slogan (i.e. treating every incident identically regardless of context) is a fantasy. Real fairness requires judgement and viewing others with humanity. Now we come to the tragedy that opportunists have seized upon to justify “two-tier policing”, the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who was murdered in Southampton in December 2025.
Henry’s death has been grotesquely weaponised to “prove” the value of “two-tier policing”. Worse still, the actions of the attending officers have been twisted into a narrative that white people are routinely disadvantaged because of diversity training, training that exists to help officers better understand the communities they serve.
Let’s anchor ourselves in what is known and readers can verify this with reputable sources:
- Henry’s father made a clear, dignified plea. This was murder, not a racialised incident.
- The real offender’s brother falsely claimed Henry was the suspect, throwing the scene into confusion.
- Henry’s injuries were not immediately obvious.
- The judge, after reviewing all evidence, concluded:
- Officers were making “quick-time operational decisions” in a volatile situation.
- The Criminal Justice System recognises that “handcuffed suspects can feign injury”.
- There was no evidence of unlawful police conduct.
- The pathologist later stated Henry’s life was beyond saving before officers arrived.
Could the officers have done things differently? Yes. Would it have changed the outcome? No. There is one person responsible for Henry’s death: the murderer.
The slogan that poisons the well
“Two-tier policing” is not a diagnosis. It is a catchy slogan engineered for division, distraction, and deception. It is designed to make you angry at the wrong people and turn a complex, human profession into a caricature. It is designed to insidiously erode trust in the very institution that relies on public confidence to function. If you fall for it, if you let those who peddle this narrative earn your vote, then you are, intentionally or not, helping drive a wedge between the public and a police service that (despite its flaws) still shoulders the burden others instinctively drop. We have a police service that deserves scrutiny, yes. But it also deserves respect, because policing by consent collapses the moment we stop believing in it; and that, more than any slogan, is what should keep us awake at night.
Bylines Network Gazette is out!
The latest Bylines Network Gazette is out now. Become a Friend of Bylines Network or upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, and you will get access to a vital collection of citizen articles and stories.
Journalism by the people, for the people.
