Britain’s emerging police state
In today’s Britain, people can be arrested for a social media post – the new world of thought crimes represents a chilling reality that raises critical questions about free speech, digital policing and the politicisation of law enforcement.
Charles Malet is a former police detective who resigned over refusing to participate in covid law enforcement. Now, he is the founder of Unbound Today, a campaign to seek truth and restore freedom, and a regular contributor to the UK Column.
He joined Dan Astin-Gregory to share his first-hand insights into how policing is being shaped by political agendas, digital surveillance and media narratives.
The two men discuss the alarming rise of social media policing, the erosion of digital rights and what it will take to rebuild a positive vision for law enforcement that focuses on real crime and community safety. “This is a powerful conversation about reform, responsibility and the future of policing in Britain,” Astin-Gregory says.
There is a list of chapters and timestamps included in the description below the video on YouTube. If the video above is removed from YouTube, you can watch it on Rumble HERE or Odysee HERE.
Table of Contents
The Rise of Political Policing in a Digital Age
The concept of thought crimes and pre-crimes is becoming a reality. In the UK, people can be arrested for their online activities, such as sending a tweet. Being arrested for a tweet is not new but rather the culmination of a long process that has been building over the years.
When people can be “locked up” for a tweet, “we then [are] getting into the element of thought crime and pre-crimes. Whether it is described as political policing or two-tier policing, [ ] it is all part of an enormous corruption,” Charles Malet said.
The rise of political policing and the enforcement of online safety bills pose a significant risk to people’s ability to speak freely online. It has not happened by accident but rather is the result of a long-term trend in legislation and state control.
As an ex-police detective, Malet has distinct views on the state of policing and the history of legislation that has led to the current situation of policing “thought crimes.”
The Public Order Act 1986 laid the foundations for the criminalisation of certain online activities, including harassment, and the concept of intent is crucial in determining whether someone can be arrested for a tweet. The legislation created a situation where someone can be considered a victim of a crime, regardless of whether intent has been discerned or is even necessary for the commissioning of the offence.
The concept of intent is crucial in determining whether someone can be arrested for a tweet but the legislation has created a situation where people can be arrested for sending a message to no one in particular.
Related: Public Order Act 1986, Law Teacher, 7 June 2019
“This goes much further because this concerns the way in which the state views those people that fund it and empower it. i.e. us, but also the way in which we have come to view each other,” Malet said.
The way people view each other has changed due to the introduction of words like “harassment,” “alarm” and “distress” into legislation, which can be used to police one’s environment and lead to self-censorship. This shift in perspective has resulted in people being cautious about expressing their thoughts, as they are unsure how others might react, and the reaction is what counts, rather than the intent or recklessness behind the action.
The legislation has also introduced terms like “nuisance,” which can be used to restrict freedom of expression and create a culture of self-censorship, where people are reluctant to express their thoughts for fear of being perceived as causing offence.
The focus on perceived harm rather than intent has led to a situation where people can be accused of committing a crime even if they did not intend to cause harm, which is the wrong approach. This inversion of priorities has been developing since 1986 and has gradually become more ingrained in people’s consciousness, contributing to a society where many, especially younger generations, consider it necessary to police their thoughts and expressions.
The emphasis on avoiding offence has led to campaigns promoting censorship, particularly in the workplace, where people are encouraged to avoid expressing certain thoughts or opinions to avoid causing offence.
The ultimate effect of this shift is to condition people against thinking about or expressing certain ideas, as they are unsure how others might react. “Critically It’s the reaction that counts,” Malet said, and this has a profound impact on freedom of expression and the way people interact with each other.
Understanding Intent and Harm in Legislation
“Causing harm should be a matter of either intent or recklessness, I would say, as far as the law is concerned,” Malet said. “But if you perceive that harm has been caused when I didn’t intend it, then for that to be levelled as a crime that I’ve committed is entirely the wrong place to be … Yet … that is exactly where we are. And it’s bananas.”
Austin-Gregory raised the concept of cultural subjectivity which he had been discussing with Zuby after a previous podcast. It drives a wedge in society, where what one person finds offensive, another person might find humorous, making it difficult to quantify harm. The cultural sensitivity and victimhood embedded into today’s society means that people can feel offended by something but this is entirely subjective and it’s challenging to determine intent and harm.
Citing the example of South Park cartoon characters such as Eric Cartman saying “I hate you,” Austin-Gregory said, “How do you start to quantify harm when it comes to something that is deeply subjective; what is offensive to one person is a joke to another.”
Determining intent, whether physical or mental, is a subjective matter particular to each person, making it extremely tricky to determine harm or wrongdoing, Malet said. The police process of investigating allegations and determining intent is also challenging, as once an accusation is made, the accused becomes a suspect, regardless of the outcome.
Determining a person’s intentions during a police interview can be exceptionally difficult, even if they provide an account of events, as people often don’t have a clear recollection of what happened, especially when under the influence of adrenaline or other factors.
Witness statements given to police often don’t match, even when cross-referenced with other witness statements or CCTV footage, highlighting the unreliability of human recollection. And the level of detail in witness statements has decreased over the years, particularly since the advent of mobile phones, which has reduced the need for people to think critically and remember information.
The Collapse of Critical Thinking in Society
The collapse of critical thinking is a significant factor in the acceptance of thought crimes and non-crime hate incidents, which has contributed to a broader societal collapse. Part of the broader collapse of law and order, society and the family unit is the ability of people to manage their own existence and have a grip on what’s going on around them.
Police interactions are recorded in various ways, and these records can be used to keep track of an individual’s behaviour and tendencies, potentially influencing future investigations and even securing convictions.
The recording of non-crime hate incidents or other similar events can impact how police view a person and run an investigation, introducing bias into the system.
The hierarchy in policing is geared towards political appointments above a certain rank, “let’s say superintendent,” leading to a flow of political influence downhill and affecting the traditional command and control function. This can result in police acting on political expedience rather than their core job and so creating an environment where thought crimes and pre-crime are considered.
“Political bias [ ] is something that’s become more and more of a problem in policing in the 21st century,” Malet said.
The policing of certain issues, such as non-crime hate incidents, is an overreach and something that should be addressed at the family and community level before involving law enforcement. The failure of police to draw a line and say they are not dealing with certain issues, such as someone saying something stupid, contributes to the problem.
The concept of thought crimes and pre-crime is reminiscent of the themes in George Orwell’s 1984, where society is broken down, and children do not need their parents anymore.
The breakdown of society and the inability of people to relate to each other and take care of each other contribute to the need for policing in areas that should be addressed at a community level.
The Impact of Social Media on Modern Policing
The digital world has become a place where people can freely engage in hateful conversations and attacks without anyone stepping in to intervene, unlike in the physical realm where there are often peacemakers or authorities to resolve conflicts. In the physical world, if there’s an altercation in a pub, for example, the landlord or other patrons might intervene, and if necessary, the police might be called, but in the digital space, this kind of intervention rarely happens.
The lack of adult supervision and self-policing in the digital realm has led to a situation where the police are now taking on a paternal role, imposing their authority and creating “thought crimes.”
Astin-Gregory and Malet discussed the digital space as a relatively new phenomenon which people haven’t yet learned how to use responsibly, including the younger generation that has grown up with it. “There is a generation of people who have grown up with it all the time and I would say they absolutely haven’t got used to it or know how to use it,” Malet said.
The inability to handle digital interactions has led to a situation where people are now being held accountable for their online behaviour, and this has created a culture of “thought police.”
The digital world has become a place where people can engage in highly polarised and tribalised discussions, often without any rational or peaceful resolution. The lack of self-policing and adult supervision in the digital realm has created a power vacuum that the police are now filling, which is not a desirable situation.
The digital space is not just a platform for harmless interactions, but it can also be a place where bullying and harassment occur, and this is a reflection of society’s inability to handle digital interactions responsibly.
Online interactions, such as those on social media, can have a lasting impact, much like a “drunken haymaker” that continues to affect people long after the initial incident.
Social media platforms, like Twitter, can be compared to a gigantic pub where people shout out their thoughts to a large audience, rather than having a quiet conversation with one person. This can lead to a situation where many people hear or read something that was not intended for them and can cause offence or conflict. However, unlike a physical pub, where others may step in to moderate a conversation that is getting out of hand, social media lacks this kind of intervention and responsibility. Not only can people not step in but “people [don’t] have the self-discipline to step out” of an online conflict Malet said.
The lack of self-discipline and intervention on social media can lead to a “bizarre mismatch” where people can easily become involved in conflicts and escalate them. Attempts to resolve conflicts on social media through respectful and reconciliatory means often fail, as people tend to respond with anger and aggression.
The isolated nature of social media interactions, often taking place on mobile phones, can contribute to the escalation of conflicts and the lack of intervention.
The impact of social media on the way the criminal justice system operates has been significant. “For that bizarre sort of societal trend [the “bizarre mismatch” that’s seen on social media] to have had an impact on the way that the criminal justice system now operates is, it’s just, it’s hopeless and it’s thoughtless,” Malet said. The idea that criminal sanctions can result from something typed electronically to an audience that may or may not view it is farcical, yet it’s becoming a reality.
The concept of thought crimes is becoming a reality, with dedicated police units or people scouring the internet and social media platforms to find comments that can be deemed supposedly harmful or worthy of investigation. This generates a huge amount of work for the police, including starting a crime report, which involves considerable admin, letters being sent and keeping victims, witnesses and others informed. “This actually stops [police officers] from going out and doing their job,” Malet said.
Policing of “thought crimes” is absurd but it points to a more serious failing in the system which relates to the politicisation of command and control that Malet described earlier in the discussion.
Are We Witnessing Two-Tier Policing in the UK?
Astin-Gregory and Malet discussed “political policing” or “two-tier policing” with reference to the Southport murders and the subsequent riots across the United Kingdom, where accusations of two-tier policing were made.
We all mean slightly different things when we use terms such as “political policing.” But, Malet said, “whichever way you describe it, it’s just but one part of an enormous corruption. And a corruption in every respect. A corruption not just of the system but a corruption of the narrative, a corruption of the explanation of all of this … I mean corruption in every sense. Corruption absolutely at the corporate level, at the state level – corruption of the narrative, corruption of the system and corruption of the individual.”
The Government’s response to the riots in the wake of the Southport murders, including the arrest of over a thousand people, is a corruption of the system as it required the release of at least a thousand prisoners to make space in jails for the new arrests.
The politicisation of the police force leading to a two-tier system is beyond doubt, Malet said. Certain groups or people are treated differently than others, often based on whether their actions align with government policy or are deemed “progressive.” This resulted in people being imprisoned to make an example of them rather than for any actual harm caused. This political messaging is perpetuated by the “very willing and co-opted” corporate media and then by those working within the system who are digesting this information and believing it.
“Many a time was the phrase used that ‘people were being imprisoned in order to be made an example of’. And, really, what is the example other than the system is completely corrupted,” he said.
Adding. “It might look like two-tier or political policing to say you or I, but to those who are trapped within that system [and contaminated with political messaging] it looks like it is the only right and just thing to be doing.”
Malet witnessed the bias of the corrupt system and people within the system due to political messaging firsthand. The way police handle gatherings and protests can vary greatly depending on the theme or cause, he said, with some events (such as Pride Marches) being treated more leniently than others (such as anti-covid restrictions or anti-vaccine protests). “Because one theme or another is deemed as being ‘progressive’ and aligned with government policy that will absolutely directly affect the way in which it is policed,” he said.
This is only going to become worse, Malet warned, because the police force’s objectives are “receding into the dim distance” and it is unlikely that this trend will be corrected anytime soon.
The Historical Relationship Between Police and State
Historically, there was significant resistance to the establishment of a formalised police force, as seen in the 20+ attempts to pass the initial act in 1829. It’s interesting that the concerns about state overreach at that time have largely come to pass nearly 200 years later, Malet said.
Until recently, operational independence was a key factor in police business, with chief constables having control over their forces and making decisions on policing priorities. However, over time, priorities disseminated from the Home Office have come to dictate the way policing is done, with chief constables having less control.
An example of this shift to the police force following diktats from the Home Office is the campaign against violence against women and girls, which was particularly prominent after the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Metropolitan police officer.
“The day after the conviction went through the top force operational priority was violence against women and girls … The next thing we were told was that the police and crime commissioner had found a million quid [pounds sterling] sort of down the back of the sofa and that was to be spent on dealing with violence against women and girls,” Malet said. “There was absolutely no plan for it and no consideration as to how it might be done or whether it was even achievable.”
The issue of violence against women and girls mostly occurs in the home, making it difficult to address through surveillance or policing. It goes to show how much the government and media-driven narrative instantly affects police performance.
Recently, Yvette Cooper, the current Home Secretary, announced a plan to halve violence against women and girls. “What does that mean? Why halve it? Why not stop it all together?” Malet asked. The details of the plan are unclear and Malet questions why it is labelled as a police responsibility. The root cause of violence against women and girls in society is not being addressed, and instead, the focus is on policing and surveillance.
The cultural influences and the rise of technology have contributed to the destabilisation of society and the erosion of personal and social responsibility.
Astin-Gregory sees the erosion of personal and social responsibility together with the march of technology into all our lives as a worrying trend that may lead to greater centralisation of power. He believes the trend towards greater centralisation of power can only be bucked by resistance and reclaiming personal and societal responsibility.
The Emergence of the Covid-19 Police State
The covid pandemic was a turning point for many people, including Malet, who resigned from the police force as a result of his experiences during that time.
At the start, when he saw corporate media begin to publicise covid, Malet’s first impression was that it was being overhyped in the media and would be “roundly disregarded by everybody” as “here we go again, another sort of illness from the East.” When he spoke to people in 2020, he thought they would agree but he was wrong, “it had absolutely gripped people.”
Before the pandemic, Malet had a different perspective because not having owned a television for over 20 years he was largely immune to the propaganda and fear-mongering that was being spread through the media.
The process for Malet’s application to join the police force had only begun shortly before the covid “balloon went up in 2020.” “I wasn’t policing during that year,” he clarified.
Although he saw a few incidents on social media, he thought it was a few isolated incidents involving a few individuals. “I certainly never saw, at firsthand, anything here to make me think that that it was going to turn out badly,” he said. “It never occurred to me that this was still going to be a thing when I did actually join [the police] and start training.” But he was wrong again because “people were still completely nuts about it.”
In Malet’s opinion, 2021 was worse from the social pressure point of view than 2020. 2021 was when the mass vaccination programme really got underway. As well as the testing rules and the injection programme being continuously expanded, “people were forced into having to declare whether or not they had had a jab.”
People who had not received an injection were required to either remain at home for a specified period or take a supervised test.
“This was for somebody who had trained in order to be able to police the public and to be able to use your discernment and discretion in order to manage, frankly, any incident that came your way. But when it came to declaring yourself healthy, okay obviously the whole thing’s a scam anyway, but by virtue of the fact that you hadn’t had a jab you would be deemed to be untrustworthy and you had to take a supervised test, or you just sat it out and worked at home,” Malet said.
This requirement was part of a broader trend of distinguishing between people who had and hadn’t taken an injection, a distinction that many people did not see as a problem. “The brainwashing was so utterly complete,” Malet said. Many people were unable to consider alternative perspectives or engage in considered debate. “It became really sort of disturbing and dystopian,” he said, with people universally going along with the measures and not considering the possibility that others might not comply.
In the early days of the jab rollout, police were prioritised for vaccination. But at that time there was no social pressure on police officers to be injected but that later changed. “By the end of the year, you were very much considered to be Public Enemy if you were known not to have taken [the covid vaccine], even though those views were not actually held earlier on in 2021,” Malet said.
Adding, “It’s very interesting how that how that shifted. And I’m afraid that’s part of the bigger overall picture which is that police just became so utterly skewed towards absolute loathing of people who had not taken this vaccine.”
“For me,” he said, “the writing was on the wall because the intrusions and invasions into the private lives of people had become absolutely intolerable.”
We all observed similar problems in countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Europe, where police were involved in enforcing public health measures.
“That was just horrific,” Malet said. “Horrific that police would get involved in such a thing in the first place when we were told it was an issue concerning Public Health that does not fall within the remit of police.”
It was stated clearly in 2020 that police chiefs had operational independence to decide whether to enforce restrictions and if so how, but every constabulary in the UK enforced them in a heavy-handed manner, Malet noted. “Every single constabulary in the UK did police [the covid restrictions and] in exactly the same way … How would you be able to do that if you’re constantly winging about lack of resources personnel and money? It doesn’t make any sense.”
The Final Straw: Vaccine Passports
The vaccine passport scheme, a statutory instrument, was a significant point of contention for Malet, as it allowed for the restriction of entry to certain venues based on vaccination status.
The statutory instrument was created through secondary legislation, which can be passed without parliamentary approval, and which Malet sees as a disturbing example of the ease with which political dictates can be enforced.
The vaccine passport scheme categorised people into four groups: those who had taken the injection, those with medical exemptions, those who had taken a placebo as part of a medical trial and those who had declined the vaccine.
The first three groups were eligible for a vaccine passport. However, the fourth group, those who had declined the vaccine, were excluded from entering certain premises despite being in the same position as the second and third groups who had not actually received the vaccine.
The exemptions to the scheme, which included the staff at venues, were absurd, as, if you subscribe to the narrative, they could potentially spread illness to others while being exempt from the restrictions. The entire scheme was ridiculous and an example of the brainwashing of the population, with many people unable to see the concerns and absurdities of the situation.
The police were going to be tasked with enforcing this vaccine passport scheme. Malet wrote a letter to his chief constable expressing his concerns and said that it was “nothing short of apartheid.” The chief constable reacted badly to the apartheid remark, “they all reacted very badly to that part because had they absolutely no idea what I was talking about,” Malet said. “The brainwashing thing was just so utterly complete that they couldn’t they could not even see what I was talking about.”
What the police were going to do was clearly being dictated by the Government, which is entirely inappropriate. Also what was entirely inappropriate, was that the police were going to do it. Malet asked his chief constable where was the line in the sand for the police to tell the Government, “No, we’re not going to do that?”
“The answer was, ‘There is no line, whatever we are asked to do we will do’,” Malet said.
The realisation that there was no line in the sand led to a consideration of whether Malet staying in the police could lead to change. He reasoned that change from within the police force was not possible due to a lack of willingness of others to understand the problem.
Conversations with a superintendent and a detective chief inspector showed that they were willing to listen, but ultimately couldn’t grasp the situation, and like many people, were too invested in their careers to take action.
Malet’s motivation for joining the police was to have a positive impact on society, particularly in dealing with serious crimes like drug trafficking and human trafficking, but this vision was not realised due to the police being “skewed and corrupted.”
He believes many police officers were genuinely gripped by the sense that they were making a difference during the pandemic, which has led to cognitive dissonance and a lack of awareness about the damage inflicted on society. Police officers are not generally aware of the enormous damage they took part in inflicting on society, and instead, they are more likely to be disenchanted with the way their organisations are managed.
Can the Police be Reformed?
To regain the public’s trust, reform within the police is unlikely to come from the state or hierarchy, but rather from people in the police force who decide to change the culture from within.
Malet believes the only way to change the performance of the police is for people in their particular roles to decide to change the culture, as there are more constables and sergeants who can effect change than there are decision-makers.
“It is the ethos and the culture within the smaller teams that affect the way in which police forces actually work. And of course, those are the parts that deal that interact with the public,” Malet said.
It’s crucial for police to respect the public sincerely to gain their respect. Treating people with respect, regardless of their past convictions or arrests, can lead to better outcomes, whereas approaching them with a negative attitude can result in uncooperative behaviour. Policing has gone wrong for various reasons, but it’s possible to improve the situation by changing the behaviour of police officers who interact with the public.
“I think it is absolutely possible to pull us up out of this sort of mire. But that’s not going to come from a Home Office reform programme. It absolutely won’t. The political pressure and the media pressure on the people who are at sort of Chief Constable Rank and immediately below, I don’t see that as changing. But what can absolutely change is the behaviour of the people who interact with the public,” Malet said.
The public also plays a role in shaping police behaviour by treating them with respect and not creating unnecessary barriers or conflicts.
Re-engineering and changing the ways policing is done should happen, Malet said, with smaller police stations and more visible officers on foot, to improve community relationships and trust. The current policing system has been overcomplicated in the name of efficiency but research suggests that a simpler approach with a physical police presence in certain areas can be effective.
“Those people that are doing that [physical police presence] need to be the right people to do it and they need to be considering that they actually want to work for the public rather than just standing there and telling the public what to do,” he said. He noted that there are some police officers, particularly the younger officers, who see policing “as a means by which they get to simply boss people around; that absolutely has to change.”
“You can spend far less money and achieve far more by doing things simply,” he said.
But “this needs to be tackled at the lowest levels, at the human level rather than at the sort of strategic and political level because those guys do not have a clue and they are the corruptors.”
