South Yorkshire Police and other forces were 'unprepared' for summer riots, MP report finds
The Home Affairs Committee (HAC) published a new report today on the police response to the disorder that broke out after the murder of three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport on July 29 last year.
It found there was no evidence of “two-tier policing” in officers’ handling of the levels of violence and criminality during the period, and branded the claims as “disgraceful”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdChair of the HAC Dame Karen Bradley said: “Police officers on the ground showed tremendous courage and fortitude in responding to scenes of deplorable violence.
“But some police forces could have better anticipated the risk of disorder and taken a more proactive and preventative approach.”
The report said that “in several cases it appears that police forces were unprepared for the level of violence and were initially unable to take a proactive approach to policing, leaving officers exposed to significant risk.
Regarding the incident in Rotherham, South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Lauren Poultney said in her evidence to the committee that “all of the intelligence we had suggested this was going to be a peaceful protest”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdInstead, the group protesting outside the Holiday Inn Express Hotel in Manvers on August 4 turned violent, and more than 60 officers, three police dogs and a police horse were injured.
The hotel, which was housing asylum seekers, was set alight, after thugs managed to break through police lines.


Police officers were forced to work 20-hour shifts with no food, water or toilet break, and the force had to call for help from West Yorkshire and the British Transport Police.
In the investigation that has since followed, at least 86 people have been charged and over 150 years’ worth of jail sentences handed down.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe MPs’ report found that “the targeted nature of the planned protests could itself be said
to be non-peaceful”.
It explained that “as one Sheffield City Councillor [Coun Minesh Parekh] wrote in reference to the violence in Rotherham, ‘peaceful protests do not target marginalised communities, do not seek to intimidate; do not encourage arson and attempted murder.”
The report added: “Given the background of recent disorder, we agree with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services that police forces should have better anticipated the risk of disorder in general.
“After disorder in Southport, police forces should not have taken it for granted that subsequent planned protests would remain peaceful.”
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdChief Constable Poultney told the committee: “Knowing what we know now, of course there are things we would do differently, but based on what we knew at the time, those that devised the command structure were confident it was at the right level.”
On the claims of “two-tier policing”, the MPs said: “Those participating in disorder were not policed more strongly because of their supposed political views but because they were throwing missiles, assaulting police officers and committing arson.


“It was disgraceful to see the police officers who bore the brunt of this violence being undermined by baseless claims of ‘two-tier policing’.”
Dame Karen said: “Organised disorder is rightly met with a robust response; any implied equivalence with planned non-violent protests is simply wrong.”
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIt was also highlighted that the criminal justice system has failed to keep pace with the social media age, which created an information vacuum that “allowed disinformation to flourish” in the wake of the Southport murders.
The report recognised the belief that speculation and misinformation that the suspect was an asylum seeker was a driver of disorder.
MPs said the Crown Prosecution Service and Merseyside Police were ultimately limited on what they could publish about the then unnamed suspect, Axel Rudakubana, by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prevents the publication of information that could prejudice criminal proceedings.
They welcomed a review into the law by the Law Commission, which published a consultation paper last month to consider “whether there should be contempt of court liability for those who risk prejudicing a criminal trial by releasing information in the interests of public safety or national security”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdDame Karen added: “It is a grim reality that bad actors sought to exploit the unspeakable tragedy that unfolded in Southport.
“The criminal justice system will need to ensure its approach to communication is fit for the social media age.”