via @JChimirie66677
“What happened last November in Birmingham was not a policing error. It was a moral failure – followed by a bureaucratic cover-up. West Midlands Police knew Jewish football fans were facing a credible threat of Islamist violence. They had the intelligence months in advance. They warned internally that Jews would be targeted. And when the moment came, instead of enforcing the law against those planning violence, they banned Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters from entering Villa Park. Jews were excluded “for their own safety” – the oldest lie in the book. The phrase every coward reaches for when he wants to dress discrimination up as compassion. When asked to justify the decision, senior officers did not defend it honestly. They rewrote it. Craig Guildford stood before Parliament and insisted the ban rested on sound intelligence. It did not. The force leaned on dubious claims about previous matches in Amsterdam – claims later disputed by Dutch police – and even admitted that one key assertion was backed by a single Google search. That is not intelligence. It is fabrication dressed up as due diligence. Mike O’Hara went further. He told MPs that Maccabi fans themselves posed a risk to “the local community”. Read that again. Jews facing organised threats of violence were reframed as the danger. Meanwhile, the assessed risk to Jewish fans was quietly downgraded, while the risk to “the community” was upgraded – after the decision to exclude them was already taking shape. The Home Affairs Select Committee saw through it. Dame Karen Bradley accused the force of “scraping for justification”. She was being polite. What the committee uncovered was a decision made first, then laundered through paperwork to make it look inevitable. And why was it deemed inevitable? Because the police chose not to confront Islamist threats on British streets. They knew local extremists were talking openly about violence. They knew some had armed themselves. They knew Jews would be hunted. Their response was not arrests, dispersal orders, surveillance, or force. It was surrender relabelled as safety. Kemi Badenoch was right to call this capitulation. When police treat threats as vetoes, they stop being a force of law and become managers of sectarian pressure. They cease to serve the public and start negotiating with mobs. The implications go far beyond football. If a hostile crowd can threaten violence and force the removal of Jews from public life, then citizenship is no longer equal. It becomes conditional – granted only to those whose presence does not anger the loudest faction in the street. The Board of Deputies of British Jews understands this perfectly. Their demand for the Chief Constable to step aside is not about vengeance. It’s about trust. Policing depends on confidence, and confidence cannot survive when the police blame the threatened instead of the threat. The defenders of this decision keep repeating the same word: “community”. But they never mean the whole community. They mean the most aggressive, the most volatile, the most willing to intimidate. That is not community safety. It is community veto. We have seen this pattern before. In Rotherham, where police chose “community cohesion” over protecting girls; in Cologne, where mass assaults were downplayed to preserve calm; and again after 7 October, when Jewish communities across the West were told to hide themselves while authorities managed the threat instead of confronting it. A threat emerges. The state decides enforcement is too risky. Responsibility is shifted. Language is softened. Files are adjusted. Parliament is misled. And the victims are told this is all being done for their own good. This is how surrender is repackaged as governance. Birmingham shows where Britain now stands. Not neutral. Not confused. But bending – and then lying about the bend.”