Policing is messy. It’s human. It’s imperfect. 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.
Operational policing isn’t a seminar. It isn’t 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 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, experience, and fallibility.
What kept me going back then – through the assaults, the chaos, the 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. Even 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 corrupt 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.
Discretion Isn’t Bias – It’s Humanity
Wanting to be treated fairly by the police isn’t unreasonable. It’s the bedrock of policing by consent. But fairness isn’t a rigid, mechanical thing. It never has been. Back in the early 80s 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. But that doesn’t mean the system was corrupt – it means it was human. Then came the Human Rights Act 1998, which didn’t weaken policing but strengthened it by requiring proportionality and the least intrusive means of achieving a legitimate aim. To twist that into a conspiracy is not only dishonest – it’s an attack on the very principles that keep policing accountable.
The Law Changes Because Society Changes
When I joined the police, gay men could still be arrested under archaic laws. Today, we celebrate same sex marriage. That’s not “wokeness”. That’s progress.
Policing has evolved too. Training now recognises that some communities have been historically vilified, and officers must combine legal knowledge with compassion. Pretending that treating people with dignity is some sinister plot is laughable – or it would be, were it not so damaging. Strict, robotic “equality” – treating every incident identically regardless of context – is a fantasy. Real fairness requires judgement.
The Hijacking of Henry Nowak’s Death
And then we come to the tragedy that opportunists have seized upon: the death of 18 year old Henry Nowak, murdered in Southampton in December 2025.
His death has been grotesquely weaponised to “prove” 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 – education that exists to help officers better understand the communities they serve.
Let’s anchor ourselves in what is known – and readers should 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:
i. Officers were making “quick time operational decisions” in a volatile situation.
ii. 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’s a slogan – engineered for division, distraction, and deception. It’s designed to make you angry at the wrong people. It’s designed to turn a complex, human profession into a cartoon. It’s designed to 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. A police service that deserves scrutiny, yes. But also 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.
© Ian Kirke 2026
@ iankirke.bsky.social
Title photograph by King’s Church International on unsplash