How The United Kingdom Became A Police State

Authored by Neema Parvini via The Mises Institute,

This article will demonstrate how the United Kingdom has steadily become a police state over the past twenty years, weaponizing its institutions against the people and employing Orwellian techniques to stop the public from seeing the truth. It will demonstrate, contrary to official narratives, that both overall levels of crime and violent crime have been increasing, not decreasing, as the size of the state in the UK has gotten bigger. It will also expose how the Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010, deliberately obscured real crime data with estimated crime rates based on survey data as opposed to the real numbers. I will demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion perpetuated by progressive myths, life was much safer in Britain during the era of classical laissez-faire from the 1850s to 1911.

In his 10 years in power from 1997 to 2007, Tony Blair passed an astonishing 26,849 laws in total, an average of 2,663 per year or 7.5 a day. The Labour Party continued this madness under Gordon Brown who broke the record in 2008 by passing 2,823 new laws, a 6% increase on even his megalomaniac predecessor. In 2010, Labour’s last year in power before handing over the reigns to the Blairite social radical, David Cameron, there was a 54% surge in privacy cases brought against public bodies, and the Cabinet were refusing freedom of information requests at a rate of 51%. The vast number of new laws under Labour does not count the 2,100 new regulations the EU passed in 2006 alone, which apparently is average for them.

Many of these vast changes under Blair and Brown were in the area of criminal law. By 2008, Labour had created more than 3,600 new offences. Many of these, naturally, were red-tape regulations. To give you an idea:

  • Creating a nuclear explosion

  • Selling types of flora and fauna not native to the UK, such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed

  • To wilfully pretend to be a barrister or a traffic warden

  • Disturbing a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer

  • Obstructing workers from carrying out repairs to the Dockland Light Railway

  • Offering for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day

  • Allowing an unlicensed concert in a church hall or community centre

  • A ship’s captain may end up in court if he or she carries grain without a copy of the International Grain Code on board

  • Scallop fishing without the correct boat

  • Breaking regulation number 10 of the 1998 Apple and Pear Grubbing Up Regulations

  • Selling Polish Potatoes

There are many more. However, there were also some more serious breaches of civil liberty.

One common tactic of the Blair government was to use a moral panic to pass radical new legislation. For example, in 2006, he passed the Terrorism Act that overturned habeas corpus and gave the British police the right to detain anyone for any reason for 90 days. At the time, this got widespread public support because of the recent 7/7 bombings in London. This means that, in the UK, the police can arrest you without you necessarily having committed a crime if they can brand your activities as "terrorist" or "extremist." Although these laws were ostensibly brought about to combat Islamic terrorism, the ever-expanding definitions of "far right" and "extremist" demonstrate how they can be weaponised against the British people.

Another area in which the Labour government used moral panic cynically to overturn longstanding common law principles was the murder of Stephen Lawrence, which they used to eliminate the double jeopardy rule and, as per the MacPherson report, to put an end to colour-blind policing.

Recently there have been an increased number of cases in which the British state has encroached on civil liberties in a near-openly tyrannical way. The Count Dankula case, for example, in which a man was arrested for "hate speech," then tried and made to pay a fine for telling off-colour jokes about the Nazis on Youtube. Then there was the young woman who was found guilty of being "grossly offensive" for posting Snoop Dogg lyrics on her Instagram account. And, most recently, the political activist Tommy Robinson was arrested and tried in mere hours for recording outside a courtroom. In each of these cases, despite some protests against the legal rulings, the media broadly sided with the courts, citing the technicalities of the law – in the former two cases section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (another Blair special) – and brand anyone who would protest "far right" or "extremist."

"Gaslighting" is a word from the world of psychology; it is a technique of manipulation to achieve power. Here are eleven warning signs:

  1. They tell blatant lies.

  2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.

  3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.

  4. They wear you down over time.

  5. Their actions do not match their words.

  6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.

  7. They know confusion weakens people.

  8. They project.

  9. They try to align people against you.

  10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.

  11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.

The British state has become increasingly Orwellian in its gaslighting of the British public since at least 1997 with near-total complicity from the media. In a recent article for Quillette, I argued that this has been the case in both Britain and the USA for years.

This has especially been the case in the area of crime. During a period in which both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have become increasingly statist and interventionist on both an economic and civil level, we have been continually told that one of the positive effects of ever-increasing government control is that society is becoming more peaceful. This is the narrative, for example, of Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. In 2005, The Guardian told us that since 1995 overall crime had decreased by 44%. Almost a decade later the same publication wondered out loud what could be causing the continued decline in crime rates in the UK. And just a few years after that, they had changed their tune completely decrying sudden increases in violent crime and blaming this on cuts in police numbers. In the first few months of 2018, the shocking increases in instances of violent crime in Sadiq Khan’s London, which in the past year has seen rises of 31.3% in knife crime, 78% in acid attacks, 70% in youth homicides, 33.4% in robberies, 18.7% in burglaries, 33.9% in theft and 30% in child sex crime.  But this story told by The Guardian – of a general trend down in crime over the past twenty years followed by a sudden and inexplicable spike – is simply not true, as I will demonstrate in this paper.

In 1997, Tony Blair famously ran on a platform of being ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’. Unfortunately for him, the reality of empirical crime data had stubbornly refused to comply with his anointed vision through his first years in power. "New Labour" were famous for the efficiency of their propaganda machine. American readers will no doubt be aware of Mr. Blair’s complicity in making exaggerated claims about Saddam Hussein’s "weapons of mass destruction" in the run up to the war in Iraq, but few readers – British, American, or otherwise – will know that the Blair government was also lying about the extent of crime in Britain. The Labour Party, who were so much about media perceptions and political spin, needed to find a way to show on paper that their "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" agenda was making good on its promise. So, in 2003, Tony Blair permanently changed the way crime is reported in the UK by introducing the National Crime Recording Standard’ (NCRS). Up until that point, crime in the UK was reported using hard data drawn from actual arrests and convictions from the police. However, from that point onwards, the official statistics were to be drawn from the British Crime Survey which estimates crime based on a survey of 50,000 people aged 16 or over. This works much like how television companies produce estimates for their show ratings. So that means that the statistics you see quoted in newspapers like The Guardian are not hard figures, but estimates drawn from surveys. Whatever the merits of this method, it produced a graph for the Blair government that looked like this:

This change ostensibly came about because – as part of the "tough on the causes of crime" part of their pledge, Labour wanted to count victims as opposed to the total number of offenders. Of course, this takes a huge number of crimes out of the data. For example, as it was introduced in 2003, because only over 16-year olds could be interviewed, crimes against minors were not registered in the official statistics. Also, because interviews had to take place in private properties, street crime habitually would not show up in these numbers. Of course, so-called "victimless" crimes – fraud or online crime – do not show up in this data either. Once you start to account for some of these caveats, it becomes more obvious why this extraordinary change in methodology would produce a downwards trend in the data. In fact, it was explicitly designed so that, because of these changes, it could not be compared with numbers before 2002.

In 2007, Ken Pease and Graham Farrell estimated that the survey data could be underestimating violent crime by as much as 82%, with the real number of victims closer to 4.4 million than 2.4 million. This massive margin of error means that the real crime rate becomes a matter for debate as opposed to a question of hard evidence. It seems to me that this was a deliberate choice by the Blair government. Hence, we now find the BBC wondering about what the real crime rate might be.   And this is where the true extent of the Orwellian nightmare of the Blair and Gordon Brown years dawns: by making the crime rate an estimate neither political party can reliably point to the facts, and it always becomes a question of one difficult to substantiate narrative against another. "Post-truth" did not start with Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump – Tony Blair was doing it from the minute he stepped into office.

However, real numbers of convicted offenders are still recorded and kept, although they are somewhat difficult to obtain. In the run-up to the 2010 British election, Conservative MP and Shadow Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, requested the real numbers from the House of Commons library which duly produced a series of independent reports. Incidentally, once the leader of the Tories, David Cameron, became prime minister in 2010, Chris Grayling became the Secretary for Justice and, to my knowledge, was happy to let this little detail slide and continue with the survey-based methodology. It is funny how power can change the incentives for action.

In any case, the numbers that Grayling requested are damning for anyone who claims that either overall crime or violent crime decreased in the UK between 1997 and 2010.

The population of the UK was about 58 million people in 1997. In 2008, that had increased to 62 million, an increase of 6.87%. In that same period male violent crime convictions in England and Wales increased by around 63.92% from 49,153 in 1997 to 80,574 in 2008. So violent crime convictions increased by more than ten times the growth of the population.

Increases like this can been seen across virtually every category of crime. Convictions for persons under 18, for example, increased by 60.18% from 12,806 in 1997 to 20,513 in 2008, in keeping with the average increase in violent crime, this is ten times the rate of population growth in the same period. Knife crime practically doubled during the Blair years, from 3,360 offenders in 1997 to 6,368 in 2008. In 1998 there were 5,542 robberies, in 2008 there were 8,475. From the year 2000 to 2008, the total number of arrests for any offence went up from 1.2 million to 1.4 million, an increase of about 17%.

For the claim to be true that violent crime went down 44% during the 00s in the UK, it would have to be at a time when violent crime convictions went up 64%. For the claim to be true that overall crime went down in from 1997 to 2008, it would have to be at a time when overall convictions for crime went up by 17%. Both claims seem extraordinary: how could there be a rise in convictions without a corresponding increase in crime? The methodology that measures victims through estimates from survey data clearly is not getting this correct.

If we use recorded convictions in this way, as opposed to estimates, we can make meaningful comparisons to the past as Peter Hitchens does in The Abolition of Liberty. As we have seen, the total number of convictions in England and Wales for 2008 was around 1.47 million for a population of 62 million people, around 2.25% of the population. According to Hitchens the comparable number in 1861 at the height of laissez-faire was 88,000 for a population of 20,066,224, or around 0.44% of the population. In 1911, before Leviathan and the welfare state had really had a chance to grow, the number was 97,000 for a population of 36,075,269, or around 0.27% of the population. The claim that crime has risen because of government cuts to the numbers of police also cannot stand since in 1911 there were 51,203 officers whereas by 2009 there were 144,353 officers. The increase in police officers from 1911 to 2009 therefore is 181.92% compared with an increase of 71.86% in total population. So the size of the repressive apparatuses of the state have increased greatly, and with it the total number of criminals.

It is clear that with less personal freedom and a bigger and more invasive state comes less personal responsibility and greater lawlessness. It is also clear that as the British state has become more top-down in orientation than in its common-law past, it has levied increased coercive legislative power against the British people it supposedly serves. The state is now behaving in an openly Orwellian manner with near-explicit contempt for the public.



eforce Arnold Sat, 07/07/2018 - 08:04 Permalink

People seem to mistake monarchy for a police state, unlike in a democracy a monarchy doesn't need to pretend it's the sole ruler of the land and can therefore allow its 'subjects' more liberty in return and even has a vested interest in the well being of the subject so that not only can they be productive but can also defend the monarch (hence be armed) as well.

The more democratic the UK has become the more liberty it has lost.

In reply to by Arnold

Heros eforce Sat, 07/07/2018 - 08:24 Permalink

The Rothschilds bought Reuters and UPI in the late 1800's.  Jews, for centuries, have owned most publishing houses.  Freemasons used to have special books printed up for its members.

After Napoleon, Rothschild said "give me control of a nations money supply, and I care no who sits on the thrown".  The point is that (((BBC))) has been under kosher management since its inception.

Really, perception management is about controlling those who control the others.  The Elites.  And the jews have invaded London and interbred with British nobility for centuries.  These people ran British media right down to BBC for over a century, and through Judaism the owned the British Elites.

The poor working British stiff never had a prayer.  Boer War, Opium Wars, WWI, WWII, and how many others?  All to advance Judaism on behalf of Jewish owners.

England has become a police state because that is what its owners want.

In reply to by eforce

Shemp 4 Victory max2205 Sat, 07/07/2018 - 09:27 Permalink

It becomes clear why Boorish Johnson and Sea Hag Theresa May were desperately warning UK football fans away from attending the World Cup. There was a risk that the carefully constructed Russia-as-evil-empire narrative would collapse before the eyes of each fan that made the trip. That is exactly what has been happening.

UK's Gary Neville praises World Cup and host Russia

‘If you stayed home you’re a mug!’ England fans on 'unbelievable' Russia World Cup trip

‘Football the winner, scoundrels the losers': England fans berate Boris Johnson after World Cup win

It should then come as no surprise that, as the anti-Russia narrative began to crumble, there was a need to reanimate the novichok chimera. Note well that the Return of the Son of Novichok incident comes not only just before the dreaded Trump-Putin summit, but also just after the release of a certain report by Britain's parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. Although the Committee's inquiry faced substantial obstruction and stonewalling, the report was able to determine that, despite years of outright lying about it, the UK government gleefully participated in the torture and rendition program initiated by the Dick Cheney regime.

Blair and Brown Governments Gory with Torture…

British Parliament Confirms 'Conspiracy Theory' - Torture and Renditions Continue…

The lump beneath the carpet under which the UK government has been sweeping its own criminality has grown too large to ignore.

"Aww, I still keep sweepin' and sweepin', and there's still too many feet."


In reply to by max2205

Expendable Container Shemp 4 Victory Sat, 07/07/2018 - 18:15 Permalink

Good post, good links, thanks.

This ZH article refers to the UK and the US. What about todays' GERMANY??

"Only Allied Totalitarianism, Propaganda & Censorship Could Restore Freedom of Speech In ‘Nazi’ Germany. It Is Still Working Marvelously Today!":


What has changed since 1945? In 2016 top German reporter Dr. Ulfkotte went on public television stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also adding that noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job. (So? Why not get an honest job?). 

In 1945 Friedrich Grimm, a renowned German authority on international law, was shown samples of new leaflets printed soon after the war in German to be distributed by the Allies throughout Germany. Describing German war crimes, the leaflets were the first step in the reeducation program designed for Germany. Grimm suggested to an Allied officer that since the war was over, it was time to stop the libel.

The Allied officer replied:
“Why no, we’re just getting started. We’ll continue this atrocity campaign, we’ll increase it till no one will want to hear a good word about the Germans anymore, till whatever sympathy there is for you in other countries is completely destroyed, and until the Germans themselves become so mixed up they won’t know what they’re doing!”

In reply to by Shemp 4 Victory

DaiRR Expendable Container Sun, 07/08/2018 - 00:51 Permalink

How about the German government arresting German families at airports when they are about to board an international flight.  The crime ?  Their children are absent from the mandatory German government registered schools.  Not allowed to miss a day of the mandatory government brainwashing of children.

Meanwhile, Merkel refers to native born Germans whose heritage has been German for God knows how many dozen generations as "people who have been here a little longer" than her recent Muslime immigrants and not entitled to any more protections than her beloved Muslime, less protections actually.

In reply to by Expendable Container

waspwench Free This Sat, 07/07/2018 - 14:43 Permalink

And what are the British people doing to get Tommy out?

Sweet FA.

Their culture is being dismantled before their eyes.   Their country is being given away to foreigners.   The EU is taking them to the cleaners courtesy of Traitor May.   Their children are being indoctrinated.   There are so many pointless laws on the books that everyone has become criminalized.   Free speech no longer exists.   The laws are enforced selectively to control the white, British population.   There is no freedom of the press.

The British people should be on the streets screaming for blood and they are sitting at home watching the footie on the telly.   They should be organizing.   They should be arming themselves.   They should be informing themselves about what is going on.   The British people are walking into their servitude;  they are lambs to the slaughter.   Truly, I despair.   Britain is lost.

In reply to by Free This

ItsAllBollocks waspwench Sat, 07/07/2018 - 18:35 Permalink

Agreed but the 'screaming for blood' is more widespread than just the UK. The people in the US especially need to restore the US constitution and Australians desperately need to stop this manic urge to create enemies of nations and eject the US troops from the north before their Jewish by birth PM submits and declares war on their biggest trading partner.

In reply to by waspwench

Maghreb Heros Sat, 07/07/2018 - 18:38 Permalink

Its not that simple. There is factionalism between the Aristocrats, Party Elites, local cliques and Jewish Oligarchs in the U.K. The establishment are mostly loyal to the concept because they grew up with it. Money and Titles can only buy so much especially when they need "protection" from the commoners.

World War 1 almost took out the entire aristocracy with the uprisings that followed. 
Windsors knew full well how close they came to ending up like the Romanovs. Same story with the big Jewish families who were aware how dangerous the situation can get between themselves. They interbreed like the Aristocrats but are prone to the same feuds. Former Soviet Bloc, Asian and African elites are encroaching on everyone now. Far Wealthier in some ways and far more numerous. Mi6 and the media are the only real line of defense. I think they depend more on Mark Zuckerberg than the City of London and the Armed Forces.  

On the flip side there is the Vatican and the European elite. People forget Fransisco Franco and the Spanish Roman Catholic establishment survived. He wiped out the Masons and replaced them with Opus Dei.He probably worked with many Jewish figures especially the Sephardi's in North Africa but that was always part in parcel with the old system. Claims most the Nazi's escaped via the Iberian Penninsular raise questions about how much wealth and intelligence Francist Spain had access to.They have serious connections in Latin America. Vatican is still standing and I have a suspicion they are always one step ahead of the Masons and the Jewish Oligarchs. All those Latin American Cartels are Roman Catholic. The priest is one person they might actually trust. 

I think Zion would have you believe they are all powerful when really their main power is to influence other factions. They generally discredit, ignore and jump ship to other more powerful factions. I hear they are even fleeing Israel now because it is no longer economically viable as anything but a fortress, pilgrimage site and hideout.  

On the articles actual subject its really hard to say what is going on in the U.K. Mise institute has its bias but the crime data really doesn't add up. Organized crime has exploded but its all white collar stuff and mostly foreigners. They keep the peace because violence is bad for business. The Russians are the worst because they are mostly tied to the Jewish Oligarchs. Turns out these Black and Asian kids are going up against the Fucking KGB right now. The authorities stack this against the locals. Goes to the top in my opinion when you see Interpol getting involved or reports heavy weapons being discretely brandished in Central London. The old gangsters are dying off but they aren't as hostile to as the Eastern Europeans and the Turkish. Experience the actual community policing operations and see how fast they come down on normal people and you'll understand exactly how it works. I sympathize with Far Right because it does feel like a foreign occupation when the police are coming down harder on local people while so much criminal activity is going on under the radar.…

Local communities have got poorer but the violence has changed. Its not football hooligans and pissed of builders. Its really just kids crazy people and the misguided. The big spike in London is all in the Boroughs with the highest birthrates due second generation immigration. Redbridge used to be a BNP stronghold in London before they dropped in alot of people from Africa. Personally I think its all engineered the media are 6 months behind whats happening on the streets. MI5 knows whats going to hit 12 months before it his the streets because they monitor and work with the higher level criminals. The Oxycontin epidemic is probably spreading as I write this.…

Blair was interesting. He got the guns off the streets with a zero tolerance policy. Like the article said it was all backed by the Murdoch Press. The big push came with the assassination of TV journalist Jill Dando in her own home. It had a similar effect to Dunblane. The guy who went down for it was actually framed so its likely the Metropolitan Police were in on it. Murdoch Press made up some shit about a Gary Glitter Fans or Serbian warlords that the plebs ate up. Personally he fucking knows who did it so even if you say the Jews run the media there is factionalism because she was a BBC women.

Funny thing is I think the perceived drop in crime cemented the power of the embedded organized crime. Russians seems to have steam rolled everyone besides the ethnic criminals. Still there are weapons floating about and Blair knows it.…

End of the day if western civilization is on the brink of collapse for whatever reason its best to just keep your fucking head down. I'll regret writing this but I gave un amateur heroics way back. Might as well give my 2 cents before I get pulled in for something......


In reply to by Heros

Mareka eforce Sat, 07/07/2018 - 08:49 Permalink

The leadership of every nation in Europe are globalist puppets.

The Brexit vote was 2 years ago and the British government is just now starting to work out the details of what permissions they might negotiate with Brussels.

Sovereign nation you dipshits.

Permissions are not needed.

Our parents generation planned executed and exited WWII in 48 months.

In reply to by eforce

J S Bach Mareka Sat, 07/07/2018 - 09:17 Permalink

I think The UK "became" an Orwellian state when George Orwell was writing his prescient novels back in the 1940s. He saw then how his once great country had already fallen under the thrall of its (((hidden satanic usury rulers))).  Even the main traitor in "1984" was Emmanuel Goldstein.  Do ya think old Georgie was trying to tell us something?

In reply to by Mareka

Hugh_Jorgan Expendable Container Sat, 07/07/2018 - 12:22 Permalink

I believe he was actually a hardcore Socialist, he was afraid of damaging Socialism with Communism which he viewed a flawed because of the rapid consolidation of power by the few in Soviet Russia. This was the central thrust of Animal Farm.

He failed to see that Socialism is simply the slow road to tyranny vs. the fast road. When you have a large, powerful apparatus of control and provision, SOMEONE will eventually seize it and you will not be able to the the difference between the two. Proponents of Socialism have no answer for this problem, except the eventual bloody, violent revolution. Globalists today are in the middle or fomenting that revolution themselves, thinking that they can ride the wave of violence and stay in power, which remains to be seen.

In reply to by Expendable Container

Expendable Container Boubou Sat, 07/07/2018 - 18:42 Permalink


"Western Europeans appear to have little or no concept of their fate if the planned Soviet Communist offensive for the Summer of 1941 had succeeded. The staggering scale of preparations by the Soviet Union from 1927 to create the greatest offensive (not defensive) army ever known is discussed in theSoviet Offensive Preparations series (link below).

Well over 100 million, possibly 180 million people have died as a result of Communism in the 20th Century.

That the so-called 'Holocaust' overshadows the suffering of so many is both disingenuous & disrespectful to all humanity. Especially when one considers the role & influence of Jews behind Communism." 


In reply to by Boubou

vato poco Boubou Sat, 07/07/2018 - 22:39 Permalink

and stalin killed many more russkis than hitler did. so one way or another, they were gonna be killed. at least this way, they died for a good cause: fewer American deaths!!!

thank God you remembered to mention the Holocaust, though. for a minute there, I thought you were in serious trouble. pro tip: they prefer the word be capitalizedbecause Lest We Forget

In reply to by Boubou