yatesman

𝐀 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍-𝐘𝐄𝐀𝐑-𝐎𝐋𝐃 𝐆𝐈𝐑𝐋 𝐖𝐀𝐒 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐁𝐁𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐍𝐄𝐂𝐊 𝐎𝐍 𝐀 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐄𝐄𝐓 𝐈𝐍 𝐁𝐑𝐎𝐀𝐃 𝐃𝐀𝐘𝐋𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓 Thursday afternoon. Three o’clock. Wood Street in Brierfield, Lancashire — a small town near Nelson in the Pendle area. A 17-year-old girl was attacked in the open and stabbed in the neck. Armed police responded. 𝐀 𝟑𝟎-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫-𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐦∗𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫. The victim is in hospital with serious neck injuries; Lancashire Police describe them as non-life-threatening. She will survive. She will not forget a Thursday afternoon in Brierfield. Lancashire Police issued a statement announcing extra patrols to “𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺” and an appeal for dashcam, doorbell, and CCTV footage. The community is left to wonder why those extra patrols did not exist at three in the afternoon on a residential street. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞, 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝. This is now standard procedure in Britain. The same British government that has arrested citizens for tweets, prosecuted journalists for covering grooming gang convictions, and deployed police to monitor social media posts about immigration cannot protect a teenage girl walking down a street in Lancashire at three in the afternoon. These are not unrelated. 𝐀 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬. Brierfield is not an isolated incident. It is a data point in a long series. The police have a suspect. The suspect’s details are withheld. Britain’s two-tier approach to law enforcement has been documented at length — aggressive on speech crimes, notably passive on the kind that land teenagers in hospital. The pattern holds. 𝐀 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫-𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐨𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬. 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠.