What is behind Essex Police’s bringing rival protest groups face-to-face? Asks Bob Lyddon
CP
Concerns are mounting over Essex Police’s handling of protests in Epping, amid allegations of politically motivated tactics and possible state-led provocation, writes Bob Lyddon.
It is an accepted fact that Essex Police escorted pro-immigration protesters to a scene where anti-immigration protesters had assembled outside a hotel in Epping. It is not disputed that the hotel houses ‘asylum seekers’.
It is not clear why Essex Police did this, under whose instructions, and with what aim.
These events add to the list of items for enquiry contained in this article posted just after the August 2024 unrest, which compared that unrest to the Swings Riots in England in 1830:
Under the worst interpretation Essex Police attempted to act as an agent provocateur with the aim of precipitating a riot, and that this is part of a new national government and police strategy.
What is an agent provocateur?
An agent provocateur is a person whom an authority inserts into a situation of stress with the aim of causing that situation to boil over into violence and disorder, thereby causing those involved to commit illegal acts (leading to imprisonment or worse) and to discredit their cause.
During the Swing Riots the authorities alleged that the French government had inserted agents provocateurs into the leadership of the protesters, albeit that the protesters were scarcely an organization with an identifiable leadership either on a regional or national level. The authorities alleged that the agents’ aim was to precipitate violence, to make the protesters’ cause gain traction, and to spread it into a nationwide revolt, serving the French government’s aim of disrupting the UK, in its role of a historical enemy. No proof was ever shown that agents provocateurs existed. The allegation supported the narrative of the authorities that the law-abiding public should see the hand of foreign involvement in the riots, thereby distracting attention from the domestic problems that were the true cause of the protestors’ vexation, and undermining the protesters’ legitimacy.
The Thatcher government has been accused of placing agents provocateurs into the National Union of Mineworkers during the strike of 1984.[1] This supposedly reached its zenith in the confrontation between police and miners at the Orgreave coke works in South Yorkshire in June 1984. Orgreave will now be the subject of a national enquiry, during which the accusations of the placing of agents provocateurs will doubtless feature.[2]
Essex Police has not admitted to attempting to clandestinely penetrate a protest organisation, if there was one orchestrating the Epping protest, or to trying to make it act in a certain way. The fact that it was not admitted to does not mean it did not happen. Furthermore, it needs to be considered whether the actions of Essex Police amounted to what an agent provocateur would typically wish to achieve: to precipitate a violent confrontation during which those involved would commit illegal acts leading to imprisonment, an outcome that would damage their cause and result in their numbers being considerably reduced.
Why would Essex Police act as an agent provocateur?
It is hard to credit Essex Police’s own explanation: that they acted to permit the pro-immigration protesters to express their point of view. The police’s primary duty, surely, is to prevent public disorder, to do which, in this instance, they would have been best keeping the pro-immigration protesters physically distant from the anti-immigration ones.
Doing the opposite – bringing pro-immigration demonstrators into the direct proximity of anti-immigration ones – would raise the chance not only of violence occurring, and but also of the incident being upgraded to the same category of disorder into which the riots of the summer of 2024 were bracketed.
In that case Keir Starmer’s ‘full force of the law’ could be brought into play against those arrested, and repressive penalties imposed upon conviction.
If Essex Police were acting as an agent provocateur in this way, they would themselves then be on hand to arrest all the anti-immigration demonstrators, frame the necessary charges against them, and have summary justice dispensed upon them, as happened last summer, with long prison sentences imposed for offences which, outside the context of the disorder, would have attracted a much lesser penalty.
That explanation of the conduct of Essex Police sounds more plausible than that Essex Police were wishing to allow one group of protesters to put their point of view to an opposing group.
Invocation of outstanding issues from the 2024 article
The events in Essex echo concerns raised in a previous Conservative & Reformer Post article, particularly in the section titled “Has justice been delivered to the rioters?”.
The ‘justice’ meted out in 2024 was done without Orders-in-Council being issued, and without the government being granted Emergency Powers. The assumption is that normal laws were used, such as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it appearing to be integral to the conduct of the government and law enforcement that a series of ‘disorders’ or one overarching ‘disorder’ had occurred. The recognition or declaration of a ‘disorder’ was then the trigger for the bringing-to-bear of the ’full force of the law’. The problem is that it is difficult to find such a trigger in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Where was the trigger if it is not there?
During the time of the Swing Riots in 1830, the Riot Act had to be read out, in person, in front of the demonstrators, warning them that they would be guilty of a felony if they did not disperse, the penalty for a felony going as high as transportation or hanging. No such warning is given now.
The concern is that it could be enough for the Chief Constable of Essex, or even a more junior police official, to declare that the trigger had been met and that repressive penalties could be imposed for an offence which, outside of a ‘violent disorder’ or whatever it is called, might merit community service, whereas the same offence committed within the context of such a ‘disorder’ merits a prison sentence.
Who decides, when, how, and on what criteria?
The key issue from the 2024 disorders remains unanswered: who decided, when, how, and on what legal basis that these riots justified special measures against the rioters i.e. the application of ‘the full force of the law’?
It would be extremely concerning if police officers were given significant latitude to make a determination for which they were unable to furnish definitive proof, or over which they could not subsequently be challenged.
Risks if these questions are not adequately answered
These questions do need to be answered, promptly and fully, by Keir Starmer over the Despatch Box in the House of Commons.
Otherwise the twittersphere will no doubt come up with explanations which will not all be to the taste of the government or Essex Constabulary, or a number of others.
It would better to get this nipped in the bud by authorities coming up with the truth and with proof beyond their protestations that what they say is true.
This would contrast with the many statements made during and after the 2024 riots which subsequently proved to be untrue.
What follows now is a list of the mildest rumours that could circulate if the matter is not dealt with properly.
‘Essex police acted as an agent provocateur towards lawful protesters’
The allegation would be that Essex Police deliberately tried to trigger a riot, with the intention of classifying it as the kind of disorder enabling the arrest the anti-immigration demonstrators, and to their being subjected the same repression and lengthy prison sentences as were handed out last summer.
‘Essex Police suppressed lawful protest to shield the government and its unpopular policies’
The allegation would be that the Epping hotel would be freed by police action from the impediment of lawful protest, and be able to carry on business-as-usual in line with the policies for the housing and treatment of illegal immigrants as formulated by the Home Office under the direction of Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.
‘The police are using the Online Safety Act to shield the government and its unpopular policies’
This allegation is gone into further below, namely that the police could be abusing their powers to enforce the government’s will in online activities, as well as on the streets.
‘Someone much higher than the Essex Chief Constable ordered this’
The rumours will continue with considering whether the Chief Constable of Essex Police seems like the kind of individual who would act on his own initiative, without endorsement by higher authority. Having decided after balanced consideration that he is not, they will ask who he was taking his orders from, and whether they were the top of the chain-of-command.
They will cast their minds back to the evening of 7th August 2024 when the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police announced that the police were going to deploy ‘overwhelming force’ against protests (which did not materialise) and that police tactics had changed, they had ‘brigaded’ (what does that mean?) groups of officers around the country and so on.
At that time it may have surprised many that the writ of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police ran further than the Metropolitan Police area, and that the Commissioner seemed to have – or seemed to have been recently awarded – powers akin to the head of a Reich Security Main Office, being able to direct police resources nationwide: Criminal Police, Traffic Police, Transport Police…
‘The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is Cooper’s hatchet man’
By a historical quirk it is the Home Secretary that appoints the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, not the Mayor of London (whose representations are considered upon the Commissioner’s appointment). The reporting line(s) of the Commissioner need to be clarified, noting that as soon as someone has more than one boss they effectively have none.[3] If elected police commissioners also have a role, then it becomes three reporting lines and overly blurred, meaning that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is outside of effective control. As it is, the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper appears to be the Commissioner’s main reporting line.
If this is not the case and the Mayor of London and other representatives of the people of London have significant influence, then it becomes even more questionable that the Commissioner should have powers that go beyond the boundary of the London Metropolitan area.
The reporting lines were much clearer in King’s Lynn when the police force was first set up.[4] The Corporation council established a Watch Committee on 1st January 1836, and appointed 1 day and 1 night officer for each ward. The town clerk was asked to send to both the Chief Clerk of Police in Bow Street London and to the Town Clerk of Norwich for copies of their respective rules and regulations. The committee sought a recommendation from Colonel Rowan, the Inspector of the Metropolitan Police, for the post of superintendent, John Woods being recommended and appointed.
‘The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is Sadiq Khan’s hatchet man’
The allegation would be that the Commissioner is a creature of the Mayor of London, and not (although possible as well as) that of the Home Secretary. One might be sceptical that both could be true, but then this is the kind of rumour which will surface if (i) the Commissioner has powers that go beyond the boundary of the London Metropolitan area; and (ii) reporting lines do not include accountability to the areas outside the London Metropolitan area where the Commissioner appears to be at liberty to exercise powers. It would certainly be controversial if the wishes of Sadiq Khan played any role in how the rest of the country was policed.
‘The authorities jump whenever some left-wing group tells them to’
The mobilisation ordered by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on 7th August 2024 was in response to rumours circulated by the ‘charity’ Hope Not Hate that the ‘Far-Right’ (which was later admitted not to exist as a single identifiable organisation, and therefore to have been incapable of fomenting or coordinating any of the riots) was planning a nationwide series of violent protests. The rumours turned out to be false, but thousands of counter-protesters spontaneously took to the streets from their ‘communities’, shielded by thousands of police. It later turned out that many of the counter-protesters had travelled considerable distances, were not from the ‘communities’ that the official narrative claimed they were part of, and must – in order to reach these ‘communities’ by the appointed time – have been aware of the ‘Far-Right’ actions in parallel with, or even in advance of, Hope Not Hate issuing its rumours.
The appearance was given that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police jumps whenever Hope Not Hate tells him to, does not check his facts, over-reacts, spouts comical but threatening rhetoric, and belatedly claims that his own actions stopped the ‘Far-Right’ riots going ahead, assisted by the spontaneous solidarity of ‘communities’, whereas he appeared to have been deceived by a ‘false flag’ operation and to have concocted a threadbare, self-exculpatory cover story after realising the deception and his own gullibility.
Now Stand Up To Racism pops up, and it is the Essex Police that jump to their tune. This is not happenstance, because it happened before. It could be coincidental, as it is the second instance, or it could be ‘Enemy Action’: part of a coordinated, nationwide course of action.[5]
‘The government has set up a nationwide ‘agent provocateur’ agency’
On 26th July 2025 we find out that a new National Internet Intelligence Investigations unit has been established, staffed with detectives from across the UK, as part of the National Police Coordination Centre in Westminster.[6]
The unit has been set up, according to the Daily Telegraph article, to ‘monitor social media for anti-migrant sentiment’.
We are entitled to know:
- Exactly when this unit was established;
- Who was involved in its establishment (e.g. Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Chief Constables, other politicians and so on);
- What its mandate and powers are, as well as its rules-of-engagement, and who was involved in their drafting and approval;
- Who its chain-of-command is, and what the oversight and control arrangements are;
- When it became operational;
- What the new unit has done so far.
With regard to its rules-of-engagement, particular examination is needed of its remit to engage in ‘agent provocateur’ activities, such as:
- Having detectives pose as sharers of anti-migrant sentiment in order to join groups;
- Having detectives join WhatsApp Groups and other chat groups whose discussions are encrypted;
- Detectives engaging in discussions within those groups with the intention of causing other members to disclose their sentiments;
- Detectives engaging in discussions within those groups with the intention of causing other members to disclose their plans;
- Detectives proposing plans and actions, with the intention of drawing other members out from discussion and into action;
- Detectives proposing tactics for the realisation of plans and actions with the intention of precipitating disorder, in turn with the intention of facilitating the arrest of other group members and their imprisonment with repressive sentences.
‘The government wants to weaponise the Online Safety Act’
The Online Safety Act 2023 gave the authorities power to police the internet. It is bound to be speculated upon as to whether this new National Internet Intelligence Investigations unit will be trawling to find statements attributable to people on the political Right in order to repress their views, make people fearful of expressing their opinions, and prosecute anyone who expresses views different to government policy.
The suspicion will gain traction – if it is not conclusively disproved – that it is the intention of the government and of its police agents provocateurs to infiltrate the internet and induce citizens to express views for which they are later prosecuted.
‘Having local crime commissioners is a sham: the government can shunt police around as they choose’
The Essex crime commissioner, an elected official, had sought a meeting with Yvette Cooper to discuss the closure of the facility for the Epping hotel to house asylum seekers. This approach precipitated the revelation that the policing operation around the hotel is a nationwide one. The Daily Telegraph has reported that ‘officers from as many as 30 police forces are believed to have been involved including Merseyside, Surrey, Lancashire, City of London and Sussex’.[7]
This indicates that police resources can be shunted around the country from wherever they are based, thereby presumably depleting the police resources available for detecting crime in the areas that pay for them, through the Police Precept that is added to Council Tax bills.
Who runs this network for allocating and transferring resources? Who decides where resources are to be depleted in order to be topped up elsewhere? What assurance do Council Tax payers have that an adequate level of police resources is deployed in their area to deal with the matters that of concern to them, and to an adequate service level?
It looks more like that the whole apparatus of having elected crime commissioners for each area, nominally to increase accountability and ensure local priorities are addressed, is a sham and that behind the scenes there is another organisation controlling and directing resources to a different set of priorities.
‘National Internet Intelligence Investigations unit strips area of the police resources they pay for’
Answers to a series of questions are required in order to allay fears in this area:
- What the staffing of the National Internet Intelligence Investigations unit is;
- What police forces the staffing has been drawn from;
- Whether these are extra detectives or whether they have been diverted from other duties;
- Whether new detectives have been taken on to bring the staffing of the respective force up to what it would have been, if resources had not been diverted to this new unit;
- What the unit’s budget is;
- Whether this budget is taken from the council budgets that support the respective police forces and into which the Police Precept flows that is paid by Council Tax payers;
- If it is, whether the council’s policing budget is made whole, or if it is simply depleted, along with the pool of detectives.
‘We have no idea who controls police resources and budgets, but we pay for it anyway’
The suspicion here is that not just the apparatus of having elected crime commissioners for each area is a sham, but so is the fiction that the Police Precept that is added to Council Tax bills is all put towards addressing crime in that area.
The Police Precept rose by 4.4% in Norfolk this year, typical of the scale increase nationwide.[8]
Even if an officer remains physically located in Norfolk, it cannot be guaranteed – if for example the officer is allocated to the National Internet Intelligence Investigations unit – that the officer is working on Norfolk-related matters. There is no transparency over who is controlling the allocation of police resources.
‘Epping is the first implementation of a new national strategy’
It is only a small jump from there to wondering whether events in Epping and the intervention of the Chief Constable are the first emergence-into-view of a new national strategy – prepared in secret, centrally controlled, and consisting of the weaponisation of the Online Safety Act and of in-person actions – aimed at repeating last summer’s repression. If it is, who drafted the new strategy, who has seen and commented on it, who approved it, when and where did all those discussions take place, and who else was witting to them?
‘One side of this has been given immunity: two-tier justice again’
If there is such a strategy, does it include immunity from arrest and prosecution for demonstrators in favour of immigration and/or for persons considered to have risen up spontaneously in defence of their ‘communities’ i.e. has a get-out-of-jail-free card been issued to those taking the stance favoured by the government and the police? If it has, then we clearly do not have equality before the law, or a right of peaceful protest.
‘They’re hand-in-glove with pro-immigration pressure groups’
It is vital that full disclosure should take place on the matter of whether any of the organisations claiming to act on behalf of immigrants have been invited to contribute to discussions, or in any other way been engaged with on the topic by authorities.
Just as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in August 2024, appeared to be both expertly wired in to the emissions of Hope Not Hate and a total believer in what they said, has a similar relationship been forged with Stand Up To Racism? If it has, at what level? Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? Home Secretary? Prime Minister?
‘Stand Up To Racism and Hope Not Hate are one and the same’
Is there any connection between Stand Up To Racism and Hope Not Hate?
Summary
Essex Police escorted pro-immigration protesters to a scene where anti-immigration protesters had lawfully assembled outside a hotel in Epping.
We deserve a proper and proven explanation of why Essex Police did this, under whose instructions, and with what aim.
Failing that, the suspicion will take root that the government and police are not intent on avoiding disorder, but are working hand-in-glove with left-wing groups in order to bring that disorder to a head and repress anti-immigration protests, with draconian sentences, using powers of which the majority of the general public are unaware.
The same pertains to on-line activities: without proof positive to the contrary, the suspicion will take root that the government and police intend to abuse the Online Safety Act to suppress anti-government opinion and discussion of government policies, especially failing ones.
If the proper and proven explanations turn out to show that this is exactly what the government and police intend, then we will know for sure what many of us now suspect: we are living in a police state in which there is no separation of the government (the executive) from the police and justice apparatus (the judiciary), and where the police simply obeys the political diktats of the government and seeks to enforce the government’s will. In such a state the law no longer limits the powers of authority as enforcer of the law, and the individual no longer has a degree of protection and equality under the law.
By Bob Lyddon.
Bob Lyddon is best known as a commentator on fiscal, economic and financial issues, but he is also a historian, having been awarded an MA with Distinction in 2021 by the Open University, his dissertation being entitled ‘King’s Lynn and the ‘new police’, 1830-45’.
BL/28.7.25
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/03/miners-strike-thatcher-real-enemy-within-extremism accessed on 26 July 2025
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgelpx2ljpo accessed on 26 July 2025
[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-mark-rowley-announced-as-commissioner-of-the-metropolitan-police accessed on 25 July 2025
[4] R J Lyddon MA dissertation for the Open University ‘King’s Lynn and the ‘new police’, 1830-45’ pp. 36-7
[5] ‘Happenstance’, ‘Circumstance’ and ‘Enemy Action’ are the titles of the three parts of Ian Fleming’s ‘Goldfinger’
[6] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/26/elite-police-unit-to-monitor-online-critics-of-migrants/ accessed on 27 July 2025
[7] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/27/essex-police-boss-yvette-cooper-the-bell-hotel/ accessed on 28 July 2025
[8] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/21/councils-quietly-raising-tax-more-than-300pc/ accessed on 28 July 2025
Main Image: For illustration purposes only. Image created with AI.
This article (What is behind Essex Police’s bringing rival protest groups face-to-face? Asks Bob Lyddon) was created and published by Conservative Post and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author CP
Featured image: Reddit
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply