The port of Dover was shut yesterday morning by protesters, all of whom appeared to be male, all of whom were wearing black, and all of whom appeared to be wearing balaclavas.
The event appeared to be heavily supported by the so-called Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. On social media, he encouraged attendance.
Despite this, the police described it as a spontaneous event. And although considerable disruption was created, and the stated goal was to disrupt flows through the port, as well as to cause harm to any migrant who might have arrived in the country whilst the protest was taking place, there were no arrests by the police even though, according to reports, the port authorities described it as a “public order incident.”
That, I think, was incorrect. This was a deliberate attempt to intimidate. The intimidation was aimed at the people of Dover, those who wished to travel through the port, the port authorities undertaking their legal obligations, and, of course, those who might arrive in the UK in a way that these people choose to call illegal, but which is not under international law. There was also, then, an attempt to intimidate those who might assist them at sea, as well as the government itself.
This moved tjis action beyond the boundaries of protest, the right to which I support, into something much more sinister. The uniform, long associated with terrorism, was not an accident. Nor was it by chance that almost everyone who attended wore it. The message was that this was a coordinated act by a force under a common command, with a singular purpose: to get its way.
That the protest did not last the three days that they claimed it would is neither here nor there. The message was delivered. The headlines were made. Disruption was created. I rather strongly suspect that further action will be seen in due course. Things like this are rarely singular events.
So what are our authorities going to do? It would seem at present that they just stood by and let these people, whose behaviour accorded with none of those usually associated with protest or the right to express opinion, block traffic and disrupt the lives of people in a way that is entirely different from those who have, for example, walked peacefully to protest about climate change.
It also contrasts, most markedly, with those who have protested about genocide in Israel, many of whom are now labelled as terrorists and are subject to a denial of justice by our state, which has deemed that the holding of a piece of paper, or cardboard, can constitute a terrorist act when, apparently, assembling a uniformed force at a port is just a spontaneous event, even when a well-known provocateur encourages participation.
I stress, it is not my desire to deny those on the right wing of politics the right to protest. If I wish that for those on the left, I am quite sure that others are entitled to it as well. But this did not feel like a protest. This felt like a deliberate act of intimidation. The absence of the usual signs of protest, from banners and identification to, these days, prior notification of intent, suggests that this was something quite different. In that case, reasonable questions must be asked.
Will this organisation be proscribed? It would appear to have crossed the usual boundaries for being so.
Will the leaders of this event be made accountable for their actions?
Will the wearing of uniforms of the sort seen, using the word uniform in its literal sense, be proscribed?
I am clear that, in the interests of protecting everyone's right to protest, care will have to be taken in deciding what action is appropriate, but action necessary to prevent intimidation appears essential, and excuses by ministers will not do. I am expecting them, nonetheless.
_________
I add this from Section 1 of the Public Order Act of 1936, the motivation for which should be apparent, I think.
Prohibition of uniforms in connection with political objects.
(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, any person who in any public place or at any public meeting wears uniform signifying his association with any political organisation or with the promotion of any political object shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that, if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the wearing of any such uniform as aforesaid on any ceremonial, anniversary, or other special occasion will not be likely to involve risk of public disorder, he may, with the consent of a Secretary of State, by order permit the wearing of such uniform on that occasion either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.
Uniform is not defined: as I note above, it should take its literal meaning.
My thanks to John Boxall and Ian Stevenson for drawing this to my attention.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I agree with your insight Richard. It seems to me when a few balaclava-less septuagenarian environmental protesters stop traffic they are arrested, tried and thrown in jail?
Hundreds of young white men decide to dress in black head-to-toe , don balaclavas, and travel together to Dover on the same train. The police stated this was a spontaneous protest? What an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
These are the black-shirts of 2026. Intimidation is often followed by violence. The state needs to adopt an extremely firm approach.
Thank you.
90th anniversary of Cable Street this year.
The State seems to have lost any interest in protecting its subjects – because that is what we are in the UK against intimidation -while its criminal and not political, look at what has been happening in the North East recently.
I am particularly concerned that large numbers of men wearing what was clearly a uniform with their faces covered were simply herded back to Dover Priory Railway Station and not required to hand over their balaclava’s, hats scarves etc so their identity remained hidden. It must have been frightening for passengers.
I find it hard to imagine though that the ‘Police and Security’ services didnt have some inkling of what was up so why was there no preparation for this?
All very good questions.
The public statements from far right leaders referring to Dover and promising/threatening more, and calling on “patriots” to take action, were chilling.
They were also clearly criminal, under our ordinary laws, inciting violence, they were intimidatory,
Given the numbers arrsted fot “cardboard terrorism” over the last two years, I find the govenments inaction on these nasty thugs very worrying.
Me too
Sinister is the word for sure.
‘Collusion’ is the other word however – how the ‘event’ was described, how it will be dealt with, how it will be ‘normalised’ or excused – that is what worries me. Unless there is some policy here of containment – making out that it is no big deal – which is risky.
I think that we are right to be concerned because what we are seeing is that the political wing of racism in this country being increasingly accepted as legitimate. I’d be much happier therefore if we had proportional representation instead of FPTP. ‘Spontaneous’ is pure facetiousness in my view – I think a lot of communities are ready to let rip.
Democracy is being out-thought again. Democracy remains so vulnerable – there are lessons that urgently need to be learnt from this. And the biggest threat democracy has created for itself is for wealth to be concentrated in the hands of too few people. This creates an angry populace easy to wind up and reduces politics to an investment opportunity for rich racists to play out their fantasies. I bet there was some big money behind what happened in Dover.
This country is like an ammunition dump or arid savanna waiting for a spark. The question is, who is holding the matches?
So much to agree with.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6/contents
Basically prohibits
Political Uniforms and ‘Quasi Military Organisations’
Why no arrests?
Thanks, John. Added to the post now, with credit given
The English did not tolerate the Irish when they – with just cause I think – donned uniforms?
This indicates to me that there is an element of an ‘inside job’ going on here. This means that the racists ARE in the establishment and government – they are tolerated because they are maybe accepted – ‘one of us’. Thatcher’s ‘enemies within’ was pure DARVO.
Fascism as a moral bankruptcy that works like a financial bankruptcy doesn’t it (from Ernest Hemingway):
“Tell me, how did you become a fascist authoritarian state?”
“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
Much to agree with
Having studied the Fascist movements of the 1930s. I was reminded of he 1936 Public Order Act, which designed to deal with the Blackshirts or British Union of Fascists. It also applied to any movement. It banned the wearing of political uniforms in public and is an offence. The decision is, apparently, made by the police on a case by case basis.
It seems to me that the law has been broken in Dover. This is a challenge to the authority of the state. It must respond if it is to retain credibility.
Agreed, and thank you.
Even the Telegraph and Express feel they have to say that why anti migrant ‘concern’ is legitimate , ‘this is not the way to express it’. They probably couldn’t have said any less<p>
But what the hell is going on? It is really chilling that the police think they can get away with saying ti was ‘spontaneous’ knowing that everyone can see it has every aspect of being ‘organised’.<p>
And above all – making and announcing ‘no arrests’, for disrupting a major port for half a day, when as Richard say, hundreds of peaceful protesters against genocide have been arrested for sitting down and/or holding up placards.<p>
Uniformed blackshirts given free reign, while politicians’ comment on police’s ‘lack of intelligence’ , rather than their collusion with a private militia.<p>
Germany in the 30’s.
This does feel like we are living in a fascist accommodating state.
My first reaction to this post was to send the link to my LINO MP with the question “Any thoughts?” But I quickly realised I’d be wasting my time as the man isn’t paid to think, even if he were capable of doing so to any useful effect.
“the police described it as a spontaneous event”? Either the police are downright liars, or their spokesman doesn’t understand what “Spontaneous” means, or they were taken completely by surprise (either by the incident or by the number people who joined in). Probably the last, and then they didn’t have the necessary resources to do what needed to be done. Not good, anyway. I hope questions will be asked by county councillors, though I understand a lot of those are Reform so may well be sympathetic to the protesters.
They had the resources. They marched alongside the protestors in large numbers. They clearly knew this event was going to happen. The last thing it was was spontaneous.
Might it be that we are currently in the midst of a legal and constitutional crisis?
Both policing and the courts seem to be/are demonstrating significant inconsistency in their work which seems to be/is ignored by the main stream media, not least the B. B. C.
Your article highlights significant policing inconsistency.
Some protest defendants, and even their lawyerss are prohiblted by some judges from giving relevant information and some are not.
Some judges in relevant cases appear to be/are demonstrably anti protest/protestor and others are not.
”If the law is to be respected, it must be predictable.” (Lord Mansfield)
Thank you
It may be that the protestors would have liked one of their number to be arrested and charged, for which they would plead not guilty and get a trial by jury while they still can.
What would that look like?
The defendant would accept delays were caused but that there was no damage to persons or property, and that what they are protesting for is for this public administration to uphold the law. That means if you make a distress call at sea when you’re not in distress putting the lives of the Coastguard at risk then you are prosecuted for that. This does not currently happen. If you make an asylum application which is turned down then you are prosecuted for having come to the UK illegally, that sort of thing. A jury might find them not guilty.
They would be charged with wearing a uniform
There was clearly some kind of dress code. As I would expect if I was hiring a chartered accountant, then I would expect to see someone who looked like a professional in finance.
It’s a bit of a stretch to claim that a dress code is legally equivalent to a uniform, but if you’re a statist with a guilt complex over this country’s past then I suppose that stretch works for you.
Uniform means uniformity. If you do not understand language and are an apologist for fascism, do not post here.
Modern far-right movements are heavily shaped by hyper-globalized crises – like transnational economic shifts caused by decades of globalization and neoliberal policies, and climate migration – whereas 1930s fascism was primarily forged by the fallout of industrial nation-state collapses, regional border disputes, and the immediate aftermath of World War I.
It’s a symptom of the widespread collapse that is now underway. We can expect much more of it. People will turn to extremist movements in the belief they will save them from catastrophe. Government should be planning accordingly, but unfortunately they are part of the problem.
I am not sure I am seeing much distinction between now and the 1930s for deeply disaffected people.
For each individual attracted to extremism, I agree disaffection is disaffection. But I think the nature of the global and life-threatening causes of disaffection will lead to a widespread growth in fascist and other extreme movements, the like of which we have never seen before. It’s already unfolding. We have a fascist regime in the US seeking to unpick democracy.
What’s fascinating to me is that the far right have finally felt comfortable donning the uniform. They’ve been hiding behind nice suits and dog whistles for decades to disassociate with fascists but yesterday was the day they decided that they didn’t have to.
Not even pretending the Union Jack or George Cross is their flag anymore.
A very worrying escalation.
Agreed
An official statement from the Association of Chief Constabubbles on the event :
“we knew nof-fink abaht it an’ wuz given no advanced warning apart from some people seeing a a few thousand black clad blokes headin’ Dover way on the train, we thought it wuz just some footy supporters takin the piss an’ any way, the new man @ No10 has told us to cut down on overtime so our ‘ands wuz tied, of course had it been real terrorists like grannies with cardboard signs well natch that’s covered by a different budget innit & our lads would have had a great day out”.
I’m surprised you could find enough CCs and ACCs to cobble that eloquent statement together. So many seem to be under investigation – in July 2026 there were EIGHT Chief Constables under investigation by the IOPC.
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/former-staffs-police-chief-constable-committed-gross-misconduct-hearing-concludes
I am enraged at supine government. Many of my dad’s generation died fighting these ‘patriots’. My dad, no lefty, landed on Sword Beach 6.6.44 and shot them. The government is betraying them on all fronts.
My father was we think part of Follow Up Force L the first wave of support troops
This group, Patriot Platform, held a recruitment day at a hilltop beauty spot in Warwickshire three weeks ago.
They were all necessarily in their cars so most identifiable.
The police were informed and said they were attending. You would think they could have made a good start identifying those in charge and finding out what their plans were, not to mention where their next outing will be to.
David Byrne says:
The police are a law unto themselves and complaints can be summarily rejected because the system is not independent.
Offences that satisfy, for example, the legal test of theft can be subject to a fraud decision-nothing to do us sir, it’s a civil matter! Case closed, This practice reduces crime statistics in an instant.
The tragic case in Teeside recently resulted in 27 arrests in less than 2 days. Organised crime. Amazing detective work! How long had the police been ignoring such criminality and why?
Many people will have similar examples of police failures to act as in the Dover protest.
I have been following Postmodern Iconoclast on Substack, who has been investigating Britain’s far right network. Can I recommend you take a look at his posts, it certainly looks like the Dover blockade was organised by Patriot Platform led by Danny “Tommo” Thomas, who has history.
https://substack.com/@postmoderniconoclast?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=orrvv