‘The police are the public and the public are the police’. So said Sir Robert Peel when he established the Metropolitan Police way back in 1829.

While this principle may now be nearly 200 years old, it is as relevant today as it was when he first uttered those wise words. What Peel meant was that police officers were to be recruited from the communities that they would go on to serve, that they would be ordinary citizens with families and friends that they would want to protect, and that they would most definitely not be part of some detached, aloof, unapproachable, weapon-toting militia.

For many years this principle served the British people and their police very well. The law-abiding public generally liked the police.

A motorist would understandably become irritated if they received a speeding ticket from an officious and unbending member of traffic division, but the chances are that once that sour memory had faded and the fine had been paid, the aggrieved driver would go back to watching Dixon of Dock Green, The Sweeney, Heartbeat or Life on Mars, and sincerely hope the cops would get their man in the end.

What we saw in Gosport this week was about as far from Peel’s image of modern policing as you could get. Rows of officers lined up in army-style formation, imposing a version of martial law on a British town of some 80,000 people, was as ugly as it was unnecessary.

Millions of decent, hard-working citizens are disgusted by the never-ending sight of tens of thousands of illegal, undocumented migrants invading our shores.

We are all appallingly aware of the murders, rapes, terrorist plots and more that some of these repugnant monsters have committed once they have arrived here, and the anger of the ordinary man and woman is rising fast, and for as long as this pathetic Labour Government refuses to put a halt to all of this, then that anger will only grow, and the numbers of people who will choose to go onto the streets to protest at this inaction will grow.

Police chiefs repeatedly take to the media to spout about how these protests are draining resources from other duties. That is not entirely true. Some of these officers will be drafted from neighbourhood teams and other similar roles, but by the same token, some forces have units that are specifically created to provide a mobile and quickly deployed reaction team.

Demonstrators gathered near Haslar Marina in Gosport amid the arrivals | PA/TREVOR ADAMS

Talking of those officers, pull one aside if you can. Give them a space where they can speak freely, without fear of being identified or quoted in the media, and the chances are they will tell you how sickened they are by the flood of filth washing up on our shores, because it is those same officers who will have to investigate the crimes that the invaders commit, and also deal with the victims that this onslaught of dross creates.

Let me remind you that some of those victims end up dead or traumatised for the rest of their lives.

Don’t waste your time on making a brew for any of the police top brass, in the unlikely event that you get to spend time with any of them. These largely rampantly ambitious university types will do whatever they have to in order to retain their positions, their power and their pensions. That will include needlessly sending their officers in riot gear to a British town in order to impose a Soviet-style state of emergency.

What these police chiefs should be doing is collectively sending a very public message to Andy Burnham and Shabana Mahmood that the consequences of their neglect over this illegal invasion are having catastrophic consequences for all of us, including their officers. But they won’t, because they’re too cowardly to do that.

So meanwhile, the mercury rises. Protestors take to the streets in ever-increasing numbers, our police become more and more like the Police Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Britain we knew and loved fades away, one dinghy at a time.

SHOCKING BACKLASH After Gosport Show of Force Is Branded “Intimidation, Not Policing”

A controversial display of police force in Gosport has sparked fierce debate, with critics questioning whether the response was necessary to maintain public order or whether it crossed the line into intimidation. The incident has reignited wider discussions about police powers, public confidence, freedom of expression and the relationship between law enforcement and local communities across the United Kingdom.

The phrase “intimidation, not policing” has become a focal point of the criticism, capturing the concerns of those who believe that a visible show of authority can sometimes undermine the very trust that police forces are expected to build. Supporters of a robust policing approach, meanwhile, argue that officers must be able to respond decisively when they believe public safety or order is at risk.

As the backlash grows, the central question is whether the police response in Gosport was proportionate to the circumstances and whether the public has been given enough information to understand why such a show of force was considered necessary.

Without a complete, independently verified account of the incident, it would be premature to conclude that the officers involved acted improperly. Nevertheless, the controversy illustrates how quickly a policing operation can become a wider test of public confidence.

Why the Gosport Incident Has Triggered Anger

Gosport, a town on the Hampshire coast, is part of a region where residents depend on local police to respond to crime, protect vulnerable people and maintain order in public spaces.

When an incident involves a conspicuous police presence, it can attract attention far beyond the immediate location. Images and eyewitness accounts shared online can rapidly shape public perceptions, particularly when people disagree about the purpose or necessity of the operation.

For some observers, a strong police presence represents reassurance that officers are prepared to deal with potential disorder. For others, the same display can appear excessive, particularly if the reasons for the operation have not been clearly communicated.

This difference in interpretation is at the heart of the Gosport controversy.

Critics who describe the operation as intimidation are raising questions about the relationship between authority and consent. They argue that effective policing depends not only on the ability to enforce the law but also on whether people believe that officers are acting fairly, professionally and proportionately.

Those defending a firm response may counter that members of the public do not always have access to the information available to officers at the time. Police may be responding to intelligence, safety concerns or a rapidly developing situation that cannot immediately be explained in full.

Both considerations matter when assessing an incident. The public deserves a clear explanation of significant police operations, while officers must also be allowed to respond to genuine threats without every decision being judged solely through photographs or short video clips.

Where Is the Line Between Policing and Intimidation?

The distinction between legitimate enforcement and intimidation is not simply a matter of how many officers are present or how imposing their equipment appears.

Police forces sometimes deploy additional officers when they anticipate disorder, need to protect a location or must manage a potentially volatile gathering. A visible presence can deter violence and help protect both participants and bystanders.

However, a deployment that is lawful in principle can still raise questions about its execution.

The circumstances surrounding the operation matter. What information did officers possess? What threat were they attempting to address? Were less intrusive measures available? How did they communicate with the people present? Was the response proportionate to the risk?

These are the kinds of questions that should guide a serious assessment of the incident.

A large police presence does not, by itself, prove intimidation or misconduct. Equally, the fact that officers have legal powers does not mean that every use of those powers is automatically justified.

Professional policing requires officers to use their authority carefully, explain their actions where possible and remain accountable when legitimate concerns arise.

If members of the public believe that force has been used unnecessarily, an effective complaints and review process is essential to establish what happened and whether procedures were followed.

Public Confidence Is at Stake

Trust is one of the most important resources available to a police force.

People are more likely to report crimes, provide witness statements and cooperate with investigations when they believe officers will treat them fairly. If confidence deteriorates, victims may become reluctant to seek help, witnesses may remain silent and relationships between police and communities can become increasingly difficult.

This is why controversial operations require careful communication.

When an incident attracts widespread attention, a clear explanation of the operational objectives can help prevent rumours from becoming accepted as fact. Where officers cannot disclose particular details because of an ongoing investigation, the force can still explain the general reasons for its actions and outline how concerns will be reviewed.

Silence can leave a vacuum that competing interpretations quickly fill.

At the same time, police statements should not be treated as the final word simply because they come from an official source. Independent scrutiny, credible eyewitness evidence and transparent investigation can all contribute to a more complete understanding.

The aim should not be to defend every police action automatically or to assume misconduct whenever an operation appears forceful. It should be to establish the facts and determine whether the response met the standards expected of public authorities.

The Importance of Proportionate Force

Proportionality is a central principle in democratic policing.

Officers may need to intervene decisively when confronted with violence, credible threats or circumstances in which people face immediate danger. But the level of intervention should reflect the circumstances and the risks involved.

An operation that is appropriate when serious violence is imminent may be difficult to justify in a situation involving peaceful members of the public who present no comparable threat.

The context therefore matters more than appearances alone.

A proper review of the Gosport incident would need to consider the behaviour of those present, the information available to officers, the stated purpose of the deployment and the tactics used.

It should also consider whether communication or negotiation could have achieved the same objective with less disruption.

Proportionate policing is not necessarily weak policing. In many situations, restraint and clear communication can prevent tensions from escalating while allowing officers to maintain control.

Conversely, failing to respond adequately to a genuine threat can also undermine public confidence, particularly if people are injured or property is damaged because authorities did not act when necessary.

The challenge is to strike the appropriate balance.

Freedom of Expression and the Right to Peaceful Assembly

Controversies involving a visible police presence can also raise concerns about freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

In a democratic society, people must be able to express political opinions, criticise public authorities and participate in lawful demonstrations. These freedoms are important even when the views being expressed are unpopular or controversial.

Police have a responsibility to protect people exercising their rights while also responding to credible threats, violence and other unlawful conduct.

The presence of a protest or public gathering does not automatically justify an aggressive response. Equally, describing an event as peaceful does not remove the need to investigate specific evidence of threats or unlawful behaviour.

The legal position depends on the circumstances, the nature of the gathering and the powers relied upon by the authorities.

Where a police operation affects a public demonstration or gathering, it is reasonable to ask whether officers facilitated lawful activity, whether restrictions were necessary and whether those affected were given appropriate explanations.

These questions are especially important when members of the public believe that a deployment was intended to discourage lawful participation rather than address a demonstrable safety concern.

However, allegations that police deliberately sought to intimidate people should be supported by evidence rather than inferred solely from the size of the operation.

Social Media Has Intensified the Debate

Online platforms have transformed how policing incidents are discussed.

A photograph of officers in protective equipment or a short video of a confrontation can circulate widely within minutes. People who were not present may form strong opinions before a full account of the circumstances becomes available.

The resulting debate can be useful when it brings genuine misconduct to light or encourages authorities to explain decisions that affect the public.

Video footage, for example, can provide important evidence about the sequence of events and the conduct of individual officers. Witness accounts may also identify details that were not included in an initial police statement.

But social media has limitations.

A short clip may begin after the incident has already developed, omit relevant interactions or fail to show what officers knew at the time. Captions and commentary can also present interpretations as established facts.

For this reason, claims about the Gosport operation should be evaluated against the fullest available evidence.

The allegation that the deployment amounted to intimidation is a serious one, but it remains an allegation unless supported by reliable evidence establishing what occurred.

Responsible discussion requires distinguishing between verified facts, eyewitness accounts and opinions about the appropriateness of the response.

What Should Hampshire Police Do Next?

Where an operation generates significant public concern, the relevant police force has an opportunity to demonstrate accountability.

A useful first step would be to explain the purpose of the deployment, the risks officers believed they faced and the operational decisions that led to the use of additional resources.

If an investigation is ongoing, the force should explain what information can be disclosed and when further details might become available.

Any complaint should be handled through the appropriate procedures, with evidence preserved and relevant witnesses given an opportunity to provide accounts.

Depending on the nature of the allegations, independent oversight may also be appropriate.

A transparent review should examine not only whether officers acted within their legal powers but also whether their actions were proportionate, consistent with professional standards and likely to maintain public confidence.

If mistakes occurred, acknowledging them and explaining how they will be addressed can strengthen accountability. If the evidence shows that the operation was justified, communicating that evidence clearly can help correct misleading interpretations.

Either outcome is preferable to allowing uncertainty and speculation to dominate the discussion.

The purpose of scrutiny should be to establish the truth, improve practice where necessary and ensure that the public can have confidence in the standards governing police conduct.

Could the Controversy Have Wider Consequences?

The reaction in Gosport reflects a broader challenge facing police forces throughout Britain.

Officers must respond to changing patterns of crime, public gatherings, community tensions and safety concerns while operating under significant public scrutiny.

They are expected to act decisively when necessary, but they must also demonstrate restraint and professionalism. Those expectations can sometimes conflict in fast-moving situations, making training, supervision and clear operational guidance especially important.

Controversies can also affect recruitment and morale if officers believe that legitimate decisions will be judged without consideration of the circumstances. On the other hand, a failure to investigate credible complaints can damage confidence among the communities police are meant to serve.

The solution is neither automatic condemnation nor unquestioning support.

It is a system in which decisions can be examined fairly, officers are held accountable where appropriate, and the public receives enough information to understand the reasoning behind significant operations.

For local communities, the outcome of the Gosport dispute may influence how residents interpret future police deployments. A credible explanation and a fair review could help restore confidence. An inadequate response could leave concerns unresolved.

Conclusion: Accountability Must Come Before Assumptions

The backlash over the police operation in Gosport has placed an important question before the public: when does a necessary show of authority become an excessive display of force?

Critics have described the incident as “intimidation, not policing”, while the broader debate highlights the competing responsibilities faced by officers who must protect public safety and respect individual rights.

The answer cannot be determined by a slogan, a photograph or a single account of the incident. It requires reliable evidence about the circumstances, the risks involved, the decisions made and the conduct of those present.

Police forces must be able to respond to genuine threats, but they must also recognise that public confidence depends on fairness, proportionality and accountability.

If the Gosport operation was justified, the public deserves a clear explanation of why. If mistakes were made, those responsible should be held accountable through the appropriate procedures.

Ultimately, effective policing is about more than displaying authority. It is about using that authority lawfully, protecting people from harm and maintaining the trust that allows police and communities to work together.

The controversy in Gosport should therefore lead to a careful examination of the evidence rather than premature conclusions. Establishing what happened is the necessary first step towards determining whether the operation represented appropriate policing or whether legitimate concerns about the use of power require further action.