We all know what’s going on. You pay for your train ticket, walk through the barrier, and then someone forces their way through behind you. Nobody stops them. You look around, half-expecting a member of staff to do something, but the offender has already disappeared down the escalator. Gone.
In moments like these, we might not be frightened, but we’re all annoyed. Irritated. Angry. And the question going through all of our minds is perfectly reasonable: why am I being mugged off for following the rules?
It’s the same for the shopkeeper who reports a thief for the third time. He doesn’t need a lecture about the “root causes” of criminality. He wants to know the thief won’t come back. He wants the thief caught and punished. We all do. Except apparently the Conservative party, who told the police not to bother investigating thefts below £200.
Calling this sort of thing “low-level crime” is convenient for politicians. But I’m not a politician. I’m a crimefighter. A manhunter. I’m the former Detective Chief Inspector for the Metropolitan Police who led the investigation into Milly Dowler’s murder. I locked up serial killer Levi Bellfield, and serial rapist Delroy Grant.
But, some of the cases I am most proud of are those that people don’t know about. The thefts, the muggings, the drug dealing. The so-called petty crime, that gnaws away at society and neighbourhoods.
Every crime matters. Every indignity matters. And as Reform UK’s Policing and Crime Advisor, it is my number one priority to bring not just everyday safety back to British streets, but to ensure we fix our broken institutions, and end two-tier policing.
No more having to watch your back. No more getting mugged off.
Our S.A.F.E. plan, which we’re launching today, commits us to tackling all crime, big or small. Local and national.
We’re prioritising your Safety with a massive expansion of stop-and-search powers and 30,000 more officers on the street. We’ll come down hard on Anti-social disorder, banning balaclavas and on nuisances like illegal e-bikes. We’re intent on having Functioning institutions, ending early release for serious criminals and ensuring that our brave police officers are protected from woke outfits like the College of Policing. We will doggedly pursue Equal enforcement; DEI will be ripped out of British policing.
Protecting people must come first. Serious violence, sexual offences, and criminals who prey on vulnerable victims require painstaking investigation and properly-equipped specialist police.
It is a scandal that only one in ten sexual offences results in a conviction. And what happens in those handful of cases which result in a conviction? Too often plastic sentences. Take the pedophilic men who view and send child pornography. Of those convicted on this basis, fewer than 1 in 5 will see the inside of a prison cell.
At the same time, British neighbourhoods and high streets up and down our country have been left to criminal gangs because in this day and age, it’s deemed easier or simpler just to let it all fester. There seems to be no interest in tackling the persistent harassment, especially of women, in our communities. Things like vandalism and threatening behaviour go totally unassailed but they create misery for people every single day. It’s not on. It’s not the country we want to live in.
The distinction between serious crime and everyday disorder matters operationally. But one can’t be abandoned in pursuit of the other.
Making the machinery of all of this work against the criminals is not glamorous. But it’s critical and often ignored.
People need to feel like they know what’s being investigated, why, and what the process is going to look like. The idea that someone comes and takes a statement and then you never hear from them again is just insulting for everyone. And it’s a waste of time.
Where there’s no realistic prospect of identifying an offender, an honest explanation is better than a reference number presented as though it were a result in and of itself. It is unacceptable that over two million crimes go unsolved each year. Two million victims without answers. Two million criminals who escaped justice.
Equal enforcement is what holds the whole thing together. It’s part of the social contract of our nation. Over the last five years, as law and order has collapsed, the police have found time to arrest over 60,000 for speech offences. This is a stain in itself, but also indicative of the warped priorities of British policing.
Punishments for real crimes matter. But if you’re going to get tough in rhetoric, you’ve got to match that in prison capacity and broader infrastructure. We’ve all watched local police stations close at the same time successive governments have tried to pretend they’re “getting tough.” People can see through such empty claims. And critically, so can criminals.
Reform UK has a plan. The S.A.F.E. plan. The practical and common sense answers, led by people who have a track record of success in bringing even the most hardened criminals to justice.
The people following the rules have kept their side of the bargain. It is time for the government to keep theirs. And that starts on day one of a Reform UK administration.
Reform UK Unveils Anti-Woke Policing Plan as Nigel Farage Vows to Tear Up DEI Rules
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has unveiled a major policing proposal that would remove diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) policies from British policing, scrap the College of Policing and recruit 30,000 additional police officers. The announcement marks a renewed effort by the party to put law and order at the centre of its political agenda, with Farage arguing that police resources should focus on preventing crime, protecting victims and ensuring that the law is applied equally.
The proposals, announced on 19 October 2026, form part of Reform UK’s S.A.F.E. plan, which focuses on safety, antisocial behaviour, functioning institutions and equal enforcement. The party says its approach would transform policing by changing training requirements, expanding stop-and-search powers and removing structures it believes place too much emphasis on diversity initiatives. <Cite refs={[“turn386338search0″,”turn386338search2”]}/>
The announcement is likely to intensify the debate over the role of equality policies in public institutions. Supporters argue that police officers should concentrate on investigating offences and treating everyone equally under the law. Critics, however, may question whether removing DEI programmes would improve policing outcomes or undermine efforts to build public confidence among different communities.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental question: how can Britain improve public safety while ensuring that its police forces remain fair, effective and accountable?
Reform UK’s Plan to Transform British Policing
Reform UK has presented its latest proposals as a response to concerns about crime, antisocial behaviour and public confidence in the police. The party argues that officers should spend more time on frontline duties and less time completing training or administrative work that it considers unnecessary.
One of the most prominent commitments is the recruitment of 30,000 additional police officers. Reform says a larger frontline workforce would help improve police visibility, increase the ability to investigate offences and provide a stronger response to persistent criminal behaviour.
The party also proposes scrapping the College of Policing, the professional body responsible for developing national standards and guidance for policing in England and Wales. Reform argues that the institution has become too closely associated with approaches it describes as ideological.
Replacing or restructuring such an organisation would represent a significant change to the way professional guidance is developed and implemented. Any new arrangements would need to establish clear standards for training, conduct, recruitment and operational accountability.
Reform has also proposed removing DEI-related modules from police training, prohibiting race action plans and abolishing structures established solely to advance equality of outcome.
The party says these changes would restore a system based on equal enforcement, with the same legal standards applying regardless of a person’s background.
However, the practical impact would depend on how the proposals were implemented. Removing particular training programmes would not automatically resolve problems involving poor investigations, inadequate staffing or inconsistent enforcement. A new framework would need to demonstrate that it improves operational performance rather than simply changing the language used by police forces.
Why Farage Wants to Scrap DEI Policies
Diversity, equality and inclusion initiatives have become a major political dividing line in Britain and other Western countries.
Such programmes can include staff training, recruitment initiatives, workplace policies and measures intended to identify unequal treatment. In policing, some equality initiatives are designed to improve relationships with communities, address discrimination and encourage public confidence in law enforcement.
Farage and Reform UK argue that certain initiatives have gone too far, creating unnecessary bureaucracy and encouraging police forces to focus on group identities rather than individual conduct.
The party’s position is that the police should treat people equally under the law, investigate crimes impartially and avoid policies that could lead to different treatment based on ethnicity.
Reform has also highlighted the estimated cost of DEI-related activities. In July 2026, the party cited a Policy Exchange report estimating that police forces had spent approximately £631 million on DEI initiatives since May 2020. The estimate included staff time, dedicated inclusion roles and external consultancy. <Cite refs={[“turn386338search12″,”turn386338search2”]}/>
That figure has become part of Reform’s argument that money and staff time should instead be directed towards frontline policing.
Nevertheless, the estimate represents a particular assessment of spending associated with DEI activities, rather than proof that every initiative was ineffective or that all the money could immediately be converted into additional officers. Some programmes may serve different purposes, and their costs and outcomes would need to be assessed individually.
The wider policy debate therefore involves two separate questions: whether particular initiatives deliver measurable benefits and whether the proposed alternative would produce better results.
The Promise of More Officers on Britain’s Streets
The pledge to recruit 30,000 additional officers is another central element of the S.A.F.E. plan.
Police visibility is an important issue for communities concerned about theft, vandalism, threatening behaviour and persistent antisocial activity. Residents may feel that their neighbourhoods have been neglected when repeated complaints appear to produce little visible action.
Reform argues that additional officers would help restore confidence by ensuring a stronger police presence in areas experiencing persistent problems.
The party has also proposed guaranteed foot patrols in neighbourhoods affected by antisocial behaviour, alongside a substantial expansion of stop-and-search activity in crime hotspots.
Such measures could increase police visibility and provide officers with more opportunities to identify suspects, gather intelligence and intervene in criminal activity.
However, recruitment on this scale would require careful planning. New officers must be recruited, vetted, trained and supported before they can operate independently. The government would also need to provide sufficient funding for salaries, equipment, vehicles, accommodation and supervision.
There would be additional questions about where officers would be deployed and how their effectiveness would be measured.
Increasing officer numbers does not automatically guarantee a corresponding reduction in crime. Results would depend on deployment strategies, investigative capacity, cooperation with communities and the ability of the wider criminal justice system to process cases.
Reform would therefore need to explain how the proposed expansion would be financed and delivered, as well as how it would address existing recruitment and retention challenges.
Stop-and-Search Powers and the Fight Against Crime
Reform’s plan also calls for a substantial expansion of stop-and-search powers in areas identified as crime hotspots.
The party believes a stronger use of these powers could help officers detect weapons, disrupt drug dealing and deter violent offences.
Supporters of more intensive policing argue that visible enforcement can make it harder for offenders to operate openly. They also contend that officers need sufficient powers to intervene before potentially dangerous situations escalate.
However, stop-and-search remains a sensitive issue because the way it is used can affect public trust.
The effectiveness of the policy depends on how searches are targeted, whether officers have reasonable grounds where required by law, and whether the use of powers is monitored properly. Disproportionate or poorly justified searches can damage relationships between police and local communities.
Reform would need to demonstrate that its proposed expansion could improve crime prevention while maintaining safeguards against arbitrary treatment.
The party’s broader argument is that policing should be judged by its ability to protect the public and enforce the law. Critics may counter that effective policing requires both robust enforcement and public cooperation, particularly when officers rely on residents to report crimes, provide evidence and assist investigations.
Balancing these objectives would be essential to any substantial change in stop-and-search policy.
Tougher Sentences and Faster Justice
The S.A.F.E. plan extends beyond DEI policies and police recruitment. Reform has also proposed restoring short prison sentences, introducing fast-track courts for repeat offenders and creating 12,000 additional prison places. <Cite refs={[“turn386338search0″,”turn386338search2”]}/>
These proposals reflect the party’s argument that persistent offenders should face clear consequences and that victims should not be left waiting for justice.
Court delays can create difficulties for victims, witnesses and defendants alike. Long waits may prolong uncertainty, increase pressure on those involved and make it harder for the justice system to resolve cases efficiently.
Fast-track procedures could potentially help with suitable cases, but their success would depend on judicial capacity, the availability of legal representation and the complexity of individual offences.
Prison capacity presents another major challenge. Creating additional places requires investment in buildings, staff, security and rehabilitation services. If prison capacity does not keep pace with sentencing decisions, overcrowding and operational pressures could worsen.
The proposal to restore short prison sentences would also require consideration of their effectiveness in reducing reoffending. Punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and public protection are all relevant to sentencing policy, and different offences may require different responses.
The government would need to consider the costs of the proposals alongside their likely impact on crime and repeat offending.
The Debate Over Two-Tier Policing
Reform has repeatedly argued that British policing has become too focused on diversity initiatives and has not always treated people consistently.
The party’s proposed Equal Treatment Act, announced in June 2026, would ban DEI practices and police race action plans as part of a broader effort to establish what it describes as equality before the law. <Cite refs={[“turn386338search1″,”turn386338search7”]}/>
The issue has become politically contentious because different sides interpret the purpose and consequences of equality policies differently.
Reform argues that rules designed to improve equality can become counterproductive if they encourage institutions to prioritise demographic outcomes over consistent enforcement. Its supporters believe that the police should focus on individual behaviour and evidence rather than ethnicity or identity.
Supporters of existing equality initiatives argue that understanding different communities and identifying patterns of discrimination can help police forces improve their conduct and build trust. They may also contend that removing such programmes without effective alternatives could make it harder to identify or address unequal treatment.
These positions are not necessarily resolved simply by removing a training module or abolishing a particular administrative structure. Fair policing also depends on professional standards, strong supervision, reliable complaints procedures and accountability when officers act improperly.
Any new framework would need to explain how those protections would operate and how police forces would identify problems without relying on the structures Reform wants to remove.
The central test would be whether the reforms deliver consistent enforcement while maintaining public confidence across the communities the police serve.
What Would Happen to the College of Policing?
The proposal to abolish the College of Policing could have significant implications for professional standards in England and Wales.
The organisation provides guidance and training resources intended to support consistent policing practice. Removing it would require decisions about which responsibilities would be transferred elsewhere and how national standards would be maintained.
Reform would need to establish what body, if any, would take over its functions. It would also need to explain how officers would receive training on criminal investigations, evidence handling, safeguarding, professional ethics and the use of legal powers.
Changing the institutional structure would not automatically improve performance. The outcome would depend on the quality of the replacement arrangements and whether police forces received clear, practical guidance.
At the same time, supporters of Reform’s approach may argue that a new structure would provide an opportunity to reduce bureaucracy and focus professional development more directly on frontline responsibilities.
A detailed implementation plan would be needed to assess the likely benefits, costs and risks of such a significant change.
Can Reform Deliver Its Promises?
The scale of the S.A.F.E. plan means that funding and implementation will be central to any assessment of its feasibility.
Recruiting 30,000 additional officers, expanding prison capacity, changing national policing institutions and introducing new court procedures would require coordination across several parts of the criminal justice system.
The costs would extend beyond initial recruitment or construction. Salaries, training, maintenance, supervision and ongoing operational expenses would create continuing financial commitments.
Reform would also need to consider how its proposals would interact with existing police budgets and the responsibilities of local forces.
A credible programme would identify the funding required, establish a realistic timetable and explain which outcomes would be used to judge success.
These details matter because voters are entitled to understand not only what a party promises but also how it intends to deliver those promises.
A Major Test for Britain’s Law-and-Order Debate
Reform UK’s latest policing proposals place Nigel Farage’s party firmly within the national debate over crime, public safety and the role of equality policies in public institutions.
The party is promising more officers, stronger enforcement, tougher responses to persistent offending and a substantial reduction in the role of DEI initiatives within policing.
Supporters are likely to welcome the emphasis on frontline policing and the promise to redirect resources towards crime prevention. Critics will want evidence that removing equality structures and expanding police powers would improve public safety without creating new problems involving accountability or public trust.
The practical implications will depend on the final policy details, the funding available and the legal framework governing implementation.
Ultimately, the debate is about more than whether policing should be described as ‘woke’ or ‘anti-woke’. It concerns how Britain can build police forces that investigate crimes effectively, protect victims, treat individuals fairly and maintain the confidence of the public.
For Farage and Reform UK, the challenge will be to demonstrate that the S.A.F.E. plan can deliver measurable improvements rather than simply provide a powerful political message. For the wider debate, the key question remains whether the proposed reforms can combine stronger enforcement with the safeguards and professional standards required for effective policing.