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 Plan That Would ‘Tear Up’ DEI Policing
Reform UK has reignited Britain’s debate over diversity, equity and inclusion with a proposal aimed at changing how public institutions approach equality policies, workplace training and discrimination complaints. The plan, framed by its supporters as an attempt to roll back what they describe as excessive ideological influence, has raised important questions about fairness, free expression and the proper responsibilities of employers and public bodies.
The debate over DEI has become increasingly prominent in British politics. Supporters argue that diversity and inclusion programmes can help identify barriers, improve workplace culture and ensure that people are treated fairly regardless of their background. Critics, however, believe that some initiatives have become bureaucratic, politically prescriptive or too focused on identity rather than individual merit.
Reform UK’s latest proposal places these competing perspectives at the centre of its political message. By challenging existing approaches to equality and workplace conduct, the party is seeking to appeal to voters who believe public institutions have become too concerned with ideological rules and insufficiently focused on practical outcomes.
Yet changing DEI policies is more complicated than removing training programmes or rewriting official guidance. Equality law, workplace procedures and the responsibilities of public authorities are governed by a mixture of legislation, regulations and institutional policies. Any substantial reform would need to address how those rules interact and what protections should remain in place.
What Does DEI Mean?
DEI stands for diversity, equity and inclusion. The term covers a wide range of approaches designed to encourage participation, address discrimination and create working environments in which people from different backgrounds can contribute.
Diversity generally refers to the representation of people with different characteristics and experiences. Inclusion concerns whether individuals feel able to participate and are treated with respect. Equity usually focuses on identifying and addressing barriers that may prevent people from accessing the same opportunities.
In practice, DEI programmes vary considerably. Some organisations provide training on discrimination and workplace behaviour. Others review recruitment procedures, assess promotion patterns or introduce measures intended to widen access to employment.
This variety is important because criticism of one programme does not necessarily apply to every initiative described as DEI.
Some schemes may involve straightforward measures to comply with equality law, while others may include compulsory training, internal reporting procedures or organisational targets that attract disagreement. Assessing a proposal to reform DEI therefore requires a clear understanding of which practices are being challenged.
Reform UK’s position reflects a wider argument about the boundaries between preventing discrimination and imposing particular political or cultural viewpoints. The party’s supporters may see reform as a way to restore individual responsibility and freedom of expression. Opponents may worry that removing safeguards could weaken efforts to address genuine discrimination.
The practical consequences would depend on the details of the proposal and how it was implemented.
Why Reform UK Is Targeting DEI Policies
Reform UK has built much of its political identity around challenging established institutions and questioning policies it considers unnecessarily restrictive. Its criticism of DEI fits into a broader argument that public organisations should concentrate on their core responsibilities rather than pursue initiatives that critics regard as ideological.
For supporters of this approach, the issue is one of fairness. They argue that recruitment and promotion should be based on relevant skills, qualifications and performance, rather than pressure to achieve particular demographic outcomes.
They also raise concerns about compulsory workplace training. If employees believe they must agree with a particular interpretation of social issues to avoid professional consequences, critics argue, the result may be resentment rather than genuine understanding.
Freedom of expression is another central concern. Organisations need rules against harassment and discrimination, but employees may disagree about political or social questions without necessarily engaging in misconduct. A well-designed policy should distinguish between legitimate disagreement and behaviour that violates clear workplace standards.
These arguments help explain why DEI has become a prominent issue for parties seeking to challenge established approaches to public administration.
However, the effectiveness of any proposed reform must be judged against its actual provisions. Removing an unnecessary reporting requirement may reduce bureaucracy, for example, while removing a fair and effective complaint process could leave employees with fewer ways to address discrimination.
The important question is not simply whether an initiative carries a DEI label, but whether it produces useful results and respects individual rights.
The Meaning of ‘DEI Policing’
The phrase “DEI policing” is politically charged. It suggests that equality initiatives are being used to monitor behaviour, restrict speech or impose a narrow set of acceptable opinions.
For some employees and campaigners, that description reflects concerns about workplace rules that they believe have become overly intrusive. They may argue that poorly designed policies discourage open discussion or encourage managers to focus on language and terminology rather than the substance of workplace problems.
But the phrase can also oversimplify how equality policies operate.
A complaint about racial harassment, for instance, is not automatically an attempt to suppress free speech. Employers have responsibilities to address unlawful discrimination and may need procedures for investigating allegations fairly. Equally, a complaint does not establish that misconduct has occurred: the facts must be examined and the people involved should have an opportunity to respond.
A fair system must protect employees from discriminatory treatment while also ensuring that accusations are assessed objectively.
If Reform UK intends to change the way institutions investigate complaints or manage workplace training, the details will be crucial. Clear definitions, transparent procedures and appropriate safeguards can help prevent both discrimination and the misuse of disciplinary processes.
Without those details, the term “DEI policing” risks becoming a slogan that obscures the practical choices policymakers must make.
Equality Law Would Still Matter
One of the most important distinctions in this debate is the difference between voluntary workplace initiatives and legal obligations.
In Britain, the Equality Act 2010 provides protections against discrimination in areas including employment and the provision of services. It covers protected characteristics such as race, sex, disability, religion or belief, age and sexual orientation, subject to the law’s specific provisions.
An employer may choose to change its internal training programme or stop using particular terminology. That does not automatically remove its legal responsibilities.
Similarly, a government could review the way public institutions implement equality policies, but any changes would need to be considered alongside existing legislation and relevant legal obligations.
This means that a proposal to “tear up” DEI policing should not automatically be interpreted as a proposal to abolish every form of equality protection. The distinction depends on what the party actually intends to change.
There is also a practical question about enforcement. If an organisation removes an internal procedure, it may still need another mechanism for dealing with complaints and complying with the law. Removing a policy without providing a workable alternative could create uncertainty for managers and employees alike.
A serious reform programme would therefore need to explain which policies would end, which would be retained and how organisations would continue to meet their statutory duties.
The Argument for Merit and Individual Treatment
Supporters of Reform UK’s approach often emphasise the principle that people should be judged as individuals.
They argue that employers should select candidates according to qualifications, experience and ability to perform the job. From this perspective, recruitment systems should avoid giving people an advantage or disadvantage simply because they belong to a particular demographic group.
Merit-based recruitment is an important objective, but ensuring that it operates fairly requires careful design.
Employers must decide which qualifications are genuinely relevant, how candidates are assessed and whether recruitment procedures unintentionally exclude suitable applicants. A transparent process can help protect merit while reducing the risk of discrimination.
For example, using consistent interview questions and clearly defined selection criteria can make decisions easier to justify. Reviewing recruitment data may also help an organisation identify a potential problem, although differences in representation do not automatically prove discrimination.
The challenge is to distinguish legitimate efforts to widen access from practices that undermine fair and consistent selection.
A policy that focuses on skills and objective criteria can be compatible with efforts to ensure that qualified applicants are not unfairly excluded. The two objectives do not necessarily conflict.
Why Opponents May Be Concerned
Critics of a broad rollback of DEI policies may argue that existing initiatives serve an important purpose by helping organisations identify discrimination and improve workplace culture.
Discrimination is not always obvious. It can arise through inconsistent recruitment decisions, inaccessible working arrangements, harassment or procedures that disadvantage particular groups without a clear justification.
Supporters of equality programmes argue that training and monitoring can help employers recognise these risks before they develop into more serious problems.
They may also point out that removing a programme does not automatically eliminate the issue it was intended to address. If a workplace has a genuine problem with harassment or unequal treatment, ending training without introducing effective alternatives may leave that problem unresolved.
However, these concerns do not mean that every DEI programme is effective. Organisations should be able to demonstrate that their initiatives achieve worthwhile outcomes, use resources responsibly and respect employees’ rights.
Training that is poorly designed or disconnected from practical workplace issues may have limited value. Measures that create confusion or discourage reasonable discussion may also need to be reviewed.
The strongest approach is to evaluate individual policies rather than assume that all DEI initiatives are either indispensable or harmful.
The Impact on Public Institutions
If Reform UK’s proposal were translated into government policy, its effects could extend across public services, local authorities and publicly funded organisations, depending on the scope of the measures.
Institutions would need to determine whether their current policies were covered, which procedures could be changed and what legal obligations would remain.
Some changes might reduce administrative requirements or simplify workplace guidance. Others could require substantial revisions to recruitment, staff training, complaints procedures and internal monitoring.
There would also be questions about implementation costs. Ending a programme may appear straightforward, but reviewing contracts, replacing training materials and updating internal procedures can require time and money. Any claimed savings would need to be assessed against the cost of implementing the new system.
Public bodies would also need to communicate changes clearly to employees and the people who use their services. Uncertainty over workplace standards could create difficulties if new rules were introduced without sufficient explanation.
For these reasons, a credible reform plan would need more than a declaration of political intent. It would require practical guidance, a clear timetable and an explanation of how institutions should measure success.
A Wider Cultural and Political Debate
The dispute over DEI reflects a broader disagreement about the role of government and institutions in addressing social inequalities.
One perspective places greater emphasis on individual responsibility, equal treatment under the law and limiting the influence of political ideas within workplaces. Another emphasises the need to identify structural barriers and take active steps to ensure that opportunities are genuinely accessible.
These positions are not always mutually exclusive. It is possible to support individual merit while recognising that discrimination can affect people’s opportunities. It is also possible to support equality protections while questioning whether a particular training programme is effective.
Political debate often presents these questions as a simple choice between competing principles. In practice, the difficult decisions concern implementation: which rules are necessary, which initiatives work and how competing rights should be balanced.
Reform UK’s proposal is likely to attract attention precisely because it challenges policies that many institutions have adopted in recent years. But its consequences will depend on the actual measures proposed rather than the strength of the language used to describe them.
What Happens Next?
The central test for any DEI reform plan will be whether it offers a clear alternative to existing arrangements.
Reform UK would need to specify what it means by “DEI policing”, identify the rules or practices it wants to remove and explain how organisations would continue to address discrimination and harassment.
It would also need to show how the changes would preserve lawful protections, support fair recruitment and protect legitimate freedom of expression.
Critics, meanwhile, should assess the detailed proposals rather than assume that every change would weaken equality. Some reforms may simplify ineffective procedures, while others could create gaps that require additional safeguards.
For the public, the most useful questions are practical. Would the changes improve recruitment? Would they reduce unnecessary bureaucracy? Would employees retain effective ways to report discrimination? Would the new rules be clear enough to apply consistently?
Those questions provide a better basis for judging the proposal than political slogans alone.
Reform UK’s anti-DEI plan has brought a contentious issue back into the national conversation. Its supporters see an opportunity to challenge practices they consider excessive and restore a stronger emphasis on merit and individual freedom. Its critics warn that a sweeping rollback could weaken efforts to prevent discrimination.
Ultimately, a successful approach would need to demonstrate that equality under the law, fair treatment, freedom of expression and effective public administration can be protected together. The real debate is not simply whether Britain should be for or against DEI. It is which policies work, which do not and how institutions can ensure that every individual is treated fairly.