For years, sections of the political right have promoted the idea that Britain suffers from “two-tier policing” – a claim that police treat people differently depending on their political beliefs, ethnicity, or ideological affiliations. The phrase has become a staple of commentators, influencers and politicians who insist that the authorities are tougher on some groups than others.
Yet if recent events tell us anything, it is that the far greater problem may not be two-tier policing at all. It may be two-tier media.
Take the contrasting treatment of Green Party deputy leader Zack Polanski and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.
Polanski recently criticised police tactics during a protest and shared material on social media that questioned the proportionality of police actions. The response was swift. Police publicly rebuked him. Journalists demanded explanations. Interviews became interrogations. Headlines focused on whether he had irresponsibly undermined confidence in law enforcement.
Regardless of whether one agrees with Polanski’s comments, the reaction demonstrated how quickly politicians can find themselves under intense scrutiny when they challenge police conduct from a progressive perspective.
Now compare that with Nigel Farage.
During the disorder that followed the Southport murders in 2024, Farage used his enormous platform to amplify speculation and conspiracy theories. He publicly questioned information released by the authorities and suggested that crucial facts were being withheld. At a time when tensions were already dangerously high, such interventions contributed to an atmosphere of suspicion and anger.
As violence spread across towns and cities, police officers, mosques, refugee accommodation and local communities became targets. The unrest resulted in hundreds of arrests and significant damage. Senior police leaders repeatedly warned about the role misinformation played in fuelling the disturbances.
Yet where was the sustained media outrage directed at Farage?
Where were the endless television panels demanding accountability? Where were the front-page campaigns questioning whether his statements had inflamed an already volatile situation? Where were the formal condemnations from the same commentators who routinely insist that public figures must be careful about the messages they send?
The discrepancy is difficult to ignore.
When politicians on the left criticise policing, they are often portrayed as irresponsible or anti-police. Their words are dissected, analysed and condemned. But when prominent figures on the right make inflammatory claims about police conduct, spread suspicion, or undermine public confidence in law enforcement, the response is frequently muted.
This is not an argument that Polanski should be immune from criticism. Public figures should expect scrutiny. The issue is consistency.
If the media believes politicians have a responsibility to avoid rhetoric that could damage trust in policing, then that principle must apply equally to everyone. If questioning police actions is dangerous, it is dangerous regardless of political affiliation. If amplifying unverified claims during periods of public tension is irresponsible, it remains irresponsible whether the speaker sits on the left, right or centre.
Instead, Britain increasingly appears to operate under a system in which media outrage is distributed according to political convenience rather than objective standards.
That selective scrutiny has consequences. It shapes public perceptions of what is acceptable. It influences who is held accountable and who escapes serious examination. Most importantly, it distorts democratic debate by creating different rules for different political tribes.
The irony is striking. Those who speak most loudly about alleged two-tier policing often receive remarkably gentle treatment from large sections of the media. Meanwhile, politicians who challenge authority from a different ideological direction can find themselves subjected to intense criticism for far less provocative remarks.
Perhaps that is why the endless debate about two-tier policing misses the point.
The greater threat to public trust may not be unequal policing at all. It may be a media culture that applies scrutiny selectively, outrage inconsistently and accountability unevenly.
Because when identical standards are not applied to everyone, it is not just policing that appears divided into tiers.
The media does too.
