Chameleon Magazine

Last night, the line between law enforcement and political manipulation blurred in the most disgraceful way.

Essex Police admitted to escorting pro-migrant counter-demonstrators to an asylum hotel in Epping—an already volatile location where tensions have been simmering for weeks. Not surprisingly, violence erupted. But here’s the question: what did they think would happen?

This wasn’t crowd control. This was state-enabled provocation.

We’re told over and over again that the government wants to “get a grip on immigration.” That it understands public concern. That it hears the communities who feel ignored, overburdened, or pushed aside.

And then they bus people in—people from other places, with opposing views—right to the doorstep of those very communities. This wasn’t a peaceful vigil. It was a counter-protest, facilitated and delivered to a flashpoint. One spark away from disaster.

If any other political party had done this—shuttled in activists to confront locals outside a hotel housing vulnerable asylum seekers—it would have been called out for what it is: reckless, inflammatory, and dangerous.

So let’s say it loud: this was reckless, inflammatory, and dangerous.

And someone should be held responsible.

What were the police thinking?

What was the risk assessment? Who made the call? What conversations took place between officers, senior command, and government departments?

Because make no mistake: escorting protestors to a conflict zone—especially one involving emotionally charged issues like immigration—is not policing. It’s playing with fire.

And when that fire burns, it’s not just about a single hotel or a single night. It’s about trust. In our institutions. In our police. In our leaders. When people see the state choosing sides, protecting some voices while inflaming others, the whole system rots from the inside.

Is this how public order is managed now?

With secret decisions, tactical shuttling of protestors, and no consequences when it goes wrong?

Because if this had been an anti-government protest—or a controversial activist stunt—you can be sure heads would roll. But when it’s politically awkward? When the optics are bad for those in charge? Silence.

We’re not stupid.

We know this wasn’t about peacekeeping. This was about controlling the narrative, staging a scene, and letting the fallout happen somewhere far from Westminster. And when real people get hurt, the government just shrugs, as if chaos is an unfortunate side effect of their management strategy.

Enough.

We deserve better than this mess of contradictions. You don’t claim to care about immigration control while creating hostile stand-offs in the dead of night. You don’t claim to support community cohesion while busing in ideological grenades. And you don’t protect democracy by turning the police into couriers for political tension.

Whoever signed off on this needs to answer for it. And if they won’t, then we need to start asking: who are they really working for?

We are citizens. Not pawns. Not scenery. Not collateral damage for your next election stunt.

And we will remember.