Staff Reports
Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary David Lammy set off another row this week when he told the BBC that while “we are all equal before the law,” equality in policing “does not always necessarily mean the same.” The remarks came as the nation watched body‑worn footage from the murder of 18‑year‑old Henry Nowak and as police chiefs’ new anti‑racism guidance — language saying racial equity “does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’” — became the centrepiece of a furious debate about fairness, policing and public trust.
Lammy’s claim: equality before the law — but not equal treatment?
On a live broadcast, Mr Lammy tried to thread a needle: insist that equality before the law is non‑negotiable, but also argue policing should take community context into account because arrest and custody rates are not evenly distributed. That sounds reasonable until you realise it leaves a gaping hole where simple rules used to be. If equality under the law can be stretched into context‑sensitive “different” treatment, then officers and courts are left to perform endless semantic gymnastics. Welcome to the new legal math — where equal means equal-ish.
The flashpoint: Henry Nowak’s death and the body‑cam footage
The public anger is not theoretical. The release of police body‑worn video from the Nowak case showed officers handcuffing a young man who kept saying he had been stabbed. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating, the killer has been convicted and sentenced, and people are asking a basic question: were those officers doing their duty? Critics say the NPCC language and Mr Lammy’s comments make a bad situation worse by suggesting police can, at times, treat victims and suspects differently based on background — an idea that feeds suspicion rather than calm.
Why vague policy language is a real danger
The National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing introduced anti‑racism wording meant to address disparities in outcomes — a worthy goal. But the phrase “does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’” is now being reviewed because it gives the public the wrong impression. That impression matters. Policing functions on clear rules and public confidence. If officers think they must factor ethnicity into routine decisions, the result will be confusion and claims of two‑tier justice. Ministers and chiefs should stop the wordplay and give officers a single clear standard: equal treatment under the law, always.
Political fallout and the hard answer voters want
The row has predictably become political theatre: Reform UK and other critics accuse the guidance of privileging certain groups, while ministers like Mr Lammy warn against simplistic explanations from abroad — even saying he told the U.S. Vice President he was wrong to blame migration. Fine. But voters want fewer debates about phrasing and more answers about accountability. The IOPC investigation, the sentencing remarks and a promised review of NPCC wording are the right immediate steps. The longer task is rebuilding trust: stop the identity‑based word games, clarify policy, and ensure every citizen gets the same protection and the same scrutiny from the police. That should not be controversial — it should be the law.
