Keir Starmer is right to make rioters face the full force of the law

Editorial: If those engaging in the disorder have concerns about immigration, they can express themselves through the proper democratic channels – violence achieves nothing

There is no need to terrorise British Muslims or anyone else in the name of politics (Owen Humphreys/PA)

It is no coincidence that the Home Office in recent days has been using social media to highlight the sentencing parameters for certain types of crimes: rioting, up to 10 years; violent disorder, up to five years; inciting racial hatred, up to seven years; criminal damage, up to 10 years.

Now, as the first cases are being processed by the courts, these stark warnings have been supplemented with videos of offenders linking their actions with the judicial consequences. The prime minister, a professional prosecutor by trade, has eagerly joined in the campaign, posting a clip from Sky News reporting custodial sentences of 20 months, 30 months and three years for offences relating to the riots.

It all lends some considerable substance to the oft-repeated promise that “the full force of the law” will be brought to bear on those engaged in the current unrest. The fact that there has also been the arrest of a man in Birmingham wielding a sword in response to far-right threats is also evidence that Britain does indeed have one-tier and consistent standards in policing.

Sir Keir Starmer has obviously put to good use his experience as director of public prosecutions (DPP) during the last round of serious civil disorder in 2011. There is nothing quite like a spell behind bars and the loss of one’s livelihood to focus the mind, either for those who are now being rapidly dealt with in the criminal justice system, or those contemplating taking part in the riots. Despite the balaclavas, the ubiquity of CCTV and the quality of police intelligence means that those responsible are being identified and dealt with. They are being named and shamed.

The point is deterrence. It is obviously correct in principle that justice is done and seen to be done with a policy of lawful exemplary sentencing, at the final discretion of a court – but it is also right, and consistent with that principle, that every lever is used to restore the rule of law. These are serious offences, and not confined to physical activity, but also the criminal conspiracies, threats and incitements made online, which have also been such a prominent feature of the disturbances.

The present DPP for England and Wales, Stephen Parkinson, has made it clear that those who have been orchestrating criminal activity outside the UK may also be brought to justice via the usual international cooperation between the authorities. They too will be brought to justice.

It is also right that, in the most egregious cases, the terrorism laws should also be used. Burning down a hotel with terrified people, children included, in fear for their life is prima facie, a form of terror, linked as it is with a political motive, inchoate as it may be. Ofcom is also right to warn the tech giants that their various platforms should not be used to incite racial hatred and commission crimes. The Online Safety Act is, however, inadequate to the task of making a real difference in this context, and will need to be reviewed urgently with a view to strengthening it.

Meanwhile, the likes of Nigel Farage are finding themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. The latest polling evidence suggests that people are sickened by the destruction visited upon communities by the far-right’s violence, and support firm action and appropriate punishment. Only 46 per cent of the public believe that the recent violence has really been to do with the Southport murders, with a similar number (47 per cent) viewing the Reform UK leader as holding some level of responsibility for the unrest.

It is argued by some apologists for street violence that these riots are little more than lads having a few drinks too many and falling in with a bad crowd. No doubt many of those lobbing rocks at the police and looting shops haven’t paid much attention to the political debate, but arson, assault and looting are very serious offences all the same, and not the sort of thing most people engage in on a night out. They can make their excuses to the judge, in any case.

Neither they, nor an appalled general public, have any sympathy for them. If they are politically engaged or not, and have “legitimate concerns” about immigration, crime, multiculturalism or anything else, then they can pursue those through the usual democratic channels. We have, after all, recently had a general election and a peaceful change of government, and there were plenty of candidates offering radical far-right “solutions” to their grievances.

There is no need to terrorise British Muslims or anyone else in the name of politics. Rioting achieves nothing, creates fear and misery, and those responsible will be made to pay the price. The sooner that truth is understood, the better.