The Lead Untangles: Why police may tell you a suspect is white

The strategy has always been one the police could use – but it's only been necessary recently

and

May 30, 2025

The victory parade in Liverpool. Credit DannyDouble

Introducing The Lead Untangles: In an era where misinformation is actively and deliberately used by elected politicians and where advocates and opposers of beliefs state their point of view as fact, sometimes the most useful tool reporters have is to help readers make sense of the world.

The Lead Untangles will now be delivered via email each Friday by The Lead and focuses on a different complex, divisive issue with each edition. The entirety of The Lead Untangles will always be free for all subscribers. If there’s something you think we should be untangling, then contact ed@thelead.uk

The subject of what police can tell the general public when a crime is committed is back in the public conversation.

On Monday evening, during Liverpool FC’s victory parade, a driver ploughed into crowds with almost 50 people injured, 27 people taken to hospital and one child and adult suffering serious injuries.

Police moved quickly to clarify the person arrested was a 53-year-old white British man from the Liverpool area (who has now been charged and will appear in court) – something that could be perceived as unusual. But there are circumstances where they might do this that have been baked into the College of Policing guidance for some time.

At a glance facts

The basic guidance the College of Policing issues to police forces is that ‘suspects should not be identified to the media (by disclosing names or other identifying information) prior to the point of charge, except where justified by clear circumstances, such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or a matter of public interest and confidence.’

It is, however, quite normal for police to disclose a person’s age when they are arrested. Their strategy may vary depending on exactly what has happened.

In taking the decision to release that the person arrested was a 53-year-old white British man, police would need to consider whether there was a danger of further crime, or the other factors stated, when doing so. This is particularly pertinent for Merseyside Police.

Context

When Axel Rudakubana killed Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice Da Silva Aguiar in Southport last summer, police did not disclose the same information about who had been arrested.

That created a void in which misinformation could spread – deliberately or not – and that included that he had a Muslim name and that he was a newly-arrived migrant. Relative silence from police on that occasion meant all of this went unchecked.

That disorder soon took place where a number of mosques were targeted – as well as hotels housing asylum seekers – cannot be blamed exclusively on Merseyside Police for not releasing more information. Ultimately, there was little evidence to support the misinformation being circulated and people were ready to believe it.

But a report by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services published last month said: “The police service must communicate the facts. Repeatedly, continuously and effectively as circumstances change and develop.

“If not, others will take over the narrative with overwhelming amounts of online content. And some of this may be false or harmful to the police response and the communities the police are there to protect.”

This was clear guidance for police to exercise their already-existing right to release more information to the public where it believed it could avoid further crime.

The Lead understands this is at each force’s discretion – but for Merseyside Police it will likely have been particularly fresh in the mind.

In this instance, the decision will have been clear. The police are not treating the incident as terror-related and likely have a somewhat clear understanding of how the incident came to take place.

It was also clear that there was a danger that some corners of the internet would otherwise conclude the person driving the car was a Muslim and the incident was terror-related. When Laurence Fox asked people to DM him information regarding the driver of the car, it felt clear what he expected to be told.

So the police have always had the power to release more information, but post-Southport and the disorder that followed, they will be understandably mindful about what a failure to communicate information could lead to.

These are high-profile incidents, however, and there are examples post-Southport where police have taken a similar decision.

In March, Gary Carlisle was attacked in Ribbleton in Preston and he would die from his injuries a week later. Though undoubtedly tragic – it did not command the national headlines in the way that the incidents we’ve discussed so far in this article did.

But it remains the case that police moved very quickly – and did so directly to press – to make clear that the person arrested was a white British male from Preston.

The Lead understands that Lancashire Constabulary made that decision aware that there was incorrect speculation online regarding the ethnicity of the attacker which had the potential to snowball into disorder and further crime. Or, to put it another way, people were saying the person was Muslim, even though he wasn’t, and there was a fear that the community could face reprisals as a result.

As a journalist who was covering that particular incident, it was unusual to me that police took the decision to do that. But it was one rooted in logic and welcomed by both me and the local councillors who represent the area.

What the left is saying

“Do not share any footage. Do not speculate. Let the police do their job.” – Patrick Hurley, MP for Southport

“If there's a vacuum people will try to fill it... the police acted very, very quickly, really swiftly, to put paid to speculation." – Steve Rotheram, mayor of the Liverpool City Region

What the right is saying

“It’s INSANE that the media are RELENTLESSLY spouting the fact the Liverpool attacker is White within ONE HOUR

“But when it’s a Muslim attacker, police wait DAYS.” – Nick Sortor, TuckerCarlson/Fox News

“Thoughts are with all the football fans celebrating their teams title victory. This is horrendous. Everyone knows what’s gone on. When will it stop.” – Joey Barton at 8.11pm on Monday, before edits made at 8.21pm.

What happens next?

Police more proactively telling the public that a person is white – because they believe that this is less likely to lead to further disorder – appears inherently sensible.

The danger, however, is that if they do this habitually, the public may begin to draw conclusions on the occasions where they don’t release that information.

Anti-immigration sentiment has softened from its height in the 1960s – according to data by the Migration Observatory – but there was an uptick prior to the Brexit referendum and the most recent data suggests the same has happened now.

With Reform UK’s “just asking questions” style of politics receiving more onus than ever as their popularity grows, police will need to manage high-profile incidents carefully regardless of who is behind them. ■