The horrific news of a knifeman attacking Jewish people in Golders Green has dominated global headlines. Yet in some circles, the image of the attacker held on the ground by police is getting as much traction as the actual knife crime.
Slowly, the rhetoric that the man being kicked is actually the victim of alleged police brutality is being peddled – to my utter dismay. Worse still, ludicrous comparisons are being made with George Floyd, and it sends shivers down my spine that people are buying into this and, in doing so, detract from what is really going on. The topic in many chat forums has turned to the wellbeing of the attacker.
What of the wellbeing of the attacked men? The thousands of families affected – people who will no doubt be afraid to leave their homes because of fears of attacks like these?
To even dare to compare the man who stepped out that day with the intention of harming innocent people to an actual victim like George Floyd is incomprehensible.
George Floyd was a black man who was murdered by a white police officer in Minnesota in May 2020. One of the four police officers who arrived on the scene, Derek Chauvin, knelt on Floyd's neck and back for over nine minutes, killing him.
The alleged Golders Green attacker's situation was completely different. The Somali-born migrant with a history of violent attacks was nothing like Floyd.
The alleged knifeman was stopped by police who tackled him to the ground, tasered him, and kicked him – but he wasn’t seriously injured, let alone murdered. Had this happened in another country, in continental Europe where police are routinely armed, he might not be breathing to tell the tale.
However, what disturbs me the most is the rhetoric coming from people in positions of power, who have turned the attention away from these racist attacks on Jews.
Step forward Zack Polanski, who has been slammed for criticising the police officers who detained the alleged Golders Green attacker.
The Green Party leader reshared a post condemning the officers for kicking the terror attack suspect in the head when he refused to drop his weapon.
The comment read: “So essentially his officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was already incapacitated by a Taser.”
In response, Met Commissioner Mark Rowley rightly blasted the Green Party leader and it is worth quoting at length from the letter. Sir Mark wrote he was “disappointed” in Mr Polanski's “inaccurate and misinformed commentary”. He said the author of the original post was likely an “armchair critic” rather than someone with experience in the field.
He added that the post’s author likely thinks they “could do the job, possibly more effectively than the brave officers who successfully detained that individual.
“Those officers are nothing short of extraordinary. They were on the scene within a few minutes and their actions prevented further injuries and saved lives.”
The Met chief said the unarmed cops confronted a violent man they believed to be a terrorist who refused to show his hands and posed a clear threat. They were “Using only their training, equipment and a substantial level of bravery and courage, they detained him while he continued to try and attack them” the letter continued.
He wrote: “Without their efforts to stop him I dread to think what the outcome could have been.
“Apprehending violent and dangerous criminals is a full contact and messy task which may appear shocking to observers with little experience of policing in the real world.
“London’s Jewish communities are scared. They have experienced a series of targeted attacks on the community, and they expect our officers to act, protect them.”
They also feared he could be concealing an explosive device.
“That is exactly what our officers did yesterday. Your decision to criticise these officers, using your public profile and reach will have a chilling effect.”
Sir Mark said that Mr Polanski using his public profile to throw doubt on the officer’s actions so soon after a terror incident was “not an appropriate route”.
Polanski later issued what the media described as an apology, conceding he had shared the tweet in haste while still arguing that police responses should be debated in the “right forums”. In other words, he did not apologise for the substance of his misplaced criticism – only for the platform. The issue is not just where he said it, but that he said it at all.
Let us hope that from now on, those in power choose their words wisely – and use them to make a positive change.
Sarah Tetteh is an award-winning journalist and presenter
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.