On 21 February, Britain First were met — and overwhelmingly outnumbered and outmanoeuvred — by a powerful antifascist mobilisation under the banner of Resist Britain First (RBF), a coalition of grassroots organisations from across Manchester. The message was unequivocal: the communities of Manchester will not tolerate fascism on our streets or anywhere else.

The day also exposed, once again, the brutal realities of policing. While sections of the Right have spent years making wild and unsubstantiated claims about “two-tier policing” favouring minoritised communities and left movements, the truth on the ground could not have been more stark. It is antiracists, antifascists, people of marginalised genders and particularly people of colour who continue to face the sharpest and most punitive end of police power.

It was immediately apparent at the RBF assembly point on Sackville Gardens that there would be large police force deployments focused on the counter demonstration. Officers and vans were visible from the start. As the crowd grew Tactical Aid Units (TAU) suited in riot gear took positions around the space. Horse units were stationed on Sackville Street and commanding officers could be seen instructing officers where to gather their lines. Meanwhile, other officers were seen to converse and joke with far-right streamers who came to agitate members of the crowd. 

Police officers were repeatedly observed enabling the Britain First mobilisation — laughing and joking with fascists while those same individuals marched through the city hurling racist, sexist, homophobic, and extremist abuse. The supporters of Britain First did not stop at verbal abuse; videos circulating online show they attacked members of the public and counter demonstrators in front of officers. A video shared by The Canary documents a women approaching an officer for support after being threatened with sexual violence by someone with Britain First, but no support came from the officer, instead solidarity and support came from members of the public.

Meanwhile, antifascists faced kettling, and Greater Manchester Police engaged in repeated and shocking examples of police brutality against protestors. Several protestors have come forward to report violent and reckless assaults by officers, some exceptionally brutal, and footage from the day shows officers’ use of batons, punching individuals, grabbing and dragging people to the floor, the use of police dogs and agitated horses.  TAU officers — many not displaying required identifying epaulettes, in clear breach of force policy and professional standards — were among those involved. Legal observers, a crucial tool for the movement and protestors, whose presence is there to document police conduct and offer rights information to members of the public, were also assaulted by officers. These actions demonstrate the arrogance and confidence held by GMP, and show that they believe themselves to be above the law and without reproach.

Another widely circulated video from the day shows an Asian man, alone, being violently attacked by several Britain First supporters. Despite being the victim of a clear violent assault, he was the one arrested by police. This single incident encapsulates the broader pattern of police hostility towards communities resisting the far right, and police indulgence of those promoting fascism.

Antifascists were therefore forced to contend with threats and violence from both the far right and the police. As we have long argued, the line between the police and the far right is perilously thin. Saturday’s events illustrated that with disturbing clarity.

This is what the recent precept increase – the council tax increase to fund policing – appears to be facilitating: the enabling of fascism and racism, and the escalation of far-right and state violence. We must ask whether Burnham and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority will continue to live in denial about the realities of policing in this city. 

Netpol will be issuing a call for witnesses to specific incidents later this week. We urge all those able to support that process to do so.

04 February 2026

One week ago today, in a cosy room largely insulated from dissent, the Greater Manchester Police, Fire and Crime Panel voted to approve an additional £14.4 million for Greater Manchester Police (GMP). The panel—almost entirely white, and far from representative of the communities most affected by policing—listened as the Mayor made his deeply-selective case for the increase. While one councillor briefly raised limited concerns, there was no substantive discussion of alternatives, no positive vision for public safety, and no acknowledgement of police racism, misogyny, violence and harm. The £14.4 million figure itself went entirely unmentioned. The panel simply nodded along dutifully. 

A meeting “in public” that sidelined the public

Amongst other patronising and condescending remarks, the Chair repeatedly reminded us that this was a meeting in public, not a public meeting. We already understood the format, but the tone made clear that public presence was (barely) tolerated, not welcomed, and that critical voices were viewed as an irritation. There are effectively no channels through which the public can meaningfully challenge these decisions, and this is only compounded by a panel that behaves more like a rubber stamp than a body of scrutiny. In such a context, dissent is not only unwelcome, but actively managed out.

When members of the public attempted to speak, we were met with threats of removal, and a manner that was openly patronising. The response escalated dramatically when two TAU vans and multiple officers were dispatched to the venue—simply because members of the public dared to speak in, what ought to be, a democratic forum.

The irony could not be starker. We were repeatedly told GMP is overstretched, yet they could summon a heavy tactical response at a moment’s notice, for something as minor as speaking up. The police arrived to shield the panel from scrutiny, while the panel simultaneously shielded GMP by approving further funding: an arrangement that signified a friendly alliance (rather than a relationship of checks and balances).

Misplaced optimism and selective storytelling

The Mayor highlighted a survey showing 65% public confidence in GMP. What he did not highlight was the more troubling figure: one-third of the public do not have trust or confidence in the police—a finding that should have prompted serious reflection. Instead, he celebrated the consultation result being “closer” than previous years, even though—by a very small margin, and despite the GMCA’s best efforts to engineer a yes vote— the majority still voted against the increase, as they have consistently done in recent years.

Burnham’s claim that racially minoritised communities would support the increase – saying that “communities would not thank [the panel] for not backing GMP with the funding” — displayed a striking level of arrogance and ignorance. It is clear that he neither understands, nor centres, diverse communities and their experiences. 

We put forward an alternative—one rooted in care and community

Our position has been clear: the £14.4 million would be far better spent invested in communities, not policing. That case still stands, and we will continue making it.

Our briefing Fund Communities (Not Policing), sets out costed, constructive alternatives for how the same funds could support community centres, income security, migrant justice work, youth provision, emergency housing and survivor support. Contributions come from:

• Greater Manchester Living Income Campaign
  
• Kids of Colour
  
• Migrant Justice Manchester
  
• A local community centre
  
• Manchester Women’s Justice Collective
  

You can read the full briefing here. 

We will continue this work

Today’s vote may be over, but our work is not. We will continue to organise, to scrutinise, and to build the case for funding communities rather than expanding policing.

We hope others across Greater Manchester will join us—next year, and every year that public money continues to be directed toward enforcement instead of care.