Permission Granted: The Hypocrisy Behind Selective Outrage

Richard Tice’s Convenient Principles on Disruption

Yesterday, central London ground to a halt as protestors blocked roads for several hours.

If recent history is anything to go by, this should have been followed by stories of arrests, demands for four-to-five-year prison sentences, and commentators bemoaning the impact on hospital appointments, businesses, and the ever-aggrieved British motorist.

But not this time.

Why?

Because these were the “right kind” of protestors. This time, it wasn’t climate activists chaining themselves to railings or blocking motorways to demand action on a collapsing planet. It was farmers, slow driving their tractors in Whitehall to protest inheritance tax reforms. And suddenly, the disruption wasn’t a societal scourge but a noble act of defiance.

Let me not mince my words here: this is hypocrisy in its most blatant form. If the action—blocking roads, delaying ambulances, disrupting lives—is the same, then the only variable left is who is doing it and what they’re protesting. When farmers grind the city to a halt, it’s framed as “defending their livelihood” or “speaking truth to power.” When climate activists do the same, they’re labelled eco-terrorists. The disconnect is as glaring as it is revealing.

Richard Tice’s Convenient Double Standards

What is the best display of this disconnect? Enter stage (far)-right, Richard Tice. Tice, the MP for Boston and Skegness, who gleefully cheered the jailing of climate change activists for blocking the M25 as a triumph of justice, was yesterday praising the farmers’ protest as “incredible support.” Not a word about disruption, delayed commuters, or economic impact. Apparently, disruption isn’t the problem—it’s who’s causing it and whether Tice agrees with their politics.

A Tale of Two Protests

And it’s not just farmers, because let’s also consider Tice’s response to the Southport riots earlier this year, where violent clashes led to hundreds of arrests. Did he condemn the rioters as criminals? Demand harsh sentences? Of course not. He called them “concerned citizens” and railed against what he described as a "two-tier justice system."

Here’s the scorecard:

• Farmers blocking roads? Inspirational.

• Rioters smashing up property? Concerned citizens.

• Climate activists blocking roads? Four years in jail.

The thread running through all of this is painfully obvious: it’s never about the act; it’s about the politics behind it. If you’re rioting for a cause Tice supports, you’re an impassioned patriot. If you’re protesting against the status quo, you’re a public menace. The outrage, the moralising, the calls for justice—they’re all as performative as they are hollow.

The Authorisation Excuse

Some of Tice’s most ardent defenders argue that the farmers’ protest was different because it was authorised, and honestly and fervently believe that a piece of paper magically transforms hours of gridlock into a picturesque act of democracy.

But let’s be clear: tractors blocking roads aren’t less disruptive because someone filed the right paperwork, and absolutely no one cared about permits when it came to climate activists—they were condemned for their disruption, not their bureaucracy.

History is littered with protests that changed the world without a rubber stamp. The suffragettes didn’t wait for approval to chain themselves to railings. Civil rights marchers in Selma didn’t queue for permits. The point of protest is to challenge authority, not seek its permission. Demanding compliance from protestors is a convenient way to dismiss dissent while pretending to uphold order.

So, let’s not pretend that the outrage over climate protests was ever about permits. No one—least of all Richard Tice—was frantically checking paperwork when he called for protestors to be jailed. The issue has always been disruption, and the approval process is just a fig leaf to cover up an ideological bias.

The Danger of Selective Outrage

As an MP, Richard Tice’s hypocrisy isn’t just embarrassing; it’s dangerous. He’s no longer a Twitter commentator lobbing opinions from the sidelines—he’s a public servant, entrusted with upholding fairness and justice. Instead, he uses his position to legitimise causes that align with his worldview while vilifying dissenting voices.

By cherry-picking which protests are valid, Tice sends a clear message: power, privilege, and political allegiance dictate whose grievances are heard and whose are punished. This isn’t a condemnation of a two-tier justice system—it’s the active creation of one.

Selective outrage isn’t just hypocritical; it’s corrosive. It erodes trust in public discourse, feeds into the tribalism that fractures communities, and delegitimises the very concept of protest as a tool for societal change. The protests Tice doesn’t like? Jail them. The protests he supports? Applaud them. This double standard doesn’t just deepen inequality—it entrenches privilege, solidifies injustice, and stifles meaningful dissent.

What This Really Says About Protests

Let’s drop the pretence that this debate is about disruption, law, or even authorisation. It’s about power: who wields it, who’s allowed to challenge it, and who gets punished for doing so.

The real injustice lies in the selective application of outrage. The rules aren’t the same for everyone, and Tice’s reactions make that crystal clear.

Disruption is disruption, no matter who’s causing it. The only real distinction is whose politics are behind it and who has the power to spin it. If a banner is enough to draw condemnation but a tractor key earns applause, then the debate isn’t about tactics; it’s about tribalism.

And that’s the heart of the matter. Tice’s claims to fairness and justice crumble spectacularly under scrutiny. He’s not upholding equality; he’s weaponising the very system he decries to serve his own agenda. For anyone still clutching at the “authorisation” excuse, take a moment to ask yourself this: why does disruption magically become acceptable when the politics align with your worldview?

The true double standard isn’t in the protests themselves—it’s in the hypocrisy of those who decide which ones to condemn. Richard Tice doesn’t care about disruption; he cares about allegiance. And that’s not justice—it’s bias dressed up as principle¹.

1. One thing to point out: While I don’t support the cause these farmers are protesting for, I will always defend their right to protest and have their voices heard. Protest is a fundamental part of democracy—even when we disagree with the message.