Identity Politics and the Liverpool Parade Attack

Liverpool was awash with red on Monday as thousands of fans lined the streets, following Liverpool FC’s 20th league title victory, to watch the club’s celebratory open-top bus parade. The Premier League victory march quickly turned into carnage at around 6pm as conflict broke out between the driver of a vehicle, who is said to have navigated past a road closed sign put in place for celebrations to take place, and the crowd. 

Footage began emerging on social media which showed the car surrounded by fans, with several members of the crowd confronting the diver. Amidst growing tensions, the car sped up and veered through the street, with videos showing the car knocking several people to the ground before coming to a stop. The car was believed to have been following an ambulance on its way to a person in the crowd having a heart attack. 

The horror crash saw 27 people taken to hospital and 20 people treated at the scene, with four children among the injured. Two of the children were taken to hospital, with one sustaining serious injuries. Many witnesses are said to have seen the vehicle going at a “decent” speed, with the driver beeping his horn as he went through the crowd. Others added that the car “just wasn’t stopping”. 

Within two hours of the incident, Merseyside police confirmed the alleged driver was a 53-year-old white male from the area. With the unusual decision to share the suspect’s ethnicity and nationality early on in the investigation, the incident echoed concerns surrounding the misinformation which spread across social media regarding the identity of Axel Rudakubana, who fatally stabbed three children in the Southport attack last year. Fears over similar far-right riots erupting across the country seemingly fuelled the police’s decision to reveal the suspect’s identity. 

While the incident was determined as non-terror related early on by Merseyside police, social media users flooded the comments sections of Twitter and Instagram to peddle disinformation surrounding the religion and ethnicity of the driver. As footage began emerging across social media, some commenters were quick to justify the driver’s actions, suggesting ‘[the crowd] attacked his car, he probably just got spooked’. Others accused the driver of being ‘one of Starmer’s boat men’, referencing male migrants who cross the English Channel on small boats.  

The man behind the wheel has since been identified as Paul Doyle, with media coverage focusing heavily on his background as a former Royal Marine, a local businessman, and a father-of-three. The sympathetic framings offered by the media stand in stark contrast to the treatment received by suspects of similar crimes when they originate from different religious and ethnic backgrounds. Despite facing six counts related to grievous bodily harm and one count of dangerous driving, media reports have repeatedly highlighted Doyle’s community ties, emphasising his involvement with the church and local Scout groups, all while shaping a narrative that appears unusually favourable. 

This event, the media’s role in framing non-terror related attacks, and the fall-out from the horrific events in Southport last year have all worked to umpire the far-right’s favourite game of identity politics ping pong. It’s a back-and-forth game with no gain in sight. The disparities in media portrayals of the identities of criminals feed into a broader, ongoing pattern in which racially motivated assumptions surrounding serious crimes are not only perpetuated, but weaponised. The dominance of these narratives consistently serves the interests of political agendas rooted in anti-immigration rhetoric where racial stereotyping, both toward migrants and British nationals from minority backgrounds, is further legitimised. 

Until this cycle is broken, the media remains a silent partner in amplifying division, creating an ‘enemy’ out of minorities, and fuelling prejudice with every biased headline.

Illustration by Will Allen/Europinion