Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Those who took part in, or defend, the vigil for Jakub Matusiak and the wider reaction see it as raw grief finding its own expression in a community unused to formal mourning rituals: flares, engines and fireworks are, for some young people, sincere gestures of tribute rather than deliberate provocation, and the family's description of him as a loved son and brother deserves the same compassion afforded any bereaved household. Advocates of restraint in policing and content moderation would add that grief looks different across communities, that a heavy-handed police or platform response risks inflaming tensions further, and that mourners should not be presumed to intend disrespect towards the officers simply because their expression of loss was loud and unconventional.

The case against

Critics, including residents who called the display a mockery, argue that riding motorbikes and quad bikes and setting off flares near the scene where two police officers also died shows a troubling disregard for the Clough and Blades families' grief and for public safety, especially given the crash was caused by dangerous driving. They would argue that removing social media posts glorifying the crash is a reasonable and proportionate step, since normalising or celebrating the very behaviour that killed seven people, including two officers doing their jobs, risks encouraging further reckless driving and compounds the pain of bereaved families who see such content as an insult rather than a tribute.'