Background to why the operation was launched

“The Betrayed Girls“ is a 2017 BBC documentary directed by Henry Singer about the Rochdale child sexual exploitation ring

Operation Hexagon refers to a controversial joint initiative launched in August 2019 by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and Oldham Council, operating under a Gold Group command structure led by Assistant Chief Constable Nick Bailey.

• The Official Stated Intent: GMP initially described Operation Hexagon as a specialized review mechanism and community-impact assessment framework tied to historic and online allegations regarding child sexual exploitation (CSE) and safeguarding in Oldham.

• The Allegations of a Cover-Up: Critics, local activists, and transparency campaigners allege that the operation was repurposed or covertly used to target online critics, investigators, and whistleblowers who were publicizing institutional failures surrounding child grooming rings.

• Political Scrutiny: The operation remains a frequent point of public contention and political debate regarding accountability and the handling of historic sexual abuse inquiries within Greater Manchester.

Open Government claims

Greater Manchester Police ran Operation Hexagon for nearly two and a half years, linked to online claims about historic child sexual exploitation in Oldham. It was not the operation investigating the alleged abusers.

Instead, Hexagon looked at the “community impact” of people making claims online. In plain English, police were watching what happened when people talked publicly about the scandal, which could mean threats, harassment or fears about public disorder.

But GMP has never clearly explained what the operation actually did.

Oldham had already seen serious failures. An independent review later found that some children had been failed by the council and by police officers meant to protect them. One victim, known as Sophie, repeatedly reported being raped and did not get the protection she needed, as ITV News reported in June 2022.

While those failures were still being argued over, police were also looking at the people discussing them.

Operation Hexagon ran from September 2019 until February 2022, and Oldham Council confirmed it supported the operation. In a freedom of information response, GMP confirmed those dates. Neither GMP nor the council has clearly said who was investigated, what crimes were suspected or what the operation achieved.

That leaves a serious gap.

Raja Miah

A well-known Oldham campaigner, was arrested by GMP in July 2021 while Hexagon was active. Miah had used social media to make claims about grooming, local politicians and failures by public bodies. He was later charged with harassment over posts about a woman, and the charge was dismissed in May 2024 after prosecutors offered no evidence when the complainant did not attend court. The dismissal was reported by the Manchester Evening News and The Oldham Times.

There is no public document proving Miah’s arrest was part of Operation Hexagon. But GMP has not released enough information to rule it out.

Raja Miah’s commentary on his role as a whistleblower:

Operation Hexagon was a joint Greater Manchester Police and Oldham Council operation, involving Labour Party politicians, council officers and the mainstream media that went after myself and the others who refused to remain silent to the cover up of the gang rape of children.

It was a Gold Command police operation. This is the kind launched in response to terrorist attacks. It was launched instead against the people exposing the grooming gangs. Instead of going after those involved in trafficking children, they hunted the whistleblowers.

Operation Hexagon was launched under the oversight of the man who is now Prime Minister. Andy Burnham was police and crime commissioner of Greater Manchester at the time. And his involvement goes further. His so-called assurance reviews. Not investigations, Assurance Reviews, were the cover-up of the cover-up, protecting the very people who made the decisions to look the other way. For three years Andy Burnham sat on the findings of his sham of a review in Oldham whilst his Labour colleagues branded us racists and far-right activists and tried to kill any prospect of a national inquiry.

I spent most of those years on police bail after being falsely arrested by Greater Manchester Police for crimes that I did not commit, and then falsely charged by the Crown Prosecution Service to try and prosecute me by putting me in front of a judge and denying me a jury. That they failed was only due to the grace of God and a small army of mainly elderly supporters who attended every hearing and packed out the public gallery and the rooms outside.

Not one mainstream media channel will share the story of what took place to force the national inquiry. Likewise, as you can all see for yourselves now, not one political party will confront Burnham over Operation Hexagon. Not Reform. Not Restore. Not the Conservatives. None of them. Which is why it is left to us. We got this far because ordinary people refused to stay silent to an atrocity. And be in no doubt that what took place is an atrocity. No political party funds my work. No institution stands behind it. And no mainstream media channel dare interview me despite Queen Elizabeth II putting a medal on my chest. What I do exists because ordinary people choose to sustain it. If you are able, become a paid supporter at Red Wall and the Rabble. 👉 https://redwallandtherabble.co.uk

They know we are not going away. They know that a reckoning is coming. And they will do everything they can to prevent the truth of what they did coming out in the open. I know that my days of dawn raids on my home and locked up in police cells are not over. Just as I know that Pakistani gangsters & Islamists aligned with both the Labour Party and the grooming gangs will try their utmost to silence me. All under the protection of the police and the complicity of the government. We’ve got this far because we have refused to back down. And I am where I am because ordinary people came and stood alongside me. Perhaps it is time that you visited a war memorial and drew courage for the days that lie ahead of us. Raja Miah MBE

Andy Burnham was Mayor of Greater Manchester. During the whole operation, he also had responsibility for holding Greater Manchester Police to account. He could not order police to arrest someone or choose who detectives investigated. But he could ask what the operation was doing, whether campaigners, victims or whistleblowers were being watched, and whether police powers were being used fairly.

There is no reliable evidence that Burnham ordered Operation Hexagon or personally targeted anyone. That claim should not be made without proof. But he was responsible for police oversight, and the public still does not know when his office learned about Hexagon, what he was told or what questions he asked.

Operation Hexagon may have been a proper response to threats, harassment or fears of disorder. If it was, GMP should explain what it did. In a town where children had already been failed, the police found time to investigate what happened when people spoke about it.

Source: https://www.opengovt.uk/editorials/hx7n4qw2mk

Official response:

This timeline sets out the action taken by Andy Burnham as Mayor of Greater Manchester from 2017 to 2026 to help the Greater Manchester system to support victims to get justice, face up to past systemic failures, and ensure perpetrators face the consequences of their crimes.

It also sets out key milestones in investigations undertaken by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) national announcements and other context important to the timeline of activity taken by various public bodies against Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) in Greater Manchester.

Source: https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/what-we-do/safer-and-stronger-communities/tackling-child-sexual-exploitation/timeline-for-activity-on-child-sexual-exploitation-in-greater-manchester/

The case of Victoria Agoglia, one of the victims of abuse:

Victoria Agoglia, 15, died in 2003, two months after reporting that an older man had sexually assaulted her and injected her with heroin.

Victoria Agoglia: Rape arrest as part of new grooming probe

Other

Andy Burnham’s role in grooming gangs ‘COVER UP’ exposed - Maggie Oliver lays bare ex MP’s failures [starts 3:25:00]

In the build-up to the 2024 Tory leadership election, Kemi Badenoch declared that ‘not all cultures are equal’. Her argument – that we can be a thriving multi-ethnic nation while expecting everyone to adhere to British cultural values – was met with fury. For some of Badenoch’s critics, the mere suggestion that certain foreign value systems are inferior to those of a western liberal democracy was beyond the pale. All the usual buzzwords were deployed: racist, fascist, far-right. Labour MP Dawn Butler shared a social media post deriding the Tory leader as ‘white supremacy in blackface’.

Now, the Home Office has inadvertently vindicated the very argument for which Badenoch was admonished by her left-wing critics. The department’s newly released guidebook for asylum seekers effectively tells them that, while denying women an education or bodily autonomy may be accepted in the cultural fabric of their home countries, such behaviour is morally and legally unacceptable here.

At the very least, the public now knows – although not because the government chose to tell them – that ministers recognise there is a problem. They understand that many people entering the country illegally come from cultures with medieval moral codes. Where Andy Burnham once again missed the mark on immigration today, however, was in treating this as an understandable or normal position for the country to find itself in.

During a visit to an illegal waste dump in Bradford, the Prime Minister responded to questions about the guidebook, saying: ‘If you break UK law, you will be removed from the country. I’m currently working to ensure that foreign national offenders who can be removed from the prison system are removed from that system. So, it follows that if we’re taking this approach, it’s made explicitly clear what the UK law is and what the societal norms of the UK are and that’s why this approach is being taken now.’

Burnham’s remarks brush over the glaring scandal: that the UK is systematically accommodating men who entered the country illegally and apparently need to be told that it is morally repugnant to rape a woman – or even a child. We cannot easily turn them away, but hey, we can give them a leaflet explaining that men and women are equal. The Prime Minister’s remarks totally dodge the more fundamental question of why people who require such guidance from the Home Office are being looked after here in the first place.

Badenoch, by contrast, said of the guidebook: ‘Anyone needing this leaflet does not belong in Britain. I’ve been warning for a long time that not all cultures are equal. Britain can be proudly multi-ethnic, but we should not be multi-cultural.’ Nigel Farage has also long warned that migrants from cultures with backwards and medieval views about women and Jews are being allowed into Britain too easily – both legally and illegally.

Bizarrely, the response from some Labour MPs has been to point out that British men can be rapists too. Former Home Office minister Jess Phillips cited her experience of working with Polish victims of sexual violence who were unaware of the different protections and expectations surrounding abuse in Britain. Again, these arguments sorely miss the point. Of course, there are British-born rapists, sexists and abusers. Such men exist across the world. That only raises the question of why politicians believe communities have any appetite to import more of them – and even pay for the privilege.

I know there are Labour MPs who are aghast at this entire situation and who have long campaigned behind the scenes to bring the farce to an end. Burnham’s comments today suggest that, once again, the message has still not quite landed.

Name: Hasan Doğan Piker

Age: 35 years old

Background: Parents are Mehmet Behçet Piker and Ülker Sedef Piker. They are of Turkish descent, and Hasan was born in New Brunswick, New Jersey, before growing up in Istanbul, Turkey.

Known online as HasanAbi, is an American Twitch streamer, influencer, and left-wing political commentator. He began streaming on Twitch in March 2018, while working at The Young Turks, leaving the network in 2020 to focus full-time on his streaming career.

According to one quoted source:

‘Wielding sharp political insight and a characteristically irreverent sense of humour, Hasan Piker is redefining what political commentary looks like in the digital age. A journalist and wildly-popular content creator on the streaming platform Twitch, Piker has become an authoritative voice for millennials and Gen Z. His live-streaming broadcasts reach over 30,000 people daily, where he dissects breaking news, debates policy, and connects with a politically-engaged online community in real time. His work has been featured in The New York Times, GQ, NPR, Vanity Fair, and WIRED, and he’s been recognized by Rolling Stone and TIME in their lists of top influential creators.

Born in New Jersey and raised in Istanbul, Piker’s desire to question authority and argue against an unjust status quo was shaped by his experiences growing up in an increasingly authoritarian Turkey. Blending entertainment and activism, his viral “Among Us” stream with Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar famously drew over 700,000 viewers ahead of the 2020 election. He has also worked with organizations such as Muslims for Progressive Values, March for Our Lives, and Black Lives Matter. Piker and his online followers represent a new kind of participatory media power born of the digital era’.

Source: https://lindinitiative.ubc.ca/speakers/hasan-piker/

That’s the positive. Now for the negative:

… Congressman Ritchie Torres (NY-15) wrote to Daniel Clancy (Chief Executive Officer at Twitch), Steve Boom (Vice President of Audio, Twitch, and Games at Amazon.com, Inc.), and Andrew R. Jassy (President and Chief Executive Officer at Amazon.com, Inc.) regarding the concerning antisemitic and anti-American propaganda emanating from Hasan Piker, one of Twitch’s largest online streamers.

‘Since October 7th, there has been an explosion of Jew-hatred on social media platforms.

Hasan Piker has emerged as the poster child for the post-October 7th outbreak of antisemitism in America. Mr. Piker has demonized Orthodox Jews as “inbred” and has dehumanized a Jewish man as a “bloodthirsty pig dog”: the association of Jews with pigs and blood-thirst is textbook antisemitism. Mr. Piker has all but exposed himself as an apologist for the sexual violence and savage rapes of October 7th. “It doesn’t matter if rape happened on October 7th. It doesn’t change the dynamic for me,” Mr. Piker declares before finally admitting that “Palestinian resistance” (his euphemism for terrorism) is not perfect.”

Mr. Piker has said he has “no issue” with Hezbollah, the world’s the most heavily armed terrorist organization in the world, and has given a platform to a suspected terrorist from the Houthis. The US government has declared Hezbollah a Foreign Terrorist Organization (in the case of the former) and the Houthis a Specially Designated Global Terrorist group. Platforming any of these terrorist organizations, as Piker has done, is beyond the pale. Piker has even gone as far as to incite violence, telling his followers to “kill” and “murder” people “in the streets” and “let the streets soak in their red-capitalist blood.” The incitement of violence merits scrutiny from federal law enforcement.

Outside the context of October 7th, Mr. Piker has even joked and mused about men date-raping women on a college campus and has posted an image of a handgun on top of a United States Senator in what appears to be open invitation to gun violence against a sitting elected official. Inviting one’s followers to shoot an elected official, whether it be done in earnest or in jest, is the kind of threat that warrants serious attention from federal law enforcement.

When he is not joking and musing about rape, Hasan Piker alternates between rape denial and rape apologia. He either denies the sexual violence of 10/7 or he denies that it matters. Mr. Piker once described the sexual violence of 10/7 as “rape fantasies” or “rape hallucinations.” Despite his disdain for and dismissiveness toward Jewish victims of rape in Israel, Mr. Piker remains one of the most popular political influencers on Twitch. What does his popularity reveal about the devaluation of Jewish lives in American society and Twitch’s role in deepening the devaluation of Jewish life?

Hasan Piker has come out as an apologist not only for 10/7 but also for 9/11, compounding antisemitism with anti-Americanism. Here is Mr. Piker in his own words: “America deserved 9/11.” The 3,000 Americans incinerated or otherwise murdered in the Twin Towers; the falling men and women plummeting to their deaths from 110-story skyscrapers; according to Mr. Piker, all of them had it coming. They deserved it. One wonders whether Mr. Piker has ever seen an anti-American or antisemitic terrorist attack he didn’t like? He seems to live in a morally inverted universe where the true terrorists on 9/11 and 10/7 were not the perpetrators but the victims.

Speaking of siding with terrorists, Mr. Piker has glorified “brave mujahideen” for wounding US Congressman Dan Crenshaw, who honourably served his nation in the Navy Seals; Mr. Piker’s loyalty lies not with the members of the US Armed Services but with the mujahideen who murder and maim them on the battlefield.

In a recent video on Twitch, Hasan is seen maliciously laughing at a Jewish woman who simply thanked Vice President Kamala Harris for advocating for the hostages and who conveyed concern about antisemitism. I have a simple question for Mr. Piker and his enablers at Twitch. What exactly do you find amusing? Are you amused by antisemitism? Amused by the kidnapping of 30 children, among them infants and toddlers? Amused by the abduction of aging Holocaust and Farhud survivors?

Mr. Piker revealed the depth of his depravity when he posted an image of himself as a reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin, one of the fathers of totalitarian terror in the 20th century. Lenin is estimated to have caused the deaths of 7 to 10 million people; his successor, Stalin, the deaths of 20 to 30 million people; his follower, Mao Zedong, the deaths of 40 to 70 million people in Communist China. With idols like Lenin, it is no wonder why Hasan Piker seems so untroubled by the mass killings of October 7th. The only question that remains: Why is Twitch so untroubled by Hasan Piker’s troubling Jew-hatred?

Mr. Clancy: You are known to be an admirer of Hasan Piker. You admire Mr. Piker so deeply that you even had your staff at Twitch sing him a ‘Happy Birthday.’ You have praised Mr. Piker for “his frankness and bluntness” and have said “he is comfortable saying what he believes.” In light of all the antisemitism that has been revealed about Mr. Piker, do you still like his frankness and bluntness? Is your company still comfortable with how comfortable Mr. Piker has been with spewing Jew-hatred, however “frankly” and “bluntly” he might do so?

If Twitch feels even the slightest semblance of social responsibility as a corporation—a questionable proposition given the company you keep—then the time has come for Twitch to stop popularizing those who popularize antisemitism.

Congress has been scrutinizing the amplified antisemitism that has taken hold in the wake of October 7th. Just like no person is above the law, no company in America—not even Twitch—is above Congressional oversight’.

The rise of Democratic socialists and the populist left

According to The Guardian:

‘Piker, 35, is an extremely popular figure in left-leaning politics in the US, with more than 3 million followers on Twitch and millions more on YouTube and Instagram. He streams on the internet nearly every day, sometimes for eight hours at a time, and has been heralded as a modern-day kingmaker for progressive Democrats.

He has built a legion of fans – many whom are young men – with regular discourse about American foreign policy, capitalism, his support for LGBTQ+ rights and for a willingness to heap criticism on the Democratic establishment. He’s described himself as a “megaphone”, amplifying frustrations with “establishment liberalism”, not as a change maker himself.

His readiness to champion progressive challengers over established figures has angered some top Democrats. He’s also become a frequent target of the Murdoch empire in the US, with Fox News publishing running criticism of his commentary.

… He maintains he’s not antisemitic, but strongly against Zionism and the country’s policy on the war in Gaza and Palestinians.

“I have no issues getting vilified by people on the right. I love when my enemies hate me,” he told the Guardian in December. “It is what it is: they talk shit; what are you gonna do?”

But Piker’s comments have landed him in hot water. The British government banned him from entering the country for a speaking engagement in June, saying at the time his presence “may not be conducive to the public good”.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/aug/17/who-is-hasan-piker-and-why-are-some-conservatives-outraged-about-his-return-to-the-abc

Other

Soon after Twitch streamer Hasan Piker started campaigning with Democratic candidates this spring, an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal was published with the headline: Democrats are too cozy with Hasan Piker. That triggered a fever pitch of more op-eds and interviews asking Piker to respond to past statements he’s made on Israel’s war in Gaza, 9/11 and more. But the controversy surrounding him hasn’t slowed his momentum or influence – if anything, it’s amplified both. Host Kai Wright talks to Piker and asks: what exactly is this very online, very popular figure trying to achieve in the real world?

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/6012504-piker-democracy-marvel-nolan-genz-living-home/

ABDUL EL-SAYED

Name: Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed

Age: 41 years old

Background:
After immigrating to the US during the early 1980s, El-Sayed’s father [doctor] and mother (Fatten Fathy Elkomy, engineer) divorced and separately remarried. He was born and raised in Southeast Michigan, attending public schools where he captained his high school football, wrestling, and lacrosse teams. Raised by his father, Mohamed, an Egyptian immigrant, and his stepmother, Jackie, whose family has lived in Gratiot County, Michigan, since the 1800s.
He graduated from the University of Michigan with the highest distinction and played on the Wolverines men’s lacrosse team. He earned his medical degree from Columbia University on an NIH-funded fellowship and a second doctorate at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is a physician, epidemiologist, and public servant. He serves as director of Wayne County’s Department of Health, Human & Veterans Services and health officer for the county, serving 1.8 million residents of Michigan’s largest and most diverse county under Chief Executive Warren C. Evans. His three books include Healing Politics, calling for a politics of empathy to cure our epidemic of insecurity, and Medicare for All: A Citizen’s Guide with Dr. Micah Johnson, offering a no nonsense guide to the policy. He is the host of the podcast “America Dissected,” which goes beyond the headlines to explore what really matters for our health.

The former physician and Detroit-area public health official took centre stage in the “progressive shockwave” in Michigan’s Senatorial Democratic primary. His narrow 48.5% to 47.5% victory over Congresswoman Haley Stevens caught national attention.

El-Sayed has never held elected office and entered the race seven years after losing Michigan’s Democratic gubernatorial primary by more than 20 percentage points. This time, running on an unapologetically progressive agenda, he overcame more than $60 million in outside spending and an opponent backed by many of Michigan’s top Democrats, including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and outgoing Sen. Gary Peters, and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.

What is El-Sayed policy platform and how did he run his campaign?

After losing the 2018 Democratic primary for governor to Whitmer, El-Sayed retreated into the political wilderness. He started a podcast, wrote a book and became a regular presence on YouTube and television, slowly building a following while waiting for a political opening he did not know would come. It arrived when Peters made the surprise announcement that he would not seek reelection, creating an open Senate seat in one of the country’s most competitive states.

El-Sayed said he visited 110 cities and hosted more than 500 events. His volunteer network grew alongside the campaign, eventually reaching 12,000 people, according to his campaign.

Julie Brink, a 29-year-old volunteer from the Detroit area, said the campaign still felt like an “underdog” when she joined in February. From there, she said, it was “gaining momentum really consistently.”

“It was a lot of little things along the way,” Brink said.

The campaign also embraced a media strategy that reflected El-Sayed’s years outside elected office, aggressively pursuing attention across traditional outlets, podcasts and online platforms. Some appearances, including multiple interviews with controversial streamer Hasan Piker, drew swift backlash.

El-Sayed campaigned on “Medicare for All,” ending military aid to Israel and campaign finance reform. He had support from progressive leaders including Sanders and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who framed the race as both a grassroots movement and a broader fight against the establishment and big-money spending.

… “Abdul’s victory was, in my opinion, the most extraordinary victory that I can think of in modern American politics,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a leader of the progressive movement who was an early supporter of El-Sayed’s candidacy.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-abdul-el-sayed-rose-from-political-oblivion-to-progressive-breakthrough-in-michigan

The Los Angeles Times makes an interesting observation on how he beat an establishment candidate

The days of performative campaign endorsements, huge war chests and strongly worded posts started fading noticeably in 2016 — after Jeb Bush dropped out of the race early despite having north of $100 million at his disposal. Yet over the last decade, establishment Democrats have continued to replay the same playbook with mixed results. And in totality, Tuesday’s primaries in Michigan, Kansas, Missouri, Virginia and Washington are a mixed bag with no clear message beyond whatever you read into these facts: El-Sayed is a Muslim who has criticized the government of Israel, and yet he won a Democratic primary. Even so, the chatter before and after the vote is more revealing than the primary outcome. (On Tuesday, roughly 2 out of 10 eligible voters in the state cast a ballot in Michigan. Sweeping interpretations of El-Sayed’s narrow victory are rather bold when 80% of voters didn’t participate.)

Source: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2026-08-06/abdul-el-sayed-michigan-muslim-identity-politics-democrats

El-Sayed is critical of Israel’s government and military actions, describing the Gaza war as a “genocide” and calling for the U.S. to cut off Israel military aid. His election win is seen as a setback for pro-Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC.

A Fox News report alleged that El-Sayed received donations from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). El-Sayed did not comment on the claims.

President Trump has attacked candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America, calling them “crazy” and saying they would make cities “filthy and disgusting”. After the official primary results were released, Trump targeted El-Sayed directly, calling him a “hater of Jews” and “hater of Israel” who will bring “filth, crime, death, destruction, embarrassment”. Trump’s speech was aimed at rallying voters behind El-Sayed’s Republican opponent in November’s midterm elections, Mike Rogers.

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/8/6/trump-attacks-el-sayed-as-hater-of-jews-after-michigan-win#flips-6402890981112:0

Former GOP gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon is sounding the alarm on her belief that Democratic Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed’s opposition to Sharia law bans, association with far-left streamer Hasan Piker and progressive policies will “permanently” change America.

This is not, if this person gets in, how much damage can they do in six years?” Dixon told Fox News Digital.

“This is someone who fundamentally disagrees with the Constitution and the founding of this country and has come out and said the founding of this was wrong and he disagrees with this. This is somebody who wants to go into government to permanently change America.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/el-sayed-agenda-puts-permanently-changed-america-line-michigan-senate-race-gop-firebrand-warns

Other

His birth mother worked for group with alleged ties to bin Laden and Hamas

The New York Post detailed that his birth mother held employment at a charity the US Treasury labelled a “global terrorist” organization – a body whose foreign branches stood accused of directing money to Osama bin Laden, Hamas, and Taliban operatives. Fatten Fathy Elkomy – was employed at the Islamic American Relief Agency between 1999 and at least 2004, coinciding precisely with the year Treasury authorities formally designated IARA a supporter of international terrorism.

The Treasury’s 2004 findings stated that: The agency – also listed under the name Islamic African Relief Agency – “provided direct financial support” to the mastermind of the September 11 attacks. Federal investigators stated, “Information available to the US shows that the overseas branches IARA provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to UBL in 1999.”

Piker and Abdul El-Sayed and Gen Z

Piker, who identifies as a socialist, threw his support behind El-Sayed. The two leftists stood alongside each other at an April rally at Michigan State University, a decision that ruffled some Democrats’ feathers.

State Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D) shortly after compared Piker to far-right podcaster Nick Fuentes (we’ll get to him another week). And Matt Bennett, co-founder of centre-left think tank Third Way, called El-Sayed a “disgrace to the Democratic Party.”

As the Democratic primary drew closer, criticism ramped up.

“To talk about the larger Democratic Party, post the election in Michigan going forward, I am not going to be in the same party with Hasan Piker,” Democratic strategist James Carville said in a Sunday interview with Fox News.

But Piker, who has 3.1 million followers on the streaming platform Twitch, is unlikely to disappear.

The backlash reflects a growing debate within the Democratic Party over how to handle the influence of online political personalities like Piker, particularly among Gen Z voters who increasingly consume politics through livestreams, podcasts and social media rather than traditional news outlets.

According to a 2025 report from the Pew Research Center, 76 percent of Americans aged 18-29 “get news often or sometimes” from social media, and 31 percent prefer these digital platforms compared with traditional media, like television (12 percent), radio (5 percent) and print (5 percent). — Abigail Walker

Source: https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/6012504-piker-democracy-marvel-nolan-genz-living-home/

Denmark has pioneered some of Europe’s most restrictive humanitarian migration policies under a centre-left government, making temporary protection the norm and inspiring neighbours to follow.

• The share of Denmark’s population that was foreign born grew more than fivefold from 1980 to 2025; during this period, the country has moved sharply toward restriction.

• A 2019 paradigm shift made temporary protection the new norm for all humanitarian migrants, including resettled refugees. Permanent residence is only possible after eight years of residency, language tests, and proof of sustained employment.

• Restrictions were championed by the centre-left Social Democrat government of Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen - an outlier in Europe, where similar policies have typically been driven by the far right - and have influenced Sweden, Germany, and EU-wide asylum policy debates.

Denmark has built its migration system on four pillars over a decade, and has reduced asylum approvals to the lowest level in 40 years.

1. Deterrence at the point of arrival

2. Protection is temporary rather than permanent

3. Settlement is conditional on work and language

4. Regulation of the estates where migrants and their descendants concentrate

1. Deterrence at the point of arrival

On 3 February, 2016. Border officials were authorised to seize cash and valuables worth more than DKK 10,000 (€1,341) from arriving asylum seekers to offset the cost of housing them, a provision the international press labelled the jewellery law. Items of sentimental value were exempted.

The same package halved benefit rates for new arrivals and postponed family reunification for holders of temporary protection. Denmark advertised the restrictions in Lebanese newspapers and reintroduced controls on its border with Germany.

Those refused who do not cooperate with removal must live in departure centres such as Kærshovedgård in central Jutland, where residents receive no cash allowance and eat in communal canteens. Migrants who agree to go home can receive repatriation support worth up to €5,400

2. Protection is temporary rather than permanent

Recognised refugees generally receive permits of one to two years, renewed only while Danish authorities assess that conditions at home remain unsafe. When a country or region is reclassified as safe, permits can be withdrawn even after years of residence. Denmark applied this to Damascus and later to wider areas of Syria, and hundreds of Syrians lost their status.

3. Settlement is conditional on work and language

Permanent residence normally requires eight years of continuous legal residence, a Danish qualification at Prøve i Dansk 2, full-time employment for at least three years and six months out of the past four, no receipt of certain public benefits over the same period, no unpaid public debt above DKK 100,000 (€13,405) and a signed declaration of active citizenship.

Applicants must also meet two of four supplementary conditions: a higher language qualification, four years of full-time work, an average annual taxable income of at least DKK 346,156 (€46,401) over two years, or documented civic participation. Meeting all four cuts the qualifying period to four years. Citizenship generally requires nine years, plus a language test, an integration examination and an oath.

4. Regulation of the estates where migrants and their descendants concentrate

Under a plan published in March 2018 and titled “One Denmark without Parallel Societies – No Ghettos in 2030”, estates qualify for intervention when more than half of residents are classed as immigrants from non-Western countries or their descendants and at least two of four thresholds on unemployment, education, income and crime are met.

Children aged one and above on designated estates must attend daycare for 25 hours a week, where they are taught Danish and instructed in Danish traditions including Christmas and Easter. Both parents attend a compulsory guidance programme. Families who refuse can lose child benefit.

Certain offences committed inside the zones carry double the normal sentence. Estates listed for five consecutive years become transformation areas, where housing associations must cut family social housing to 40 per cent through sale, conversion or demolition. More than 1,000 households have been moved as a result.

The Results

• Denmark’s Ministry of Immigration and Integration reported 839 residence permits granted on asylum grounds in the first 11 months of 2025, against 10,849 at the peak of the 2015 crisis, with 1,835 applications registered in a country of six million people

• Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, a Social Democrat, is applying the same logic beyond Danish territory. The European Parliament approved the new Return Regulation on June 17, 2026, opening a legal route to return hubs in third countries.

Source: https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/08/how-the-danish-migration-model-works-from-the-border-to-the-doorstep/

Further information:
Migration Policy Institute - https://www.migrationpolicy.org/journal/country-profile/denmarks-turn-temporary-protection-has-made-it-pioneer-restrictive

Other

SWEDEN

Sweden saw itself as morally superior, a beacon of hope for refugees. Swedish citizens donated clothes, volunteered in refugee centres and some took migrants into their homes. After 2015, however, integration into a homogenous Nordic society failed. Ethnic enclaves formed in cities like Malmo and refugee unemployment remained very high. Native Swedes funding migrants raised tensions and by the late 2010s crime exploded amongst migrant gangs, many second generation immigrants, with loss of control in some areas (in 2022 – 60 fatal shootings, and its homicide rate was only second to Albania).

As such, the Swedish public demanded change and the Swedish Democrats won 20.5% of the vote, becoming the second largest party. Four parties met and hammered out a deal with the SD given control over the policy agenda on immigration in return for supporting the Conservative government. [The Tidö Agreement is a political agreement of Riksdag parties from the right-wing bloc (Sweden Democrats, Moderate Party, Christian Democrats and Liberals)].

Once a European nation receiving large numbers of refugees and migrants, the era of open doors was ended. Sweden has now completed a decade-long overhaul. The major shift was restricting all incoming asylum seekers to temporary residence permits only, eliminating the pathway to permanence that once defined Sweden’s approach to integration. Other measures have included:

• Refugee quotas:

- cut to just 900, an 80% reduction

- 2024: 7/10 asylum applications rejected. Only children can quality now under exceptional circumstances;

- family members can only come to Sweden if proof is shown they can be financially supported.

• Fast-tracked deportations – those deemed security threats, easier to revoke resident permits, foreign nations involved in crime

• Self-arranged housing by asylum seekers- EBO system - cancelled. Migrants must now stay in migration arranged temporary accommodation or face penalties

• Paying people to leave – SEK 3 billion ($270 million) budget; up to $34,000 to leave the country. 600 people a year expected to leave.

• Swedish language skills now mandatory.

• Work always pays more than benefits.

Numbers applying to live in the Scandinavian country had fallen to a 40 year low with just 4,200 claims expected in 2026 (down from 6,250 in 2024). Sweden now has net negative remigration, i.e. more people are leaving than coming in, returning to places like Iran or Syria or another third country.

In 2015, about 10,000 people per week were arriving in Sweden, most of them fleeing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. Back then, it was home to one of the largest per-capita inflows in Europe. In the decade since, the number of people applying for asylum each year has plunged from 163,000 to roughly 9,000. Drivers have included:
- cutting migrant benefits,
- deporting increasing numbers of criminals
- moving asylum seekers into centres and not private housing,
- having claims processed, many in record times (e.g. compared to the UK).

Stricter migration measures have been enacted since 2022, when an election brought to power a centre-right government dependent on the Sweden Democrats. According to the Swedish Migration Minister Johan Forssell of the centre-Right Moderate Party:

We want to improve social cohesion in Sweden, we don’t want migrants growing up in a household where they don’t speak Swedish and where parents don’t work, there needs to be an income.

‘Before there were no requirements to work or learn Swedish, more or less anything and that created a situation where people chose not to learn Swedish or work and that is not our view on integration.

… if you choose to come to Sweden but then commit a crime then you are not contributing to society and if you are convicted of a crime then you will be deported.

Source: https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16052843/The-country-sorted-migrant-problem-man-massive-drop-asylum-claims-tells-Britain-going-badly-wrong.html

New laws coming into effect in September 2026:

• The so-called “good conduct” law covers pending and future residents but is also applied retroactively to many of the country’s current residents. The law does not specify the types of behaviour that would be deemed unacceptable, but the government has previously mentioned examples such as unpaid debts, defrauding the welfare system, lying on an original application, failing to pay taxes, criminality, and links to extremist organisations. The task of reviewing permits falls to the Swedish migration agency, and any decisions can be appealed against.

• The so-called “deportation on the grounds of crime” law. Any offence punishable by more than a fine counts for grounds for deportation. Prosecutors are required to demand deportation. Courts will no longer take impediments blocking removal into account (e.g. home country at war). The protection of someone arriving in Sweden under 15 has also been removed. Estimated deportations should rise from 500 a year to 6,000 deportations.

• The so-called “informer law” (passed by 174 votes to 172), will require six state agencies, including the tax authority and social services, to report suspected undocumented people to police, i.e. if they suspect someone is living in Sweden without legal residency documents [Teachers, doctors and social workers are exempted from the reporting requirements].

• People who have been ordered deported but cannot actually be removed face restricted access to work, welfare, and freedom of movement.

These measures have generally proven popular. There are some labour shortages in sectors like tech and healthcare, and social cohesion is still moving slowly. However, homicide rates have fallen, shootings have halved, asylum applications are at a 29 year low. Overall, however, Sweden has moved from a humanitarian superpower to wants minimal migration like Hungary and Denmark. It is a good example on how to get tough to solve an immigration crisis.

More information:

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/70542/sweden-moves-forward-with-plans-to-deport-migrants-under-honest-living-rule

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15906669/Migrants-lose-residency-rights-bad-behaviour-tough-new-Swedish-laws.html

Other

BRITAIN

A very good synopsis of what are the key issues…

A typical policy of the current Far Leftist government on dealing with illegal economic migrants:
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16049317/Andy-Burnham-push-ahead-plans-asylum-seekers-middle-class-areas-despite-higher-cost-taxpayers.html

EUROPE

The prison population in England and Wales stands at approximately 86,495 against an operational capacity of roughly 89,800, leaving prisons at about 97% capacity. The Ministry of Justice has warned that the system faces a severe capacity crisis, with projections indicating populations could exceed 100,000 by 2029–2030

Capacity pressures

• Population vs. Limit: The total number of inmates hovers near historic highs, leaving very few spare operational spaces across the estate.

• Overcrowding: More than half of the prisons in England and Wales regularly hold more people than their certified normal accommodation (CNA) limit, forcing single cells to be shared.

• Mitigation Measures: The government continues to rely on controversial early-release schemes and long-term prison-building programs aiming to expand total capacity toward 99,000 by the early 2030.

  Source: The Prison Reform Trust - 2026 Bromley Briefings
  Link: https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/report-underlines-urgent-need-to-reduce-demand-on-our-critically-overburdened-prisons/

Prison capacity and condition of the estate

The Labour government set out plans to add around 14,000 prison places by 2031, with 47% being fulfilled by new prisons, 46% from new houseblocks at existing prisons, and 8% by adding further Rapid Deployment Cells. Another 1,150 places are planned through refurbishment of current cells, though 800 of these are still in use.

New build prisons HMP Millsike opened in March 2025,211 joining HMPs Fosse Way and Five Wells, which opened in 2023 and 2022 respectively. The newest prisons are among the largest in England and Wales, along with HMP Berwyn which opened in 2017, and HMP Oakwood in 2012. They can hold between 1,500 and 1,700 prisoners without crowding, whilst Berwyn can hold 2,000.212

One of three planned new prisons, HMP Welland Oaks, began construction in 2025, and the others have secured planning permission. The government has highlighted previous difficulties in securing planning permission for new prisons, leading to delays and increased costs. In response, it has designated prisons as nationally important infrastructure, and created new powers that allow the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to decide whether to grant planning permission in England.

Unlike the other new sites, which are privately run Category C resettlement prisons, Welland Oaks will be a Category B training prison run by the public sector. It will hold around 1,700 prisoners. An existing prison, HMP Highpoint, is on track to become the biggest public sector prison in England and Wales, adding 700 places and taking its capacity to over 2,000 prisoners.

The government’s prison building progress

The Conservative government committed to 20,000 new prison places by the mid-2020s to meet rising demand, at a cost of £3.8 billion.221 Both the previous and current governments say around 6,000 places were delivered, mainly from HMPs Five Wells and Fosse Way (3,400 places) as well as new houseblocks at existing prisons (225 places), temporary accommodation (400 places), refurbishing cells (1,000 places),222 and installing around 730 Rapid Deployment Cells: modular units with a 15-year lifespan.

The Labour government has promised to deliver another 14,000 places by 2031. So far, it has delivered 1,468 places at HMP Millsike, around 1,037 places in new houseblocks at existing prisons, around 183 usable places from re-rolling Cookham Wood to an adult prison, and around 200 Rapid Deployment Cells.It forecast that it would deliver 3,150 of these places by the end of 2025, and has therefore met 92% of this target.

Further permanent expansion to currently operational prisons has been delayed by a major supplier entering administration. Replacement contractors have been secured, however at the time of writing delivery had not yet recommenced. One expansion programme will also complete later than planned due to rising costs, and planned expansions at two prisons (HMP Brinsford and HMP Morton Hall) have been cut. Owing to these issues, in August 2025, the arm of government that oversees large capital projects reported that the successful delivery of three of the eight prison estate expansion programmes “[appeared] to be unachievable…with major issues which…do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.

There are currently six separate programmes for expanding the existing prison estate: Houseblocks and Refurbishments; the Accelerated Houseblocks Programme; the Small Secure Houseblocks Programme; Category D Expansion; the Rapid Deployment Cells Project; and plans to build a new houseblock at privately run HMP & YOI Parc. Clear data on each programme is not published, but construction appears to be underway at all six Small Secure Houseblocks sites (1,080 places). Five of seven Accelerated Houseblock Delivery sites are also underway (1,976 places).

The expansion of the Category D estate (1,140 places), planned refurbishments of HMPs Liverpool and Birmingham (651 places) and a houseblock at HMP Guys Marsh (180 places) appear to be the programmes affected by supplier issues.HMP Parc’s outline business case was approved to progress to a full case in June 2025 (258 places).

The government intends to acquire more land for building prisons, despite but acknowledging that at the current rate of growth in the prison population it cannot build its way out of the prison crisis. The upfront capital cost of providing just one prison place is £500,000 for more secure closed conditions. For less secure open conditions or temporary accommodation it is £400,000 per place.

Prison refurbishment and maintenance

Just 1,005 prison places were added to the prison estate in real terms between 2010 and 2024, as thousands of cells were lost through dilapidation and prison closures.

The Conservative government completed refurbishments at seven prisons but also delayed cell maintenance as a way of “creating” prison places. The Labour government committed to investing £300 million in prison refurbishment in 2025–26.

In a survey of prison estate conditions by the Ministry of Justice, just 2% of public sector prison buildings received a rating of ‘good’ for fabric, mechanical and electrical. 13% were rated ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ on fabric, and 18% on mechanical and electrical. The estimated cost to bring buildings up to ‘fair’ condition and maintaining it until the end of this decade is £1.4bn.

Prison service resources and staffing

The number of frontline operational prison staff (bands 3–5) was cut by 26% between 2010–2017. In 2017 the Conservative government announced £100m to partially reverse the decline, committing to recruit a further 2,500 officers by the end of 2018. This target was achieved. It then committed to recruiting 5,000 officers by the mid 2020s. However, there are just 378 more officers than there were in 2021—8% of the staffing target, and 9% fewer than in 2010.

Officer numbers have been steadily declining in the last year, and have fallen by 4%. In 2025, changes to the skilled worker visa salary threshold risked a staffing crisis, as the threshold was set above many prison officers’ salaries. In December 2025, a 12 month exemption was secured. The Prison Officer Association estimated that the change risked the loss of 2,500 recruits.

Retention is a significant problem. In the year to September 2025, just over one in 10 (11%) employed officers left the prison service. More than half of officers who left the service in the last year (54%) had stayed in the role for less than three years. One in five (20%) left after less than a year. Inspectors have found that staff shortages in other grades are also having an impact. Shortages in education, probation and mental health staff affect the quality of provision and support available to prisoners.

Since 2019, the starting salary for a prison officer has risen from £23,529 to £35,875.288,289 But a 2024 inquiry found that many new staff do not receive adequate support, and suggested that morale was at an all-time low. Inspectors have also criticised the lack of governor involvement in recruiting staff to their own prisons. Many governors expressed frustration at not having control over who works for them. Prison officer recruitment is handled centrally. In 2025, a parliamentary inquiry into prison leadership and staffing concluded that prison governors need more autonomy, and that a thorough overhaul of measures to recruit, assess and train prison officers was needed.

Private prisons

In England and Wales there are 18,541 people held in private prisons (21% of the imprisoned population).293 There are 15 private prisons in England and Wales. Private prisons cost a total of £762.9m in 2023–24.294 The newest privately run prison, HMP Millsike, opened in 2025.295 The contract was awarded to Mitey Care & Custody, the first new provider to be awarded a prison contract since the 1990s.

In 2025, Sodexo’s contract to run HMP Forest Bank was extended for a further 10 years,297 following expiry of the previous 25-year term. Four more long-term contracts are due to expire by April 2027. These include prisons that have developed specialist provision, such as HMP Rye Hill for men convicted of sex offences, and HMP Dovegate which houses a therapeutic community.

Contract expiry can seriously destabilise prisons, even if the operator remains the same. In 2024, HMP Lowdham Grange was taken back into public ownership following serious deterioration after the transfer of contract from one provider to another. In 2025, inspectors raised concerns that HMP Parc, previously a high performing prison, had deteriorated following transfer to a new contract and departure of senior leaders. Oasis Restore secure school opened in June 2024, but has been temporarily closed since September 2025 because of safety concerns about heavily damaged doors being unable to be locked. It is currently the only secure institution operated by a charity.

The current government has not clarified its stance on private contracting. However, the prison currently being built will be run by the public sector.

Conclusions

The Sentencing Act aims to reduce demand by an estimated 7,500 places through measures including
- increased use of deferred and suspended sentences,
- the regularisation of release points on standard determinate sentences, and
- reforms to recall.

Alongside the legislation, the government’s prison building program aims to deliver an additional 14,000 places by 2031. It is hoped that, as the provisions in the act are introduced and more capacity comes on stream, it will create the bandwidth for the prison service to focus on much needed improvement

The government has accepted it must turn towards the community rather than solely building more prisons. Measures in the legislation to increase the uptake of effective community alternatives should mean fewer people are sent to prison to serve short sentences, which have among the highest reoffending rates. Most women sent to prison are serving sentences of less than 12 months, and should benefit from the increased emphasis on community solutions. But a significant challenge lies in ensuring the probation service is adequately equipped for the additional numbers under community supervision. After a decade of badly managed reform, the service is dealing with poor performance, staff shortages, and escalating caseloads.

The number of recalls has risen sharply, reaching over 40,000 in the year to June 2025—a 32% rise on the previous year. While recalls can be necessary, they are often the result of support failures or risk-averse reactions from an under-resourced system. The government has committed to recruiting an extra 1,300 probation officers and additional investment of up to £700m in the service by 2028. But, in addition to sustained investment, the service will require a combination of structural reforms and operational changes to reduce caseloads, if it is to improve its performance and rise to the opportunity of a more community-based justice system.

***

THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE’S VIEWPOINT (December 2024)

• Government’s 2021 commitment to deliver 20,000 new prison places is not expected to be achieved until 2031 – around five years later than planned;

• Current expansion plans are insufficient to meet estimated future demand, with a projected shortage of 12,400 places by end of 2027;

• Expansion costs are expected to be at least £4.2bn (80%) above original estimates in 2021.

The prison capacity crisis is the result of previous governments’ failure to ensure that the number of prison places was aligned with criminal justice policies such as sentencing and police numbers. Coupled with delays in the current expansion plans, this has led to a reactive and expensive approach that will not meet future demand or deliver value for money in the long-term, according to a new National Audit Office (NAO) report.

The independent public spending watchdog has found, as of September 2024, HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) has so far created a third (6,518) of the 20,000 additional places it committed to deliver by mid-2020s.

The new date for completing the remaining places is 2031 – five years later than expected – increasing pressure on capacity and costing more. Prison capacity is projected to increase more slowly than demand and MoJ currently projects a shortage of 12,400 places by 2027, if demand increases according to its central forecast. It is relying on the current Sentencing Review to reduce demand for prison places and close the gap.

There are several reasons for delays to the Ministry of Justice’s and HMPPS’s prison expansion plans, including

- overestimating its ability to gain planning permission for three out of the six new prisons it had planned to build;
- unrealistic timelines;
- insufficient understanding of programme requirements; and
- government bodies not working together to prioritise delivery.

The MoJ and HMPPS now expect the prison expansion plans to cost between £9.4 billion and £10.1 billion, which will be at least £4.2 billion over previous estimates stated in 2021. Contributing to the overspend are several significant cost increases. These include the cost of Rapid Deployment Cells (RDC), units with a lifespan of 15 years, that will deliver one thousand places at least three years later than planned; as well as inflation in the construction sector, where prices have risen by 40%.

Over 2020 and 2021, the MoJ increased the scale of its prison expansion plans from 13,400 to 20,000 additional places by the mid-2020s. Despite plans to build six new prisons, refurbish existing prisons and install temporary accommodation, HMPPS has been unable to increase prison places in line with demand. This has resulted in the prison estate operating at close to or at full capacity for over two years. .

Government has had to move quickly to respond to the emerging capacity crisis. HMPPS has set out operational red lines it would not cross in managing pressures to ensure the safety of staff and prisoners, this includes restricting crowding to limits it has assessed as safe.

Government has largely prioritised short-term ways to increase capacity, such as moving prisoners to open prisons before turning to releasing prisoners early when it had exhausted other options.

However, the MoJ and HMPPS recognise that these actions in response to the capacity issues could impact the effective rehabilitation of prisoners, which in turn may lead to higher reoffending rates and expose the public to a greater safety risk. They are also expensive: HMPPS’s contingency measure to rent police cells overnight (Operation Safeguard) costs nearly five times the average daily cost for a prison place.

Over the next few years there will be continued risk to the capacity in prisons, because of the poor condition of parts of the estate. A quarter (23,000) of prison places do not meet fire safety standards and HMPPS’s backlog of maintenance works has doubled to £1.8 billion from £0.9 billion in the last four years. HMPPS estimates it would cost £2.8 billon over the next five years to bring the whole estate into a ‘fair’ condition, more than double its current maintenance expenditure.

The NAO recommends that the MoJ, the Cabinet Office, HM Treasury, the Home Office and other government bodies should work together to:

• Achieve alignment between government objectives which impact the prison population and the capacity to support these aims

• Learn lessons from the current crisis, including the additional costs involved and impact on prisoner outcomes

• Provide greater transparency to the public and Parliament, including publishing capacity projections alongside its population projections

“The Government must learn lessons from the current prison capacity crisis to ensure the long-term resilience and cost effectiveness of the prison estate.”

Other

Multiculturalism can be differentiated into at least three facets, which require different indicators for assessment:
* demographic cultural diversity,
* policies aimed to manage cultural diversity, and
* attitudes towards demographic diversity and policies aimed to manage cultural diversity.

In this article I discuss these indicators for each of these conceptualisations as regards the UK context.

How immigration changed the demographics of the UK

Immigration to the UK on a large scale only started after World War II, in part related to the collapse of the British Empire. When colonies gained independence and came under new rule many saw a need to leave, and they sought a home in the UK. Post-war Britain needed manpower and welcomed immigrants from its former colonies, inspiring many to make their home there. Since 1960 the number of immigrants to the UK has typically been larger than the number of people emigrating.

The British Nationality Act 1948 granted the right to many citizens of former colonies to settle in the UK. This resulted in many Indian and Pakistani immigrants moving to the UK between 1955 and 1975. In addition, numerous economic immigrants from Caribbean countries, the so-called ‘Windrush generation’, arrived in the UK between 1948 and 1971.

The EU also enlarged to include Eastern European countries known as the EU8 in 2004 (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) and the EU2 in 2007 (Bulgaria and Romania). Unlike many other EU countries, the UK did not impose any travel restrictions on the new EU citizens. Subsequently, many Eastern Europeans migrated to the UK, moving into low-skill occupations (i.e., with low educational requirements). This attracted especially young Poles to migrate as they faced high unemployment and low wages in Poland.

Brexit as a rejection of multiculturalism and immigration

Attitudes towards these more recent immigration movements are often cited as a contributing factor to the 2016 Brexit referendum, which led to the UK leaving the EU in January 2020. In general, people who voted for Brexit endorsed more negative attitudes towards immigration and the EU enlargement. Additionally, the refugee movements from the Middle East and North Africa following the Arab Spring (i.e., protests and uprisings in the Arab world from 2010 onwards) added to the perception of uncontrolled immigration and a rise of fear regarding such immigration. Other often cited factors that encouraged to vote for Brexit include a low educational background, coming from deprived areas/being poorer due to the economic recession in 2008 and following austerity in the UK, and being older.

How the multicultural doctrine has been imposed from above

Owing to the evolving demographic cultural diversity in Britain, there emerged a need for policies to address its management. Western countries, such as the UK, were urged to modify their policies towards ethnic minority groups after the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Up to this point, first racial principles and then an expectation of assimilation (i.e. wanting ethnic minorities to reject their heritage culture whilst fully embracing the majority culture) determined the policy responses towards cultural diversity.

Then, in 1971, the Canadian Government introduced its multicultural policy, promising to support and encourage its various ethnic groups to share their cultural expression and values with other Canadians. In fact, this policy implied that governments must actively accommodate, cherish, and defend their diverse societies within a democratic framework by promoting legal, political, and social recognition of cultural differences as a national policy to achieve harmonious intergroup relationships.

As such, the definition of a multicultural policy includes the request for tolerance of behaviours that deviate from the norms widely accepted by the majority group which is accompanied by the provision of distinctive rights to enable minorities to maintain their heritage culture.

The UK’s first policy towards political multiculturalism took place with the British Nationality Act 1948 (‘BNA 1948’), which granted a majority of individuals from former colonies or the New Commonwealth the right to immigrate to the UK. Specifically, it provided such a broad definition of citizenship that it politically unintentional resulted in a vast amount of non-white immigration. However, it took 14 years before a series of immigration restrictions were passed (1962, 1968, and 1971), which put emphasis on country of birth and ancestry rather than citizenship. The purpose of these legislations was mainly to limit non-white immigration from the member countries of the New Commonwealth, whilst simultaneously allowing white immigrants with a British background to return from former colonies to the UK.

From the 1980s onwards

A new wave of laws were created to ensure ethnic minority members’ equal status and opportunities as well as protection from discrimination. For example, in 1990, the UK was one of the few European countries which had already adopted an overall ‘modest’ legislative approach towards multiculturalism. This included:

· the support for dual citizenship

· funding of ethnic group organizations/activities,

· affirmative actions towards disadvantaged immigrant groups,

· an inclusion of ethnic representation and relevant ethnic minority issues in the mandate of public media.

Public attitudes towards migrants and differing migrant attitudes towards assimilation

Many British majority members (like other European citizens) endorse a racial–ethnic hierarchy, preferring immigrants who are white, English-speaking, Europeans, and from Christian countries while the least preferred group constitutes of non-whites, non-Europeans, and immigrants coming from Muslim countries.

When it comes to minorities, what is important is the degree to which minority members wish to maintain their original/heritage culture, and the degree to which they desire to have contact with/adopt the majority culture. Because the orientation towards cultural adoption refers to a majority culture that is present in a shared society, this process can also be described as proximal-acculturation.

- assimilated individuals prefer to reject their heritage culture whilst adopting the majority culture;

- separated individuals wish to maintain only their heritage culture;

- marginalized individuals have either little possibility to or interest in maintaining their heritage culture nor adopting the majority culture;

- integrated or bicultural individuals maintain aspects of their heritage culture and adopt the mainstream culture simultaneously.

Source: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-69308-3_6

Quite rightly, many majority members, i.e. white British on the right of politics, often emphasise the right to maintain their dominant cultural position, and thus the lack of need to culturally change, and expect minority members—given their lower level of power—to change.

But opposed to this, there are those on the Left who buy into the multicultural dogma. Supporting this is the following extract taken off the BBC website:

‘There was also a greater appreciation of the history and philosophy of other societies around the globe during the 20th century. Originally there was an interest in these diverse cultures so that Britain could rule them more effectively within the Empire. In the later 20th century the motives changed and many British people realised the benefits of developing a multicultural society that would broaden the experience and meaning of being British. The identities of migrants who came from the West Indies, Africa and Asia were more complex and the notions of being black British and Asian British developed in the late 20th century.

However, the development of a tolerant multicultural Britain has had its opponents. There has been racism in society that has led to open opposition to immigration and also more covert discrimination against black and Asian people. This racism was gradually brought under the control of British laws when the 1965 Race Relations Act made racial discrimination illegal. However, the achievement of racial equality remains a challenge even in the 21st century’.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z9h9ycw/revision/4

The future

British culture as the dominant culture

In the UK British culture still remains the majority culture, and there is an expectation that people who move to the UK accept certain core values of British society. These are values such as:

• Universal human rights – including rights for women and people of other faiths.

• Equality of all before the law.

• Democracy and the right of people to elect their own government.

Groups in society may reject some or all of these core values, causing conflict with the majority culture. After the 11 September attacks in the USA in 2001, the UK stood by the United States in the War on Terror. In the following years the UK saw several examples of domestic terrorism perpetrated by Islamists who had been born and raised in the country. The deadliest attack happened on 7 July 2005, when several bombs were detonated on buses and trains in London, killing 52 people. Terror attacks like this caused concern about the consequences of immigration and lack of integration.

A typical view of a politician in favour of multiculturalism was that of Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in 2001:

‘Today’s London is a perfect hub of the globe. It is home to over 30 ethnic communities of at least 10,000 residents each. In this city tonight, over 300 languages will be spoken by families over their evening meal at home.

This pluralism is not a burden we must reluctantly accept. It is an immense asset that contributes to the cultural and economic vitality of our nation.

(…)

Our cultural diversity is one of the reasons why Britain continues to be the preferred location for multinational companies setting up in Europe. The national airline of a major European country has recently relocated its booking operation to London precisely because of the linguistic variety of the staff whom it can recruit here’.

Source: https://ndla.no/r/engelsk-1/immigration-and-multiculturalism-in-the-united-kingdom/032da3d1d8

It seems clear that at the present time public discourse regarding multiculturalism has taken a more nativist turn, even if rhetoric has – so far – moved further than practice. Peter Whittle, the now unfortunately deceased founder of the New Culture Forum, quotes events like the Asian grooming gang scandal that was covered up to preserve the multicultural narrative. Many cultural practices intolerant to our society, such as FGM, have also been ignored (there have only been two convictions in the past forty years). The fear of being called racist has cancelled criticism of so-called hate speech by radical Islamists (particularly from some imams in UK mosques).

Whittle said in an Oxford debate that the future looks bleak with increasing sectarian disorder, the election of four sectarian MPs, and that integration is looking implausible as it is impossible to integrate up to a million new people a year and with established communities, there is actually no need to integrate. If the situation is to change, there has to be a halt to any further mass migration and there is an establishment that believes in the glories of Western civilization and Britain as a nation.

Konstantin Kisin, the Soviet-born British political commentator and author and co-host of the Triggernometry podcast, believes the only thing that works is monoculturalism, i.e. an overarching identity. Allowing people to simply come and live in parallel societies is a failed model. With regard to Muslim immigrants in particular, there are radicals who would not be tolerated in the Islamic countries in the Middle East but remain active in Britain. His vision for the future is that we are in a bad place – low social harmony, sectarianism (including between the different ethnic groups), and the economy (low productivity, high debt, and a society of dependence based on more government involvement).

Harry Saul Markham, author of The Melted Pot: Diversity, Antisemitism, and the Limits of Tolerance, believes that multiculturalism in its essence is a delusion, e.g. the idea that all cultures are of equal value (cultural relativism). Britons have become so magnanimous that there are no longer any clear boundaries, allowing the growth of extremism and fanaticism, that the multicultural dogma was supposed to get rid of. There has been a cultural negligence by the state over the past fifty years to have an understanding of what it means to be Western, i.e. there is now a cultural vacuum. Other problems include:

- one minority being threatened by another minority (e.g. Jews by Islamists)

- a lack of shared cultural identity values is threatening our very democracy, calling into question its future because there is not enough to bring its people together

To move away from cultural relativism, a government must understand what it means to be British. If intelligentsia remains committed to a post-nation state worldview, it is difficult, but it must assert what is acceptable – and in this he backs Rupert Lowe [see David Vance Substack/Richard IV video below]. To change the current academic viewpoint, populism must enjoy a degree of electoral success.

The David Vance Briefing

What is Britain?

I happened to catch an interview between TalkTV’s Julia Hartley-Brewer and Restore Britain’s Charlie Downes the other day whilst out driving in the car. Since then, this clip has gone viral. It wasn’t really just another social media spat. It raised what I think is one of the biggest questions facing Britain today…

Read more

a month ago · 10 likes · 1 comment · David Vance

At some point a liberal state has to draw the limits of tolerance to improve social cohesion. If people choose to lead segregated lives and possess a British passport, there is not much the state can do. However, it should take a more active role, for example, in the learning of English and understanding of our values (what David Cameron calls ‘muscular liberalism’). Like Kisin, he thinks the state must be assertive in promoting much needed cohesion. However, in some communities extremist ideas have become the norm, preventing a ‘hyphenated identity’. There is a mainstream alienation from society at large and so we need to act now before it becomes impossible.

There has to be a meaningful cultural identity, not one that is wishy-washy and lost. People need a sense of meaning and responsibility and it this does not exist then people will be attracted to extremist ideologies.

So, to conclude, fears over the perceived threat of immigration to aspects of British national identity seem to now be reinforcing public resistance against the idea of multiculturalism. Conversely, the detail of much multicultural policy remains popular amongst political and intellectual elites.

Other

Is Sadiq Khan the face of multicultural Britain?

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/inside-story/2016/5/7/is-sadiq-khan-the-face-of-multicultural-britain

Currently the annual welfare budget stands at a staggering £333 billion, of which around £177.7 billion is allocated to benefits for pensioners.

I believe the remainder can be broken up into three main areas: (i) Social housing and accommodation, (ii) welfare support and benefits and (iii) employment and immigration policies.

Social housing and accommodation

One area where critics have voiced strong dissatisfaction is with the financial support provided to individuals awaiting asylum decisions, suggesting that state resources should exclusively fund public services—such as hospitals and schools—for existing British citizens rather than being distributed as welfare to foreign nationals.

According to Migration Mobilities Bristol

In 2024/25 the UK government spent £2.1 billion housing asylum seekers in hotels – almost half of its total spend on asylum support, resettlement and accommodation (£4.53 billion overall) (National Audit Office 2025) and a third of the estimated £6.4 billion spent on Home Office operational procedures for asylum, border, visa and passport functions. The scale of spending is extraordinary and disproportionate, and the reasons reach far beyond asylum policy and asylum seekers.

Under the dispersal system, people seeking asylum move first into initial accommodation and then into longer‑term dispersal accommodation sourced by private contractors – Clearsprings Ready Homes, Mears Group and Serco – working on behalf of the Home Office. When these contractors cannot secure enough private rented properties, they rely on contingency accommodation, most commonly hotels. The average cost per night for dispersal accommodation is £23.25, whereas for contingency hotels it’s £144.98.

Clearsprings Ready Homes, Mears Group and Serco have collectively earned hundreds of millions of pounds from asylum accommodation since 2019. The National Audit Office estimates the overall value of the contracts, originally projected at £4.5 billion, is now some £15.3 billion. Contract clauses reportedly require firms to return profits above a 5% margin; audits indicate margins of between 5% and 7%, triggering repayments, yet substantial profits remain. Clearsprings’ owner has reportedly entered the Sunday Times Rich List linked to asylum accommodation revenues.

Source: https://migration.bristol.ac.uk/2026/02/09/why-does-the-uk-government-spend-so-much-money-on-asylum-hotels/

And then we have this:

Thousands of small boat migrants set to be crammed into homes alongside social housing tenants

Council leaders are considering plans that could see thousands of small boat migrants housed alongside social housing tenants.

Around 10,000 asylum seekers are expected to move into residential properties across London, the South East and Wales under the proposals, with some developments set to be shared between migrants and local authority tenants.

The plans emerged during a Home Affairs Select Committee hearing, where Clearspring Ready Homes, one of the Government’s largest asylum accommodation providers, confirmed it is in talks with two councils over mixed-use housing schemes.

The company said the sites had originally been earmarked for social housing but were considered too large to be used solely for that purpose.

Source: https://www.gbnews.com/news/migrant-crisis-thousands-small-boat-immigrants-soical-housing

So, here we have a clear case of British citizens being excluded from social housing because migrants will be prioritised.

In 2025, over 100,000 people claimed asylum. Of those, 42 per cent were granted asylum at the initial decision. More will be successful on appeal. In contrast, back in 2010 the total number of asylum seekers was closer to 18,000. Back in 2004, only 12 per cent of asylum seekers were granted asylum initially. The system today means tens of thousands of people being granted asylum every year, all of whom need accommodation.

Let’s look at the recent example of 83 migrants being moved into 21 new homes, costing £250,00 each, in Stoke Heath, a quiet Shropshire village. All of this is part of the Government’s plan to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, which has cost billions and led to repeated protests over the last few summers. That means moving asylum seekers into homes of multiple occupancy, military barracks, and new homes like the ones in Stoke Heath.

However, this move was naturally met by a local backlash. More than 100 people from in and around Stoke Heath attended a residents at which Mark Pritchard, Conservative MP for the Wrekin, said the government scheme, which was organised by the Home Office and carried out by public services company Serco on its behalf, had been put on hold while the suitability of the location was reviewed. According to a BBC article:

‘Residents expressed concerns about infrastructure and also told the BBC of their frustrations that no representatives from the Home Office or Serco attended the meeting.

One family that had already moved into a new-build property at the site has since been relocated from the small community of a few hundred people and which is about five miles from the nearest town, Market Drayton.

Earlier in the week, Serco said it had acquired the homes while working under the direction of the Home Office.

…

Mark Gilbert, of Stoke on Tern Parish Council, brought up the lack of a bus route and the need for a car for anyone who lives in the area.

“Not only that, they’re brand new houses that were originally designed and built for local people, or for people to come and buy, rent, in the local area,” he told the BBC.

“When people are brought into the area that you don’t know anything about their culture, where they’ve come from, or anything about them, and it’s done in such a way that causes people to become nervous, so the lack of communication has been a problem.”

Another example concerns an HMO in two roads in Maidstone, Kent, and the information is from KentOnline.

The government says any ordinary home can be converted to an HMO for up to six people under “permitted development rights” without requiring permission.

One Rawdon Road resident, who asked not to be named, said: “I bought my house five years ago. It was a lovely home, just what I wanted.

The latest property in Rawdon Road to begin a conversion to a six-bed HMO

“My neighbour was an elderly gent, who was no trouble at all.

“Then he died. His relatives sold to a developer, and for the past week, builders have been hard at work stripping out every interior wall and converting the building to a six-bed HMO.

Meanwhile, he has another HMO being converted on the opposite side of the road and one already in existence next to that.

He said: “Then there’s another a few doors up the road from me and also one just round the corner in Campbell Road, whose back garden backs onto my back garden.”

He said: “When these latest two HMOs are complete, it means there will be 30 people living in the four homes closest to me.”

One consequence has been pressure on parking spaces.

He said: “Visit in the evening and you will find cars parked on every corner on double yellow lines, because there are just not enough spaces.”

Source: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/the-four-houses-closest-to-me-will-have-30-occupants-i-m-g-342850

There are also plans to buy up a thousand new properties across the north-east and Yorkshire. Family homes can be carved up into HMOs and this is a money-making scheme for property developers – as can be seen by the number of adverts on this issue. As Lee Anderson, Reform’s MP for Ashfield, pointed out in the House of Commons:

“I am speaking about this subject tonight because over the past six years, I have been contacted by hundreds of families in Ashfield who have raised serious concerns about the impact that houses in multiple occupation are having on my community. Anyone can set up an HMO overnight, with no qualifications, no training and no checks. All they need is a few thousand pounds in the bank and a mortgage. They can buy a cheap terraced house somewhere in the midlands, in the north, or in a place like Ashfield, and turn it into an HMO. This leads to thousands of unscrupulous investors living thousands away from places like Ashfield buying up properties there and filling them with people who, quite frankly, I do not want living in my community—people who are criminals, people who are thieving of a night, people who are creating antisocial behaviour. They are filling our streets full of wrong’uns. Then the local politicians, the police and the councillors sit there scratching their head, asking themselves why crime is on the up in the area.

…

We have druggies, criminals and other wrong’uns living—sometimes six in one small house—in streets that were once considered good places to live. The decent folk who can afford to leave those streets are leaving, in their droves, but the problem is that the investors—the landlords—then buy up their houses and turn them into HMOs. Other decent people, however, cannot afford to move, and have to stay and put up with a life of misery.

The problem is becoming worse and worse. Labour Front Benchers, and indeed Back Benchers, bang on about emptying the hotels that are full of illegal migrants, and no one wants a hotel full of illegal migrants in their area. Nobody wants young, fighting-age males—400 of them sometimes—from backward cultures that treat our women as second-class citizens roaming our streets, but the hotels are now being emptied. Where are these young men going to go? I will tell you where they are going to go: they are going to go into an HMO on a street near people in this Chamber; near my family, near my friends, near my neighbours. We have had enough of this. We have enough of our own home-grown nuisances in this country without importing even more to live in HMOs.”

He continues,

“I have seen in Ashfield that, because of HMOs being filled with young men, some young girls are frightened to walk the same streets. They have even changed their route to school. That is unacceptable. It is not right that, in 2026, young British girls are having to change the way they walk to school. It is not fair on our citizens. As I said, the illegal migrants who have been dispersed among our communities in HMOs are mostly young men from backward cultures. Some have medieval views towards our women and girls. Women and girls tell me they are more afraid now to walk our streets than they have ever been. Nobody deserves that.

To make matters even worse, this Government—and, to be fair, the previous Government—have allowed Serco to hoover up HMOs on seven-year deals and fill them full of illegal migrants, which means it is now even more difficult for British people to find accommodation. This has also led to a huge increase in rents in places like Ashfield. The increase in HMOs in places like Ashfield has meant that people who were born and bred there are becoming homeless in our own town. That is an absolute disgrace. Normal, hard-working people in Ashfield are being made homeless by companies and landlords seeking more profit as their homes are converted into HMOs.

In Ashfield, there are supposedly 110 asylum seekers living in this sort of accommodation at the taxpayer’s expense. It is shameful that we have had nurses kicked out of their HMO—nurses who work at my local hospital; the same hospital where I was born—to be replaced by illegal migrants, because Serco has taken over the contract. We are supposed to be here in this place to make people’s lives better, but we are making them worse.”

Source: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-04-28/debates/A7418E58-C6DC-4479-AE50-189FBE233C07/HousesInMultipleOccupation

This Is Unbelievable! Bold British Lad CONFRONT Lefty Agent Housing Migrant For Government Benefits! [Nottinghamshire]

So to sum up, housing is one area where critics, public campaigns, and political groups frequently argue that the state places asylum seekers and newly arrived migrants ahead of local residents, particularly veterans, on social housing waiting lists or in hotel accommodation. Concerns have also been raised regarding government-led drives to secure private-sector rentals for migrants crossing the English Channel, with taxpayers covering the expenses.

Welfare Support and Benefits

Over £15BILLION handed to migrant households in 18 months

· Jobless and employed migrant households combined received more than £15 billion in Universal Credit between January 2024 and June 2025.

· Households with at least one unemployed foreign national accounted for approximately £10 billion of this total over the same 18-month timeframe

£6 billion a year goes to unemployed foreign national households which is capital that could be spent on other areas benefitting British people such as the training of new doctors, increasing the number of police officers, etc. £4,000 is spent on every person of working age in Enfield, Britain’s benefits capital. So this is impacting the lifestyle and life quality of British people. And looming on the horizon is “the Boriswave”, entitling over a million to obtain benefits. And a lot of this money is transmitted back to countries like Pakistan and Somalia.

The whole system seems to be creating dependency ghettos with the British being put at the back of the queue. The indefinite leave to remain system is an extension of largesse to people who have only been here for a few years and needs to be scrapped.

The London Borough of Enfield only has 31% white British and has the highest proportion of Turkish and Kurdish residents, with £1.1 billion being spent on benefits. Blackpool has a similar problem.

This could get worse under Andy Burnham. During his tenure as Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham has repeatedly urged ministers to “abolish the no recourse to public funds policy”, a measure that has been standard on temporary visas since 1980 and prevents migrants from immediately accessing Britain’s welfare state. NRPF exists to prevent migrants from becoming immediate burdens on the British taxpayer and, as the Home Office itself puts it, to ensure the country’s “finite resources are protected for British citizens and those who have lawfully settled here on a permanent basis”.

According to the Centre for Migration Control:

‘Scrapping NRPF would be a marked departure from the current government which has articulated that “it is a well-established principle that migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and support themselves and their families without creating a burden on the welfare system... there are no plans to remove that condition”.

… there are well over 3.3 million migrants, of whom over 2 million arrived between 2023 and 2025, that could potentially benefit from Burnham’s NRPF policy. In other words, were Burnham to become Prime Minister, the Boriswave would not have to wait for settlement before being given access to the welfare state.’

1.3 million foreigners are claiming Universal Credit (June 2025), amounting to £12 billion a year. Non-EU nationals account for 492,000 claimants of UC, of which 211,000 have Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), with 54,000 on humanitarian visas. Nearly one in six UC credit claims went to a household with one foreign national.

Some ask why are we paying foreigners at all? Countries like the UAE, for example, do not pay any benefits. Hard-working British taxpayers are funding foreigners, many of whom do not work at all. Ben Habib states that any foreigner who comes to Britain should be gainfully employed and making a contribution. But currently they have an open ticket to enter the UK that throws benefits at them such as free hotel accommodation, a weekly stipend etc. They will even eventually get a pension on the British state. He states we have become a welfare state with a small private sector tagged on.

Here is a case of a British citizen complaining about this (YouTube shorts):

https://youtube.com/shorts/mNRgkRKw2ns?si=Ot9pEYfmDFMJJLnm

What you can get as an illegal migrant in the UK (even if you are rejected):

Employment and immigration policies

There is a growing political debate over the balance between immigration and domestic workforce development.

Labour is facing a backlash after unveiling plans to subsidise the recruitment of highly skilled foreign workers, despite Britain grappling with a growing youth unemployment crisis. Under a new scheme due to be announced by ministers, high-growth companies will be able to claim up to £5,000 towards visa costs for each overseas recruit, with a maximum of £25,000 available to individual firms each year.

The programme will target sectors identified by ministers as strategically important to economic growth, including technology, life sciences and clean energy. Businesses will also benefit from a fast-tracked visa process designed to make it easier for overseas firms to establish operations in Britain.

The move comes just weeks after a major review warned that more than one million young people aged between 16 and 24 are now not in education, employment or training, raising fresh concerns over opportunities for British workers entering the labour market.

Source: https://londonlovesbusiness.com/labour-to-subsidise-foreign-hires-as-youth-unemployment-tops-one-million

The youth worklessness crisis is being “fuelled” by mass immigration, according to a new analysis. The Centre for Social Justice reports that between January 2020 and 2026, the number of young non-EU workers on payrolls increased by over 290,000, while the number of young employed UK nationals rose by just 11,000, so that is 27 non-EU migrants being hired for every British young citizen (2020 onwards). Large increases in employment costs and a weak economy has led to an increase in non-EU under 25s. 1 in 6 young people over the next few years will be a NEET. 6 in 10 of youth unemployed have never had a job.

It can be argued that basically young Brits are being displaced, but also that it has become too easy for young people to live off the state. Alan Milburn’s recent report on youth unemployment raises the issue that many young people think they have a problem with mental health which precludes them from work.

But basically open borders are delivering cheap, low-skilled migrant workers into starter jobs that would normally go to young British workers. The jobs being used to launch careers are no longer available as the government imports the new workforce, leaving a generation on benefits.

So British youngsters must be placed first and the cheap migrant labour flooding into the country be stopped. Immigration has a role to play – e.g. in hospitality, care, hospitals – but now jobs that used to be filled by teenagers, i.e. entry-level jobs are now being filled by migrants.

BREAKING NEWS!: Sir Sadiq Khan has been made a peer in a list of 26 new members of the House of Lords issued by Downing Street as Sir Keir Starmer prepares to leave office.

The Mayor of London’s budget for the 2026–27 financial year is £22.7 billion. The total budget is shared across City Hall, Transport for London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and London Fire Brigade.

2025/2026 budget: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/governance-and-spending/spending-money-wisely/mayors-budget#the-mayors-budget-for-202627-245853-title

CRITICISM OF KHAN’S ADMINISTRATION

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has an annual salary of £170,282. His pay includes a 3.2% increase linked to local government pay settlements, which made him the highest-paid serving politician in the UK.

Sadiq Khan DESTROYED In Brutal London Assembly Crime Clash | Mayor Under Fire – 21.05.2026

***

FIVE CHARTS THAT SHOW HOW SADIQ KHAN HAS RUINED LONDON

Source: The Telegraph, 6.12.2024

Since his first election in 2016, does his record in the role stand up to scrutiny?

It’s fair to say the capital does not feel in its prime right now. Last night, Matthew Goodwin-Freeman, the Conservative councillor for Hatch End, tweeted that Khan should have got the knighthood for “services to destroying London”.

Certainly, the statistics don’t make for great reading. Violence is soaring, with knife crime rising nearly every year. It’s spilling on to public transport too, where anti-social behaviour on the underground has shot up. On the road, the 20mph roll out appears to have only increased congestion, while nights out just aren’t what they used to be.

The Telegraph has taken a closer look at five key issues facing the capital.

* Violent crime

Khan was accused of having “completely lost control” of the capital’s streets by the families of young people killed in London earlier this year. Under his watch, violent crime has soared 30 per cent from 190,000 incidents in 2016, when he first came to power, to 250,000 this past year. Knife attacks have been a particular problem – rising every year during the same time period, only dropping in 2020 as a result of Covid lockdowns. This year, Khan outlined plans to tackle the problem by expanding neighbourhood policing and funding 500 additional Community Support Officers across London.

Jen Lock, an anti-knife crime campaigner for the past eight years and founder of Lives not Knives in Ealing, west London, says: “It’s got so much worse. There were two stabbings last night near me, one involved four people with knives, and another the night before. It’s part of the school uniform now – you pick up your bag, you pick up your knife. Everyone’s got so desensitised to it.”

* Anti-social behaviour on the Tube

With crime rates surging across the capital since the pandemic, it’s unsurprisingly made its way onto the London Underground too. The total number of offences shot up 56 per cent between 2022 to 2023, while the crime rate per million passenger journeys now stands at 18.6 – up by a third. According to the TfL’s latest Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour report, a third of Londoners have felt worried about personal security on public transport in the last three months. Videos on social media reveal brawls breaking out on the tube on Saturday nights, and this summer a 28-year-old man died after being assaulted on a Thursday evening at Southwark station. Admitting in March that the figures were “too high”, Khan blamed the Conservatives for cutting policing budgets while in government over the past 14 years. He said he would invest in putting 2,500 officers on public transport.

Abby Tearle, a lawyer who has lived in east London for eight years, says: “I’ve had a few bad incidents. One time, on the Tube in the morning rush hour, a man started leaning towards me, locking eyes and biting at the air really dramatically. It was super creepy and I was only able to get away at the next stop. In April, a drunk guy followed a trans woman onto the overground and started verbally abusing her. A few of us had to intervene and it got really heated. But even though it was an obvious altercation, with people shouting and gesturing, no staff appeared despite it going on for 15 minutes.

“It feels like it’s probably getting worse, but you rarely see anyone around to help. You’re not allowed to drink on the Tube but people do it all the time and no one enforces it. You just hear a disembodied voice from the driver – and what are they going to do? Realistically, the key change would be more staff present to help.”

* Road congestion

Every bus passenger and motorist will know the pain of sitting in London traffic at rush hour. The capital’s roads are the most congested in Europe – and the third worst in the world, according to the Inrix global traffic scorecard for 2023.

And it’s only getting worse. The average delay on major A-roads and motorways across Greater London has shot up by a quarter since 2021, according to DfT figures. It now stands at 15.9 seconds per mile travelled. The rise can’t be blamed on the increase in vehicles on the road either – which rose by just 3.8 per cent in contrast. Instead, a major reason is likely to be Khan’s widespread rollout of 20mph zones, with average speeds on local A-roads across London dropping 5.5 per cent to just 13.8mph last year. Transport for London has defended the 20mph zones, claiming they save lives.

Michael Regan, a charity fundraiser who lives in Forest Hill, south London, with his wife and newborn baby, says: “We live by the South Circular. It’s an A-road and a dual carriageway through large sections of it – but it’s 20mph! The congestion is so bad, which is worse for emissions.

“I just don’t understand what it’s trying to achieve. Is it about safety? If someone is going to drive at a crazy speed they are going to do it whether it’s a 20 or 30mph speed limit. It could be argued it’s actually dangerous – I’ve seen people drive onto the pavements to get round congestion when there are temporary lights as well.”

* Nightlife

Nightlife in London is dying. Go out to Greek Street in Soho on a weekday evening and it has nowhere near the buzz it once did, with restaurants and bars kicking punters out earlier and earlier. Overall, the number of pubs, bars and clubs holding a 24-hour alcohol licence in the capital has fallen by two thirds in two years — from 183 in March 2022 to 58 in March 2024. Most of the fall in 24-hour venues was seen in the borough of Westminster, which hosts Soho, but there were notable falls in Lambeth and Greenwich too. In October, Khan’s controversial “night tsar”, Amy Lamé, who was paid over £130,000 a year but failed to stem the closure of nightlife venues, left her role and has not since been replaced. The Mayor’s office has previously acknowledged that the night-time industry is facing huge challenges in the wake of the Covid pandemic, ongoing staff shortages and increased costs and has said it was working with the industry to negotiate the challenges.

Ash Clarke, owner of cocktail bar Knowhere Special in Kentish Town, says: “London’s nightlife is stuck in the past; we have archaic licencing laws. We’re a small independent bar and were previously open six days a week, which the local footfall could support. But after Covid we had to condense it into three or four days, due to wage and energy costs. This is definitely the view of a lot of business owners in London.”

* Taxes

Londoners have seen a 71 per cent surge in charges under a so-called “Sadiq stealth tax” during his time in office. The levy, known as the “mayoral precept”, is charged on top of council tax and goes into the kitty for various London-wide projects. Since Khan became Mayor, his office’s precept has increased by an average of just under 7 per cent per year – taking the average cost per household from £276 in 2016 to £471 this current financial year. Khan has defended rate rises as necessary due to a “lack of government funding” for the Metropolitan Police, fire brigade and TfL.

Andrew Akuffo, a marketing consultant from east London, says: “I know about it because I’m a politics nerd – I listen to LBC all the time – but I don’t think everyone would. It would be good to have some more accountability on it – where is it going exactly? At the moment it’s all just bundled up with various taxes I don’t want to pay.

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/five-charts-show-sadiq-khan-202804072.html

***

Khan and his team:

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-mayor-does/mayor-and-his-team

Two particularly inept members:

Kaya Comer-Schwartz

Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime

Salary: 147,969.27

Biography

Kaya Comer-Schwartz was appointed by the Mayor in October 2024. Until then, she was the elected leader of Islington Council, where she had been Executive Member for Community Safety and Children, and a Councillor since 2013.

She was the national Local Government Association (LGA) Labour lead for Community Wellbeing, and Executive member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Care at London Councils – representing hundreds of councils from across the country.

As Leader of Islington Council, Kaya was accountable for an organisation of 4,800 staff, serving 239,000 residents, with an annual budget of £1.2bn.

During her time in Islington, she oversaw reform and improvement of the Youth Justice Service – now one of the best in the country, graded ‘outstanding’ by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation.

She helped achieve an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating for the Council’s children’s social services.

Kaya also oversaw investment and improvement of local services for victims and survivors of violence against women and girls (VAWG). This led to a 56% increase in the number of survivors being supported and referrals being made 15 times more quickly.

Her previous roles include working for national and international charities.

Kaya is a born Londoner and is now raising her own family in the city she loves. She believes deeply in London’s vitality and diversity and the wonderful opportunities it has to offer.

Justine Simons OBE

Deputy Mayor for Culture and Creative Industries

Key information

Salary: £151,465

Biography

Justine Simons is Deputy Mayor for Culture and the Creative Industries. She has played a central role in the cultural transformation of London for two decades. She was awarded an OBE in 2015 by Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth for Services to Culture in London.

Justine founded and is Chair of the World Cities Culture Forum – the principal leadership network on culture and the future of cities, now grown to 45 global cities reaching across six continents.

She led the capital’s biggest ever festival for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games with over 5000 events and is now overseeing its legacy. East Bank in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is a new £1 billion culture and education district, the most significant for over 150 years.

She shapes London’s Investment Strategy for the Creative Industries covering film, fashion, games and design, growing their influence on the world stage. She has designed new policy innovations including the world’s first Creative Enterprise Zones, a new Culture at Risk Office to protect fragile cultural infrastructure, established the London Borough of Culture and hardwired culture into London’s planning system with the first Cultural Infrastructure Plan.

Justine established the Fourth Plinth as the UK’s biggest public sculpture prize, is co-chair of London’s Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm and chaired the Mayor’s Suffrage Statue Commission placing the first statue of a woman in Parliament Square, suffrage campaigner Millicent Fawcett. She positioned culture at the heart of the Let’s Do London recovery campaign, attracting 800,000 visitors and bringing London back to life post pandemic.

No expenses published for 2024/2025: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-mayor-does/mayor-and-his-team/justine-simons-obe/justine-simons-obe-expenses

Khan and his stance on British native culture, history and traditions and the indigenous population

Sadiq Khan on crime

Sadiq Khan and grooming/rape gangs:

Sadiq Khan and Palestinian protests/anti-semitic behaviour/Jewish insecurity in London

Sadiq Khan on ULEZ

Sadiq Khan’s Mayoral diary/housing statistics/affordable housing/PR

‘We need more migrants in London’ - Sadiq Khan

London’s population is estimated at roughly 9.19 million in 2026. Official Office for National Statistics data shows that White residents comprise about 53.8% of the total population, with approximately 36.7% identifying as White British and 17.1% as ‘Other White’ (such as Polish or Romanian).

Sadiq Khan and the waste of Londoner’s taxpayers money “Not my fault, Gov!”

President Donald Trump on Sadiq Khan’s record as London Mayor

CRIME IN LONDON

Let’s look first at what these people believe in.

Sir Paul Marshall. a British hedge fund manager, philanthropist, and media baron, explains the long march of cultural deconstruction, the crisis of meaning facing the next generation, and why rebuilding our civilisation will require a return to truth, virtue, and a positive vision of the future.

Precis:
1. The path of deconstruction - the world of oppressors and victims, the world of my truths and your truths.
2. Post World War 2 – critical race theory, critical gender theory, post-colonial theory flourished in American universities.
3. Radical progressivism – relies on a utopian theory of human nature, arguing for right without responsibility and the breakdown of institutions like the church in the name of individualism. Most progressives ‘don’t do God’ and prefer to embrace cultural relativism and the West’s civilisational self-erasure. For them biology is fluid, all cultures are equal, the countryside is ‘racist’ etc.
4. Truth is too often sacrificed in the name of kindness.
5. The biggest victims are our youth. They are fed false narratives about our history and culture. If you are a young, white and male – facing an uncertain economic future, discrimination when you apply for university and a job etc.
6. In a period of rapid technological change, AI is introducing an era of mass innovation. Everyone will be affected – how do we combine economic dynamism with human flourishing? Our schools must teach our children to love their country and its culture. Our universities need to return to their roots in critical thinking, free speech and a love of learning.

And this description from The Guardian sums it up well.

The Guardian: Has a ‘woke aristocracy’ really taken control of British society?

There’s a new lefty elite running Britain, and they hate you because they think you’re a racist. That is the central contention advanced by the scholar of populist politics Matthew Goodwin, and if the idea was already looming in the Overton window before his attention-hoovering new book came out, it is now hauling itself onto the balcony and clambering through.

This week, the former government equality tsar Trevor Phillips wrote that “the political and media elite” have achieved “institutional capture” across swathes of the UK’s governing apparatus. The Spectator magazine devoted its cover to the “new elite” and how “the woke aristocracy” is on a “march through the institutions”. And Liz Truss, who was quite recently the prime minister, claimed that her monumental unpopularity was not the result of incompetence, but of an elite “coordinated resistance” that “reached into the media and the broader establishment”.

Read more

And now let’s look at a few prominent individuals…

Politics

Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

Served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007.

Born in 1953. After graduating from university, he worked as a barrister and became involved in the Labour Party and was elected to the House of Commons in 1983 for Sedgefield. Blair supported moving Labour to the political centre of British politics. He was appointed to Neil Kinnock's shadow cabinet in 1988 and as shadow home secretary by John Smith in 1992. Following Smith's death in 1994, Blair won the Labour leadership election, and went on to rebrand the party as "New Labour". He became the youngest prime minister of the 20th century after Labour won a landslide of 418 seats in the 1997 general election, ending 18 years in opposition. It was the first Labour victory for 23 years.

Education/University: He attended the independent school Fettes College. In 1972, at the age of 19, Blair matriculated at ST JOHN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD, reading jurisprudence for three years.
As a student, he played guitar and sang in a rock band called Ugly Rumours, and performed stand-up comedy. He was influenced by fellow student and Anglican priest Peter Thomson, who awakened his religious faith and left-wing politics. While at Oxford, Blair has stated that he was briefly a Trotskyist, after reading the first volume of Isaac Deutscher‘s biography of Leon Trotsky, which was “like a light going on”. He graduated from Oxford at the age of 22 in 1975 with a second-class honours BA degree.

Andrew Murray Burnham

From 2001 to 2017 he was MP for Leigh and held several cabinet positions. Mayor of Greater Manchester from 2017 to 2026. Prime Minister.

Burnham grew up in in Northern England, and joined Labour aged 15. and read English at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. In his early career, Burnham was a researcher for Tessa Jowell and special adviser to Culture Secretary Chris Smith. At the 2001 election, he was elected MP for Leigh in Greater Manchester. Under the prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, he held several cabinet positions, firstly as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and then as Culture Secretary, in which he launched the Hillsborough Independent Panel. In 2009, he was promoted to Health Secretary, in which he responded to the swine flu pandemic and launched an independent inquiry into the Stafford Hospital scandal.

After Labour lost power in 2010, Burnham served in the Shadow Cabinets of Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn in several shadow positions from 2010 to 2016, firstly Shadow Education Secretary, primarily Shadow Health Secretary and lastly Shadow Home Secretary. He ran for Labour’s leadership in 2010 and 2015, coming fourth and second. Selected as the Labour candidate for the new Greater Manchester Mayoralty, he won the mayoral election in 2017 and stood down as an MP. As mayor, Burnham reorganised Manchester’s tram and bus systems as the Bee Network and was nicknamed “King of the North” for campaigning for more furlough funding for Northern communities during the COVID pandemic. He was re-elected in 2021 and 2024.

Education/University: He attended St Aelred’s Catholic High School in Newton-le-Willows. Burnham read English at the UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, where he was an undergraduate student at FITZWILLIAM COLLEGE. He received an upper second-class Bachelor of Arts degree, which was later converted into a Master of Arts degree.

Richard Simon Hermer, Baron Hermer

Served as Attorney General for England and Wales and Advocate General for Northern Ireland since July 2024.

Born in 1968, hei s a British barrister, life peer, and the current Attorney General for England and Wales. Hermer was called to the Bar in 1993 and took silk (became a King’s Counsel) in 2009. A prominent human rights champion and international law expert, he served as a Deputy High Court Judge. Throughout his career, he worked at chambers such as Doughty Street and Matrix Chambers, where he served as Head of Chambers. He was involved in major cases, notably securing a £150 million settlement for victims and bereaved relatives of the Grenfell Tower fire.

Political and Government Role: Elevated to the House of Lords to take up his role as the government’s chief legal adviser, Hermer oversees the Government Legal Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Serious Fraud Office. Appointed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in July 2024, he is the first Attorney General since 1922 to be appointed without previously serving in Parliament

Education/University: Hermer attended Cardiff High School. He studied politics and modern history at the UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER. Whilst at the university of Manchester, Hermer was chair of the students’ union and a national executive member of the National Union of Students. In his youth, he was a volunteer for the magazine Searchlight; which later described him as an “active and dedicated” anti-fascist who worked closely with the magazine while he was a student in Manchester.^] He is a former sabbatical officer of the Union of Jewish Students.

Sir Sadiq Aman Khan

Serving as the third and current strategic authority Mayor for London since 2016.

Born 8 October 1970, he is a British politician serving as the third and current strategic authority mayor for London since 2016. He was previously the Member of Parliament (MP) for Tooting from 2005 until 2016. A member of the Labour Party, Khan is on the party’s soft left and has been ideologically characterised as a social democrat.

Education/University: Khan earned a law degree from the UNIVERSITY OF NORTH LONDON. He subsequently worked as a solicitor specialising in human rights issues and chaired the Liberty advocacy group for three years. Joining the Labour Party, Khan was a councillor for the London Borough of Wandsworth from 1994 to 2006 before being elected MP for Tooting at the 2005 general election

The Judiciary and Police

Judge Nicholas Rowland

Decision to allow 3 boys convicted of rape to walk free sparks fury and debate in U.K.
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ce9pmyz7jrxo

Nicholas Edward Rowland was called to the Bar in 1988 and practised as a barrister for over 25 years before becoming a full-time judge.

He was appointed a Recorder (part-time judge) in 2005 and sat at Southampton Crown Court, before being appointed a Circuit Judge on the 23rd June 2014 on the South West Circuit, where he has served as a permanent judge based at Southampton Combined Court Centre ever since.

Judge Tracey Lloyd-Clarke, the Recorder of Cardiff

A UK court has faced public debate after two separate sentencing decisions by the same judge in unrelated cases drew attention within the same year.
In one case, a former soldier with reported PTSD was sentenced to prison after making inflammatory social media posts following a national incident, which prosecutors argued could encourage violence.
In another case earlier in the year, a different defendant convicted of a serious historical sexual offense received a suspended sentence after a breach of conditions, with the court taking into account wider factors such as prison overcrowding and case-specific circumstances.
The contrasting outcomes have sparked discussion online about sentencing consistency, judicial discretion, and how courts balance public safety, rehabilitation, and systemic pressures within the justice system

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1495451295277562&set=a.266468784842492

Born and grew up in the Cynon Valley in South East Wales. In 2016, Tracey was appointed as a Circuit Judge sitting in crime in Cardiff and Caernarfon. In 2021, she was appointed as a Senior Circuit Judge, the Resident Judge for Cardiff, Newport, and Merthyr Tydfil, and The Recorder of Cardiff

Education/University: She graduated from the UNIVERSITY OF BUCKINGHAM in February 1987 with an LL.B. (Hons), attended the Inns of Court School of Law and was called to the Bar in 1988.

***

Upper Tribunal Judge Gemma Loughran has ordered that a family of 18 Palestinians from Gaza be allowed to enter the UK after dismissing Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s appeal and upholding a lower court’s ruling on human rights grounds.

The case began after a Gazan-born woman, now a British citizen and former refugee living in the UK, was denied permission to bring her extended family to Britain. The family includes her parents, two sisters and their families, and her brother, his wife and their children.

The family had originally applied to enter the UK in November 2023 under refugee family reunification rules, but the Home Office rejected the application. However, the courts found that refusing them entry would unlawfully interfere with their right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act.

Judge Loughran upheld the earlier ruling, meaning all 18 family members will be allowed to come to Britain. The tribunal also noted that most of the adult applicants do not speak English, that they would require access to public funds, and that the UK-based sponsor could only accommodate her parents. The court concluded that the impact on the British citizen and her children was so severe that refusing entry was disproportionate and unlawful.

The ruling has prompted criticism from the Conservatives, with Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp warning it could “open the floodgates” to further claims and calling for the UK to leave the ECHR and abolish the immigration tribunal system.

Gemma Loughran was called to the Bar (Inner Temple) in 2008. She was appointed as a Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber in 2019.

https://www.facebook.com/VisegradGroup24/posts/-upper-tribunal-judge-gemma-loughran-has-ordered-that-a-family-of-18-palestinian/1472761528202672/

Sir Mark Peter Rowley

A British police officer who has been the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police since September 2022.

In 1987, Rowley began his policing career when he joined West Midlands Police as a constable His early career centred on Birmingham, where he undertook a broad range of both uniformed and detective roles.

He joined the National Criminal Intelligence Service as a Detective Superintendent. During his time serving in the NCIS, he led the development of covert operations to combat organised crime. In 2000, he joined Surrey Police as a senior officer when he was appointed Chief Superintendent in command of the West Surrey Basic Command Unit. For five years, he led the investigation into the murder of Milly Dowler until 2011.

In November 2003, he was promoted to Assistant Chief Constable. His responsibilities originally included local policing, crime reduction and criminal justice, but in 2005 his role changed and he became responsible for major and organised crime. He was promoted to Deputy Chief Constable in 2007. He served as temporary Chief Constable of Surrey Police from March 2008. He was appointed Chief Constable of the force in March 2009. From 2009 to 2011, he was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers Cabinet.

He reached the short list of four candidates to become head of the new National Crime Agency, but lost out to Keith Bristow. He joined the Metropolitan Police Service as Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations in October 2011

On 8 July 2022, it was announced that Rowley would be the next Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in succession to Cressida Dick. He was sworn in on 12 September 2022. He was formally appointed by the King on 21 September 2022.

Education/University: He was educated at Handsworth Grammar School for Boys, an all-boys state grammar school in Handsworth, Birmingham.^] In 1983, he matriculated into ST CATHARINE’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. Having studied mathematics, he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in 1986.

The Arts

Matt Brittin

Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

He began his career as a chartered surveyor with Connell Wilson, where he stayed for six years.

Shortly after completing his MBA degree, he joined McKinsey & Co as a consultant, and stayed for six years.

In 2004, he became commercial director at Trinity Mirror, owner of The Daily Mirror. Two years later, he was promoted to director of strategy and digital.

Brittin joined Google in January 2007, becoming managing director of Google UK in 2009, taking over from Dennis Woodside. In September 2011, he became Google’s vice-president for Northern and Central Europe. In December 2014, Google reorganised its structure in Europe and consolidated its European divisions under Brittin’s management as president of EMEA Business and Operations. He apologised in 2017 over Google’s ad placement next to illegal content. Brittin stepped down from his position at Google in early 2025.

Other roles: Brittin sits on the boards of the Climate Group (since 2009) and Media Trust (since 2010), and is a non-executive director of Sainsbury’s. He became a non-executive director of the Guardian Media Group in February 2025

Education/University: He was educated at Hampton School and ROBINSON COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, where he received a master’s degree in land economy and geography in 1990.

Dame Dawn Elizabeth Airey CBE

Chair of the Arts Council England.

Born 1960, she is a British media executive, sports administrator and independent company director.

She over 30 years of experience in the media and creative industries, holding senior leadership positions across major broadcasters. Her executive career includes serving as Chief Executive of Channel 5, where she was the inaugural Director of Programmes, and Managing Director of Channels and Services at Sky. She has also held roles as Managing Director of Global Content at ITV and Senior Vice President at Yahoo! for Europe, Middle East and Africa. Dawn also served as the Chief Executive of Getty Images between 2015 and 2018.

Dawn holds several high-profile non-executive positions. She is currently the Chair of the National Youth Theatre and the educational platform Digital Theatre+. She also chairs the Barclays FA Women’s Super League and Women’s Championship board, a position she has held since 2019. In 2023 Dawn was appointed Chancellor of Edge Hill University. In 2021 she joined the board of Channel 4, where she acted as Interim Chair from 2022 - 25, she is currently Deputy Chair of the Board.

In the 2024 Birthday Honours, Dawn was awarded a CBE for services to theatre and to charity. She is a Vice President and Fellow of the Royal Television Society, and a Fellow of the Royal Society for Arts.

Education/University: She was educated at GIRTON COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, where she studied geography.

Hilary McGrady

Director General of the National Trust.

After finishing her degree in Graphic Design, she worked as a designer before moving into marketing and then into the charity sector for an organisation called Arts & Business. After working on Belfast’s ultimately unsuccessful bid to become European Capital of Culture she joined the National Trust in 2006 as regional director for Northern Ireland. She moved around the organisation, taking on ever bigger roles with every move, becoming Chief Operating Officer in 2014. She succeeded Dame Helen Ghosh as Director General in March 2018. Her major priority for the National Trust over the next decade is to tackle climate change and biodiversity, and she set out a ten-year plan in January 2020 to coincide with the Trust’s 125th anniversary

Education/University: Degree in Graphic Design, ULSTER UNIVERSITY.

Academia

Dame Melanie Henrietta Dawes

Chief Executive of Ofcom.

Born in 1966, she is a British economist and administrator. In February 2020 she was appointed Chief Executive of Ofcom. She was previously the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and before that worked at HM Treasury, HM Revenue and Customs, and in the Cabinet Office. She is a Trustee of the Patchwork Foundation, founded by Harris Bokhari.

Education/University: She was educated at Malvern Girls’ College, then an all-girls private school in Malvern, Worcestershire. She studied at NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree. She then undertook postgraduate studies in economics at BIRBECK COLLEGE, LONDON, graduating with a Master of Science (MSc) degree.

Adam Tickell

Vice Chanellor, the University of Birmingham.

Tickell moved jobs frequently, holding positions and professorships at the universities of Bristol, Leeds, Southampton, Birmingham and Royal Holloway, University of London.

At the University of Bristol, from 2000, he became research director of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law. Simultaneously, he was the vice chair of the Research Grants Board of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

He later joined Royal Holloway, becoming dean and vice-principal. He joined the University of Birmingham in 2011, becoming provost and vice-principal. He became the vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex in 2016. He became vice-chancellor of the University of Birmingham in January 2022.

Education/University: He obtained a first-class degree in Geography in 1987 from the UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER and a PhD from the same institution on the social regulation of banking.

***

The Case of Kathleen Stock - What happened at Sussex University?

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/what-happened-at-sussex-university/

The University of Sussex must stop force-feeding students bad history

Earlier this month, an SOS dropped into my inbox. It came from a student at the University of Sussex. Lest her repressive professors punish her for what I am about to report, let’s call her ‘Emma’. ‘I am in a mild state of despair,’ she wrote.

This week alone I have been told that the history of kinship theory has been, up until now, ‘Eurocentric and cisgendered’, and another anthropology module must be viewed through a ‘queer and trans lens’. The word ‘decolonisation’ comes up in almost every lecture. If university campuses represent a microcosm of the greater society, then I fear we are doomed.

Read more

*** I’m Being Investigated for Wrongthink but I WON’T BE SILENCED. Philip Kiszely (NCF Conference 2024)

A powerful and deeply personal speech by NCF Senior Fellow Dr. Philip Kiszely in which he recounts his own experience of being cancelled as well as the similar experiences of others. He provides guidance on what to do should you find yourself in a similar situation and encourages us all to take action and fight back.

Heads of Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge Universities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_houses_of_the_University_of_Oxford

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_heads_of_University_of_Cambridge_colleges

Further reading/viewing

Study Reveals The Most “Woke” Universities – And What That Actually Means
https://www.studentbeans.com/blog/uk/study-reveals-just-how-woke-your-university-really-is

Britain’s ‘wokest’ universities named and shamed - and how some of the biggest offenders have plunged in the prestigious rankings...
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15122177/Britains-wokest-universities-named-shamed-ranking.html

[non-Daily Mail members: https://thetab.com/2025/09/26/erm-the-daily-mail-has-proclaimed-these-20-uk-unis-the-wokest-in-the-country]

Why I Left The Left + My Woke University

Woke Culture In Universities - Warren Smith – Emerson College

- students forced to surrender their ‘white privilege’
- micro-aggression preventing the upholding of academic standards
- threat of ostracisation if you stand up against student victimisation
- banning of talking about taboo/controversial topics e.g. control of the Internet

Just look at any videos posted daily on YouTube and you will see scenes of native Europeans fighting with third world migrants, be it in Britain, Ireland, Germany, Italy, France, Spain etc.

So what are the steps and factors that lead to a civil war, i.e. what are the indicators? Professor David Betz, Professor of War in the Modern World at King’s College London, has studied this in depth. There are three that are most indicative

1. Factionalism – a factionalised society is one that is prone to civil conflict. We have these now in the Western world. Polar factionalism is when people are no longer disagreeing over issues like abortion but is a situation where people suppress their individual feelings in favour of what they think is their consensus view of their faction or tribe. This occurs in a situation where you feel insecure and you look around for support from your friends and allies. There is an acceleration of the gaps between groups and the heightening of the tensions.

An example of an English village taken over by ‘asylum seekers’: https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15950303/Our-village-taken-asylum-seekers-lives-hell-outnumbered-government-wants-in.html

Chertsey: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1502037424944039

Shrewsbury: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1016839250716704

Labour are the enemy of Britain: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1049999571020993

2. The second major factor is downgrading. This is a situation where a dominant but declining faction within a society is facing a permanent loss of its status e.g. the primacy of their language as the lingua franca, the loss of their cultural ideals and religious symbols, which are either being replaced or actively destroyed to drive further division. A more common term is replacement – or as Renaud Camus called it “the Great Replacement”. In the case of the UK, as of 2023, just over 30% of the population believe that this is occurring. Demographic transformation of societies through migration, conducted as an elite driven concept, often through deceit, by both major parties in Britain over almost the last thirty years has witnessed mostly low skilled migration that is economically retrograde in capital terms. People of course are going to react to this.

3. The loss of faith in the functioning of normal politics as a viable way of answering collective action problems, so crisis of legitimacy and a reflection of the overall political system’s failure. You can look at people’s political attitudes – and in the Western world today, this is not so much left or right but agreement with the idea that voting does not matter. If this is the dominant political idea of a system then this is not going to have a high level of legitimacy. Ideas such as the Uniparty are expressing that whoever you vote for, the party getting into government will enact policies that appeal to the governing elite. And most of the time elite beats street so the system is not reflecting aggregate collective opinions.

Trust is a very important aspect of society, and throughout the Western world it can be argued that trust has been in decline since the 1970s. Many poll results show that the numbers of people who express trust in politicians to be truthful and act responsibly on behalf of their voters are very low. Institutions are also facing serious decline in trust – the legal system, journalism and even those that have historically maintained high levels like the police and judiciary. This is indicative of a very ill society that has the potential for conflict.

The police in the UK: https://www.gbnews.com/news/police-woke-culture-wars-catching-criminals-review

We can argue that these indicators are now all flashing red – not amber – indicating that things have gone very wrong.

Who will be fighting in the civil wars?

David Betz suggests three primary groups:

1. The globalist elite that has attitudes post nationalist, cosmopolitan etc. These are national elites who hold national positions but have no sympathy for national interest and see those who advocate it as rather suspicious characters and whose ideas are deplorable. They are also post-Christian.

2. The non-native communities, particularly the new Muslim populations who have not assimilated nor wish to assimilate into the Western cultural landscape. This is what underpins the idea of replacement referred to earlier. These are recent arrivals (say over 30 years in most cases).

An example of a migrant gang attack on a British white man: https://www.facebook.com/tam.donlon

I’ve sat on this for a few days, but it needs said.

Me and my mate were walking back from work the other night through Glasgow city centre. Laptop bags on us, minding our own business, when we got jumped by a mob of about 10 - 15 Algerians trying to rob us on a main street.

We stood our ground and gave them a good go. They sneakied us and I got bottled fae behind. Soon as they realised we weren’t easy targets, coshes and belts came out. We scrapped with them for a good few minutes and while they all shat it for a one-on-one, we ended up overwhelmed, I was dragged doon stairs, bottled in the face, then kicked and stamped on while they were shouting “Glasgow’s our city now” and “Allahu Akbar”.

That’s no an opinion. That’s no politics. That’s what happened. Despite being already told that pointing out those who attacked us as North African was somehow racist.

3. The native population that is a declining majority.

https://www.instagram.com/?next=%2F

How will it play out?

There are two primary vectors, in both of which the central actor is the native mass, i.e. the “somewhere” who still feel themselves to be connected to their land, history and language.

The mass and the elite represents the first vector essentially in the form of revolt. It is conservative in its character, that seeks to punish the elite for having changed the rules of the game invidious to the population of the majority and which represents a violation of the social contract (betrayal by the elite). In the 21^st century, this will probably take the form of a Latin American style “dirty war”, such as in Italy during the 1970s or the Northern Ireland. Essentially low levels of chronic violence such as assassinations, kidnappings, punishment beatings essentially directed at elite. The goal is not to replace but to force it to perform its function that is to serve the national interest once again.

Thousands of French march in Narbonne, France
https://www.facebook.com/reel/27565203869778573

The second vector is inter-tribal or inter-ethnic. This will probably have a rural vs. urban dimension, ethnic enclaves, paramilitary style attacks focused primarily on the infrastructure of cities e.g. on the food distribution system, electrical power, gas, transportation networks that are all easily targetable. Cities rely on these that are external to them and have to be transmitted into them and, despite being big, are often fragile. In an abnormally functioning society it is relatively easy to attack these and cutting them off in large urban areas can have an extensive impact, with mass looting, rioting and violence often breaking out. The police are stretched to control the situation, and if this happens on a frequent basis in every major city then they become completely overstretched.

The outlook for the future?

The development economist Paul Collier states that mass migration is harmful to both the sending and receiving societies. Its impact on social capital is a main theme. Robert Putnam, the American sociologist and political scientist, covers this in his work. If you want to have a wealthy society, the most important factor is high levels of trust or “social capital”. Mass migration, multiculturalism, diversity policies, identity politics all impact social capital, similar to hydrochloric acid on organic substances. The consequences are now baked in.

Some of the effects might be mitigated and David Betz advises governments to consider reducing the duration, i.e. a sharp, short resolution. But this opportunity has been missed and now people should brace or buckle up for what lies ahead.

Robert Putnam points out that with increased diversity, then trust between citizens is weakened. In his article in a Scandinavian journal, he openly states his findings are very alarming but over time the loss of social capital will come back. But in reality the opposite has been the case. Second and third generation express higher levels of alienation and outright enmity towards their nominal new homelands than the first generation. But openly stating this can amount to sacrilege.

Further reading:

· Paul Collier, Exodus: How Migration is Changing Our World (titled Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century for its UK release), 2013, Oxford University Press

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus:_How_Migration_Is_Changing_Our_World

· Robert D. Putnam is an acclaimed American political scientist and public policy professor at Harvard University. He is best known for popularising the concept of social capital—the idea that social networks, community connections, and mutual trust are vital for a healthy society and functioning democracy.

Bowling Alone (2000) is his most famous book, detailing how Americans have steadily withdrawn from community life (like bowling leagues, church attendance, and civic clubs) since the 1960s. This collapse in social capital has led to increased isolation and declining trust in democratic institutions

· Samuel P. Huntington, Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite, is a notable 2004 essay by prominent political scientist. Published in The National Interest and later featured in his book Who Are We?, it argued that American elites were abandoning traditional national identity for transnational, cosmopolitan loyalties.

The essay famously coined the term “Davos Man” to describe these transnational professionals. According to Huntington, these executives, academics, and high-tech entrepreneurs viewed national boundaries as obsolete. Huntington warned that this denationalization created a deep cultural and political split, pitting a transnational elite against a deeply patriotic and nationalist American public.

• Renaud Camus on Replacement
  https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/philosophy/renaud-camus-replacement-democracy-civilization-racism-west/

Citizen Vigilante is a 2026 vigilante action thriller film produced, written, and directed by Uwe Boll. It stars Armie Hammer as Michael Sanders, a vigilante who, enraged by the breakdown of law and order, targets criminal migrants and corrupt officials.

The film was released in select theatres and digitally on 19 June, 2026. It did not receive an age rating in Germany, effectively banning it in the country. Elon Musk released the film on X, boosting its reach. The film was often compared in the media to Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry and Charles Bronson in Death Wish. The location of the film is in Croatia.

The film was released on X on 25 June, 2026 for 48 hours and was reposted by Elon Musk. Musk made several posts praising the film and suggested that efforts to ban it have instead boosted its reach, with Musk specifically mentioning the “Streisand Effect” - the phenomenon in which an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information results in the unintended consequence of the effort instead increasing public awareness of the information.

I won’t give too much of the plot away but Michael Sanders is a former U.S. Army officer who moved to Europe after inheriting his estranged father’s real estate business. He secretly operates as the Vigilante Citizen, a ruthless vigilante who targets those who have escaped justice. While much of the public praises his actions, the police, led by Interpol chief Henry, are determined to arrest him.

To be honest, I am amazed that Uwe Boll, the director, had the courage to write and direct this film. It covers all the bases of how people on the right are feeling about seeing their countries being taken over by third world migrants and the negative impacts this is having on traditional European societies. There are scenes that take place on a regular basis in countries with high migrant numbers – a random knife attack on a young mother walking with her child, the rape of a white teenage girl in a park by a group of Muslim migrants, a group of migrant thugs extorting a shop owner, young teenagers avoiding paying their bus tickets and beating up a young white boy after stealing his phone etc. But it also looks at societal trends such as liberal woke judges giving migrant criminals lenient sentences to help them “integrate” into society.

Uwe Boll is showing issues on the screen that the Hollywood liberal elite types refuse to touch and actually go out of their way to “cancel”. Violence linked to migrants and failures of the justice system are realities we know exist. Although a low budget film and I believe far too short, Boll needs to be congratulated for taking on this challenge. I personally would far prefer to watch a film like this than, say, a woke Hollywood One Battle After Another that of course is going to win Oscar and Bafta awards because it fits into the film industry worldview. And a big shout out to Elon Musk for putting the film free on X once he found out it is banned in Germany.

When Sir Keir Starmer was campaigning during the 2024 General Election he promised to take tough action on migration and to ‘smash the gangs’. Fast forward to 2029 and, although there has been a decrease in mass migration numbers mainly due to the number of British people leaving the country producing a smaller net total, the number of illegal migrants crossing the English Channel has done nothing more than move in an upward trajectory. According to Migration Watch UK, since 2018, over 200,000 illegal immigrants (many of whom make a claim for asylum) have been attempting to enter the United Kingdom by crossing the English Channel in small boats, often using inflatable dinghies.

Here are some basic stats from The Migration Observatory and other sources:

• The total number of illegal Channel migrant arrivals this year is just under 10,100. There were 41,000 arrivals in 2025, more than in all other years except 2022. Despite the UK agreeing to pay France up to £662 million over five years to support beach patrols, some 2,726 people have still made the crossing to Britain in May. Around 1,000 fewer made the journey over the same month last year.

• Between 2018 and 2025, citizens of six countries – Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Albania, Syria, and Eritrea – made up 65% of people crossing in small boats.

• Between 2018 and 2025, the asylum grant rate for people who arrived by small boat was 62%, higher than the grant rate for asylum applicants overall.

• Around 7,500 people who arrived by small boat had been returned from the UK by the end of 2025, making up 4% of all arrivals since 2018. Most returns had been to Albania.

The more important picture, however, is that of mass migration, and the upward trend from 1964 can be seen here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-figures-of-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/ and Migration Watch UK has the best statistics here: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/migration-statistics/

Now, the question has to be asked: Why have the Uniparty allowed so many migrants to enter the country, particularly low educated, unskilled ones from third world countries. Why do they now seem content to see bright young British, many of whom are university educated, leave the country to be replaced by – let’s face it – third world goat herders? Is the UK economy really going to benefit from seeing a white brain drain like this and does mass migration really contribute to a long-term boost to economic growth.

The evidence clearly show that is does not – the recent spikes were simply a post-Covid bounce:

So, given the fact that migration is the number one issue for many voters, why is this current Labour government sill ploughing ahead with a positive position on migration, particularly from non-European countries. To my mind this is simply because the Labour party is fully aware that those migrants who are given British passports and can claim welfare benefits are more likely to vote for a political party that has enabled this.

The Labour party being the party traditionally associated with ‘tax and spend’ policies has shown itself to be the party most prepared to offer welfare benefits to migrants. In the following video, it is mind-blowing just how much money is paid to these individuals. 70% of universal credit, for example, goes to foreign nationals not in employment. £15 billion is given in benefits to migrant households - people in Britain who are born overseas - and soon over a million individuals who came in the Boris wave will soon be entitled to claim. Places like the London Borough of Enfield are becoming dependency ghettos - £4,000 spent on every person of working age - with these migrants dependent on their government to sustain their work-free lifestyles.

1.5 million migrants are on universal credit and one in every six claimants of universal credit is not a British citizen, all funded by the British taxpayer. THE CURRENT WELFARE BILL IS AROUND £330 BILLION A YEAR and rising because this government simply cannot make cuts to it. This is unsustainable because more is going out than is being received in income tax.

The recent Labour Welfare Bill which finally became law in 2025 was severely toned down after a revolt by Labour backbenchers, whom the Guardian in an article described at the time as:

‘The bulk of the rebels on Wednesday were from the broad left of the party or were MPs who had submitted or signed amendments … It marks the second time in just over a week that the government has been forced to make big revisions to its controversial legislation, after a week of chaos in the Commons that left Starmer’s authority bruised’.

As Kemi Badenoch said,

‘Even if their original bill had passed unamended, it wouldn’t have fundamentally fixed anything because it was a sticking plaster solution. Now they can’t fix it in this Parliament.

So for the next four years, we are stuck. We are stuck with 3,000 people a day signing on to out-of-work benefits. We are stuck with people getting taxpayer-funded cars for having constipation.

The health and disability benefits bill will go up to £100 billion on their watch, and that is just sickness benefits. Their economic mismanagement means that every day they are in office, jobs are being lost.

And job losses mean more people going onto welfare and fewer people coming off. No doubt emboldened by their success in forcing Starmer to U-turn last week, Labour backbenchers will be eyeing up even more concessions’.

Source: https://www.conservatives.com/news/kemi-exposes-labours-welfare-ticking-time-bomb

So, from a Labour perspective, the government is simply continuing to spend and wrack up debt but they are continuing to ensure that their voter base is receiving their welfare payments and in effect 28 million people in Britain are now working to pay the wages and benefits of 28 million others. And it is these recipients of welfare payments, particularly migrants who have come to our country, that will most likely be voting for Labour in the next General Elections, supposedly scheduled for 2029.

It is, off course, possible to argue that not all migrants are inclined to vote Labour. But one only has to look at London as an example of where this happens. Sadiq Khan took office as mayor on 9 May 2016, and was re-elected in 2021 and 2024. Now is he such a remarkable mayor that he has won three elections as London Mayor based on his administrative record. No, if one looks at London law and order has declined and parts of the capital city are beginning to resemble third world ghettos. It is far more apparent that London, which is now more than 65% non-white – just look at this graphic to show how the white population has declined (2021, 36.8%) and the minority increased in Greater London:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_ethnic_demographics_from_1961_to_2021.gif

Khan’s electoral success is very much based on the fact that he is a British Muslim who has made it abundantly clear that his priority is to support non-white British first over indigenous white British because he knows that the former will repay him with their votes. Another example is how the Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has recently granted citizenship status to 500,000 migrants, creating a “loyal voting bloc” for him and his left-wing government.

So, to conclude, whatever Labour’s tough-sounding rhetoric is on migration, there will always be a lack of impetus to reduce mass migration numbers, particularly as many Far Left MPs depend on the migrant/welfare vote in their constituencies and so will not condone any large scale reforms to the welfare system that supports so many migrants in our country.

Higher than planned debt interest payments were the culprit, totalling £11.7 billion – the highest May figure ever recorded. A large part of that was the ‘capital uplift’ on index-linked gilts which have obviously been pushed up by RPI inflation.

That is what awaits Burnham in Downing Street: a fate in which he will be utterly in hock to the bond markets. And that’s why I wouldn’t want to be him. His voters in Makerfield and his supporters across the country expect him to implement real change. But what on earth can he do?

The debt figures outlined this morning make it clear that more borrowing is not an option. Burnham has made it clear he sticks by Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules whether he sticks by her or not. You can’t expect him to cut public spending given his appeal is about being left of Keir Starmer, whose backbenchers have destroyed him over the most modest spending cuts.

And so his only option is to hike taxes – and not just on the ‘wealthy’. To implement the kind of change Burnham allegedly wants to see – journalist Joanna Marchong calculates his campaign pledges would cost almost £50 billion a year before you even think about nationalisations – he’d need to bump up the basic rate of income tax. A 1p hike in the basic rate nets you about £8.2 billion while putting up the higher rate gets only £2.1 billion. I suspect Burnham would quite like to do either or both of those things – regardless of the destructive effect it would have on growth. Even then it wouldn’t be enough.

Regardless, he can’t because of the ‘tax lock’ manifesto commitment the Tories dragged his party into during the last general election campaign. A promise that never needed to be made, and one that has left both Starmer and Reeves in a mess they can’t escape.

Given the fiscal realities Burnham would face as PM, boxed in from all sides, the scale of his victory today is the only card he has to play. So, snap election anybody?

The Islamic Doctrine of Slander.

The so called “Islamophobia” law or as it’s now called – the non-statutory “anti-Muslim Hostility” legislation, so relentlessly pursued by Muslims, is not what you think it is.

We are led to believe it’s some sort of religious “blasphemy law.”

It’s not.

It is Muslims attempting to impose sharia by the backdoor with Islam’s Doctrine of Slander. This must be made known - be made public. To let people know that sharia is being imposed on them.

Islam’s Doctrine of Slander is very different to our understanding of the term and concept. Slander to us means, of course, when someone says something which is not true.

In Islam, the Doctrine of Slander merely means anything that a Muslim doesn’t like, and truth is no defence. This is absolutely astonishing, and is the most dangerous part of the doctrine.

The Doctrine of Slander is found in the authoritative sharia book of Islamic law, Reliance of the Traveller in Book R under the heading - Holding One’s Tongue - in sections r2.2, r2.6(2). It’s also in the Quran and in the hadith.

Islamic sharia demands that there can be no criticism of Islam and Muslims – which means consequently - Islam can spread without hinderance.

And you repeatedly hear them howling whenever they think - they or Islam have been slighted in some way.

This is the Islamic mindset: Offended by everything and ashamed of nothing.

The Doctrine of Slander is a foundational principle in Islam. This is why Muslims, in a sustained campaign, are so desperate to have it imposed and state sanctioned.

They are able to do this where there are large populations of them in the West. Imposing this decree means Islam can spread without impedance, but with legal approval.

And here’s the litmus test. If you compare side by side the texts from both the sharia book and the government’s Anti-Muslim Hostility definition, it is unmistakably clear they have used this doctrine to formulate the written definition. Some of the wording and structure of the texts are almost identical.

This is the Islamic Doctrine of Slander as found in the sharia book Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) under the section:

BOOK R - HOLDING ONE’S TONGUE:

r2.2 Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him.

Mention means by word, writing, sign, or indicating him with one’s eye, hand, head, and so forth.

r2.6 (2) “Do you know what slander is?” They answered, “Allah and His messenger know best.” He said, “It is to mention of your brother that which he would dislike.” Someone asked, “what if he is as I say?” And he replied, “If he is as you say, you have slandered him, and if not, you have calumniated him.“ (Make false and defamatory statements about)

Now compare this with the government’s definition(s)…

New definition of “Anti-Muslim Hostility”:

The UK government’s non-statutory definition of “Anti-Muslim Hostility” is the following:

Anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts – including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated – that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance.

It is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.

It is engaging in unlawful discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.

Now the original Islamic approved APPG definition of “Islamophobia”:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

Describing it as a “blasphemy law” is our description remember, not theirs. Describing it as an “Islamophobia law” is their description - and they are careful not to mention its sharia origins. It should be called out for what it is - Islamic sharia.

Islam and sharia are inherently the same. Islam is the descriptive name of the ideology, and sharia is the prescriptive application of it.

This should not be referred to as a “blasphemy law” or an “Islamophobia law” or even “anti-Muslim Hostility” but instead call it what it is, Islamic sharia. It’s more accurate. And this must be called out.

The Islamic Doctrine of al Walaa’ w’al Baraa’.

The Islamic Doctrine of al-Wala’ w’al-Bara’ - loyalty and disavowal - means to love and hate for the sake of Allah - to love only Muslims and to hate disbelievers.

This is the doctrine in which Muslims are commanded to love what Allah loves and hate what Allah hates. It means loving and supporting all that is pleasing to Allah, and hating all that displeases Allah.
It is the foundational doctrine behind jihad, and is the root source of all Islamic hostility to disbelievers. There is much scholarly work on this subject.

This is codified Islamic hatred.

Its scriptural lynchpin is chapter 60 verse 4. The hadith concurs with this, as do the scholars.
To quote an extract from just the motivating part of Q60:4:

…We denounce you. Hostility and hatred has surfaced between us and you, forever, until you believe in Allah alone…”

There are many additional Quran verses which support this doctrine.

In short, a Muslim’s hatred for disbelievers is an expression of faith, as articulated by the Islamic texts, and is a direct commandment from Allah.

The Saudi cleric, Shaykh Ibn Baaz - who was the Kingdom’s Grand Mufti between 1993-99 - was asked if he could explain the concept of loyalty and disavowal - and to whom it applies - and is it permissible to take the disbelievers as allies and friends.

He responded by issuing a fatwa ruling:

“What is meant by loyalty and disavowal is loving the believers and taking them as allies and friends, and hating the disbelievers, regarding them as enemies and disavowing them and their religion. This is what is meant by loyalty and disavowal, as Allah, may He be glorified, says in Q60:4 –

(He then quotes Q60:4…)

- Hating them and regarding them as enemies does not mean that you should mistreat them or transgress against them if they are not in a state of war with the Muslims. Rather what it means is hating them in your heart and regarding them as enemies in your heart, and not taking them as friends.”

Majmoo‘ Fatawa Ibn Baaz (5/246).

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/337640/the-concept-of-loyalty-and-disavowal-al-wala-wal-bara-and-its-importance

And I have to say, this is outrageous.

These Muslims demand we don’t hate them, whilst they hate us.

And then, they have the cheek to demand legislation to force us not to hate them - whilst they hate us.

This rank hypocrisy of Muslims is beyond breathtaking; it’s obscene.

They complain of “Islamophobia”, yet their Islamic texts are filled with vilification and hatred of disbelievers, as legislated by their Allah. This must be confronted and called out.

If the charge of Islamophobia is ever hurled at you, respond stridently.

Demand why there is an expectation for you not to hate Islam, when they are commanded by Islam to hate us - as a matter of doctrine.

Ask why the hate speech laws don’t apply to Muslims, when hundreds of Islam’s texts so openly command hatred on disbelievers.

This needs to be pushed back on hard – very hard.

Muslims cannot have a free ride with this anymore. It’s got to stop. Use Islam against Islam. It has the tools to do this. You just have to use them.

Islamic Doctrine of Tawriya.

Islam is the only religious ideology with developed doctrines of deception. This is just one of them – Tawriya; there are others.

Tawriya is a doctrine in Islam used to create a false impression. It is used as a premeditated and deliberate form of deception.

It refers to a method of intentional ambiguity or a veiled statement where one intends a meaning different from what the listener might reasonably understand. It’s used to conceal the speaker’s true intention.

And the concept of intention is very important in Islam. There is much narrative on this. For example – on the swearing of oaths.

You won’t be surprised to know that Islam provides Muslims with divine sanction to break a sworn oath, if their intention was not to keep to it in the first place. This is clearly stated in the Quran, repeatedly.

An example to illustrate how Tawriya works. Someone asks you if they can borrow £20. You reply by saying you haven’t got a penny on you. However, you do have £20 in your pocket, but you don’t have any coins. So, you haven’t technically lied. You’ve misled, created a false impression for the purpose of concealment.

Indeed, not long ago - Khan stated that he was “heartbroken” by Nick Timothy’s criticism of the recent massed praying event in Trafalgar Square. Using the word “heartbroken” seems a strange and curious word to use under the circumstances, and one, which on the face of it, may well seem innocuous and weepily benign. The Quran may provide an answer.

And, it can be found in Q9:14:

Fight the disbelievers - and Allah will punish them by your hands, and humiliate them, and give you victory over them, and he will heal the hearts of people who are believers.

To be clear. As it says: “Allah will punish them by your hands” means that Muslims on Earth are the executors of Allah’s judgement and are charged with the responsibility of punishing disbelievers on behalf of Allah’s divine wrath. And in so doing, Allah soothes by saying He will heal the hearts of people who are believers.

This is the only passage anywhere in the Quran which mentions that a broken heart can be healed by the will of Allah.

The Doctrine of Jihad.

Jihad is perhaps one of the most misunderstood concepts and misused words in Islam.
It is deliberately conflated with its grammatical, non-Islamic Arabic meaning - which means “struggle” - to mask its true intention and meaning.

When a Muslim uses it within the context of Islam, its meaning is NOT understood to be an “inner struggle” - but instead, it is understood by its Islamic legal definition.

The objective of Jihad is to impose the sharia. It means, for Muslims not to be ruled by non-Muslims, for all to submit to Allah, follow Muhammad and obey the sharia. And if necessary, fight to achieve this. That’s it. Nothing more.

The traditional legal definition in Islam under the sharia means Muslims are to make war on Jews and Christians and - as it says - all other people. This is found in Reliance of the Traveller in Book O – Justice - under sections o9.0 through to o9.9.

Extracts from Reliance of the Traveller, BOOK O JUSTICE:

o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);

(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);

(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such Hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no Allah but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”; and the Hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the

Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them.

He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”

and Allah Most High having said: “Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good” (Koran 4:95).

o9.3 Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims.

THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

o9.8 The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4)-which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29)…

o9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honoured as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya)) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21), 6.48-49)).

WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD

o9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).

“Jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least a tribute (jizya) and live in submission and then they refuse.”
(Abdul Aziz Al Jalil - Jihadi Education In The Light Of The Qur’an And Sunnah)

Jihad according to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence:

“Jihad is extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah with one’s life, wealth and tongue. A call to the true religion Islam and war to whoever refuses to accept it.”

Jihad according to Maliki the school of jurisprudence:

“When a Muslim fights an infidel so that Allah’s word reigns supreme.”

Jihad according to Shafi’i the school of jurisprudence:

“Jihad is fiercely fighting the infidels.”

Jihad according to the Hanbali school of jurisprudence:

“Jihad is fighting infidels.”
(Jihadi Education In The Light Of The Qur’an And Sunnah)

“The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam. The duty of jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is therefore a provisional state of affairs only. The chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.”
(Encyclopaedia of Islam (1^st Edition) – Jihad: Émile Tyan – [Lebanese Jurist])

However, in the modern era, jihad does not necessarily mean a kinetic effort to achieve this. With Muslims now inside the chicken coop so to speak, any means can be used to Islamise and impose the sharia. There’s jihad of the womb. Jihad of the money. Jihad of the pen, and so on. It is all jihad – the effort to impose Allah’s will on all of us.

And the doctrine of Tawriya is used with jihad. Muslims will say that jihad is only ever used in a “just” war. The inference being that Islam will only get involved in a war that is somehow justified or defensive.

But the deception is there. What they don’t mention of course, is that all war against disbelievers is a “just war” in the eyes of Islam. The Islamic texts are littered with this.

Again, the Islamic doctrine of Tawriya is deceiving us.

This is why it’s so important to understand Islam. To see the lies and deceit.

And, it’s important to understand, that Islam is never going to stop doing what it’s doing. Asking them to stop will not work.

Understanding their terminology.

Language matters. And it’s most important to remove the control they have and reclaim the narrative.

They have claimed the narrative by using misleading words and phrases. This has largely set a false landscape by their use. Everyone seems to use these words without a thought given, and in so doing unwittingly feed their bias. You repeatedly hear pundits using these words and phrases, saying them in such a way as if they have some deeper understanding of Islam. They don’t. They have not read the Islamic texts.

Oppression, Persecution and Corruption.

These are very common words in Islam. They are found throughout Islamic printed output.

They are another device used to advance the ideology. Like getting more funding for mosque protection. Don’t be fooled by the grammatical construct you find these words in. Their meaning never changes in Islam.

“Oppression” in Islam means Muslims living in a society amongst disbelievers, who are ruled by them according to PUBLIC laws based on something other than sharia. Muslims using the term “other than sharia” is a condemnatory phrase in Islam.

“Persecuted” means they are the recipient of Man-made actions taken against them. For instance, court action against sharia compliant activities. It can also be for political or social policies implemented which go against Islamic norms.

Within Islam “corruption” is disobeying Allah, and, along with “mischief” means engaging in activities which are un-Islamic - such as insulting Muhammad, denying Allah and the Quran, drinking alcohol, walking dogs, gambling, eating pork or non-halal produce.

These words do not mean “oppressed” and “persecuted” or “corruption” in the sense that we would understand them.

Islamic Victimhood.

Islam has, as part of its identity, a living victimhood which it uses to very great effect. It uses victimhood as part of verbal warfare – jihad of the tongue as it’s known.

It’s a calculated manipulation of language to disguise Islamic intentions. Islam is a master at using words that sound positive and progressive to Western audiences.

But they carry a completely different meaning within the Islamic context.

By weaponising language, they create a false sense of security whilst covertly conveying their ideological agenda. Don’t be fooled. Words matter, and in the mouths of these motivated Jihadists, they are weapons.

Muslims will demand the removal of things that are “haram”, like sausages in schools for instance. This is another common victimhood routine they use in their attempts to further Islamise. If the sausages were not removed, it would be seen as being persecuted by the infidels with howls of Islamophobia.

If something is considered haram, they want it banned altogether, so none can have it. This attitude sets Islam apart from everyone else.

It’s an attempt at Islamic supremacy. And thus Islam prevails, jihad is fulfilled - the Islamisation process marches on.

After every single jihadist attack, Muslim organisations always, without fail, say they want protection from a backlash.

Their first reaction is about themselves, rather than how they’re going to - instead - deal with the violent jihadists.

This has its roots in the very early period of Muhammad’s time in Mecca when he was not strong and was persecuted. Victimhood is just another example of Muslims following and emulating Muhammad, as Islam commands.

Remember, the key to understanding this, is to look at Islam’s attitude of victimhood through the eyes of Islam itself, not ours.

Islamism and Islamist.

“Islamism” as opposed to “Islamic” is a distinction without difference.

“Islamism” is an artificial word. It implies there is something different, something away from or outside of mainstream Islam. It is a way of separating the religious aspects of the ideology from its violent and political side, for the purpose of trying to avoid a frontal attack on Islam.

Those who use these words are attempting to understand and interpret Islam through their own eyes, and not Islam’s. This is a mistake.

Suffixing words with qualifiers simply deflect and serves no purpose, other than giving Islam the excuse to evade proper scrutiny and criticism. In the same way we never use the word Christianism.

They all read the same Book. The Book contains the texts and doctrines that commands, motivates and inspires the jihadists. The motivated jihadists don’t read any other Book. This therefore tells you that Islam has problematic texts – obviously. Otherwise there wouldn’t be the jihadist problem.

As far as we disbelievers are concerned, Islam demands that the sharia is imposed, and all are required to submit to it. This is why the ideology is problematic for us. This is not “Islamism” – there’s no such thing. It’s Islam.

Yet people will say it’s “Islamism” that’s the problem. It’s not. “Islamism” is nothing more than disbelievers misunderstanding that Muslims are putting into practice the core doctrines of Islam, and focussing them on the non-Islamic West.

“Islamism”, that is Islam - is the active ideological effort to make the Quran and Muhammad the law of the land – the sharia – and put it into territory not hitherto Islamic. It is the belief that Allah’s laws should guide politics and policy - and that societies must be governed by the sharia. Well, this is jihad, which is Islam itself.

And it’s the belief held by Muslims - which makes and defines them as Muslims.

They wouldn’t be a Muslim if they didn’t believe this and advocate for it. It’s mainstream Islam, and is mandated throughout the Islamic narratives. Islam’s self-declared purpose is to impose the sharia and subjugate non-believers into the Islamic social and political order.

Not using “Islamism” will have the advantage of not pandering to Muslims and their useful idiots.

An “Islamist” is the artificial name for a Muslim who is a motivated, observant jihadist.

There are two types of Muslims in my view:

Those who could be described as moderate – the less observant Muslims - and the motivated, observant jihadists.

Moderate Muslims live their lives judging disbelievers should submit to Islam sometime in the future. The motivated jihadists believe the world should submit to Allah now.

The moderate Muslims have the attitude that since there is no rush for disbelievers to submit - that this can be done sometime in the future - they really don’t think or care about it. They just want to live their lives, and they don’t read the Islamic texts literally.

But crucially, they don’t, they haven’t and they will not stand in the way of the motivated jihadists. They will not call them out for wanting to impose the sharia now, however it’s done. This is against Islamic law. You cannot expect a Muslim to go against Islam’s most fundamental purpose – to impose Islam - and not risk reprisals.

The motivated jihadists are split between those who use violence with their efforts, and those who use non-violent gradualist, civilisational methods to impose Islam slowly, by infiltrating all parts of society. This is known as the Doctrine of Gradualism – called Tadarruj in Islam. They take over gradually, as Muhammad did. Like Khan is doing now in London.

Those who go down the path of violence are literalists. They take the words of Allah literally. They are well versed in theological reasoning.

In addition, the Islamic texts say that Muslims – to be good Muslims - are to emulate Muhammad in word and deed. Muhammad fought, killed and murdered disbelievers and commanded others to do the same. Muslims follow and emulate this.

It’s these characteristics about the violent jihadists which set them apart:

Which are, to impose Allah’s will now, take the Islamic texts literally and to emulate Muhammad.

These are the Muslims who people call “Islamists.”

The Muslims who use the slow, step-by-step gradualist method to impose the sharia are those with whom Islam’s useful idiots think they can deal with.

The dilemma for the West is - the nicer we show ourselves, the more the motivated jihadists will view this niceness as weakness, and they take this as an invitation to attack or proceed at pace with Islamising.

The useful idiots and apologists are unable to see that Muslims are using them, and using our laws, our tolerance against us to spread Islam – as the Muslim Brotherhood have instructed.

Muslims don’t use the term; only we do. Using it lets Islam itself off the hook. That’s not a good thing - as it panders to Muslims and their useful idiots.

With Islam, past behaviour is the best indicator of future performance.

Radical Islam / Radicalised.

There are no parts of the Quran or Islamic source narratives which are “radical” to a Muslim.

Accordingly, they cannot become “radicalised” by Islam. Those who believe this are attempting to understand and view Islam through their own eyes, and not Islam’s. Once again, this is a mistake. Muslims themselves do not recognise a “radical” Islam. They only know Islam. People only say they are “radicalised” by “radical Islam” because they do not understand it. They have not read the Islamic texts.

It would never be said of a communist that they are a “radical communist” or be said of a National Socialist they are a “radical National Socialist.”

As mentioned, there are violent and non-violent Muslims. The reason why the moderate Muslims have zero sway over the violent and motivated jihadists - is because the devout, observant Muslims have Islam on their side, as confirmed by the Islamic texts.

Those who are called “radical” are simply those who are motivated by a greater spiritual piety and religiously inspired ideological zealotry to obey more parts of the Islamic narratives than others. They are observant jihadists.

A good Muslim by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. When you understand that Islam’s heroes are jihadists, you begin to understand Islam, no matter how many lax Muslims there are. Which means the best we can hope for, is that not too many become good Muslims and obey more of the Quran.

I would suggest instead of using “radical” or “extremist”, use Jihadists or violent Jihadists.

Moderate Islam.

There is no “moderate” Islam. Islam is not “moderate” to Muslims. To quote the Turkish president, “Islam is Islam.” Erdogan said this in response to suggestions by Western observers that Islam can somehow be moderate.

The concept of a “moderate” Islam is one of the most misunderstood aspects of it by non-Muslims. There are Muslims who obey Islam’s instruction NOT to follow violent Jihad, as commanded by sharia - and there are those who DO follow the instruction to be violent.

The Reliance of the Traveller provides clarification in section o9.1 under the heading “THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD”

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

Islam tells us, that not all Muslims are therefore obliged to engage in violent jihad as long as some are. This is clearly stated in the sharia, as we’ve seen. The Quran also states it in Q9:122 and Q4:95.

It answers the question, which many of Islam’s apologists howl about - who say not every Muslim is a violent jihadist – and are therefore “moderate”.

But this is a dangerous misunderstanding. Because it encourages many people to believe a false hope that there is an acceptable form of Islam.

It fails to recognise that moderates are just as involved with proactively spreading Islam as the motivated jihadists are. They’re just not doing it by violent means.

Consequently, many make the mistake with Islam – by thinking they can deal with “moderates” to solve the problem of Islam in the West.

At no time in Islam’s history have moderate Muslims ever had a developing influence, or driven Islam forward. It’s always been the motivated jihadists.

The motivated jihadists utilise the large numbers of Muslims who use their numbers to get what they want. Like voting the way they tell them to.

And dealing with the moderates is not going to make the problem with the motivated jihadists go away. This is the failing and misunderstanding by Islam’s useful idiots.

The myth that it’s just a minority of Muslims who are the problem.

We are told repeatedly that the problem with Islam lies within a minority of Muslims – those who are the violent jihadists.

Yet everyone knows that a few motivated observant Muslims are not, and never will be, an existential threat to the UK and the West. Yes, they kill and harm innocent people – as monstrous as that is, but their violent attacks are not going to threaten the downfall of a society.

It’s large populations of Muslims who are the problem, because with large numbers, they will cause Islamisation at scale and speed - not least because they are mandated by Allah to do so. We can all see this in real time. It is not subversive to point this out – we can all see it, and the Islamic texts command this. You just have to read Islamic texts to know this.

There’s a little-known fact which is not understood. Muslims are not permitted under Islamic law to move to a non-Muslim land, unless they engage in some form of jihad to spread Islam. They cannot leave an Islamic land, and just rock up somewhere and start living as non-Muslims – integrate in other words. This is stated in the Quran, repeatedly.

It’s also stated in Reliance of the Traveller in Book T under the heading - A PURE HEART in section T1.1 and also in Book W under the heading – “What is meant by enemy lands” - in section W43.5.

If the useful idiots knew about this, they’d know this is one of the reasons why Muslims don’t integrate. They are obligated to Islamise and impose the sharia, simply by their very presence in a non-Islamic land.

This means, the millions of Muslims living here among us, are all involved in striving with activities - of one type or another - which has one purpose: To impose Islam. This has changed the look and feel of these Islands beyond all recognition. Many cities are testament to this. This shows it’s working, as we can all see.

When you recognise, that the violent jihadists are not the existential threat, this tells you that the repeated mantra “not all Muslims are a problem” is at best problematic.

If there is any doubt with this, remember, as Muslims, they are emulating
Muhammad - as commanded by the Islamic Doctrine of Hijra – to spread Islam by migration. This is specifically stated in the Quran, repeatedly.

Particularly Q4:100 where Muslims are told that it’s an “obligation” of Allah to reward those who emigrate to new lands - bringing Islam to them.

Q21:44 is another important verse relating to this, where Muslims are commanded to gradually take over the territory of non-Muslims. Also Q13:41, Q33:27 along with several other verses.

Some points to consider:

The more Muslims there are, the more Halal products will appear, forcing us to unwillingly comply with Islamic practices.

The more Muslims there are, the more votes motivated jihadists will get - accelerating their political influence, which in turn will bring more Islamic practices.

The more Muslims there are, the greater the possibility of having legal issues favourable to Muslims passed – like the sharia compliant Islamic Doctrine of Slander - known to us as the “Anti-Muslim Hostility” legislation.

The more Muslims there are, the greater the pool from which violent jihadists are able to emerge from.

Yet people will continue to say it’s just a minority, and by inference thereby suggesting the majority are somehow not a problem.

There will quickly come a time when there will be a Muslim on many election tickets, whether it’s for local councils or Parliament. In short, sharia needs to be on the ballot - meaning they need to be confronted with their sharia that affects us, and be called out on it.

You cannot let the Muslims just sail by, and not confront aspects of their ideology that’s political, repugnant, and which affects us. Because, once they get into power with numbers, they’ll start trying to enforce the sharia – which will affect us. You can already see it happening, now.

Use Islam against Islam. It has a mountain of information to use for this. Get to know some of it and use it against them.

You may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you.

Like many other of my countrymen, at the age of sixty-four I have generally believed that a government and its minions have a mission to improve the lot of the country and its people. They may have their own policies and agenda but the ultimate objective is to change people’s lives for the better. This, however, is the first government where I believe this not to be the case. Labour under Starmer is more interested in implementing its own ideological agenda, shaping and moulding a society supporting its values, and is will seek to punish those who actively work against it – examples being the very crackdown on the protests following the dreadful Southport murders and the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly for 31 months. Here is another more recent example:

The people who are being most impacted are the very people who were the party’s original supporters – the British white working class. I recently attended the Tommy Robinson organised Unite The Kingdom Rally in London and virtually all those marching were from this white working class social group (but not just white). These are the people who are living in local communities that are being most impacted by third worlders who have been invited in to our country. On the march their anger at this government was white hot, and one only has to look at videos on X or YouTube to understand why. Several I have viewed recently show clashes between white British and non-whites, particularly Muslims, and in many cases it is the non-whites ganging up on the whites. And this is not only in Britain but also in other Western European countries that have experienced high migration levels.

Aiding and abetting this are the public institutions whose senior management are steeped in the woke dogma. Nothing has shown this to be more true than the recent murder of an 18-year-old British white man – Henry Nowak – and the appalling treatment by the police as he was left to die handcuffed in the dirt. Yet it was the outraged public reaction to it that has most inspired me. It seems that many of the British white indigenous population are at last seeing the writing on the wall – that we have a government in place that actively seeks to promote the interests of foreigners over those of its own people, but not just this. One that is also intent on suppressing all opposition to a multicultural agenda that has been imposed on a top-down basis since the time of the first Blair administration. So we currently have a situation where the bond between those governing and those being governed is irretrievably broken and the results are clear to see.

Henry Nowak, a British-Polish student, was stabbed multiple times by Vikrum Digwa, who attacked him with a ceremonial sword. When the police arrived, the attacker allegedly claimed “racial abuse”, and officers arrested the bleeding victim instead of immediately providing assistance. Only after Henry lost consciousness was medical help called, but it was too late to save him. Henry reportedly “drowned in his own blood”.

Another issue furthering this societal breakdown is the welfare system. The UK’s total welfare and social security budget is forecast to reach £333.7 billion for the 2025/2026 financial year. This accounts for approximately 10.9% of the UK’s GDP and roughly a quarter of total government spending. The Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves is deliberately targeting welfare payments towards those people who are more inclined to vote Labour – the migrants in our midst who have arrived in our country and are reaping the benefits from the hardworking British taxpayer. And we can add to this the illegal economic migrants who are likely to be granted citizenship and who in turn will vote for the party enabling this. So again we have to ask who are the people who most lose out from this, and again the response is the British white working class. It is these people who are being kept on the social housing waiting lists, who are having to wait for their NHS appointments, who will work two jobs to avoid the social stigma of claiming welfare, who are seeing the quality of their children’s education being lowered as a result of pressures from migrants numbers on the state education system etc.

David Betts, a professor in the war studies department of King’s College London, has warned of a looming civil war if the country continues on its current trajectory. Initially I thought this was highly unlike, but the more I am seeing this Labour government do, the more likely I can see it happening. I think there are already sporadic outbreaks happening in poorer communities where British white citizens are beginning to be outnumbered by non-whites, and the police are more inclined to side with the latter. The protests taking place outside the Hampshire police station at the heart of the Henry Nowak murder are simply an expression of the level of frustration that has broken out over policing standards and a blatant lack of impartiality.

And so far there has been no accountability. In any other country, the head of the police force would have been pressured into resigning, but Alexis Boon, the Chief Constable, still remains firmly in place. So a young man with his whole life before him is now dead and all we have are promises from the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood of yet another inquiry into what went so badly wrong.

Alexis Boon, Chief Constable of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary (as from August 2025)

Some incidences across Western Europe of anti-white racial attacks:

So, are we witnessing a sea change in voter attitudes? Are we now going to see the British white indigenous population – still 73% of the total population – start to coalesce and vote for a political party that puts their interests foremost and those of foreigners second? The problem is that there still remains a large Leftist bloc that is prepared to ignore this government’s mistakes and adhere to a multicultural worldview. But following Henry Nowak’s death, I sense that there are many who have so far remained on the fence but are now clearly coming down on the side of defending their own interests in the face of an incessant attack from their own government. We can only hope that this momentum continues up until the next expected General Election in 2029.

Shabana Mahmood is clearly alive to claims that this constitutes ‘two-tier’ policing. A source close to the Home Secretary told the Times that the wording is clumsy and said that ‘the NPCC is rightly reviewing the wording to ensure there is no ambiguity.’ Gavin Stephens, chair of the NPCC, rather sheepishly noted: ‘We are listening to legitimate concerns about how some of these commitments are worded or phrased.’

Mahmood also said that there was ‘no justification’ for the clashes that broke out last night in Southampton, where Nowak was murdered in December. Protestors threw bottles, bricks and beer cans at riot police after gathering outside Southampton Central police station. Tommy Robinson and Laurence Fox were present at the scene. Initially, the crowd had chanted ‘Henry, Henry’ before the violence kicked off. You wouldn’t bet against more disturbances over the coming days.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary are facing allegations the force was overtaken by progressivism. In 2022, their chief constable proudly stated that ‘being anti-racist, ethical and inclusive is top of our agenda’. One senior police officer has told the Telegraph that ‘for years, officers have been subjected to cultural awareness and DEI training that, in many cases, presents policing as institutionally racist by default’. Last night, the force confirmed that three officers involved in the arrest remained on active duty, but that a fourth officer had resigned.

Keir Starmer, however, is still rejecting allegations of two-tier policing, although he has said police officers have ‘serious questions’ to answer about their handling of the case (this is pretty much all he’s said about the incident). Nigel Farage is taking a different line. He thinks that Mr Nowak was ‘killed by DEI’ and is asking why there’s been ‘such deafening silence’ from politicians, contrasting their reaction to the death of George Floyd in 2020.

Kemi Badenoch, meanwhile, is interviewed in today’s Times, where she says: ‘We don’t need rage [as Farage suggested]. We need courage and bravery and cool heads, not anger and whipping people up.’ She criticised the Reform leader for ‘dividing people on racial lines’. Badenoch also wrote in the Mail that this is a ‘Stephen Lawrence moment’ in the fight against racism.

The Conservatives have highlighted that Vickrum Digwa was arrested for stealing knives from his Sikh temple two years before he murdered Mr Nowak. They think this was a missed opportunity to stop him and want the 2023 incident to be included in the investigation into the response to his stabbing. This case could be yet another crime in which the attacker was known to the police beforehand.

My journey started with taking the train to King’s Cross and as I was setting into my seat three middle aged white women were sitting nearby, one of whom was wearing a keffiyeh so I knew they were attending the Nakba Day rally. They began to talk about their holidays abroad – I’d say you typical shire-type middle class women – and I decided I had to change carriages. I sat next to two old boys, one of whom was wearing a Union Jack T-shirt and we talked about the upcoming event and the previous one which they’d attended.

The march set off for Warren Street and Kingsway. There was a festive mood in the air and some attendees had already gathered in some of the pubs along the way. We eventually got down Kingsway where we were held up between 12pm and 1pm. There were lots of shouts of “Keir Starmer is a wanker”, “Tommy, Tommy, Robinson” – all good-natured and high-spirited. There was a young guy who had dressed up in full morning suit tail coat with a glass of red wine in his hand (appears in the video below). Even though the wait was a long one, and people could have got frustrated, everyone remained in a good mood. People standing next to each other began to chat. There was also a couple who had come down from North Yorkshire who live in Rishi Sunak’s constituency. The Scottish husband was an ex-soldier and they, like the rest of us, were fed up with the state of the country. I also spoke to a lady who had come up from Lewisham. She said that it is now a case of spotting the Little Spotted white person in the area it had changed so much and that voters had opted for Green councillors on 7^th May. She also told my about the incident when the police arrest Ryan from Operation Raise the Colours. Three police vans turned up near King’s Cross St. Pancras and the policemen manhandled him to the ground and too him away in handcuffs without any provocation on his part.

Finally we began to move and made our way down to the Aldwych and the Strand. This is when I first started to notice the police presence – apparently 4,000 were in London for the day and some had been bussed in from different parts of the country. Of course there was some drinking going on – quite a few attendees were drinking tinnies and there was a strong small of marijuana in the air from time to time, but this after all was a Saturday and people were treating the rally as a holiday and generally the relations between the marchers and the police remained cordial, with most of the policemen simply lining the streets and looking on.

Is was as we passed through Trafalgar Square and down Whitehall that you began to get a true scale of the march. The first big screen was set up in Trafalgar Square and you could see the speakers on the stage in Parliament Square. As we made our way down Whitehall, there were more screens and some marchers stopped to listen but I was keen to make it into the Square to see the main stage. You could see all different flags flying – the Union Jack, St George’s Cross, the Welsh Red Dragon, the St Andrew’s Cross saltire, a few Republic of Ireland flags, the Iranian Lion and sun flag, and the Israeli flag and it was a truly glorious sight seeing them fluttering in the wind against an azure blue sky.

The main stage

The speakers in Parliament Square were a mixed lot. I was surprised by two things – one was the amount of Christian speakers – there was a Roman Catholic bishop, very good, a Christian preacher who had been arrested by the police for preaching Christianity on the streets, a Christian bishop from Kenya who spoke about the atrocities being committed against his parishioners and even violence towards himself and how armed Islamists had attempted to kidnap him but had failed to breach his home security so ended up kidnapping his neighbour instead. There was also an American evangelist-style preacher who I think was addressing the wrong audience.

The second surprise for me was the number of army veterans on the march – many were dressed in their regimental apparel and it was good to see them bonding with each other because they are the ones who have served and fought to keep their country safe and secure for its people.

There were some technical issues with the sound system but on the whole the speakers did a good job. I personally saw on the main stage:

· Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, better known by her pseudonym Posie Parker, who is a prominent British political activist and right-wing speaker. She is the founder of the “#LetWomenSpeak” movement and leader of the “Party of Women”. She is internationally known for her outspoken, gender-critical activism and campaigns centring on the biological definition of sex.

· Nick Shirley who exposed the $9 billion Somali fraud scandal in Minnesota and is doing great work uncovering taxpayer fraud in California

· The Pink Ladies - a grassroots movement comprising women—mostly mothers, sisters, and grandmothers—who protest against illegal immigration and the housing of male asylum seekers in local hotels.

· Collectif Némésis - founded in 2019 and led by Alice Cordier, the organisation consists of women primarily aged 18 to 30. They describe themselves as a “feminist and Identitarian” movement and campaign heavily against what they view as the “Islamization” of European society, often highlighting connections between immigration, crime, and violence against women. Some of its members have even spent time in prison for their actions.

· Rhiannon Skye Whyte’s mother, Siobhan Whyte, and her family – the 27-year-old English hotel worker was murdered by Deng Chol Majek, a Sudanese asylum seeker, who was living at the Park Inn hotel in Walsall where Whyte worked; he attacked her with a screwdriver at Bescot Stadium railway station in October 2024. Majek was sentenced in January 2026 to at least 29 years in prison for the murder.

· Ant Middleton – he used Elon Musk’s Starlink service to speak to the march via video link from Mount Everest base camp and spoke about his plans as a London Mayor candidate.

· Kildare Cllr Tom McDonnell – he gave an excellent speech on how small Irish communities, just as in the UK, are being flooded by third world migrants.

· A London cabbie who had composed two songs about Tommy Robinson when he was banged up in solitary confinement. Tommy Robinson actually ended up taking a ride in his cab and made a promise he would be able to play his two songs (I think one was called ‘Freedom’) at the rally

· The Scottish Korean – he is a favourite of Tommy’s and draped some bacon on his shoulders whilst playing his electronic cello [https://www.youtube.com/@thescottishkoreanofficial]

· A Charlie Kirk memorial video and an American singer who sang two songs about the right wing influencer cruelly cut down in the prime of his life at Utah Valley University by Tyler James Robinson. Kirk rose to prominence as the founder of Turning Point USA, an organisation aimed at galvanising young conservatives.

In between the speakers Tommy Robinson did a good job in geeing up the audience as he spoke on different issues impacting the country and there was also a Christian gospel group singing different national songs. As I had to catch my train back I left the rally around 5pm – one hour before it finished – and my parting glimpse before I descended into the Charring Cross Underground station was of the police in Trafalgar Square watching the big screen along with the marchers gathered there.

So, to conclude

· The march was billed as “the ultimate stand for those who refuse to let their culture be sidelined” and about “capitalism, democracy and faith”, according to the promotional material

· Some 4,000 officers, including 660 from other forces from across England and Wales, will be deployed, along with helicopters, drones, dog units, police horses, and armoured vehicles, which will be on hand if they are needed. Policing across the events (UTK, Nakba Day and FA Cup Final at Wembley cost around £4.5m, with £1.7m being spent on bringing additional officers into London.

· Live facial recognition was deployed in north London, where some people attending Robinson’s march gathered at the start, checking people against a pre-existing watch list.

· The UK government barred seven individuals from entering the UK, stating that their presence is “not conducive to the public good”.

Eva Vlaardingerbroek and Ada Lluch, influencers and commentators from the Netherlands and Spain, respectively, as well as Flemish MP Filip Dewinter and Polish MEP Dominik Tarczyński, shared news of their reported bans on social media, along with screenshots notifying them of the decisions. US figures also denied entry to the UK, including commentator Joey Mannarino and MAGA influencer Valentina Gomez, who spoke at last year’s rally. In her speech made at the last year’s event, 26-year-old Colombian-American told the crowd that “rapist Muslims” were “taking over” the UK – and she’s not wrong there.

Dominik Tarczynski, the right wing anti-immigration Polish MEP banned entry by Mahmood, and it is a great call to action:

· Keir Starmer posted on X:

/video/1

· Sadiq Khan posted as Mayor of London

To which an acquaintance of mine replied:
’Dear Sadiq Khan, statistically, the minority group in London is the white British. Just check the census’.

· While official figures haven’t been released by the police, early estimates indicate that around 20,000 people attended the pro-Palestine protest, while around 60,000 attended the Unite The Kingdom protest. These numbers suggest a far lower attendance than last year’s Unite the Kingdom march, when around 150,000 gathered in September. Some people also commented there was an “edgier” atmosphere to this rally but I did not notice it.

Final thoughts

The rally’s attendees were – like Tommy Robinson himself – in the main white working class. This brought to mind Orwell’s book ‘1984’ and how he saw salvation against the Party and Big Brother in the proles:

Orwell believed that true revolutionary potential always resides within the working class. In the novel, Winston Smith famously writes, “If there is hope, it lies in the proles,” recognising that their sheer numbers and freedom from intense psychological conditioning are the only threats to Big Brother’s regime. However, Orwell offers a tragic paradox: the proles are so profoundly uneducated and distracted that they are entirely unaware of their own subjugation, making any organised uprising impossible in the foreseeable future.

Now here reality differs from fiction. The British white working class have been abandoned by Labour and feel they are not being heard by the governing class. They are the ones who are living in communities that have been most impacted by mass migration along with the illegal migrants – most young men of fighting age – now being dispersed out of hotels into their local communities. They see their country, just like I do, literally being stolen from the British indigenous population and a big theme was how the current white majority is on course to become a minority.

Whatever the criticisms of Tommy Robinson – and the man is by no means perfect – he is able to tap into this popular discontent and motive people to act rather than sit behind a keyboard. Their hatred of Starmer and the Labour party is palpable, and Starmer’s speech referring to them as “thugs and racists” only motivated more people to attend. I believe it is these people who were with me on the rally that will be the ones voting Reform into our next government.

So, let’s finish off with a good old-fashioned, uniquely British postcard cartoon

"My great-great…

Read more