The Black Lives Matter Movement and the Police

Frank Merino

When George Floyd was unlawfully killed by police officers on the 25th of May 2020 in Minneapolis, it sparked worldwide outrage and demonstrations. However, these quickly turned into riots targeting the police. The BLM movement then began influencing the United Kingdom spreading anarchy on the streets of major towns and cities including London, Bristol and Newcastle. These so called “protests” horrified bystanders. In London over 30 police officers were injured, one of whom was knocked off her mount suffering cracked ribs and a collapsed lung. These appalling scenes could have been drawn from a George Orwell novel about a dystopian society. Adding further to the dangers, large crowds of protestors herded together threatened a new spike in the Covid 19 infection and death rates. This endangered the gains made in supressing the virus during the eleven weeks of lock down.

No one denies that the death of George Floyd was a tragedy. With him dying at the hands of police officers, including one who kneeled on his neck during the arrest.  Long prison sentences now look likely as a result of this now banned practice. Nevertheless, George Floyd was not the innocent, law-abiding martyr the BLM movement makes him out to be. He was in and out of jail most of his adult life mainly for cocaine and violence offences. In 2009, he was imprisoned for breaking and entering a pregnant woman’s house. He demanded anything of value while threatening her with a gun pointed at her swollen stomach. The fact that the woman was black was of no matter to him. This does not mean that Floyd deserved to die in the way he did, if any punishment was due for his alleged crime that day it should have been left to the law. But in the light of these facts BLM should bear in mind the character of those they use as martyrs for their cause.

Digging deeper into the beginnings of this apparently spontaneous international outcry for “social” justice reveals the Sunrise Movement. Based in the USA it claims to combat man made climate change brought about by greed and the use of carbon fuels. But they also demand the abolition of police forces. This points to it being a front for international socialism. It also has features in common with the Extinction Rebellion in the UK, a movement that has seriously disrupted life over the last two years.

Yet we are different from the USA in many ways. Firstly, American police are armed and it is not uncommon now for members of the public to carry guns. Gun shops are a familiar sight and some argue widespread gun ownership is one of the main causes of a rising crime rate there. Deaths of black men in police custody are significantly higher in the US than they are in the UK. And according to the most recent UK government statistics only 13 black men have died in the last ten years out of a total of 163 deaths in custody. So the BLM narrative that police brutality against black men in the UK is getting out of hand is completely untrue. I agree that UK citizens should be free to protest alleged injustices peacefully and demonstrate for what they believe in without police interference. Equally those who disagree with them should have the same rights. 

I also believe that media companies have allowed themselves to be intimidated by BLM into withdrawing much loved comedies like the League of Gentlemen, The Inbetweeners, The Mighty Boosh and Little Britain.  Removing such popular shows is just plain wrong. It is cowardly to bow to the will of BLM. Also destroying statues of prominent historical figures is completely wrong. Statues are erected to remind us of our past. As a student of history I believe that “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Ideology v. Reality

Lynda Rose CEO Voice for Justice UK

BBC rejects Mermaids from Action Line list

Auntie, otherwise known as the British Brainwashing Corporation (BBC) has apparently quietly informed its LGBT Pride group that it is no longer going to include Mermaids, the campaigning charity for transgender children, in its Action Line list. The BBC no longer accepts Mermaids’ claims they can offer ‘appropriate’ advice to callers seeking help (see second section behind Times paywall, Winds of change htttps:// Can it be that the cold wind of reality is at last blowing through the Beeb’s smog-filled corridors, dedicated to the promotion of inclusivity for everything – except that with which Auntie disagrees? The answer is clearly, yes, and though they appear to be spitting the equivalent of broadcasting feathers, the corporation is being forced to bow to increasing evidence that harm is being done by misdiagnosing vulnerable children who subsequently bitterly regret undergoing such irreversible and life changing treatment.

This change of policy is especially important, because it illustrates how deeply the terrifying malaise of transgenderism has affected British society. Aimed at nothing less than the dismantling and reconfiguration of our culture, its ideologues desire the entire destruction of the nation’s Judeo-Christian roots and heritage.

Mermaids is part of this. The beguilingly named organisation is one of the UK’s largest LGBTQ+ charities, claiming to support trans and gender diverse children, young people and their families ( But their raison d’etre goes far beyond mere ‘support’ because their declared mission is to educate and inform wider society on issues of gender identity. To this end they have developed extensive educational resources for use in schools. Perhaps most significant of all, they have produced an infamous Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit ( Trialled first in Brighton and Hove it was then rolled out to other authorities across the country, such as Warwickshire and Oxfordshire where, in the latter, it was successfully subjected to legal challenge by a thirteen year old school girl on the grounds it was a potentially dangerous invasion of her privacy

Whatever is maintained, the toolkit is a tool for indoctrination, ruthlessly prioritising transgender rights under the guise of providing guidance for supporting transgender children and preventing transphobia.

If it weren’t so pernicious, such an overt attempt at brainwashing would be laughable. Tragically the drive to embed and normalise gender fluidity has been startlingly successful, as attested by the 4,000% increase we have seen over the last decade in children presenting with supposed gender dysphoria and seeking treatment ( It is now an established fact that transgender treatment is harmful to children.

By the admission of specialists at the Tavistock and Portman clinic, the country’s only NHS clinic offering treatment to children and young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria, many children are mis-diagnosed, with no account being taken of related mental health problems like autism or abuse ( This becomes even more shocking in the light of evidence that 90% of young children presenting with gender confusion will be perfectly happy with their birth sex by the time they reach adolescence. Small wonder then that the post transition suicide rate is 19 times higher than for their heteronormative peers (Long-Term Follow-Up of Transexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden or that the numbers seeking de-transition are reportedly sky-rocketing, with many tragically saying the treatment has ruined their lives (e.g.

The truth is, children under 18- no matter how convinced they might appear at the time – entirely lack any capacity to make such life-changing and irreversible decisions. So vulnerable children must be protected from exploitation by groups such as Mermaids and Stonewall. even the NHS -seemingly 100% on the side of ‘reform’ – has now been forced to acknowledge the dangers. It has radically revised its Guidance to recognise that the effects of puberty blocking drugs, previously claimed to be fully reversible, are very far from benign. Indeed, the NHS now accepts that the psychological effects are unknown, while use of the drugs may result in irreversibly impaired brain development or even osteoporosis (

For too long children have been unwitting guinea pigs in a dangerous social and ideological experiment designed to create a transgendered society, and now the harms of this malign creed are becoming all too apparent. It is surely time for the insanity to end.

Please note, links to articles in The Times and The Telegraph newspapers go directly to the newspapers’ own sites, which are subject to a paywall, meaning that to view the full article you will need to be subscribed.

RSE Sexually Corrupts Our Children

By Belinda Brown

Transgender Trend has produced yet another terrific report where they present misinformation and ideology fed to our children through schools. (If links fail, copy and paste into browser then scroll if needed.)

They show in detail how our children are fed false ideas about biological sex. How men and women are being redefined out of existence. They show how legal protections for women, gays, lesbians, and those who have had gender reassignment, are completely undermined.

They show how teachers can no longer talk to children about the changes they will go through at puberty because they can no longer talk about biological sex. They show how girls are left vulnerable by denying them single sex spaces.

However the report does not cover all the harms inflicted by RSE. Sex as we understand it does not exist outside of some form of relationship. Yet separating sex from relationship is embedded in the concept of Relationship and Sex Education and reverberates through the way it is taught.

In the book Great Relationships and Sex Education advisors from Brook and the Sex Education Forum strongly suggest to teachers of RSE that “It can be a good idea to leave Feelings (sic) until last. Here you can emphasise that love and affection are often important parts of good sex, but not always. For others good sex is quick, rough and anonymous”.

The belief that sex can exist independently of relationships has led researchers to interpret children’s innocent exploration of their bodies as sexual behaviour. This paves the way for the destruction of childhood further down the line. GROOM

Out of fear of perpetuating what our educators call “heteronormativity” sex is not just separated from relationship. It is separated from reproduction as well! The authors of Great Relationships and Sex Education opine “Too often RSE programs focus on the reproduction function of the body, which leads to a heteronormative view of sex”.

Instead children are taught from the age of 4 to focus on pleasure. Classroom exercises include discussing what makes their bodies feel good, or how they like to be touched. The same book encourages mutual hand massages with baby oil so that children can find out how pleasure is achieved.

Their efforts to destroy “heteronormativity” require the normalisation of homosexual practices including higher levels of promiscuity, greater use of extreme practices and the normalisation of anal sex.

While encouraging these practices amongst our children should be a flashing red light for all parents, just as damaging are the subtle pedagogies going on.

When same sex ‘marriage’ is normalised the meaning of marriage is transformed. It requires neither sexual consummation nor monogamy.

It cannot produce children. Gay ‘marriage’ must (rightly) be taught without reference to sexual activity. But as a result marriage is reduced simply to a contract between best friends.

Gone is the completion of our humanity as male joins with female. Gone is the link between generations, and the coming together of difference, the two halves that complete a whole.

Not just marriage is hollowed out but parenthood as well. With the knowledge that their parents made them comes a child’s first intimations of divinity as parents model the creative power of God. Instead children are taught that parenthood is a list of duties that (for the time being) two people do.

And what happens to our understanding of mother when she has no creative power? What happens to our understanding of Mother Nature; Mother Earth: and ultimately the Mother of God?

And how can a father be a provider and protector when he is ‘married’ to another man?

Relationships and Sex Education has been explicitly designed to “Smash heteronormativity”. In so doing it will fragment a child’s identity development and alienate mind and body. It reduces marriage to a breakable contract and undermines parenthood. Ultimately it will make it more difficult to grasp the Fatherhood of God.

The Winston we need right now

Niall McCrae

After the humiliating boarding up of Winston Churchill’s statue on Parliament Square, the ordinary people of Britain look on in despair at what is happening to their country. A Tory landslide a few months ago seemed to have stopped the cultural Marxists in their tracks. But now we see the reality: the Conservatives are great at winning elections, but impotent in enacting conservatism. The establishment and all of our institutions are infected with cultural Marxism. It’s not only Covid-19 we are fighting, but the virus of woke ideology.

Black Lives Matter, as a campaign, would be fine by me if it was genuinely seeking to improve conditions for poorer black communities in Britain. But it isn’t. The activism we have witnessed in the last two weeks, spurred by a single incident of police brutality 4000 miles away in Minneapolis, has revealed a sinister, subversive force. The BLM website blatantly urges the fall not only of statues of eighteenth-century merchants and military heroes, but of capitalism and the structures of a civilised state. It wants to abolish the police.

How exciting this is for the BBC, left-wing politicians and the commentariat. Universities have devoted themselves to the cause (while continuing to invest in China, where our cheap clothes are made in slave labour camps). Most worrying has been the lack of reaction from the supposedly Conservative government. Where’s Boris? He and his cabinet seem to have gone AWOL.  New Tory MPs are keeping their thoughts to themselves. As our cherished national monuments are desecrated by BLM and Antifa thugs, our representatives are too scared to raise their heads over the parapet.  

This appeasement to a sudden and unwanted Cultural Revolution contrasts sharply with the robust response by a statesman down under, appropriately named Winston.

Winston Peters is deputy prime minister of New Zealand, a country that has become increasingly woke, as characterised by its leader Jacinda Ardern. Kiwis did not actually vote for Ardern, the Labour leader, as PM. She rose to the top in 2017 after the National Party was unable to sustain a coalition with Peters’ NZ First party.  A controversial Maori populist, Peters was the queen maker, but he has been an antidote to Ardern’s identity politics, ensuring that New Zealand has not become a woke dystopia.

After a statue of Captain James Cook was vandalised in Gisborne, and that of Captain John Hamilton was removed from the city named after him, Peters confronted the BLM protests as they gained momentum in New Zealand.  He described the demand to remove statues as a ‘wave of idiocy’.

‘Woke New Zealanders feel the need to mimic mindless actions imported from overseas’, Peters stated. ‘A self-confident country would never succumb to obliterating symbols of their history, whether they be good or bad or simply gone out of fashion’.

Peters exclaimed: ‘The idea that statues of Captain Cook, the greatest maritime explorer of his age, be pulled down because of the history that followed him is disgraceful’.  A great orator, Peters came to his rumbustious conclusion: –

‘The woke generation are the equivalent of a person with no long-term memory, stumbling around in the present without any signposts to guide them. If a person, like a country, doesn’t know where they have come from, they have no way of knowing where they are going’.

The woke generation tell older people to ‘educate themselves’, but Peters turned on those who want to erase history and begin at Year Zero: ‘Grow up and read a book’.  With race-baiting ascendant and thuggery given free rein, we need our own Winston right now. For as Burke warned long ago: ‘all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing’. 

A Review of “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child”

By Alan J Williams

The seminal gay book “After the Ball” by Kirk & Madsen was published in America in 1989 to show homosexual “rights” activists how to use psychological propaganda to bring about a homosexual revolution and gain cultural and political supremacy. It worked beyond the authors’ wildest dreams.

But in 2020 the LGBTQ+ juggernaut has hit a roadblock. “Trans” females are being legally discriminated against and excluded from areas reserved for natal females. Also relationships education courses for primary school children encouraging masturbation under the guise of sexual self “exploration” are being withdrawn under threat of legal action.

But these small gains shouldn’t lull parents into complacency. Gay rights activists don’t give in easily. So Dr Lively’s book written nearly a decade after Kirk & Madsen’s to counter the recruitment program of the “gay” rights movement is still highly relevant today. In “7 steps to recruit-proof your child” Lively gives incontrovertible evidence of gay recruitment as an objective on page 1. While on page 3 he quotes a “gay’ publication declaring, “Our work will only be finished when we can say that the whole world is gay.”

After debunking the “born gay” myth in his introduction he argues that the rights of children to protection from the health hazards of homosexuality should be prioritised over adult rights to sexual autonomy and expression.

And to protect their children he proposes seven steps to parents. They are to:

1. Get serious: and learn that the gay rights movement recruits children by using social conditioning.

2. Take Authority: and stand up for your children they belong to you not the activists who have infiltrated the schools.

3. Inform Yourself:  and discover the lies about homosexual ‘identity,’ the issue is really about behaviour.

4. Strengthen your family: and accept a father’s love is crucial.

 5. Improve your parenting skills: and realise mothers and fathers bring particular and separate contributions to child rearing.

 6. Clean House: TV is the major persuader of the gay rights message; block it and home school if you can.

 7. Be active in your community: and support or join  a pro-family organisation.

His book closes with an epilogue giving advice on, ‘What to do when it is “too late.”’ It is always possible for a child to recover from homosexuality but it is better to be proofed against it.

The book is arranged with whole page illustrations facing the compelling text, making it an easier read. These illustrations could even be photocopied to show head-teachers irrefutable evidence that gayness is not inborn and is not “OK ” and create doubts in the rightness of their pro-gay teaching.  They include testimonials from ex-gays convincingly contradicting the ‘Born gay’ myth, and exposing muddying “the moral waters” to undermine Christian moral authority. They also reveal some of the extraordinary demands of the gay rights movement including legal rights to child custody and adoption and inclusion into the education system with an end to all discrimination. This has resulted in the bankruptcy of America’s Boy Scouts now being sued for historic sexual abuse.

Lively also explains how powerful political and social engineering tactics are used to further the cause of cultural and political gay domination. To counter this movement he urges parents to support or join one of the growing numbers of pro-family organisations, become politically active and attend school governor meetings if possible.

I highly recommend Lively’s book for parents to start restoring a more realistic social order based on the truths that humanity has two complementary sexes. And that marriage between a man and a woman is the best family environment in which to bring up children. The book is available from Amazon and

Alan is a retired teacher with an MA in Phil and Psy Probs in Education. He is Chairman of Support 4 the Family.

Universities: a desert for the white working class

A ‘classless society’ was the meritocratic mission of Tony Blair and neoliberal New Labour, and the baton was taken on by Tory moderniser David Cameron. Yet the white working class remains a distinct entity, despite disappearing off the radar of political parties and public institutions. While equality and diversity are emphasised at every turn, social class is conveniently overlooked. 

In my university, I rarely meet anyone of this large but neglected segment of the British populace. A report by the Office for Students showed that within the lower socio-economic brackets, black and Asian people are more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to attend university. In the admission figures for 2017, 4315 per 10000 poorer school-leavers of Asian background went to university, 4310 black pupils, and merely 2121 white working class. 

The denizens of the wrong side of the tracks in campus cities such as Cambridge and York are kept out of sight, out of mind. Beyond the citadels of the intelligentsia lie sprawling council estates inhabited by uncultured plebs who live on junk food and probably voted for Brexit. 

Apparently it is socially acceptable to blame the white working class for lacking the work ethic or intellect of ambitious and disciplined families of African and Asian heritage. Yet it would be abhorrent to attribute underachievement in any other ethnic group to laziness or stupidity. This is like the past excuse that girls had no interest in academic pursuits.     

A level playing field is a fallacy. Middle-class pupils work hard to get into a chosen university, but they get plenty of coaching at home. Dual-earning professional couples know which strings to pull. As in Michael Young’s dystopian vision of meritocracy, a self-serving, privileged social stratum replicates itself. Whereas in the past a university degree was attained by a minority, today there is a line drawn across the middle of society, with a cultural segregation of haves and have-nots.   

To be fair to universities, this problem begins earlier. Schools may not be overtly prejudiced against white working-class pupils, but the schism in British society, conceptualised by David Goodhart as traditional ‘Somewheres’ and liberal ‘Anywheres’, is bound to cause bias. Teachers are graduates who have been through the ideological mill of university, which inculcates notions of white privilege and righting historical wrongs. Socially conservative or patriotic views from home are quashed by progressive values: ‘Johnny, we don’t say things like that’. 

Belatedly, universities have decided that class counts. However, the white working class are not given specific attention. Teenagers of Somali and Bangladeshi origin in the East End deserve support, but do poorer white youngsters of the sprawling council estates  on the outskirts of London. The social justice concept of intersectionality is not applied to the white working class, who have little virtue-signalling worth to the middle-class establishment. 

It is not only access that must change. The university is not a welcoming environment for a young man of conventional working-class perspective. He will be hectored about the ‘patriarchy’ by middle-class white women, oblivious to his social adversity. Campaigns against sexual harassment on campus always depict white males. And the university-endorsed campaign to ‘decolonise the curriculum’ is an affront to his national identity.  Despite the obsession with racism, traditionally-minded white men are insulted as ‘gammon’ (mostly by middle-class whites). . 

In many ways, missing university is advantageous. Young people who go straight into employment are able to earn a living without the burden of student debt. But all young people should have opportunities in higher education. Sadly, the polytechnics that imparted knowledge and skills to working-class school-leavers were converted into unremarkable universities. Instead of training plumbers and mechanics, these concrete edifices now produce graduates in media studies.  

Russell Group universities continue to expand, with an increasing influx of foreign students. You will hear more Mandarin than Cockney, Scouse or Geordie in the canteen. Do the Ivory Towers have any sense of responsibility to educate the white working class, or is this the lowest of their priorities?  In the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, our academic institutions should abandon globalist hubris and focus on their more humble role as British universities. 

England expects …

‘All the English want is a chance to attend to their own affairs’

The pathetic ‘Stay Alert’-’Stay At Home’ scrap between Britain’s prime minister and the first ministers of the devolved Scottish, Welsh and Ulster governments brings to the surface a problem that’s been simmering just off the radar in the increasingly incompatible union we call the United Kingdom. It’s the English question or, looked at from south of the border and east of Offa’s Dyke, the Celtic problem. It’s one that neither of the two main Westminster parties – let’s leave the so-called Liberal (Bollocks to the 17.4 million) Democrats out of it – wants to think about. For the Tories, the union is – inexplicably – “precious”; Labour cannot hope to win a Commons majority without the seats it has lost to the Scottish Nationalists.

The difficulty was outlined in 2018 by John Denham … a Labour MP on the party’s  sane wing from 1992 to 2015, a minister in the Blair and Brown administrations, and now Professor of Knowledge Exchange and director of Winchester University’s Centre for English Identity and Politics. In a lecture on the identities, politics and governance of England, he noted:

 “England is now the only part of the UK governed permanently on most domestic policy by the UK government, not by its own elected parliament or assembly. It’s the only un-reformed element of the old imperial parliament. Reform that started with the division of Ireland in the 1920s and continued when Scotland and Wales took authority from Westminster at the turn of the 20th century, has not yet touched England. The Commons does not provide a forum and focus for the politics of England … There is no crucible for England’s national debate.”

It’s a question that’s also been raised Cambridge University Professor Robert Tombs, whose 1,000-page The English and Their History has been lauded by even the Guardian as a work of “resounding importance to contemporary debates”. 

Blair’s devolution strategy, with new powers for national parliaments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, he says, was a solution to political difficulties outside England. “At first, the problem was ignored by the English public. But as the Scots mysteriously acquired much-trumpeted advantages in health  care and university education – with over 20 percent more spent on public services per head – the disadvantages of being a nation without a state began to dawn.”

That growing sense in this state-less England of discontent with the new devolution arrangements fed into a pipeline of bubbling grievances: public spending cuts after the 2008 crash; a realization that Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and Northern Ireland MPs, could be power brokers at Westminster; uncontrolled immigration from the EU; an awareness of the supremacy of EU laws … all of which contributed to the Brexit vote that so appalled those accustomed to governing Britain – and Europe – from a business class cabin at 35,000ft. 

“It is the ultimate irony”, says Denham, “that the architects of England’s suppression are now seeing an angry England taking the whole union out of the EU, against the wishes of the majority in the devolved nations.  The defenders of the union have triggered unprecedented threats to the continuation of the union itself. Instead of blaming a supposed English nationalism, it is time that they confronted their own responsibility for the current situation.” 

The reference to the European Union is not insignificant; it was in England – the nation that has more than 80 percent of UK’s population and produces more than 80 percent of GDP – where the Leave vote was several points higher than the UK-wide margin. A crusading journalist who might have understood what is at play now was W. T. Stead, who exposed among other iniquities the scandal of child prostitution in London. He turned his mind in 1893 to Anglo-Irish relations, writing: All the Irish want is that the House of Commons shall again affirm its devotion to Home Rule. All the English want is a chance to attend to their own affairs.” If given that chance, if the UK’s lopsided devolved structure isn’t fixed, don’t bank on the English – coming out from under Britannia’s skirts – not taking it, gifting their neighbouring nations with independence they might, if push comes to shove, not want or be able to afford.

David Kernek 

A State of Denial?

It has been long understood that when we do something in our lives that is not good for us, we need to admit that this is the case to make things better. Without an honest confession that what we are putting ourselves through is having a dramatically negative effect on us, and very often on others around us, a true and lasting cure or treatment cannot be prescribed let alone take effect.

The recovering alcoholic at an AA meeting knows this to be true, as does the reformed drug addict just out of rehab or the once estranged couple reunited through marriage counselling. Admitting the plight that we find ourselves in is necessary to enable any possible catharsis to begin. Without it, any attempt to make things better, no matter how well intentioned, is overwhelmingly destined to fail. 

As this is obviously true for individuals, a couple or a family, is it also true for a country? If a nation finds itself beset by anything that is detrimental to itself or it’s citizens, cultural degradation let’s say or an erosion of it’s widely held moral or ethical norms, does it too need to be strong enough to admit the problem or problems from which it suffers before any possible solutions can be found or have any chance of working? 

Conversely, to deny a problem, stick your head in the sand because the truth is too hard to take or even worse, to lie about it because it does not suit your own aims or agenda, can and inevitably will only exacerbate and magnify the issue over time. This too has been long understood especially by those who care enough about the outcomes. Most of us parents for instance, teach our children that a mistake they make or something wrong that they do, can only ever be compounded if they lie about it or try to cover it up. We know the problem can be so much greater if followed by a denial or a lie.

Therefore, does it logically follow that a Country’s problems or mistakes should never be succeeded by denials, mistruths or outright lies, no matter how difficult or complicated the issue? Can it and Is it ever in the nation’s interest to cover something up, deny that it is happening or lie about what is happening?

It is hard to contemplate in the midst of the current crisis, which may subsume us for a very long time, but sooner or later will we as a country honestly face up to our societal problems? The grooming gang scandal, an education system failing so many of our children, the considerable impact of mass immigration, to name but a few. Or will we continue to be in a state of denial, unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to discuss let alone solve what is making us ill?

What are your thoughts on the prognosis of the “health” of our nation and have you any faith that we will ever be totally truthful with ourselves in these worrying times? 

Written by Roger Wallbank

Roger is a teacher, coach and father increasingly concerned for the country our children will inherit


‘Hugo Jenks is an electronics engineer and has worked mainly in the defence sector, and more recently in academic research.  His awakening to the threat of Islam followed the 7/7/2005 London bombings, when he read the Koran for the first time – his latest book addressing the Islamic threat is “Hellish 2050”.‘ 

If you were transported via a time-machine back to 1930s Germany, would you oppose the Nazis?  Almost certainly you would say “yes”; however, you probably would not.  Most people prefer a quiet life to opposing a totalitarian ideology. 

Islam is a totalitarian political ideology with the outward appearance of a religion.  If you haven’t already done so, please attempt to read the source documentation, primarily the Koran, and you will observe this fact for yourself.  At least read surah (chapter) 9, as this is the more recently revealed of the larger chapters.  The Abrogated Koran is a free download:    Within this edition the abrogated verses are crossed out.  Chapters are arranged in reverse chronological order.  Key verses are colour-coded.

Reading the Koran, one significant aspect strikes you: Mohammed had an unhealthy obsession with non-believers.  Rather than focusing on the well-being and development of believers, he railed against the non-believers.  He threatened them with eternal torment in hell and with physical violence in this world.  Within the Koran, and as historical fact, non-believers (specifically “the people of the book”) are obliged to pay the Jizya tax as a sign of inferiority and subjection – the condition of dhimmitude – thus demonstrating unambiguously that Islam is a political ideology.  If we object to the prospect of living in a condition of dhimmitude, we will inevitably be accused of “Islamophobia”.

On 27th November 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims published a report titled “Islamophobia Defined: the inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia”.  It contained the following definition:

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

In the UK, the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, SNP, Scottish Conservatives, Green Party, Plaid Cymru, several councils, and the National Union of Students have adopted this definition.

It has a number of problems.  To start with, it introduces a new, badly defined term: “Muslimness”.  If they try to define that word, will they introduce yet another?  Islam is not a race, so criticising Islamic scriptures, or the violent, murderous behaviour of the prophet of Islam, cannot be racist.  If someone were to convert to Islam, and their sibling criticised this decision, how could this be racist, given that they share the same parents?  Islam is a totalitarian political ideology as well as a religion.  Would it be racism against the Chinese to criticise Communist ideology?  Of course not.

Those who persist in defining “Islamophobia” as racism need to ask the question: what skin colour did Mohammed have?  As described in numerous Hadiths, Mohammed was white!  Furthermore, he kept black slaves and regarded them as inferior and of half the value of non-black slaves.  Clearly, “Islamophobia” is not a form of racism.  The APPG has deceived itself – it has not understood the relevant facts.

‘Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed.”’  Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375                  

‘”Did you see Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)?” He said: “Yes, he had a white handsome face.”’ Sahih Muslim 30:5777

Muslims themselves are victims of Islam.  We must wish for them to be free of this mental enslavement and come and join the rest of humanity.  By abandoning Islam, they would be free to live in genuine peace, sharing the opportunities of a humane and equal society and the benefits of the great expansion of scientific and technical knowledge that the non-Islamic world has pioneered.

My Experience of Political Persecution From Teachers

Jack Thomson is an actor, scholar and free speech advocate from the North East of England. Since July 2019, he has been Young Independence Co-ordinator for North of Tyne.

I came across UKIP in late 2018. I was very fond of their policies. Also, Gerard Batten had the right confidence, charisma and energy I believe a Prime Minister should have. Nevertheless, I was still on the fence. My interest grew a lot when Tommy Robinson became involved with the party. I had watched many of Tommy’s videos and he too was a man of principle and his incredible devotion to this day cannot be matched by anyone else. When Tommy and Gerard were presenting the exposé on the BBC, Panodrama, I watched it live online and was totally amazed by the undercover journalism done by Tommy. The next day, I signed up.

Due to this political relocation, I broadcasted this to my peers at Sixth Form. This was obviously met with mixed responses. But surprisingly, it was from the teachers that I got the most negativity from. I felt there was a change in attitude from them towards me. This was confirmed when teachers would make sly comments every now and then about students with supposed ‘far right beliefs’. It was becoming more and more uncomfortable to even speak out at class due to the fear of being shaded by the teacher.

I joined the debating society, which was the only free speech hub in the college environment. This angered me as this was the only place I could go to really argue my point without fear of any repercussions. I brought this point up with the deputy head, and tried to suggest that the college as a whole should be free speech friendly. My suggestions were shut down immediately and his response was that such a suggestion may be frowned upon. This was a disappointment yet I adhered to the rules respectively, and only discussed politics in the free speech zone.

This did not stop the teachers from persecuting me. I was brought into the deputy heads office several times due to complaints from other students about my views. One time, I had been called in due to me mentioning Tommy Robinson’s name in a debate I was having about immigration. I discussed that Tommy should be given a chance in the political world as his points have a lot of value and the media blacklist him for telling the truth. I was required to sit through a video outlining how to avoid radicalisation. I queried why I was having to do this and his response was because of my allegiance to Tommy Robinson. I outlined that I never stated I supported him, but I was ignored. I felt like I was being unfairly treated because I argued differently to what the teachers believed in.

I left that Sixth Form as I couldn’t handle the prejudice any more. It was quite an upsetting time for me but only made me realise that people will do anything to silence the truth. I didn’t change my views to be treated better by the teachers. I stuck by what I believed in, I took the persecution on the chin and stood strong for my freedom of speech.

I know I am not alone and many teachers will do what they can to inflict indoctrination of their beliefs onto students, and people who don’t agree will be deemed ‘outcasts’. But don’t let them win, do not let them change who you are. We are the voice of truth and as the next generation, we must continue the fight for free speech and we will get challenges placed in front of us every day. We will overcome these challenges and stand together for our freedom.