Category Archives: islamists

#FreeTommy; The Judge; The Law; Journalists; Islamist Grooming Gangs

#FreeTommy; The Judge; The Law; Journalists; Islamist Grooming Gangs
On Friday, 25th May, I happened to tune into Tommy Robinson’s live feed on Facebook not long before he was arrested by seven (yes seven!) West Yorkshire Police under the dishonest claim that he was inciting a “Breach of the Peace”. 
From what I saw at the time and from what I have seen since I stand by my assertion that that claim was dishonest.  As so far as I can see there was no basis for saying that he was inciting a Breach of the Peace. 
In fact the police’s actions afterwards suggest that that was always a lie.  At the time all we heard was that within two hours of his arrest he had been sentenced to 13 months imprisonment and taken off to Hull Prison. 
All we knew about the reason as to why this has happened was that His Honour Judge Marson QC had made an Order forbidding press coverage on the basis that it might prejudice “THESE proceedings”.
It probably is that this Judge’s Leftist background has led him to be far harder on Tommy Robinson than he would have been on a mainstream Leftist, fellow traveller and journalist.  Given the inevitable as time goes on increasing preponderance of Leftists, multi-culturalists in the judiciary would now be no real prospects of running that aspect of the argument in court but the sentence is still a severe one and the courts are supposed to take account of a quick plea of guilty in discounting by a third the sentence that they would otherwise have imposed.  
The Judgment in effect is therefore saying that the Judge thought that 15 months would have been appropriate to add consecutively to the 3 months that were triggered by the plea of guilty.  That strikes me as a wholly unreasonable sentence which should be possible to reduce quite significantly on appeal if Tommy Robinson is minded to do so.  How publicity could be relevant to proceedings against Tommy Robinson or even Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as he is properly described in the heading of the Court Order was one of the mysteries of the situation. 
I like many others that saw what happened or heard about it and then watched were amazed, appalled and outraged at what had apparently happened in our country to Tommy who is after all an heroic figure! 
It seemed clear that the politically correct British State had in the words of one commentator “gone too far this time”. 
There have since been a series of protests, on the quite understandable basis from what we knew, that Tommy Robinson seemed to have been arrested and then sent down for 13 months without any proper due process, trial etc. 
Many generous offers of help were also being made, particularly by Ezra Levant offering help with Tommy’s legal fees and also Lord Pearson offering payment of his legal fees.  General Batton and Lord Pearson of UKIP even both went so far as to threaten to prosecute the current Home Secretary, Sajid Javid.  I found this somewhat odd as I cannot think there would be any prospect of getting a magistrate even to issue the summons to prosecute the Home Secretary over injuries sustained in a prison. Whilst pursuing one part of his ministerial responsibility, he does not have any direct operational involvement with them.  I can however understand that in the heat of anger at the moment them making threats which in the cool light of day now look implausible. 
Another implausible call was of course for Habeas Corpus and Common Law.  Under Common Law judges did have a very wide discretionary power to punish for contempt of court.  Habeas Corpus is the traditional order of the court whereby a Judge orders and the name comes from the Latin recital to the order to the person who has the body of the prisoner who is to be produced to the court.  In a situation where the court has ordered a person to be imprisoned that of course has no relevance.  It was an historical order principally against officers of the Crown or the King himself who had wrongly imprisoned somebody. 
Reasonably sizeable demonstrations have been held and various speakers, including both UKIP’s and For Britain’s Leadership made speeches about how outrageous and unconstitutional the decision to imprison Tommy Robinson has been.  I suspect they all now feel a bit embarrassed.  No doubt they were acting from the best motives, but the facts that have now come out have delivered them over for ridicule by our collective multi-culturalist opponents.
What has now come out is that there was already a restriction order on further publication of any details about the trials of 29 defendants in yet another horrific example Muslim/Pakistani heritage pimping child prostitute gangs.  The facts include the all too normal use of extortion, violence and drugs against their victims, together with huge criminal profits.  Such orders are made against the media and against all journalists.  It is because Tommy Robinson, for some time now, has been saying publically on his website, on his output and where relevant in court that he is a journalist that he was clearly caught by this Order. 
In the circumstances I think it likely that he was correctly advised, by his very experienced Counsel, Matthew Harding, from a legal point of view to plead guilty to the charge of breach of this court Order i.e. contempt of court.  That Court Order was made to try to ensure that these criminals could be fairly tried.  The consequence of it being impossible to fairly try them means that they might go free.  The Order against the media was therefore a sensible Order to make, provided of course that once the criminals were convicted that the media were not only free to report on it but actually did so. 
Of course part of the reason why we are all so suspicious about the “Fake News” from the mainstream media is that they frequently choose to make a big fuss about historic cases against old white men rather than to report the real crisis that is going on around us at the moment of these Muslim child rape gangs.  Our suspicion was further raised by the treatment of Tommy Robinson who has been the key torch bearer throwing light on this issue to the embarrassment of the British Political Establishment.
Once it is understood that Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court it becomes obvious that this would automatically trigger his suspended sentence for 3 months imprisonment to which he was sentenced in Canterbury Crown Court last year.  Therefore Tommy would be going to prison for at least that 3 months sentence.  I think it would also be inevitable that any Judge would then add to that sentence.
I do however think that an immediate actual custodial sentence of a further 10 months was a very stiff sentence and it is there that we and Tommy Robinson himself should perhaps be directing attention, since that sentence is of course appealable. 
There is also the disparity of treatment between Tommy Robinson and other reporters whereby he has been singled out for punishment when usually mainstream media reporters are not punished.  There is also the fact that he is completely outside the self-censoring system which revolves around the Defence and Security Media Advisory whereby the mainstream media decide what they are going to report and what they are going to censor in the interests of their globalists/internationalist, multi-culturalist owner’s agenda. 
I came across a very good article explaining this system which I reproduce below. 
The other point to bear in mind is of course that the Judge that decided to sentence Tommy Robinson for an additional 10 months over and above the 3 months that were triggered by his pleading guilty, is His Honour Judge Geoffrey Marson QC who was one of the first products of the change to the judicial appointments under Tony Blair whereby a Judicial Appointments Commission was set up with rules, which Tony Blair’s friend, Lord Irvine, said would ensure that “nobody with reactionary views” could be appointed or promoted within the judiciary. 
Judge Marson was appointed by Tony Blair’s personal friend and former flatmate, Charlie Faulkner, who, as Lord Chancellor presided over the dismantlement of the ancient and traditional English office of Lord Chancellor.  Faulkner replaced it with the EUish institution of a “Ministry of Justice” which has since presided over the virtual implosion of the English Court system.  Judge Marson is I suspect a typical example of such appointment as his own old chambers proudly boasts of being multi-culturalist, Park Square Barristers of 6 Park Square East, Leeds, LS1 2LW say that they are “Progressive – … we have a strong balance of women and BME members.”  Here is a link to their website >>> https://www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk/about/
I mentioned above the control centre of Establishment spin the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee.  Here is that interesting article I mentioned:-

“D-Notices, State Censorship And The Cynical Collusion of Mainstream Media

By TruePublica: If you’ve been following the Skripal/Novichok/Chemical weapons/Syria drama unfold through TruePublica you’ll be up to date on most, if not all, the relevant information there is to know.
On several occasions, we have published news relating to the D-Notices sent out by the state to censor the mainstream media in both print and broadcast to ensure that their version of the story, one filled full of holes, didn’t go, well, mainstream.
One question raised a few times by our readers was, who is it actually decides when to issue a D-Notice and who sits on its committee.
Here is the explainer and an interesting one it is too.
Get Briefed, Get Weekly Intelligence Reports – Essential Weekend Reading – Safe Subscribe
Subscribe!
A DSMA-Notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) — formerly a DA-Notice (Defence Advisory Notice), and before that called a Defence Notice (D-Notice) until 1993—is an official request to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for “reasons of national security.”
In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association. Any D-Notices or DA-notices were only advisory requests, and so are not legally enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are today slavishly complied with by the media.
In 1971, all existing D-Notices were cancelled and replaced by standing D-Notices, which gave general guidance on what might be published and what was discouraged; and what would require further advice from the secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC). In 1993, the notices were renamed DA-Notices (Defence Advisory Notices).
One of the recommendations resulting from the 2015 review of the DA-notice system, included the renaming of the system to the Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee.  In 2017, the notices were reworded and then reorganized into the following categories:
  • DSMA-Notice 01: Military Operations, Plans & Capabilities
  • DSMA-Notice 02: Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapon Systems and Equipment
  • DSMA-Notice 03: Military Counter-Terrorist Forces, Special Forces and Intelligence Agency Operations, Activities and Communication Methods and Techniques
  • DSMA-Notice 04: Physical Property and Assets
  • DSMA-Notice 05: Personnel and their Families who work in Sensitive Positions
From here, it gets interesting because in 2015 the ‘committee’ from all accounts seemed to change shape, which beforehand had been made up of state officials, and some elements of the press, particularly in times of real national security such as the world wars. Nowadays it is made up of a few state officials and mostly – the mainstream media.
There are 15 senior media people who sit on this censorship committee. As well as the BBC, ITV, ITN and Murdoch’s Sky News, representing broadcasters, there are a variety of representatives from the broadsheet and tabloid press, regional and Scottish newspapers and magazines and publishing – including two News UK and Harper Collins, (both owned by Murdoch) as well as Trinity Mirror, the Daily Mail and the Guardian.
On the government side of the committee are the chair from the MoD and four intelligence connected representatives from the MoD (Director General Security Policy), Foreign Office (Director for National Security), Home Office (unspecified post) and Cabinet Office (Deputy National Security Adviser for Security, Intelligence, and Resilience).
The DSMA committee itself obviously likes to project the view that it is a rather dull and uninteresting meeting of minds and that there’s nothing going on to report. But these meetings are to discuss and agree what can and cannot be printed or broadcast in the mainstream media. Then, instead of going back to their respective places of work and simply passing on the message – the state then issues notices to the same people who just agreed not to print the scandals the government just asked them not to print in the first place.
SpinWatch makes an interesting point by highlighting exactly how much the mainstream media collude directly with government on controlling the output.
“as a former vice chair of the committee (a journalist) put it, ‘is emphatically not censorship… but voluntary, responsible media restraint’. Then working at Sky News, that vice chair, Simon Bucks, is now CEO at the Services Sound and Vision Corporation, the broadcasting service which says it is ‘championing the Armed Forces’. Bucks also wrote that the DSMA committee is ‘the most mythologised and misunderstood institution in British media… “Slapping a D-notice” on something the establishment wanted suppressed has been the stuff of thrillers, spy stories and conspiracy theories for more than a century”.
The reader should have gathered from that statement alone, that indeed, slapping a D-Notice on the media is not the stuff of conspiracy theories otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it in the first place. The conspiracy is that that the mainstream media stand accused of colluding in important cover-ups with and for the state. That is not a theory – that is a fact.
The Labour party is currently attacking freedom of speech and the free press, if there was indeed one to speak of, with a Bill tabled by deputy Labour leader Tom Watson (known as Labour’s ‘bully boy’) this week. This Bill was described by the Financial Times thus: “it would force our hand and chill freedom of expression in this country. Investigative journalism – such as the FT’s expose of The Presidents Club this year – could well become too risky given the potential costs.” It would be handing rich individuals a licence to harass the press, free of charge.”
Thankfully this draconian measure failed.
No doubt being caught up in the expenses scandal that the Telegraph printed didn’t exactly help with Mr Watson’s general view that Britain should benefit from a free press. His proposal came a couple of days after the World Press Freedom report showing Britain is now languishing nicely in 40th place in a group of other countries who also despise free speech – by those who try to hold power to account.
Here is a link to the original article>>> http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/d-notices-state-censorship-and-the-cynical-collusion-of-mainstream-media/ … 
Here are the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee’s Media Members:-
Name:
Organisation:
Nominated By…
John Battle
Head of Compliance
Independent Television News  
ITN
Paul Johnson
Deputy Editor
Guardian News and Media 
NPA
Joe Fay
Group Editor
The Register
Charles Garside
Assistant Editor
Daily Mail
NPA
James Green
Director
IHS – Jane’s News & Analysis  
PPA
David Higgerson
Digital Publishing Director
Trinity Mirror Regionals 
NS
Michael Jermey
Director of News, Current Affairs and Sport
ITV  
ITV
David Jordan
Director of Editorial Policy and Standards
BBC  
BBC
James MacManus
Executive Director
News UK
NPA
John McLellan
Scottish Newspaper Society
SNS
Charles Redmayne
Chief Executive Officer
Harper Collins UK
(B)PA
Ian Murray
Executive Director
Society of Editors
SoE
Sarah Whitehead
Head of Home News & Deputy Head of News Gathering
Sky News
BSkyB
Laura Adams
Editorial Director, Archant
NMA

Owen Meredith

Head of Public Affairs

PPA
Here is a link to their website>>> http://www.dsma.uk/committee/index.htm
There was also some interesting fall-out for the multi-culturalist British Political Establishment which I think was able to see that large numbers of traditionally minded patriots are now absolutely fed-up with the way things are going and are close to the point where there could be widespread civil disorder.  Whether they take any notice of that information we will see shortly.   So far it looks to me as if the official reaction is likely to be to try to clamp down still further which I suspect will be like sealing the lid on a pressure cooker! 

THERESA MAY AND HER “CONSERVATIVE” GOVERNMENT APPEASES ISLAMISTS – AGAIN!

THERESA MAY AND HER “CONSERVATIVE” GOVERNMENT APPEASES ISLAMISTS – AGAIN!


Just before Christmas we had the revolting spectacle of the British State’s name being misused in the UN to back a resolution led by various Islamic states attacking both Israel and the United States over the movement of the US Embassy from Israel’s old capital Tel Aviv to its current capital Jerusalem.

The capital of Israel has legally been Jerusalem since 1980 and is where its Parliament, the Knesset, and its Government’s ministries etc. are all to be found. Jerusalem was captured by the Israelis in 1967, i.e. longer ago than many of the UN “Nations” have existed.

You might think that any sensible Western Government would long since have recognised that fact and had their embassies in Jerusalem. You would of course be right that any sensible Western Government would have done so! In fact, of course, there are all too few sensible Western Governments.

The main policy of Theresa May’s Government, so far as I can see on almost all levels is appeasement (appeasement of Remainers, appeasement of the EU, appeasement of Islamists etc. etc.).

In this case appeasement of the strong brand of anti-Semitism which is deeply imbedded into Islam dating back to the Hadith’s of Muhammad’s attacks and atrocities against Jews.

In appeasing Muslim opinion in this way Theresa May’s Government may have badly damaged our Nation’s diplomatic interests in maintaining both good relations with Israel and the United States of America.

Melanie Phillips has written a very good article in the Daily Mail, albeit more from her Zionist point of view than from the point of view of the interests of our Nation.

Here is her article:-

The UN theatre of hatred


“Many people are understandably baffled by the recent UN vote condemning President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Since such a vote has zero practical effect, they ask, what was the point of it?

Well indeed. As the American ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said in her barnstorming response, America will still be moving its embassy to Jerusalem regardless of the UN’s opinion.

The resolution didn’t need to have any practical import. It was merely part of the UN’s theatre of hatred, the malevolent campaign it has waged for decades against Israel and Israel alone as a result of the preponderance of tyrannies, dictatorships, kleptocracies and genocidal antisemitic regimes that make up what’s called called the UN’s “non-aligned block” and which are united in their desire that Israel should be wiped off the map.

So egregious is this hypocrisy in singling out Israel, the sole democracy and upholder of human rights in the region while ignoring the brutal and murderous record of those tyrannies, dictatorships, kleptocracies and genocidal antisemitic regimes, that even a CNN correspondent has been moved to call this out. Jake Tapper tweeted: “Among the 128 countries that voted in favor of the UN resolution condemning the US decision to move the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem were “some countries with some rather questionable records of their own”.

You don’t say. The shocking thing is that so many democratic nations voted alongside these tyrannies: nations such as Germany, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, most disappointingly India and, most sickening (to me, anyway), the UK.

Britain, the historic cradle of liberty and democracy and which once fought to defend freedom, has now made common cause with China, Iran, Libya, North Korea and Russia in their joint aim of denying the right of the Jewish people to declare, in accordance with law and history, the capital city of their own country, a right the UK and these other states would deny to no other people or state. What a disgrace.

What on earth did the UN think it was doing? What does Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May think she’s doing? Does nobody in the British government have a clue about upholding international law or sovereignty? For the real point about this UN vote was that, on this occasion, the principal target wasn’t actually Israel. It was America, and its sovereign right to govern itself. The UN was telling the United States it was not entitled to conduct its own foreign policy in the way it thinks fit.

As Brook Goldstein of the Lawfare Project has observed, this contravenes the UN’s own charter:

“Article 2(7) of the UN Charter is crystal clear: ‘Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.’ Today’s General Assembly resolution is therefore extralegal and transparently political.

“The UN was built on the principle of respect for the sovereignty of member states (known legally as complementarity), with full awareness that independent nations of the world must make policy decisions in the best interests of their domestic constituencies. The moment the institution begins to attack that very sovereignty is the moment the UN loses all credibility, authority and international deference.”

That’s why most significant part of Nikki Haley’s response was where she said this:

“The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”

For decades, the UN’s malicious double standard in repeatedly singling out Israel for condemnation has constituted the negation of its foundational ideals of global justice and peace. The UN has become instead the world’s principal engine of institutionalised Jew-hatred. Now it has crossed another line altogether. The Jerusalem vote could just be the point at which a US President finally decides that America’s tolerance towards the malign global incubus that the UN has become is now at an end.”

The original can be found here >>> The UN theatre of hatred | MelaniePhillips.com

http://www.melaniephillips.com/un-theatre-hatred/

What do you think?

THERESA MAY TRUMPED ON ISLAMIST TERROR TWEETS BY TRUMP!

THERESA MAY TRUMPED ON ISLAMIST TERROR TWEETS BY TRUMP!

Sometimes there is justice in the world! 

Theresa May, the Remainer politician, who has, like most of the Tories in Parliament made out throughout most of her political career that she is a Eurosceptic, but she was revealed, when the EU referendum came, to be the untruthful Remainer that we always suspected that she was really! 

Theresa also makes out that, as a Church of England vicar’s daughter, she is a practicing Christian, whilst in fact she was the prime driver behind “gay marriage”. 

As Prime Minister Theresa rushed to welcome Trump when he was inaugurated as President, despite her private office having been very partisan against him in the Republican primaries and also in supporting Hilary Clinton in the actual election for the US presidency.

This, of course, is the very same Theresa May who has had the temerity to lecture Donald Trump on what he should tweet about Islamist threats!

(It is an interesting reflection on the great value of the American constitutional guarantee of the right to “Free Speech” that Ann Coulter and Trump and indeed any other Americans are free to re-tweet the videos or to make comments like Jayda Fransen has made, However because Miss Fransen has made those remarks within the UK she is being prosecuted for hate speech. How ironical that old phrase from Rule Britannia, “Briton’s never, never will be slaves” is now becoming!)

Well Theresa has been well and truly bitten now hasn’t she with Donald Trump’s response?

Theresa and some of her fellow Conservative MPs exposed themselves in their knee-jerk responses to be unpatriotic appeasers. Many of the same were exposed as “Brexit Mutineers” by the Daily Telegraph just a few weeks ago. Now here they are again standing shoulder to shoulder with Emily Thornberry, Yvette Cooper and Sadiq Khan. All of whom are yet again showing that they are more attached to multi-culturalism and Islamist appeasement than they are to acting in the best interests of our country – which is clearly to have the best possible relationship with the Government of the United States!

I doubt whether it is irrelevant that this spat took place at the very time when Theresa May and her Government are in the process of betraying the interests of the country over Brexit in offering to pay £50 billion of English Taxpayers’ money to the EU simply for the privilege of being allowed to engage in trade negotiations, with no real prospect of those trade negotiations actually resulting in any trade agreement, let alone one which is advantageous to our Nation!

These people are not only hopelessly incompetent, but also are unpatriotic even to the UK.

Of course it goes without saying that they also all hate the very idea of England and of the English Nation!

WHY IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MANIPULATING WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT ISLAMIST TERROR ATTACKS?

WHY IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MANIPULATING WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT ISLAMIST TERROR ATTACKS?

On Friday the 15th September there was another Islamist terror attack in England on London’s Underground. The home-made bomb partially went off at Parsons Green Tube Station.

When it was first being reported very shortly after it had happened, there were various pictures and clips which had been filmed on people’s mobile phones put up onto the internet in which you could see what was happening, including the above picture of the bomb.

The initial reports were of people who were in the carriage and who heard it go off who said that it wasn’t a bang, it was a sort of “whoomp”. There was a smell, smoke and some flames. People were desperate to get off the tube train and there was a wild panic to get off the station away from the train in which people were injured in the ensuing stampede.

At first the mainstream media were talking up the possibility that this attack could have been done by “Far-Right Extremists”. As their hopes of that faded there was an increasing unwillingness in the mainstream media, whether it be Sky, ITV or BBC, to report on what type of people were thought to be the perpetrators.

Even though it has since become clear that the people who have been arrested so far are young male Muslim “refugees” it is only recently that it has become crystal clear that the principle suspect is one of the Syrian child refugees that so much fuss was made about to bring them over to England. This was regardless of such and with no attempt to vet whether they were dangerous or not. Well now we know of course that at least some of them are going to prove to be dangerous Jihadists! So much for the effectiveness of our British authorities in showing any interest in looking after our own People!

One thing however that was striking on the day as reporting of the news story progressed on Friday was that, by the 6 o’clock BBC Radio 4 news, the BBC was reporting that the bomb had “exploded”, that there had been a “wall of flame” and that “29 people had been injured”, the obvious implication being, to anybody who didn’t know better, that the people were injured by the bomb, rather than as they actually were by the panic and stampede to escape from the station. The bomb of course did not “explode”. The videos at the time showed that there was not a “wall of flame”, at most the flames were a foot high and perhaps only six inches high.

What better example of fake news could you get than this distortion from the BBC?

The question that then arises is why would they do it? But then you have to think what Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has been saying in response to Islamist attacks in London. After the car ramming and knife attack on Westminster Bridge he said:-


“Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days – no reason to be alarmed. One of the things police and all of us need to do is make sure we’re as safe as we possibly can be.

“I’m reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest global city in the world.

“But we always evolve and review ways to make sure we remain as safe as we possibly can.”

After the van rammings and knife attacks on London Bridge and Borough Market he said:-

“Our city is filled with great sorrow and anger tonight but also great resolve and determination because our unity and love for one another will always be stronger than the hate of the extremists.

“This is our city. These are our values and this is our way of life. London will never be broken by terrorism we will step up the fight against extremism and we will defeat the terrorists.”

And:-

“I want to reassure all Londoners, and all our visitors, not to be alarmed. Our city remains one of the safest in the world.

“London is the greatest city in the world and we stand together in the face of those who seek to harm us and destroy our way of life.

“We always have and we always will. Londoners will never be cowed by terrorism.”

In stark contrast to these remarks however, after the attack on Muslims near the Finsbury mosque, he said:-

“The Met have deployed extra police to reassure communities, especially those observing Ramadan.”

The moral of these quotations seems to be that, whilst Muslims must be protected whatever the cost to taxpayers, the rest of us must simply get used to being attacked by Islamists.

This agenda is confirmed by what he is reported to have said in New York:-

“Living with terror attacks – like the one that hit New York at the weekend – is ‘part and parcel of living in a big city’.

‘It is a reality I’m afraid that London, New York, other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things.

‘That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities, it means the security services being ready, but also it means exchanging ideas and best practice.”

In short what people like Sadiq Khan want to happen is that the general population accepts the story that these sorts of Jihadi terror attacks are now simply part and parcel of living in a big city, rather than what they obviously actually are, accordingly to common-sense: Which is the consequence of the British Establishment allowing unrestricted immigration by large numbers of unvetted Muslims, often from very troubled parts of the world, who too often bring their wars and their Jihadi mentality with them!

It should also be noted that when Islamists get involved in suicide bombing or other suicidal terrorist activity, their focus is currently being completely misunderstood by the authorities and, in particular being mis-reported by the mainstream media.

What we have to understand is that a Jihadist deciding to undertake such a mission is thinking of it not in terms of a “suicide mission”, but of a “martyrdom operation”. This explains why the London Bridge terrorists were wearing fake suicide vests. The point of doing so was to make sure that the police wouldn’t try to capture them and instead would shoot them dead!

It should be remembered that the point of a “martyrdom operation” is obviously to be martyred and is therefore done in reliance on the statements in the Koran and the Haddith that he who dies in Jihad will automatically go to Paradise and be rewarded by Allah with celestial virgins in a jewelled palace for eternity!

Jihadists truly believe that this is what will happen to them if they die in Jihad. So if their life has not been lived fully accordingly to Muslim law then they are a person who is more likely to feel that a “martyrdom operation” will get him to paradise, despite his sins, than if he had lived a blameless life.

It therefore makes no sense for commentators to talk about the fact that some pf those Jihadists who commit martyrdom operations have not lived strict Muslim lives!

We need to realise that the killing of unbelievers in a “martyrdom operation” is not the goal of the operation; it is merely the goalposts which enable the goal to be scored. That is getting into Paradise by being killed whilst on Jihad.

No wonder the mainstream media do not want people to understand what is going on because if they did then maybe the demand to end Muslim immigration would rise from its current opinion poll rating of about 47% to a pitch where almost everybody who was not a Muslim would be saying no to any further Muslim immigration!

The drums are getting louder!

The drums are getting louder!


Over the last few years we have seen an increasingly audible and increasingly un-ignorable, drum roll of problems arising out of militant Islam and Islamist activists.

This drum roll whilst getting louder and faster is of course nowhere near its crescendo as yet.

But recently here in Europe we have not only had the attacks in France, Belgium and Germany but also a number of foiled attacks and also attacks that are no longer sufficiently dramatic to attract much media coverage but which would once have been reported.

Then on the same day we have now had the deliberate murder, using a truck as a weapon, not only of the Polish truck driver, but also of a dozen who were at a Christmas market in Berlin, but dozens of other, no doubt, many very seriously injured.

There was also on the same day the outrageous murder of the Russian Ambassador to Turkey by a Turkish policeman. Had the Russians wanted to they would be well within their rights to treat such a murder as a cause for a very serious escalation of hostile relations between Russian and Turkey. President Putin has however shown himself to be very statesman like in his response to this provocation, which after all is of no lesser level of provocation than the provocation to Austro-Hungary of the assassination of the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand.

It would seem that President Putin has seen that President Erdogan’s over-zealous reaction to clamping down on his political opponents, following the attempted coup in Turkey, and the ending of the siege of Allepo, as being a moment in which Turkey has far fewer allies than it had, but also the moment in which Russia could emerge in the Middle East as a far bigger and more effective power broker than has been the case in recent history.

Given that President Erdogan has a track record himself of being an Islamist and indeed has spent time in Turkish prison for his Islamist activities, it remains unclear whether a rapproachment between Turkey and Russia will lead to any slackening of the tempo of the Islamist drum beat.

Another factor that needs to be considered is the effect of the current low oil price, not only on the Russian economy, but also on the long term prospects of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis are using up the capital that they have built up over decades. Not long ago the Financial Times was predicting Saudi Arabia would run out of money before 2020. If that happens Turkey will probably again become the leading Sunni power and also there will be a collapse in funding for Sunni Islamism across the world.

The oil price is however a consequence of an undeclared economic war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Iranians calculate that they have much greater ability to endure low oil prices for much longer than Saudi Arabia and therefore they can economically bleed out Saudi Arabia and emerge as the regional Shia Power. If that happens there will be, of course, a whole new real politique dynamic in the Middle East.

In the meanwhile the drum beat will I suspect continue to grow louder and faster as Saudi Arabia starts to see the collapse looming. That may be the moment when the panicky crescendo hits us.

As citizens of Western European countries we can only hope and campaign for our leaders to show more sense than they have done so far over the Islamist question! Or to replace them!

Happy New Year!

Are we heading for defeat in the war against Islamism?

Are we heading for defeat in the war against Islamism?


The Ancient Chinese Philosopher of Conflict, Sun Tzu, was the author of a famous treatise called the “Art of War”. One of his sayings is:- “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”.

This saying repays thought in all situations of conflict but is certainly very true of the “war” against ISIS.

At the moment “Western” Governments have no strategy at all for dealing with ISIS and, indeed, haven’t even got round to understanding the basics about the enemy!

Here is one of the more sensible articles that I have read recently about this official wilful ignorance:-

Paris attacks: Is ‘radicalisation’ really the problem?


Big Question: Associating such atrocities as those committed in Paris with radicalisation reinforces the idea of ‘jihadi cool’. Isil are ultra-traditionalists, not radicals

Much of the condemnation following the attacks in Paris reflects the shock and disbelief that Western governments have in understanding the cultic appeal of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

President Barack Obama spoke of the ‘outrageous attempt to terrorise innocent civilians’, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her solidarity with the French people, proclaiming that ‘we will fight against those who have carried out such an unfathomable act against you’.

But there is a problem here. Understandable though such declarations are, the acts perpetrated by Isil are not, in themselves, unfathomable. It is the manner of official rhetoric, media analysis, and much academic commentary that often obscures an understanding of the threat. And the most misleading word in public commentary is the term radicalisation.

The stream of young Muslims who reject their host nations and travel to Syria in order to throw in their lot with the Islamic State in all its manifest brutality exercises western nations. Much of the concern about what is happening within certain Muslim communities is expressed as a problem of ‘radicalisation’.

In the wake of the atrocities in Paris, radicalisation is again cast as the central issue. A Guardian report following the attacks highlighted France’s ‘struggles to tackle radicalisation among its Muslim community’. The report noted that nearly half of the estimated 3000 Muslims from Europe to have travelled to the Middle East to participate in jihad are French.

Meanwhile, it was reported in Britain that counter-terrorism sources fear some 450 ‘radicalised’ Britons have returned from Syria and could perpetrate similar attacks to those witnessed in France. The Director of the Office for Security and Counter-terrorism, Charles Farr, states in this respect that Isil’s radical dogma is ‘a form of ideological grooming’.

Yet, what does this term radicalisation mean? Is this term an accurate description of the process that leads a young western Muslim to jihad? Words matter. An adequate response needs accurate diagnosis.

George Orwell observed that ‘the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts’. If the threat is to be countered effectively then at the very least one has to be sure that the political terminology one uses truthfully describes the actual nature of the problem. Orwell noted that ‘political chaos’ results from the ‘decay of language’ and ends up in prevailing orthodoxies that ‘conceal and prevent thought’.

This is precisely what has happened with the misuse of the term radicalisation. Radicalism, in fact, has precise origins, entering modern usage in the nineteenth century in the context of political and economic reform and social progress. It

was those secular, liberal, utilitarian reformers associated with Jeremy Bentham and James Mill (John Stuart’s father) who devised the modern understanding of radical. It stood for a programme of rational, constitutional, social and economic reform.

Radicalism as an ideology dismissed religion as irrational superstition and sought political reform along secular, capitalist and progressive democratic lines.

The one thing we can easily discern about Islamic State and its message is that it is does not do democracy or secular modernity. Therefore, it is not radical and it does not engage in radicalisation. Thus, fulfilling Orwell’s prophecy, distorted meaning ends up obscuring and preventing thought.

Rather than being radicalised, young western Muslims are attracted to what a more religious age than our own recognised as enthusiasm, zealotry or fanaticism. Any analysis of jihadism’s self-confirming zealotry suggests that those who are labelled as radicalised are not radicals at all. Ideological radicalism, properly understood, requires a clear break from traditional religion of whatever form in order to achieve a pluralist secular modernity.

Modern day jihadists are, then, the antithesis of radical. Their worldview is fashioned by a scriptural literalism based on the message of the Prophet Mohammed and the hadith of his rightly guided successors from the Seventh Century. It is this that inspires the thought and practice of Islamic State and its followers who look to the past to build tomorrow’s religious utopia purified by ultra-violence. They are ultra-traditionalists, not radicals.

This ultra-traditionalism guides every action in the present. Today’s jihadi is an enthusiast (not a radical) as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as one who is ‘possessed by a god’, or in ‘receipt of divine communication’. No matter how deluded their actions seem to modern attitudes, through their enthusiasm they engage directly in a divine mission to re-create the caliphate. This renders them immune to community sensitive ‘de-radicalisation’ programmes promoted by western governments because there is nothing radical in jihadist self-understanding.

The distorted rhetoric of radicalisation is, though, far more damaging than merely offending semantic sensibilities because associating such atrocities as those committed in Paris with radicalisation reinforces the idea of ‘jihadi cool’.

For to be radical means in some sense to be ‘street smart’. Contemporary Islamists are adept social entrepreneurs who understand this only too well.

Islamic State and its media outlets release over 90,000 social media posts a day. That’s nearly 33 million a year. The appeal of social media is clear. There are no gatekeepers. Messages posted from one remote or hidden location are

immediately transmitted to the hip pocket of anyone with a smart phone. An audience counted in millions.

Social media is the command and control network of fanatical Islamism. It is used to brand the Isil product, literally, to promulgate the message and recruit online. Segueing off the L’Oreal advert, for instance, a recent Islamist recruitment message targeting young western women runs ‘Cover Girl, No. Covered Girl, Yes. Because, you’re worth it.’

Western radicalisation rhetoric further distorts the threat because it implies that those Muslim youngsters inclined to join the jihad are merely deluded naïfs who don’t really mean what they say and do, when of course they only too clearly do as their willingness to kill and be killed for the cause demonstrates.

In effect, much public commentary about ‘radicalisation’ removes human agency from those who seek participation in the jihad because they have ‘unfathomably’ been pumped full of ideological steroids and brainwashed by unscrupulous preachers of hate who groom their prey. The simpler but harsher truth is that they have been attracted by a message of jihadi cool in which western governments have been indirectly responsible for fostering.

While Isil offers jihadi cool messaging, governments merely respond with insipid pieties about cohesion achieved through culturally sensitive and misdirected ‘de-radicalisation’ initiatives that have proved expensive and ineffective.

In this context, it is worth asking, before engaging any more academics and bureaucratic agencies in taxpayer funded programmes, what precisely does the counter-terrorism community understand by ‘radicalism’ and ‘radicalisation’?

An answer to this question may reveal that we in the west have been only too successful in brainwashing ourselves.

Here is the link to the original of this article>>>
Paris attacks: Is ‘radicalisation’ really the problem? – Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11997784/Paris-attacks-Is-radicalisation-really-the-problem.html

What do you think?

ENGLISH SUPPORT FOR RUSSIAN ACTION IN SYRIA GROWS

ENGLISH SUPPORT FOR RUSSIAN ACTION IN SYRIA GROWS


On Friday, the Daily Express carried an article showing that despite the concerted efforts of the British and American political Establishments and mass media, the majority of the English people support the decisive action being taken by Russia’s President Putin and the Russian military in supporting the only viable answer to the Islamist terrorist army of Islamic State or ISIS. Here is a link to the Express article >>>
More than 70% SUPPORT Vladimir Putin’s ISIS airstrikes despite rising Middle East tensions | UK | News | Daily Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/611495/Vladimir-Putin-bombing-campaign-poll-support-syria-middle-east

On Friday I was asked by Russia Today whether I would comment on it and here is a link to their article about it and at the bottom of the article you can play the sound track of their interviews with others >>>
Why does Western public opinion support Russian ops in Syria? — RT Op-Edge
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/318878-us-poll-isis-russia/

Also here is a link to my interview >>> Robin Tilbrook about public opinion on Russia’s campaign in Syria – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM1BoHtN5mE&feature=youtu.be

In my view it is not at all surprising that the common sense minded public in England has not been bamboozled by the efforts of the mass media into thinking that we have got to support some groups of “moderate” Islamists, whatever that might amount to, in fighting President Assad, when it is all too clear that frequently that the so-called moderate Islamists accept the weapons and training that they are given before defecting to ISIS.

The United States has a track record of misjudging this kind of situation. After all in Afghanistan the rise of the Taliban was largely the result of US policy, supported by Islamists within Pakistan, originally with a view to undermining the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. They succeeded in arming and training a huge number of Islamists who then, not surprisingly, proceeded to take-over the country and run it according to fundamentalist Islamic Sharia Law principles. The same cack-handed approach seems to have been attempted in Syria leading to a protracted civil war.

In considering what has happened in the Middle East it would be remiss not to mention the mainly British and American intervention in Iraq, which not only led to the deaths of uncounted tens of thousands of Iraqis, but also the virtual collapse of the Iraqi State.

Having learnt nothing from Iraq, David Cameron and William Hague plunged into an attack on the Libyan Government, led by Colonel Gadaffi, and have left that country in a Hobbsian state of nature of a “war of all against all in which man’s life is nasty, brutish and short”! Both Iraq and Libya are products of a neo-colonialist “liberal interventionist” doctrine developed partly by Tony Blair, over amongst other places Kosovo.

This doctrine is in stark contrast to one of the most fundamental rules of “international law” from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years War, until modern times. It was generally considered to be a clear breach of “international law” for other countries to intervene in the internal affairs of other states. 

Not only is this new doctrine very doubtful as a concept of “international law”, but also it is demonstrably both contrary to Realpolitik and dangerous. The Syrian conflict is merely the latest manifestation of this Blairite dodgy doctrine. A doctrine which is even more dodgy than Blair’s infamous dodgy dossier which he used as a pretext for war in Iraq!

It has to be remembered that the States in the Middle East are the product of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and of the disastrous peace conference of Versailles. The boundaries were drawn principally to enable the colonialist victorious powers to divide up the territory between them. With this agenda in mind, it would not have suited the imperialists to have States which had homogeneous Nation States created with a strong sense of their identity and cultural roots. Instead what imperialists wanted were States where the opportunities for the ancient Roman imperialist doctrine of “divide and rule” could easily be applied.

It was for this reason that Iraq, for example, was created with borders that were drawn by British decision makers at Versailles to break up the Kurds, who are by any usual measure a Nation partly into Iran, partly into Iraq, partly into Syria and partly into Turkey to prevent them from uniting. A mixture then of Sunni Arabs, the Marsh Arabs and part of ancient Persia were then added to the mix to create the new territory of Iraq, which British imperialists hoped could never be expected to unite against them.

Even so it should be remembered that the British imperialists did find it impossible to maintain control of Iraq and, despite the best efforts of the young “Bomber Harris” to bomb opposing populations into submission, the British Empire withdrew from Iraq setting up what they hoped would be a puppet State. In fact of course Iraq, like most of the States set up in this way, has inevitably wound up with a series of dictators as willingness to use violent oppression is probably the only effective way of maintaining control of a disunited, antagonistic and feuding population.

Syria is of course another one of those States where the borders were drawn up arbitrarily to include different populations. In the case of Syria it was in the interests of French imperialism and again a series of dictators following withdrawal of France has been the only effective way of keeping that State together. It is in this context that the American and to some extent the British policy of supporting groups of Islamist rebels against the current Government of Syria has to be considered. I do not think it is at all surprising that this ill-thought out policy has resulted in catastrophe.

If the real objective is to get rid of ISIS the only sensible answer is the policy that President Putin and the Russian Government are now pursuing which is the open and full throttle support of the Government of Syria. The fact that so much time and effort and money has been spent by the Obama administration and his other Western allies on other tactics (including the drone terrorist tactic of assassinating individual opponents), suggests that either they must be utterly incompetent or they have another hidden and perhaps more sinister agenda; or that they have been misled by their alliance with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, both of which countries have been sponsors of Sunni Islamist terrorism in Syria.

What do you think?

Islamist threat rises to DEFCON 1?

Islamist threat rises to DEFCON 1?


The awareness of the threat from battle-hardened and well-armed Islamists has just leaped into focus, even for our most self-righteous and complacent Leftist media figures!

The Charlie Hebdo assassins were after people exactly like them – Leftist journalists.

As if to rub the lesson home, MI5 has confirmed publically that such an attack here in England is only a matter of time.

R.T. invited me on yesterday for a TV interview about the English Democrats’ response to the Paris assassinations. 

Here is a link to my interview>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b3qyQKA0A4&feature=youtu.be

What do you think?

BBC falls ‘hook, line and sinker’ for Islamist fishy tale!

BBC falls ‘hook, line and sinker’ for Islamist fishy tale!

Having heard the BBC Radio 4 news coverage on Friday, 27th December which repeatedly claims that there has been an alleged rise in “hate crime” against Muslims.  I have just made this complaint to the BBC:-

Dear BBC

I wonder why the Radio 4 News (on Friday, 27th December) was uncritically reporting the alleged rise in “Hate Crime” against Muslims claimed yet again by (the) discredited source (“Tell Mama” and its Director, Mr Fiyaz Mujhal?). Do your researchers do ANY research or do they just slavishly follow the Leftist/Islamist Mehdi Hasan on Huffington Post?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook,
Chairman,
The English Democrats

If you feel like complaining too:-
Post your complaint to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington, DL3 0UR; or Telephone the BBC to complain on 03700 100 222; or
Email the BBC via their complaint form using this link>>>BBC – Complaints – Complain Online. http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/
Please do mention the English Democrats!

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and the 2012 referendum; We won the referendum which triggered a referendum to give Salford City an Elected Mayor; In 2012 we saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; In the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK)

SPECIAL RIGHTS for Muslims?

I have sometimes been asked if Muslims have actually asked for special legal treatment.  The Article below is an example of an influential Muslim doing so but it is quite subtle.
 
The article is from the “Huffington Post” an online news agency well known in America for its Left/Liberal bias but in the ‘UK’ its political editor is the BBC’s favourite Leftist/Islamist, Mehdi Hasan, who seems here to be giving his views on us infidels.  Click here >>> Mehdi Hasan – Non Muslims live like animals – YouTube and here he is talking about the Shiite Islamic equivalent of Judas in which he seems to demonise gays >>> ?MehdiHasanYazidHomoKaffir – YouTube.  If the “hate crime” law was equally applied I would have expected Mr Hasan to have been at least considered for prosecution over these comments, wouldn’t you?

It should therefore not be surprising that this Leftist online news outlet edited by an Islamist is vocal in its support of the ‘UK’s’ “Islamic Community”(sic!).

As journalists often do, Mehdi weaves into his story a source that he approves of  “Tell Mama” but which has been exposed as being just as unreliable a source as he is himself! For revelations about “Tell Mama” and its leader who is quoted so approvingly by Mehdi Hassan, click here >>>The truth about the ‘wave of attacks on Muslims’ after Woolwich murder – Telegraph

The thrust of Mehdi’s article is that “Hate Crime” against Muslims should be punished with especially severe criminal sanctions.

Actually such “hate crime” already is treated more severely than anyone applying ordinary common sense, or indeed ordinary legal principles, would think appropriate if, but only if, it is committed by English people against any other ethnic minority group or individual.  Also consider the BBC’s reaction to criticism over a more significant, deliberate and calculated blasphemy against Jesus Christ >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7128552.stm.

It should also be borne in mind that “hate crime” can often mean merely a rude remark rather than any sort of violent attack.

In my view the old playground adage of “sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me!” should be the start point for any contemplated prosecution (or conviction) for, often trivial, rudeness.

However, if that rudeness spills over into physical aggression or threats of violence, then of course I would support punishment but focussed only on what has actually happened not as a result of a sort of witch trial, otherwise it is the State itself which becomes the instrument of victimisation!  (No doubt to the pleasure of people like Mehdi Hasan)!

What do you think? (Note the startling, but no doubt deliberate, confusion of a building with people and the extent of the group allegedly “targeted” in “When you target a mosque, you are targeting the whole community.”)

Here is the “Huffington Post” Article:-

Hate Crimes Against Muslims Soar After Woolwich Murder Of Lee Rigby

Hate crimes against Muslims have soared in 2013, new figures have shown. Hundreds of anti-Muslim offences have been carried out across the country in 2013, with Britain’s biggest force, the Metropolitan police, recording 500 Islamophobic crimes alone.

Many forces reported a surge in the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes following the murder of soldier Lee Rigby by two Islamic extremists in Woolwich, south-east London. And it is feared the figures could be much higher after nearly half of the 43 forces in England and Wales did not reveal how many hate crimes had targeted Muslims – with some forces admitting they do not always record the faith of a religious hate crime victim.

Freedom of Information requests were sent by the Press Association to every police force in England and Wales. Of the 43 forces, 24 provided figures on the number of anti-Muslim crimes and incidents recorded. Tell Mama, a group which monitors anti-Muslim incidents, said it had dealt with some 840 cases since April – with the number expected to rise to more than 1,000 by the end of March.

This compared with 582 anti-Muslim cases it dealt with from March 2012 to March 2013. Fiyaz Mujhal, director of Faith Matters, which runs the Tell Mama project, said reaction to the murder of Fusilier Rigby had caused the number of Islamophobic crimes to “significantly jump”. He added: “The far right groups, particularly the EDL (English Defence League) perniciously use the internet and social media to promote vast amounts of online hate.”

Mujhal said tougher sentencing was needed to tackle Islamophobic crime and branded guidelines by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to monitor social media as “not fit for purpose”. He said: “They raised the bar of prosecution significantly. Now unless there is a direct threat to somebody on Twitter or Facebook, the CPS will not prosecute. The CPS is just plainly out of sync with reality.

“We also need more robust sentencing. In one case, a pig’s head was left outside a mosque and the perpetrator came away with a community sentence. When you target a mosque, you are targeting the whole community.”

Tell Mama has called for police forces to introduce a system which improves monitoring of Islamophobic crimes, after some forces admitted officers do not always record the faith of a religious hate crime victim.
“There are three problems we come across,” Mujhal said. “Firstly, there is a lack of understanding of the language of Islamophobia thrown at victims in any incidents. Secondly, there is very little training on how to ask relevant questions to pull out anti-Muslim cases. Thirdly, recording processes are not in line with each other. One force will allow an officer to flag an incident as anti-Muslim, another force will flag it as religious hate crime. There is no uniformity. There must be guidelines for all forces so we can know the level of the problem.”

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has previously said 71 incidents were reported to its national community tension team (NCTT) over five days after Fusilier Rigby was murdered on May 22. Superintendent Paul Giannasi, Acpo’s spokesman on hate crime, said: “The police service is committed to reducing the harm caused by hate crime and it is vital that we encourage more victims who suffer crimes to report them to the police or through third party reporting facilities such as Tell Mama.

“Acpo has played a key role in improving reporting mechanisms, including through the development of our True Vision website (www.report-it.org.uk). This provides information to victims and allows people to report online. We would obviously want overall crime levels to reduce and to see fewer victims, but we welcome increases in reported hate crime, as long as they are a sign of increased confidence of victims to report. We are working with local police forces, to help improve the way we respond to hate crime and to provide robust and transparent hate crime data.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “These are despicable crimes that devastate lives and communities. The courts already hand out tougher punishments where race or religion are found to be aggravating factors. The number of people receiving a custodial sentence for these appalling crimes is higher than ever before.”

A CPS spokeswoman said: “Online communication can be offensive, shocking or in bad taste. However, as set out in CPS guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media, content has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. In order to preserve the right to free speech the threshold for prosecution must be high and only communications that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false are prohibited by the legislation.”

(Here is the link to the original article >>>Hate Crimes Against Muslims Soar After Woolwich Murder Of Lee Rigby)