Main Edition
US
FR
August 13, 2024 - 10:00am
The phrase “two-tier” has come to dominate coverage on law and order in modern Britain, usually by those who believe that ethnic and religious minorities tend to be the beneficiaries of preferential treatment when it comes to policing (especially of protests which descend into violent disorder).
There is a point to be made, with West Midlands Police seemingly bowing to the “advice” of unaccountable so-called “community leaders” when deciding on the style of policing in inner-city Birmingham. The likes of Reform UK leader Nigel Farage have argued that this is also reflected in the criminal justice system’s punishment of those involved in public disorder.
But the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) has taken a rather different position, saying that extreme Right-wing violence “is often classified as mere thuggery” by politicians, prosecutors, and the security services. Equivalent acts by Islamist extremists would “swiftly be labelled as terrorism”, argues the think-tank.
RUSI has a point. While Keir Starmer has frequently used the term “far-Right” and has repeatedly referred to those involved in the disorder as “thugs”, he has gone to lengths to downplay the potential ideological motivations behind the riots (for fear of appearing to suggest they are in some way justified). But the former chief of counter-terrorism policing, Neil Basu, has said that some of the violence during the riots had “crossed the line into terrorism”.
The heart of the legal definition of terrorism (in Section 1 of the 2000 Terrorism Act) states that the use or threat of violence (or damage to property) must be based on “the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause”. Other specific actions include “creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public”. It is not unreasonable to suggest that deliberately setting hotels on fire — as was the case in Rotherham and Tamworth — because they reportedly host Channel migrants, could be an act of anti-migrant terrorism.
Attacking minority places of worship is a hallmark of far-Right terror activity — a ferocious targeted assault on a mosque as worshippers fear for their lives inside is endangering the health and safety of a specific section of the local community, as was the case in the Southport riots. While wanting to be seen as adopting a ruthless law-and-order approach to the disorder, Starmer runs the risk of trivialising these potential acts of terrorism as mindless racist thuggery.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe core thing is for them to acknowledge the role that massive levels of immigration have played – and that the public have been repeatedly ignored in their wishes for it to be reduced.
Again, the government are probably trying to tiptoe their way around this for fear of seeming like they are saying that the protests/riots were justified.
Sorry, but they aren’t going to get out of this without taking the risk of some kind of mea culpa.
By acknowledging the big-sore-thumb-sticking-out issue – far from inflaming tensions – it might just work the other way by letting people know “we get it, we are listening, we know we’ve messed up”. That is the first step on the way to regaining trust.
If rioters and malignant fringe elements ride on a wave of discontent, then the best thing to do is to make that wave break.
But this will take courage and honesty – two qualities I’ve long since stopped attributing to Britain’s ruling class.
I was going to post something similar, but you expressed it so much better than I would have done.
Fat chance of that. That would mean acknowledging there is some problem with inviting millions of people who do not share “our” ways or loyalty into the country. In turn, this undermines the diversity is our strength mantra and also acknowledges that “we” are a group with a boundary.
These ideas are anathema to much of the left and doubtless rather uncomfortable for Starmer himself.
Can’t see it happening, right though you may be.
Well then, Starmer will just have to gear up for 5 very bumpy years. And understand that without taking this kind of risk, ploughing forward pig-headedly and suppressing dissent without addressing the causes of the unrest head on, then he will only ever be the PM with a huge majority but negligible authority. Which is historic in its own way, I suppose.
He will not go down in history as a leader. Because leaders listen and they take risks. Starmer won’t even stop to talk to the people in Southport.
Starmer has no desire to be a leader. He is happiest taking the knee and following orders . He gave the game away in all those interviews when he was unable to say what a woman is because that hadn’t, until then, been part of his training. He’s a weak and vacillating man who has become Prime Minister entirely by accident.
No you are fundamentally wrong.
Legal Immigration has played a massive role in ensuring public services and a range of other industries are not in an even worse state. You want to be credible and not perceived as having a racial reflex, let’s be hearing this said a bit more too. And if you feel we should have invested in ways that reduce our reliance (for example actually paying to train more nurses of our own etc) then say it out front rather than just the ‘mass migration’ moniker you want to hang round some necks.
Illegal migration is undoubtedly a big problem, although the numbers only a small proportion of the legal. The vast majority of these poor souls can’t stay and will have to go back, but we can react with more empathy recognising how lucky we are compared to them. They have been misled and ripped off by criminals and almost all fleeing Countries we wouldn’t want to spend 5mins in..
To convey ‘we get it’ in the way you state will categorically make language that dehumanises ok and that leads in due course inexorably to some idiot firebombing a hotel.
If “You want to be credible and not perceived as having a racial reflex”.
Then you had better stop projecting JW
‘Legal Immigration has played a massive role in ensuring public services and a range of other industries are not in an even worse state. ‘
Who says legal immigration should be banned?
Nobody.
“The vast majority of these poor souls can’t stay and will have to go back”. You’ve gotta be kidding. One of the reasons the UK is such a popular destination for so-called “irregular” migration is that so few are deported.
Only since Brexit shredded the agreements which made it possible to do so. Disapproval of this fact doesn’t take it away, sadly.
Those agreements, the Dublin Regulations, don’t even work in the EU. It’s dead law. So Brexit doesn’t make any difference in this respect. Legally yes, but on the ground no.
This kind of generalisation about people who object to mass – even uncontrolled – immigration drives the tension. It’s absolutely counterproductive and divisive.
I think that the difference between you and me is that I basically trust people to understand that a certain level of inwards migration is fine and welcome. I have enough faith in the British to open their arms and their minds to people who come in and want to contribute, as long as it’s done in a controlled, needs-oriented way and which respects their identity, culture and values. It isn’t racist to demand of newcomers that they integrate and show respect for their host country.
This assumption straight off the bat of racism or racial reflex or whatever you call it when people say “we don’t like this level of immigration” is fantastically negative, insulting and merely serves to further alienate a people who are – generally speaking – so much more tolerant than those in other countries (including the one where I live).
Needless to say, the mea culpa needs to be done carefully – the changes seen in the last 20 years aren’t being reversed and you don’t want to open up even the slightest avenue to that conversation. So you need to articulate a vision for the future where everyone can see their place in it and can see a way forward to once again feeling like they belong.
That’s an approach which could lead all to a better place.
Yes! But you got two down votes and I do wonder the minds of those who would disagree.
Why were our industries and services allowed to deteriorate so far that it was necessary to import workers to restore them? Unless there was full employment, governments should have been encouraging and enabling the existing population to train for our needs. Instead, immigration was used as an easy way out. Understanding and sympathy for asylum seekers is always commendable, but countries also have to live within their means, and make the best use of their resources, human and natural.
How on earth did we ever manage to support public services without mass immigration before WWII ?
How is it that South Korea has better infrastructure and public services than the UK and almost no immigration ?
This “we can’t have public services without immigration” is a canard.
Cart and horse – if free healthcare and swift availabilty of free or heavily subsidised housing was not accessible to migrants then the UK would not see mass immigration. Citizenship and stable employment would come into play rather than simple family and community ties.
“Countries we wouldn’t want to spend 5mins in.”
An excessive recalcitrance of immigrants to adopt values that are at least compatible with what makes western countries attractive will, with sufficient levels of migration, turn Europe and the UK into countries in which you also would no longer wish to spend 5 minutes.
Well said but I fear that any government will be challenged to initiate the dismantling of the failed multicultural experiment. For one thing it would mean withdrawing favoured status for victim groups and launching a complete re-boot of a legal system that hesitates or outright refuses, to enforce and uphold the law without first making their own subjective political assessment of the repercussions. A very daunting task.
Much easier to promote the “far-Right” as an existential threat.
Much easier, yes; but in doing so, they will be turned into an existential threat because the underlying boil will not only not be lanced but will swell until it threatens the whole fabric of the country.
Katherine is right (or should i say, correct!) in that a public acknowledgement that the tide of immigration needs to be stemmed and then rolled back where possible – and then to be seen to be acting upon it – is the only way forward.
I’ve seen small hints that this might be possible. Dame Margaret Hodge (a former Labour government minister) has written about “being too frightened to talk about immigration”. Sometimes, this is a sign that the government is using friendly outside sources to test the water. I just think Starmer hasn’t got the guts to tackle it. Who knows where we’ll be with this issue in twelve months time?
Dame Margaret Hodge (a former Labour government minister) has written about “being too frightened to talk about immigration”.
She went on to say that the government should be celebrating it and explaining why it’s such a boon not to be able to get healthcare or decent housing.
No . Immigration policy is one thing, and needs to be carefully judged. Attacking others here or talking about ‘ rolling back ‘ immigration is a fundamental threat to the Common Law as well as a conspiracy to deprive others of their security and rights. Such talk can easily cross the boundary to become criminal.
Are you disagreeing with my comment? If so, please clarify further, since you seem to have misinterpreted something with your comment.
If people have been granted citizenship, they have every right to be here. What needs to be addressed is who should be granted citizenship (having migrated to the UK) and why; of those who don’t meet the agreed criteria, efforts should be seen to be made to repatriate them to their country of origin; i.e. “rolling back”.
Genuine seekers of asylum, fleeing persecution, are very welcome in the UK and always have been. Go parade your “Common Law” somewhere else; i understand it perfectly well. Do you?
Citizenship is not the end of the matter, whatever policies determine naturalisation. People are not entitled to organise actions threatening others in the UK, whether citizens or not. As I expect you know.
Show me where i’ve made the case that actions should be organised to threaten others?
You’re making a fool of yourself here by arguing with something that isn’t, and never has been, part of my thought process.
I agree that Katherine is correct. My point is we are not dealing with leaders – as defined by those that at least attempt to make tough decisions or acknowledge policy failures. We are dealing with ideologues – “The Anointed” as expertly defined by Thomas Sowell. The first step to repairing the damage done by the multicultural experiment would be to admit that it was a mistake which I don’t feel is likely to happen soon. Note: IMO, Immigration is necessary and welcome growth; Multiculturalism is splintering accommodation.
“For the anointed, it is desperately important to win, not simply because they believe that one policy or set of beliefs and values is better for society, but because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of the anointed on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with campus speech codes and “political correctness” being prime examples of a spreading pattern of taboos. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions—the national memory—as well.”
Thomas Sowell
I agree. I think too many other aspects of their suite of stances, or policies, are propped up by multiculturalism. I think it’s a big part of the foundation. So, it’d be like ‘well if that goes, that will have to go too…’ and there’s too many other things that would suddenly look like they were swinging in the breeze. And, whether we like it or not, Labour do a lot more thinking about consistency of their offer, than say, the Tories do.
Britain has been multi ethnic and multi cultural for thousands of years. It’s all about how we do that. If anyone poses an existential threat to law, civil order and mutual respect then they have to expect to be dealt with accordingly. If it’s tantamount to terrorism it should be treated as such. You just can’t have people going around asserting that they are the only real people with real rights and entitlements. Stopping such ‘free’ speech is protecting the civil liberties of all .
You confound too many different things together under ‘immigration’ there. And then assert without justification that there’s something there that could justify attacks on others and the police as ‘ protests’ . Get real. Such attacks are a fundamental threat to the security of all and are being treated as such.
Britain has been multi ethnic and multi cultural for thousands of years. The Empire extended the circle. There have been inter ethnic and inter cultural tensions from time to time. The way in which they are dealt with plays an important part in determining how viable our society is for anyone. Those who want to dispose of equality before the law should recognise that can’t lead anywhere better and that they will be strongly opposed accordingly.
Agree. But it is already plain that the tightly controlled Election image of a Say Nothing Treading Lightly boring Managerial ‘Union Jacked Labour’ was incredibly deceptive. These first weeks have seen these cold eyed ex Corbynites creep out of their 14 year shadowland and proceed to vomit out non stop hardcore progressive ideological policy as if Leninists drunk on new power. Shrill & gleeful class envy and hatred of free enterprise has seen attacks on private education, Non Doms, our North Sea Oil industry, greedy pensioners and all SMEs with Rayners crude 1970s Union rights. Statism is a religion so cash is rained down up the thuggish young politco doctors and no doubt on the Go Slow GPs suffering on 150k on a 3 day week. Tonight – incredibly – the armed forces, promised hi tech and a 2.5% some day by a shifty Keir, are set to be made sub Napoleonic with wooden swords and a few mangy horses after punitive cuts. Levelling up railway connections in the North – gone. Money for science and super computers – gone. Any form of detterent against criminal border violations and another 50000 illegals – gone. Meanwhile 12bn gas to be splashed on climate bungs to the Third World. And then we get to the horror tsunami of Southport, the awful criminality and riots, the super heavy judicial response (will we see the same effective public shaming and heavy sentencing tactics deployed to crush knife gangs one wonders?) and an extraordinary grand finale – the Met’s de facto embrace of Vigilante/Community policing. What a nightmare. This is an ideological identitarian/Command Socialist party waging war against the nation state, free enterprise capitalism, the wrong sort of people and all old values that do not conform to its racial class and green credos. The idea that they will ever acknowledge their TT response to crime and punishment or the socio economic impact of mass 8+ million uncontrolled migration is for the birds. We must set a 5 Year Doomsday Clock right now. The EU/Blairite Revolution and new State – abetted by the Quisling Fake Tories but now allied again to a Rainbow government – is in fast systemic decline. Ten years of their mania would finish us and enterprise off. Start the clock now. 2030 is do or die.
We have a government elected by 20% of voters and a political system that, thanks to demographic anomalies, overwhelmingly represents the interests of home counties property owners.
The result of this as that poor communities bear all the costs of the open borders policies whilst the metropolitan middle class takes all the profit.
The problem isn’t ‘far right terrorism’, it’s lack of representation.
Can you point to the legislation that states we currently have an Open border policy, or any point since 45 when we’ve had that?
Legal migrants are given Visas after a process of requesting/approving. They don’t just walk in.
Illegals are illegal and most will have to be returned once we finally get the processing sorting.
Poor communities are bearing the pain of 14yrs Tory misrule, 40yrs of neoliberalism bias, and now the smokescreen of it’s all because of migrants that let’s off the real drivers of growing inequality.
Now you really are taking the pi$$ aren’t you?
Now you really are taking the pi$$ aren’t you?
No, he really believes everything the BBC or Guardian tells him.
You seem very confused by the relationship between legislation and policy.
We have an open border right now. Haven’t you noticed?
Illegals are illegal and most will have to be returned once we finally get the processing sorting
No, there’ll be an amnesty for those already here and then the process will be legalised so that anyone can come in on a cross channel ferry and stay – provided they stay in poor communities and don’t go anywhere near where you live except to serve you coffee, wash your car or mow the lawn.
Watch and learn.
I’m a “Home Counties property owner” and I can assure you that neither I or anyone I know either voted for or supports the policies of this government.
Do not conflate us with the “Metrocentric” , “Progressive”, “Urban”, self styled “Elites.” who live in the likes of Islington or Putney (or feel the need to ape the views of those who do to give themselves some air of inclusion into a grouping where they can flaunt the appropriate virtue signals at social events.
I can assure you that the majority of us hold them with exactly the same degree of contempt as those who live in the “Red Wall” constituencies do.
‘ Other specific actions include “creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public”. ‘
You mean murdering 3 children of a different race to you and stabbing many more, meets the definition of terrorism?
Look, the problem here is ascribing motivation and political effect as opposed to just prosecuting the crime. If someone burns down a hotel, does it really matter whether they are a sadist or a terrorist? It should carry the same punishment. The injustice is injected when you start calling one type of crime a “hate crime” but not another. That’s just Orwellian.
Are large groups of angry people that are, unintentionally, forming into mobs and becoming susceptible to mob behaviour, really terrorists?
I was under the impression that terrorists are very very intentional about their actions due to them spending time planning out their actions!
what we are seeing is civil unrest not terrorism!
Debatable. What was looking to firebomb a hotel full of people but an attempt to terrorise them?
Who wipped them up and sent the social media messages about where to meet?
Your govt, irrespective of party, is changing the culture and fabric of the country right before your eyes in real time and you choose to remain blissfully ignorant of that. Why?
Why? Because the process makes him richer every year without requiring that he do anything at all to merit it.
While the violence is abhorrent, it waa spantaneous and disorganised ( thank god). Terrorists dont communicate and organise on social media. Mob violence is horrible though and should be prosecuted. But conflating it with terrorism is actually very dangerous because it limits our ability to describe organised, subsersive behaviour.
The irony of course is that eventually, after the government has been stigmatising this discontent as ‘racist’ and ‘terrorist’ for a few years and doing nothing at all to respond to it, a leadership will emerge that understands that attacking asylum seeker’s hostels and mosques in Southport or Rochdale is counterproductive when the real enemy is in Putney, Barnes, Chiswick, Hampstead, Highgate, Islington, North Oxford etc. Then there really will be terrorism. Some people just have to learn the hard way..
People can be terrorised without the perpetrators being terrorists. Look at neighbourly disputes!
Or indeed an extremely large, highly aggressive group of people, composed predominately of immigrants of one ethnic and religious background, setting out to threaten and intimidate a small, non aggressive, specific ethnic group of a different religion.
Conspiracy to deprive others of their liberty is terrorism. Full stop.
Not it is not.
Kidnapping, for example, is not prosecuted as “terrorism”.
Our government and courts deprive people of their liberty on a daily basis, either by imprisoning them or sectioning them. Either for their benefit or that of society. All these rioters who are being charged and sentenced are being deprived of their liberty!
Totally agree as per my previous reply to your earlier post.
Hmmmm. Doubtless there is an ideology at play here for at least some of the rioters. But is it enough for there to be racist thoughts in the air for it to be terrorism? Surely terrorism requires not just a political ideology associated with the action, but someone or some group seeking to advance the ideology.
Where is the someone here? I don’t see any coordinating group or even a coordinating idea. So far right thuggery is accurate for some of the rioters but I don’t see the terrorism aspect.
Reasonable to ask the question. But any question asked by Basu deserves scepticism, and it’s no different in this case.
Im sorry but rioting is rioting and terrorism is terrorism. There is a long and interesting history of rioting in England and it does serve as some kind of communicative purpose. Its essentially a desparate and disorganised response to a gross injustice and usually does not involve injuies to persons but to property.
Terrorism is organised groups who act deliberately and strategically to commit ( or threaten ) to commit atrocities in service of a political goal.
Terrorism – a dozen people terminate the existence of hundreds of blameless victims. Rioting – hundreds of people terminate the existence of a dozen blameless wheelie bins.
Sorry but I think many of these comments are simplistic. Surely the ‘rioters’ were a diverse group of people with a variety of motives, like people fed up and angry with the political situation, kids joining in for the exhilaration of it, and small groups of organised people who were behaving in more extreme ways which might be regarded as terrorism.
Just the same with immigration and influx of people, much of which was driven by government was totally exacerbated when small communities like Boston were swamped by immigrants to carry out work that few residents wanted to do but no provision was made by national or local government to deal with the overwhelming pressure this put on the community and community services. No wonder citizens are fed up when government just pretends to deal with things while worsening them.
You said it yourself Keith, a diverse group of prople with a variety of motives” . terrorism is organised, subsersive behaviour. We shouldnt allow language to be degraded like this. Orwell had a great essay on just this kind of thing
Facile. What about conspiracy to create disorder targeted on others? Lock up the conspirators and the armchair warriors.
You seriously want to lock people up for alleged “thought crimes” in their own homes (your “armchair warriors”) ?
Our pet trolls (Talia the Trans and Champagne Socialist as prime examples) might need to be somewhat more circumspect in their postings which would remove the oft needed light relief in some of the more heavy going comments sections.
So you wish to deprive them of their liberty? By your own words, that would make you a terrorist!
Such as Extinction Rebellion, JSO, Hunt Sabateurs and other assorted “Animal Rights” and “Climate Crisis Eco nuts” ?
Definitely.
The definition of terrorism needs to be revisited. A riot, where buildings and vehicles are set on fire, is one thing. Deliberately setting out to kill, by planting a bomb in a public place, is quite another.
Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to look at the start of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. At what point was the word terrorism first used?
So “thugs” get harsher and swifter punishment than “terrorists”? Does it matter what labels are stuck on whichever group? Or is this another straw man to divert discussion away from the real causes of the unrest?
Of course, labels matter. They are part of the materials from which straw men are built.
I note, with some interest, that the BBC have been very quick out of the door when giving details about the person who stabbed an eleven year old girl in London.
Maybe, just maybe, they have woken up to the concept of openness and honesty. I’m not holding my breath though.
But no-one is talking about the motives of the young man who butchered those three little girls. I wonder why that is.
I can understand why people don’t wish to go there if they all suspect the same as myself, which my guess is what many of rioters thought as well. Apart from online pile on and general suspicion of your own motives, in the current climate it could instigate a knock on the door from Mr Plod.
England’s mobile vulgus or mob has a long history. In the 18th century, despite the political franchise being heavily restricted, rulers nonetheless had to take account of the feelings of the London Mob which would riot if their Betters went too far against their wishes.The extension of the franchise in the 19th century made The Mob redundant.
In recent years we find ourselves back in a similarly undemocratic position where the public has no electoral mechanism to reduce and restrict immigration despite it being an overwhelmingly popular policy. A vote for the Conservatives, to leave the EU, for Boris Johnson’s “clean Brexit” etc just leads to increased numbers. A vote for Labour will change nothing (except for some increased name calling and some dreary stuff about trying to control online rumours).
And so The Mob returns. The only (and easy) way out of this position is through democratic means, viz. for the government to introduce a cap on immigrant numbers and to deport or detain indefinitely all illegal immigrants. Police action and propaganda will have zero impact on the opinions of the general public.
The English are a tolerant people who like to mind their own business but when pushed too far, they are dangerous.
Your last sentence is one I have pushed for years. There is a reason we ruled half the world for so long.
His government, and the milieu he comes from, have no offer to that group, so he more or less has to downplay it. Or there would be uncomfortable questions about why there is no offer. Especially from something called a ‘labour’ party. The risk is of course that his tribe will become increasingly blind to the growth of that group. Eventually, there’ll be some kind of a nasty surprise.
I wonder if the BLM riots in America will be labelled terrorism? Or any display of anger by the public. Consciously or not the government is playing around with definitions. Under these terms anything can be called terrorism, not wearing covid masks or even refusing a vaccine, in fact anything that pushes back at governments.
Starmer is doing what tools and puppets do – deflecting from the results of their own policies to blame someone else. He’s learned that calling anything “far-right” is an effective strategy among the mindless hordes who see half the population as worthless human beings.
He and others have no interest in engaging “with legitimate concerns over perceived two-tier governance” because what they’re doing serves their needs – political opponents are painted as cranks and racists, the importation of people hostile to British life continues, and leftists can pat themselves on the back about its compassion until the monster it created turns on them.
That scene – and it will happen – will be reminiscent of the progressive Jews in America who were shocked when pro-Hamas protesters turned on them. It was all well and good when the targets were white people, straights, men, and Christians. But that’s the thing with these Frankenstein creations.
Far right just means white people.
If the “terrorist” label is adopted in the context of the riots we’ve just seen, then the progressive historians will have to re-write the history books once again.
Boudicca becomes a terrorist.
The Peasant’s Revolt becomes terrorism.
Cromwell becomes a terrorist.
Are the likes of Neil Basu really so damned stupid as to not understand this?
(Answers can be confined to one three-letter word.)
As would quite possibly the Jarrow marchers and CND along with those who got together at Peters Field.
The problem is that the English “community leaders” are the very government officials who despise and fear them.
Only when you native English drop your imported American “equality of all peoples” mindset and promote leaders who advocate for you as White English will you have a chance to stem the minority tide and end the two-tier justice system you’ve permitted to be created in your name.
Looks like the ‘two tier’ stuff is going to rebound against those who’ve been playing fast and loose with it. Sensitive policing appropriate to different situations is one thing. Conspiracy to threaten the security of others is another, irrespective of who those others might be. Reformies, racists and so called ‘ far right’ agitators are not actually advocating equality of all before the law, so hypocrisy is rhere from the beginning. You can’t then build conspiracy on that and not expect it to be called out and dealt with.
Do you mean to say that: “Diversity isn’t our strength?” Who’ve thought it? By importing millions of Muslims into a (nominally) Christian nation, this sort of flaring tensions and suchlike could not have been predicted, could it?
The next thing he’ll call them domestic terrorists as everything Labour does comes out of the Biden/Obama playbook. In fact, his MPs are already called for anti-terror legislation to be extended to protestor-rioters, while other Labour people warn that this may also encompass their Islamist and student client voters.
Basu is a clear ‘two-tiered’ – his comments on BLM terrorist activities prove it. So, this article is an act of terrorism. Is the author a terrorist, therefore.
Utter nonsense.
The people currently being sentenced for rioting do not appear to have much of an ideological thought in their heads.
And terrorists. Really?!
If we look at the body count of deaths from extremist violence, Islamist vs far right, it’s pretty clear where the threat comes from.
The far right as a political force is a myth. It’s been put up as a counter balance to Islamism. In effect, if we rightly condemn Islamists we must also have fascists to condemn too.
In short, Fascists are rare. Not quite unicorn level rare but not far off.