Share |

Wednesday 29 February 2012

'Make Bradford British', Channel 4

Rather than provide a ‘documentary’ with the above title, it would be far more interesting to see a television investigation into who unmade British Bradford and why. As can be seen from the preview below, there is a certain agenda at play on Channel 4’s part. However, for a more realistic evaluation of relations between the original inhabitants of Bradford and those who have come amongst them, perhaps the pupils at St Bede’s School should be permitted to have their say without prompting to say the “right” thing from staff, following the unpleasant episode that unfolded there last year? A review will be posted here tomorrow evening.

Monday 27 February 2012

Review: ‘Proud and Prejudiced’, Channel 4 Dispatches

The publicity in advance of this documentary revealed that the makers of this programme had set out with the intent of portraying Sayful Islam’s Islamists and Tommy Robinson’s EDL as morally equivalent “extremists”, who both should be condemned for their “intolerance”. In this narrative expectation, we were not to be disappointed, although of course it was disingenuous of the Dispatches editorial team to portray the EDL as a “far-right threat” to be feared as much as England’s burgeoning Islamist movement. In the opinion of the author, the EDL represent a genuine grassroots working-class movement that has arisen to fill the vacuum created by mainstream politics’ unwillingness to address the real concerns that they articulate, albeit in a working-class idiom not as polished as that of the professional political class. In its treatment of the EDL, the Dispatches team on this occasion thus fell into the typical inverted snobbery characteristic of the mainstream media, treating EDL supporters contemptuously simply because of the manner of their speech. That said, this programme was in an altogether different class to Stacey Dooley’s ‘My Hometown Fanatics’ which covered much of the same ground in a more superficial manner last week.

Robinson (real name Stephen Lennon) may have commented at the latest EDL demo in Hyde on Saturday that the title of the programme could be interpreted as representing his “pride” and Sayful Islam’s “prejudice”, but Channel 4 would not concur, for “a plague on both your houses!” was its effective message, echoing the standard line now peddled by the anti-democratic leftist pressure group ‘Hope Not Hate’.

The documentary opened with Robinson driving through Luton town centre, noting how he used to walk through the area as a child, but could no longer do so for fear of being beaten up. Soon enough, Sayful Islam was spotted, and within a few moments he had strolled over to Robinson’s car for an ill-tempered verbal exchange which ended with Islam hitting Robinson in the face. Islam called Robinson “racist”, to which the latter retorted, “What race is Islam?”

Luton, intoned the narrator, has a population of circa 200,000, 15% of which is Muslim – five times the national average. Having set the demographic context the documentary moved on to the formation of the EDL in 2009 in response to a Muslim protest against a homecoming parade of the Royal Anglian Regiment in the March of that year. Throughout, the documentary tended to intercut interviews with Sayful Islam, formerly of ‘Muslims Against Crusades’ (now banned), and Tommy Robinson, giving their contrasting perspectives. However, Robinson tended to enjoy more of the limelight throughout.

Islam has five children and studied accountancy at local university, and worked for a time as a tax inspector: 
“We wanna shake the people and wake them up from their slumber. . . . The real heroes are people who have no homes, who have been raped, who have been violated.” 
And when we awake from our slumbers, what would he like to offer us? An Islamic state. In that case, please do not disturb my sleep.

He grew up in Bury Park and became a disciple of Omar Bakri, founder of the banned group Al-Muhajiroun. Sayful’s followers are banned from most local mosques. One of the fertiliser bomb plotters and the Stockholm suicide bomber came from Luton. He, like others of his ilk, claims that Shariah Law will deal with the problems of contemporary society, preventing drug problems, prostitution and promotion of homosexuality. He sees a society “full of sexual deviancy and every sin.”

Lennon too is married and has three children. The narrator stated that he had served time for assaulting an off-duty policeman during a domestic dispute, but provided no explanation as to what had happened. Why is he alarmed about Islamisation? “If this is happening now when 3% of the country’s population is Muslim, God help us if it gets to 20%!” In twenty years time, he fears that such an eventuality could unfold. As for Muslims being offended, he retorted “I’m offended when I see a woman in a burqa. . . . We’re offended on a daily basis.”

Returning to the genesis of the EDL, it was Muslim barracking of the Royal Anglian Regiment together with Muslims spitting in a soldier’s mother’s face that generated the anger that precipitated its formation. Robinson managed to gather together 200 people, mostly Luton football fans, to mount a protest calling for a ban on Islam’s group, with Robinson spending £400 getting a cameraman to film the protest. This resulted in him receiving a banning order from the town centre and an ensuing “summer of tension”. Two hooded men attacked a local mosque with firebombs. An imam – billed as a “moderate” -  opposed Sayful Islam, and claims that had Robinson stuck to attacking “Muslim extremism” he would not have a problem with that, but in his opinion he had now gone well beyond this and started attacking Islam as a religion. 

The EDL claims 100,000 supporters, and dozens of demos have been held since its inception. However, although the narrator claimed that many had turned violent, he did not explain the nature of the violence or indeed point out that on the majority of occasions when violence had flared, it had been instigated by UAF and most of those who turned out to be arrested were so-called ‘antifascists’. The shadowy world of the SWP-dominated self-styled ‘antifascist’ movement was not examined, which constituted a serious flaw in the documentary’s approach.

The documentary, as covered in the preview article and attendant clip a couple of days ago, then moved on to the ‘Luton in Harmony’ initiative, which has attempted to paper over the wide and deep cracks between the town’s Muslim population and the rest. Lennon stated: that living in harmony wasn’t a problem for “The Hindus, the Jews, the Sikhs, the gay community”, but only one “with the Muslims.”

Sayful Islam concurred that there was an absence of harmony in the town: 
“If you want to say Luton is in harmony, then why was the EDL born here?”
On the second anniversary of the EDL’s birth in 2011 Luton witnessed its largest EDL protest to date, and another one is planned for this year. As often on such occasions, UAF staged a counterdemonstration, which necessitated a massive police operation, with in excess of 1500 police being drafted in: “Luton was bracing itself for violence” intoned the narrator. Thankfully, the demonstration was remarkably peaceful. Only eight arrests were made throughout the £800,000 police operation.

That the EDL were having a political impact on the national stage appeared to be made clear by the fact that David Cameron chose to make a speech in Munich on the eve of the demonstration, stating that multiculturalism had failed (meaning nothing of the sort however, for his administration has continued to be a vigorous advocate of this policy). Lennon chose to disagree with Cameron, stating to the crowd:
“David Cameron is wrong, multiculturalism has worked. We live side by side as brothers and sisters.”
 However, he stated:
“Stop building mosques in our community, we’ve had enough of it!”
“Every single one of you is in the forefront of the struggle against militant Islam.”
It seems to me however that it is precisely multiculturalism that has failed, for it is this ideology that has allowed Islamisation to take root and flourish. Lennon, it would appear, is confusing multiculturalism with multiracialism. He has always strongly objected to allegations that the EDL are racist, and was at pains to rebut this on a number of occasions, contrary to UAF claims which cited comments made on the EDL’s Facebook page as evidence. As he pointed out, he and his organisation could not be responsible for every comment posted. He himself had joined the BNP for a year in 2004, but claimed that he failed to renew his membership because he objected to the way that they barred blacks not only from the party, but also from social activities. 

The rest of the documentary covered a number of other protests in 2011, including the EDL Tower Hamlets demo and a MAC demo at the American Embassy. Lennon was also shown being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman in the wake of the Breivik atrocity, during which he acquitted himself well (click here for full video of the interview). Interestingly, the programme did not touch upon the EDL’s proposed collaboration with the British Freedom Party announced last November. Why was this not mentioned? Will Robinson eventually declare that he will join the BFP and perhaps stand as a parliamentary candidate? If so, the documentary gave no hint of this possibility. Is however, a credible new party about to emerge which will fully address the concerns of the EDL without being as narrowly focused as the BFP? This is a distinct possibility, as is discussed here.

Overall therefore, this was an interesting documentary that gave us a view into both the EDL and to a lesser extent the world of Sayful Islam’s Islamists (see ‘My Brother the Islamist’ for a better treatment of Islamism in England today). However, the documentary would have been greatly enhanced if it had set its subject matter against the backdrop of the real trends towards Islamisation in England today, and examined the concept of Islamisation. In all likelihood though, this would have necessitated a two-part documentary. Dispatches has produced a number of excellent documentaries on Islamist extremism in the past, but this one did not quite live up to those high standards. As such, it was something of a curate’s egg.

On Thursday evening Channel 4 will be screening a documentary entitled ‘Make Bradford British’. It used to be, but it is no longer. Rather like buses, it would seem that documentaries dealing with the problems posed by Islamisation (although not explicitly framed that way) come in threes, for in the past ten days we will have had two documentaries on Luton and one on Bradford. Does this tell us something significant about the public mood and the preoccupations of the mass media, or is it just coincidence?

Beyond the Fringe: building a credible nationalist Politics (Part I)


This article and a subsequent piece will endeavour to provide an outline of the reasons for the failure of nationalist politics in contemporary Britain, more specifically, in England, and suggest a means of breaking out of this impasse. In this initial instalment, the focus will be upon the weaknesses of the BNP and other aspirant nationalist parties, teasing out those factors that inhibit them from exerting popular electoral appeal. The second piece, to follow within the next week or so, will forward a concrete proposal for creating a popular credible nationalist politics in our country, outlining the policies and tactics required to realise the as yet largely untapped potential of nationalism.

The old Westminster parties are discredited, mistrusted and unpopular, offering voters nothing more than variations upon the same set of failed policies; our economy is in protracted and serious decline; our national independence is being hollowed out by the growing strength of transnational political and economic institutions and predatory transnational capitalism. Mass immigration continues apace, and the material and cultural fissures in our society grow ever wider. Against this backdrop, surveys reveal that nationalist policies are popular, but nationalist parties are not.

The time would thus appear ripe for nationalist politics to make a breakthrough, and yet nationalism in our country lies fractured and weak, beset with internal feuding and held back by excessive egotism. A myriad of small parties and groupuscules each pronounce their own way forward, and whilst the BNP continues its long and painful death under Nick Griffin, almost all bar the BNP remain unknown and invisible to the public at large; a near-eccentric irrelevance. In this context, it is understandable that a concept such as the Centre for Democratic Nationalism (CDN) should have arisen. However, from the perspective of the author, the CDN has made a strategic error, for it is clear from what has occurred thus far that it runs the risk of becoming a forum for the concerns of the small parties of the nationalist fringe, rather than serving as an incubator for a coherent and credible nationalist programme. Moreover, it needs to foster not an alliance of the obscure and the unknown, but the development of a professional and publicly palatable party. It is the contention of the author that no political breakthrough can be secured by pandering to the preoccupations of those on the margins, but that instead, nationalists should address themselves to the central concerns of the general public, and fashion their policies and strategies accordingly.

The Failure of the BNP

A few years ago, the BNP looked as if it held out the promise of breaking into the mainstream of British politics and becoming a credible nationalist party. This is certainly what its opponents feared. Looking back, 2009 marked its high watermark, with its first MEPs being elected in the June of that year, and party membership reputedly peaking at some 14,000. At that time, it possessed an opportunity of cultivating for itself not only a better public image, but also a strong base of public support. It could have, had it chosen the right tack, transformed itself into a significant political force with the potential for real mass growth and appeal. History however, was to determine otherwise.

Despite the protestations of its Chairman – Nick Griffin – and his apologists, the subsequent collapse in the BNP’s fortunes was not primarily due to concerted media and political opposition, but to problems within the party itself. These included a lack of internal party democracy; bad strategic decisions; the adoption of a number of outlandish policies peripheral to nationalist concerns, and the presence of some equally outlandish individuals with an inexplicable fetish for German National Socialism. This latter fact provided opponents of the BNP a very large stick with which to beat the party and its members repeatedly. Nick Griffin’s own failure to distance the BNP from Holocaust denial and his attempt to defend David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan on the BBC’s Question Time were both gratuitously unnecessary and disastrous for the image of the party. Then there were the avoidable and expensive court cases brought by Marmite and the EHRC, together with the repeated failure to submit party accounts on time, leading to the BNP’s contemporary indebtedness to the tune of somewhere between £850,000 and £1,000,000.

As a direct consequence of the excessive concentration of power in Griffin’s hands, the party was (and still is) bedevilled by clientelism, with promotion to the higher reaches of the party predicated more upon a slavish devotion to the person of the Chairman, than upon talent. The consequence of such a system has been that talent has not been recognised and utilised to best effect to forward party fortunes. Instead, mediocrities and oddballs have often been promoted to Griffin’s inner circle, Griffin himself seemingly being mistrustful and fearful of building a capable, talented and dedicated team of nationalists. Indeed, the situation is now such that a non-party member – Patrick Harrington – wields an undue degree of influence. Quite clearly, as pointed out by Andrew Brons and many others, Griffin has no intent of going anywhere. Providing that he can make a living out of his chairmanship of the party, it matters not to him whether it prospers electorally or otherwise.

A New Party

Having ascertained that neither Griffin nor Harrington are interested in necessarily either promoting the growth of the BNP or its electoral viability, it is clear that there is no point in simply waiting for Griffin to leave of his own volition. We do not have the luxury of time. Although Andrew Brons has forwarded a credible case against the formation of yet another nationalist party, it is the view of the author that this is in fact precisely what is required, whether or not our venerable MEP for Yorkshire and Humber would wish to assume the mantle of leadership himself. One thing however is clear: it would stand a much greater chance of success were he to provide it with his blessing. There are many good and dedicated nationalists who remain within the BNP or its penumbra, whose skills and enthusiasm should be put to positive and productive use in forwarding our cause. Without a practical goal to work towards, the risk is that they will leave nationalist politics altogether, or select a party that is not a good fit for their beliefs and principles. Besides these people, there are also those who have joined other parties who could be tempted back were a suitable vehicle to emerge.

Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to provide a straightforward definition of our cause. It is this: to gain recognition of the existence of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, and in accordance with such recognition, to assert our right to national self-determination as set out in the UN Charter. Sovereignty inheres not within the person of the monarch or in parliament, but in the body of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles themselves, whether they should so choose to define themselves collectively as British, or separately as English, Scots, Welsh and Irish. Our purpose is to defend and forward the interests of our people, with a view to securing their social, political and economic well-being.

To join a new party it should only be necessary for the prospective member to pledge to forward the cause of establishing recognition of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, and their right to political self-determination. This would constitute the sine qua non for admission. As such, the party should be open to all citizens of the United Kingdom irrespective of their background. Upon this one principle, all nationalist politics are predicated. Irrespective of differences in other spheres of policy, this is the one principle around which all nationalists can surely unite.

There has been much discussion concerning the toxicity or otherwise of the BNP brand. Certainly, Nick Griffin is as politically toxic as a politician can be, and under his leadership the BNP will never be anything other than a pariah party that people lend their vote to as a protest, holding their noses whilst they do so. As he will not relinquish control of the party, there is no alternative but to form another. The question therefore as to whether or not the BNP brand is permanently tarnished is not a relevant one. It is at this point, that many readers will cry “but what of other existing parties?! Might not they provide us with the vehicle that we require?” My answer to this is a categorical “no”.

Recently, the leadership of the Brent Group announced its decampment to the British Freedom Party, and others, as Brons has enumerated, have left at various times over the past 18 months to join the English Democrats and the National Front. Some have also managed to gain membership of UKIP, despite a formal ban on ex-BNP members, and others have joined smaller parties that realistically nobody outside of nationalist politics or those who closely observe it, such as its fervent opponents and a few academic specialists, has ever heard of. Moreover, the micro-parties on the fringe of the fringe would not attract public support if they were to be known, for after all, how much genuine appeal would a party that displays an SS Death’s Head on its homepage exert? Does an answer really need to be provided to that question? If it does, the proposal that will be outlined in the article subsequent to this one will not be to your liking, and it would be better for all concerned if you were to remain pursuing your current specialist personal interests at a far remove from the political fray.

The Weaknesses of existing Parties

Returning to the question of why none of the existing parties constitute suitable vehicles for our purpose, the reasons are numerous, yet each of the candidate parties possesses a distinctive weakness rooted in its core ideology which means that it will either never reach out beyond a certain level of support to gain electoral success at Westminster, or contains values at variance with our core principle: the recognition of the right of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles to political self-determination.

UKIP is the largest of the parties popularly perceived as to some extent possessing a nationalist, or at least patriotic, orientation. However, it proves to be unsuitable for our cause for many reasons. Ideologically it is nothing more nor less than a breakaway Thatcherite Atlanticist wing of the Conservative Party, and as such, can at best be considered a civic nationalist party; it is a class-based party that looks to the interests of transnational capital with a North American colouration. As such, its model of economic development is literally bankrupt. Furthermore, it does not recognise the concept of indigenous British peoples; its activist base is weak; its membership is highly aged; it is dominated by the person of its Chairman Nigel Farage; its MEPs do not serve the national interest when they have the opportunity to do so, and as mentioned earlier, ex-BNP members are banned. Most importantly, the general public see UKIP as a single-issue party standing for departure from the European Union, and thus do not consider voting UKIP other than in EU elections.

The English Democrats could to a certain extent be characterised as a little Englander version of UKIP, but with a more rounded economic policy and drawing a clear distinction between “the English” (ethnic) and “the people of England” (civic). Despite possessing a degree of public recognition in a handful of locations across the country – such as Doncaster where the Mayor is an English Democrat – they remain generally unknown, and their membership is small. Although some well-known former BNP members such as Eddy Butler and Chris Beverley have joined, the EDs have not experienced significant growth over the past year. The party appears to be treading water, and those voters who have heard of them tend to associate it with a single issue: an English parliament and a solution to the West Lothian Question. This is predictable enough, given that this is what Robin Tilbrook and most EDs seem to be most passionate about and to concentrate upon.

The British Freedom Party experienced a painful birth that led to the creation of a smaller entity without an ideological raison d’être named the Freedom Democrats. Nonetheless, the BFP attempted to formulate its own nationalist response to contemporary demographic realities through forwarding the concept of cultural nationalism, which in essence could be described as a form of beefed-up civic nationalism. Many of its other policies, good, and in some instances bad, were directly carried across from the BNP. As such, it did look as if it possessed some potential for growth and popular appeal. However, for a number of reasons this did not occur.

After almost a year in existence, BFP meetings with figures in the counter-jihad movement led to its relaunch under the chairmanship of Paul Weston last November, with caretaker leader Peter Mullins standing down. This shift however seems to have created an even greater ideological muddle, with the BFP issuing a seemingly random melange of ‘policies’ in its 20 Point Programme, a number of which were mutually incompatible. In addition, this ‘programme’ appeared to be an unnatural graft onto underlying BFP policies, and must therefore be assumed to have sprung from the imagination of the new Chairman. Owing to Weston’s personal preoccupation with Islamism and Islamisation, the BFP has fallen into the trap of fixating upon Islam, with little attention being paid to other policy issues. Whilst this focus has lent itself to a natural yet awkward tactical tie-up with the EDL, such a narrow focus will not yield general electoral success.

Weston too has acknowledged that his new model BFP is essentially “UKIP but we will talk about Islam”. That, primarily, is why Weston left UKIP: other than Lord Pearson it did not take a clear position against Islamisation. Were it to do so, my opinion is that Weston would fold the BFP tomorrow and return to UKIP. If the Tories were to ever become anti-Islamisation and pro-EU withdrawal, he would in an instant join the Conservative Party. The BFP is thus driving itself into a cul-de-sac. There remains room for party growth, but ultimately it will stall and fail, stunted by its narrow vision. It does not represent the way forward for nationalism, for although the concerns of the counter-jihad movement and nationalism overlap to a certain extent, they each represent a distinct position. The BFP is at risk of becoming a small British Neocon party.

The BFP, if people have heard of it, has thus come to be thought of as “the anti-Islam party”, just as UKIP is known as the “anti-EU party” and the EDs “the English parliament party”. All three overly fixate upon a single issue which hamstrings their electoral prospects. As for the National Front, its brand is more toxic than that of the BNP, and in public perception is simply known as “the racist party”, thus signifying electoral suicide. Any further discussion of the NF is superfluous.


Having thus surveyed the field of existing contenders for the nationalist vote in Britain and England, it is time to draw this piece to a close. The true conclusion to this article will be provided in the next two instalments, in which the focus will shift to providing a positive proposal that it is hoped readers will find both appealing and practicable. Part II will deal with policy, whereas Part III will deal with practical matters relating to strategy, tactics and tone. After a period of dispiriting setbacks, there is a basis for cautious optimism grounded in a realistic analysis of the challenges that we face. Success yet lies within reach.

Sunday 26 February 2012

Malign Gnomes spotted in Hyde

Whilst the EDL held their protest in Hyde yesterday, creatures resembling bad-tempered overgrown garden gnomes were spotted brandishing posters juxtaposing images of Anders Breivik and Tommy Robinson. It is possible that they had mistaken Robinson for a mass murderer from Norway because UAF told them that the two men were essentially the same and, of course, they’re both white and thus easily confused. We do all look the same you know. If it weren’t for the redbrick buildings in the photograph below, you could be forgiven for thinking that you were looking at a picture taken in Lahore, but this was not the case, despite the fact that the men depicted do believe that they live in a territorial extension of Bangladesh, or possibly Pakistan. 

A handful of UAF activists turned up yesterday to distribute misleading propaganda to Muslims in Hyde before promptly departing. Their presence after all, was not required, for it is stated that some 800 “local people” (i.e. ex-residents of the Indian subcontinent and their descendents, so perhaps “local” is not the most appropriate of terms) “turned out to protect the local mosque in Hyde”. Protect it from what? The EDL don’t target mosques and had no intention of going near it, so were not UAF activists guilty of creating an unwarranted climate of fear amongst the Muslim residents of Hyde?

Meanwhile, in London UAF held their annual conference to fulminate against the “fascists” of the EDL and BFP. It was such a dull affair that one of their delegates was moved to write:
So bored was I during some of the eight speakers who addressed us for almost two hours in the opening plenary that I counted the number of people in the hall several times. Including people outside and in the balcony it came to about 250 on a generous count, so let’s say 350 during the day – smaller than previous years and remarkably few for the conference of a campaign backed handsomely by all the major unions. (According to NUT Deputy General Secretary Kevin Courtney, the NUT alone gave UAF £55,000 this year!) Of these perhaps twenty were members of Socialist Action and a hundred members of the SWP - the two left groups which in reality dominate the leadership of the campaign.
How very revealing. For all of its funding, official backing and media opportunities, UAF even bores its own delegates and appears to be losing momentum. The above report also provides confirmation of the SWP’s hold over UAF. Perhaps someone should notify Chris Grayling?

Returning to matters of a more positive nature, take a look at the two following speeches made by EDL supporters yesterday. The first, from a local lad named Jamie, and the second from Tony Curtis (naturally, not his deceased namesake).

EDL’s Kevin Carroll: Not racist, not violent, just no longer silent

Below is a video of Kevin Carroll’s speech at yesterday’s EDL Hyde Demo. As with Tommy Robinson’s address, its content has not been reported by the media. Angry and impassioned, Carroll opens his speech by holding aloft a card displaying two pictures of Daniel Stringer-Prince: one of him before the attack, and one after: “there is, there lies, your religion of peace!”

Carroll singles out politicians and senior members of the police hierarchy as targets for his ire, accusing them of aiding the Islamification of the country. He demanded that the media start reporting Muslim “racist crimes” against white British citizens and stated that Christianity and Islam simply do not mix. Given the problems that we already have arising from having a Muslim population at only 3-4% of the total, he stated, “When we get to 10%, it’ll be too late.” Clearly, he wishes to put a break upon any further growth in the Muslim population. The first section of his speech is transcribed below, followed by a selection of quotes from later in the video.
“That was his crime, walking down a British, an English street, minding his own business to get some sweets. And that is how he ends up. Now that is outrageous. Now, if that was a Muslim 17-year-old lad, I tell you now I reckon the streets of Manchester would be burning. Right? Because there is your religion of peace. That would not be tolerated and the politicians would be queuing up, queuing up fighting each other to stand to the forefront to make press releases condemning this vile racist attack. But where are you?! Where are all the politicians?! Nowhere! Because I tell you why, if you’re the same colour as him, non-Muslim, it doesn’t matter. It does not matter! Meaning nothing because there’s no backlash from the non-Muslim community, because we are just quiet, no one complains, no one kicks off.”

“Fair play to them lads and done what they done the other day [in Rochdale] because if the politicians, if the politicians and the police hierarchy, not the boys and girls on the ground because the boys and girls on the ground do a fantastic job and we support them fully, but the police hierarchy, they’re just puppets themselves and they do Number 10’s bidding. But if they and the politicians are not going to protect our children and our women from being raped, drugged, pimped and made to look like this when they go out the house to get some sweets, then we’ll have to protect them! We will have to do it! We will have to take to the streets!” 

“So the politicians, the police hierarchy, yellow cowards all of them! Pandering to Islam, they are aiding and abetting and facilitating the Islamification of this great country.”

“If you’re not going to protect them [our women and children], then it leaves us no choice!”

“We’re not racist. We’re not violent. We’re just no longer silent.”

Saturday 25 February 2012

Video of Tommy Robinson’s Hyde Speech

In his speech at today’s EDL demo in Hyde, Stephen Lennon (Tommy Robinson) laid out his thoughts on the widespread phenomenon of Muslim paedophile gangs and how the time has come to tackle them if the authorities continue to tread carefully for fear of the race card being played. Unsurprisingly, the content of the speech has not been publicised by the mainstream press or electronic media, as has proven to be the case with respect to that of the speech made by Kevin Carroll. The following quotes provide a flavour of its tenor.
“We are entering a new era. An era of counter-jihad. That’s what’s happening.”

“What happened to this boy, and what’s happening across this country is the religious persecution of non-Muslims across.”

“The reason for the attack, the reason for all the hostility, is because they are non-Muslim. It’s not racial it’s religious.”

“If you look at what is happening in our country, especially with these Muslim paedophile gangs, it is like an invading ideology; an invading ideology that’s come to our country and started raping our women and nobody is doing nothing. That’s how it seems.”

“For thirty years there has been a conspiracy of silence from police leaders to religious leaders to facilitate the rape of our kids in every single town and city that has a Muslim community. And that’s what’s happening.”

EDL Hyde Demo Coverage

News, including videos (at the end of the article), of today’s EDL demo in Hyde will be posted as it becomes available, so check for updates throughout the day.

The police have promised a "robust" approach following unrest in Rochdale earlier this week, so hopefully all will pass off peacefully. The number of police officers involved is said to be in the hundreds, but precise numbers will not be made public until the operation is over. Although the demo is being organised by the EDL (for background to its origins please click here), a number of other similar groups are intending to send contingents to participate, thus Roxanne of Casuals United writes:
Today sees [the] EDL and various other patriotic groups travelling from all areas of the country to demonstrate in Hyde.  Today’s demo is aimed at highlighting various incidents in the last few weeks across the North West, where a spate of White British people have been injured in racially provoked attacks.  We want the CPS and the police to sit up and recognise these crimes as Racially motivated and deal with them accordingly.  Don’t call them “hate” crimes, if it where the other way around, they would be called “RACIAL”.
According to comments posted on the Stockport County Supporters Messageboard, a number of local businesses had boarded up their windows and doors in anticipation of trouble. Although the police had assured market traders that the EDL march would not be going anywhere near their part of the town centre, the latter fear that trade will be badly hit today.

Many EDL supporters are using Hyde Central Station as a muster point between 12.00 and 12.45pm, and will depart from there at 1.00pm for the demo site on Clarendon Street. Another report posted on Facebook at about 11:45am stated that the EDL had been informed that rather than being permitted to march through Hyde, they would instead be "kettled" in a car park. Verification of this has yet to be forthcoming from other sources.

The Hope Not Hate blog notes that Nick Griffin's attempt to tag onto the EDL demo does not appear to have been very successful, drawing in their estimate only some 50 BNP supporters. As of 12:50, Nick Griffin was reported as speaking outside of the Town Hall. Given that he has in the past made the EDL a proscribed organisation for BNP members, this is an act of blatant and very cynical opportunism. Just how many if any self-styled 'antifascists' will be present to counterprotest today is not clear, but many UAF activists will be attending their annual conference in London, where they are concentrating on planning how to portray the EDL and the British Freedom Party as the new "fascist threat" in the year ahead, now not the rump BNP has been reduced to near irrelevance. They do, after all, need some pretext to justify their continued existence.

EDL in Hyde (picture by Kim of the Hydonian blog)
BNP attempting to capitalise upon EDL Protest

According to Roxanne of Casuals United, about 400 protestors are expected today, and reports had been received that police had demanded that "all EDL and patriotic flags on trains be removed." Whether or not this means that such flags were confiscated, is unclear. The Hydonian blog claimed that as of 12:25pm "Asians" were also gathering, as well as EDL and BNP. At 1.30pm the police began to escort EDL demonstrators from their assembly area to the demonstration site. If true, the following report from the Casuals United blog posted at 1.21pm is alarming:
News has just come in that there are app 3000 members of the Muslim community congregating outside the local mosque in Hyde and approximately 200 of these people have tried to brake through police lines to charge the BNP demo.  The BNP site suggests that police have instructed them to move and take down British flags which are enraging the Muslim community, but they have refused to do so and will not be moved despite police threatening physical interjection.

Elsewhere, reports that British White citizens are lining the streets of Hyde to celebrate and cheer the arrival of the EDL.  Unconfirmed reports suggest that police are turning away some EDL coaches, and the North East coaches (4 of) are currently delayed and will be arriving late.

Police and EDL stewards are currently in-situ anticipating the arrival of demonstrators.
Corroboration of the above has not been forthcoming from other sources, but a tweet from the Greater Manchester Police made it clear that Hyde Mosque was surrounded by police vans, only a few hundred metres from the EDL demonstration. According to the Hydonian blog, there were reports of "fighting" at 1.35pm, but who was fighting whom was not specified.

A post on the EDL forum stated that by 1.55pm "up to 2,000 EDL" had arrived "with lots more incoming. Locals are cheering and applauding the EDL march." The question of estimating numbers is always a tricky business, but this figure is way in excess of that anticipated by Casuals United. A BBC news report issued at 2.28pm claimed that the EDL demonstration had drawn approximately 600 supporters, with the police stating that all had been peaceful so far, with no arrests being made. An independent source who participated in the demo estimates the figure as having been well in excess of a thousand, and confirms that reports of a supportive reception from amongst locals are true (thanks to Cygnus for relaying this information).

A little after 2.30pm the Greater Manchester Police reported that the demonstration was drawing to a close and that EDL supporters were being escorted back to their coaches. By 3.30pm, almost all had left. This therefore proved to be a very short protest, but speeches were made by Stephen Lennon (Tommy Robinson) and Kevin Carroll. The EDL stewards are to be congratulated for ensuring that the demonstration passed off in a peaceful manner as confirmed by the Greater Manchester Police in the following statement:
There was only minimal trouble at any point during the day and for most of Hyde, it was just a case of business as usual. And although 11 protestors from the EDL group were arrested for minor public order offences or being drunk and disorderly, the vast majority were well-behaved and compliant with police.
The first of the videos below gives a clear impression as to the size of the protest in Hyde today, which looks reasonably healthy compared to some other recent EDL protests. Video number two is of a Granada News report, which notes that there were 11 arrests this afternoon for minor offences. A video of Tommy Robinson's speech can be accessed by clicking here, and of Kevin Carroll's here.

Newcastle EDL bound for Hyde


Friday 24 February 2012

Unease in Rochdale: Riot or Legitimate Protest?

Last night, a legitimate protest connected to the trial of 11 Muslims charged with paedophile grooming and related offences was unfortunately infiltrated by a small number of troublemakers who attacked a local takeaway – Tasty Bites – on Market Street in Heywood. The takeaway had previously been in the hands of some of the accused, but is now said to be under new management. Its windows were broken, and a policeman was pelted with bricks and other missiles by a handful of the protesters, who are estimated variously as numbering 100-200. Three police cars and another car were also damaged. A 35-year-old man and 14-year-old boy were detained by police in connection with various offences committed that evening. Tonight, the police are taking precautions should there be a repeat of last night’s disorder.

Justly, the police have emphasised that the majority of those who turned out to express their disquiet were not involved in the violence. The initial group of 80 later swelled as it was joined by local “youths”, and it was after this that the trouble started.

The police have attempted to turn this into a ‘race’ issue when in fact it is clearly a religio-cultural one, rooted firmly in the ‘exemplary’ Prophet Mohammed’s taste for paedophilia as demonstrated by his marriage to Aisha. Thankfully, I know that not all Muslims condone paedophilia, for their innate decency causes them to be repelled by it; but those of a paedophile inclination from a Muslim cultural background feel fully justified in their predatory sexual acts precisely because of the actions of Mohammed, whom they deem to be beyond criticism; they do after all, believe him to be the perfect man. Such a belief is what legitimises and normalises paedophilia, particularly when practised with children from non-Muslim – in this instance English – backgrounds. It is frustrating to have to keep reiterating this basic fact, but it does not seem to penetrate the logic-resistant minds of the defenders of Islamic doctrine and practice, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike. This sort of attitude is one of the unfortunate consequences of “diversity training”. People’s minds need to be purged of such false beliefs so that they may think openly, critically and logically once again.

The eleven men standing trial in Liverpool have yet to be sentenced, so we should not prejudice its outcome. However, if they are to be convicted, this will be yet another instance in a long line of such cases involving Muslim men targeting underage English girls and sexually exploiting them, in accordance, as it seems necessary to underscore once again, with the ‘inspirational’ example of their Prophet Mohammed.

Tomorrow the EDL will march in Hyde to protest against a vicious Muslim pack attack on Daniel Stringer-Prince and his friend Kavan Brown. This march and last night’s protest were not, as the police and opponents are claiming, an attempt by ‘racist’ groups to capitalise upon these incidents for their own ends, but an expression of frustration over the refusal of politicians, the police and the mass media to tackle the serious issues of Muslim paedophile grooming and pack attacks, which both target English non-Muslims. These are real phenomena that need to be publicly acknowledged and tackled, instead of being ignored and swept under the carpet for the sake of so-called “community cohesion”. What sort of cohesion is there, when criminal elements within the Muslim population feel that they can prey upon the English in the knowledge that politicians and the police will often turn a blind eye? This is why the EDL, Casuals United and a number of other groups sprang into existence, not because of some desire to ‘scapegoat minorities’ in a time of recession, as some ignorant commentators have claimed.

The EDL, Casuals United and kindred groups have the right to protest about issues that they deem to be unjustly hidden from public view, but nobody has the right of course to attack innocent individuals, businesses or the police. It was therefore unjustifiable for anyone to have attacked the takeaway in question last night, causing unwarranted fear, distress and loss of business to its proprietor and staff.

Worryingly, the police have become increasingly politicised in recent years, and this was reflected in a statement by GMP Superintendent Chris Hankinson who stated at a press conference on events in Rochdale that:
'Those that seek to use what's going on at the moment in Liverpool to further their racist agenda will be dealt with robustly'.

'People feel they can sit behind their curtains on a computer and start putting emotive language and claims on Facebook that can result in people gathering for what would appear to be legitimate reasons but can sometimes be hijacked,' he said.

'The message from me to those people is: think about what you are putting and what that reaction may well cause if you put something inflammatory on it.

'We are, as a police service, monitoring all the sites. Where we see things that are inflammatory or trying to incite or corral people for criminal activity, we will act.'
Who determines what is “inflammatory”? After all, it must be borne in mind that simply to criticise Islam is deemed “inflammatory” by the majority of people who call themselves Muslims. I consider Islam itself to be “inflammatory”, so by such logic, should not all those who profess Islam be monitored? Whose sense of offence trumps the other’s? 

With such a serious issue as Mohammedan paedophile grooming wrecking the lives of hundreds of English girls, why is it that our Prime Minister David Cameron should instead choose to spend his time hosting a football anti-racism summit, rather than tackling the former issue? Certainly, it is unpleasant for anyone to be personally insulted through being the object of verbal abuse of whatever kind, but are the sensitivities of multimillionaire footballers really more important than the lives of young teenage girls, their happiness and well-being seemingly expendable simply because of their class and their English ethnicity? Is the safety of these girls to be deemed less worthy than the cause of “community cohesion” (i.e. winning the Muslim bloc vote)? Is the self-respect of a professional footballer really worth more than the life of Danny O’Shea or the broken bones of Daniel Stringer-Prince? The Prime Minister, for whatever reason, lacks both a sense of proportion and perspective. Will he ever comprehend the lives of ordinary English people who live outside of his cosseted Westminster world of privilege? 

 Riot Vans in Heywood

Thursday 23 February 2012

Preview: ‘Proud and Prejudiced’, Channel 4 Dispatches

Channel 4 has uploaded a taster of Monday evening’s documentary on “extremism” in Luton (see video at the foot of this article), in which Dispatches spent a year investigating and filming the activities, personalities and views of the town’s militant Islamists, such as Sayful Islam, and their opponents in the EDL led by Stephen Lennon (Tommy Robinson). The documentary is said to feature footage in which Islam punched Lennon in the face as he unwound his car window to speak to him.

The clip itself opens with a shot of a meeting of the local council’s committee on promoting cohesion in the town, swiftly followed by comments from Sarah Allen, Luton’s Cohesion Officer:
“We’re in a time of recession. We know that in a recession, those sorts of ideas – scapegoating, racism can increase.”
In this statement, Allen displays the characteristic non-thinking ‘analysis’ trotted out by anyone on the Left who is either unwilling or unable to grant any sort of autonomy to cultural phenomena. The EDL did not arise as a response to a downturn in the economy, and it has not sought to scapegoat Muslims for our economic plight. It arose because of a specific problem with Islamism within our shores – the desire of a section of the UK passport-holding Muslim population to Islamise our society, and to live by the norms and social practices of their ancestral familial homelands. The phenomenon of Muslim paedophile grooming – of which the current trial in Liverpool provides but the latest example – is part of this unbidden and unwelcome imported cultural assemblage.

Allen remarked of the emergence of the EDL:
“I think it just happened and it struck a chord, and that is not to be denied or to be ignored; but I don’t think it is because of something to do with this town.”
She is correct in thinking that the rise of the EDL is not specific to Luton, for the problems suffered by this town as a by-product of its Islamisation are painfully familiar to English residents of other towns and cities such as Rochdale, Keighley, Bradford, Derby, Blackpool, Rotherham, Dewsbury and Sheffield. The first five in the list have all have borne witness to ugly and significant cases of Muslim paedophile grooming of white English girls. This however, is not something that Allen is aware of, or seems to wish to be aware of. Those who support the EDL, Casuals United and various other nationalist groups and parties are painfully aware of the existence of this criminal problem. Muslim paedophile grooming has nothing to do with recession, and everything to do with the example of the 53-year-old paedophile Prophet Mohammed and the consummation of his marriage to his six-year-old bride Aisha at the age of nine.

Commenting on “Luton in Harmony” Allen stated that it:
“is not a political campaign. It is a media, if you like, a branding concept. Our intention is to undermine those hateful messages and to promote the unity that we know exists in our town.”
Well, a true “Luton in Harmony” could exist if those troublesome elements that insist upon wishing to live their lives by Shariah were to be deported to their ancestral familial homelands where they could indeed do so. Unless that happens, there will be no harmony in Luton or anywhere else in England where Islamist fanatics agitate for our downfall and the imposition of Islamic law and governance.

The programme’s executive producer Paul Woolwich told Luton Today:
“Both men [Stephen Lennon and Sayful Islam] have valid comments to make, and it’s a debate that at some stage will need to be had”.

“We have to try and find ways of engaging with what they are saying.”
As predicted, it would thus seem that this latest documentary in Channel 4’s Dispatches series, that has produced some excellent exposés over the years, has chosen to portray the EDL and Islamists as being of the same ilk, with a “plague on both their houses” attitude. Channel 4’s intent seems to be to denounce both parties with a view to propping up an increasingly creaky and worm-eaten concept to which it is ideologically wedded: multiculturalism. Multiculturalism has had its day. It has failed. That, rather than any editorial voiceover, will be the real message of Monday’s episode of Dispatches. A full review of the programme can be read by clicking here.

Wednesday 22 February 2012

Bardot for Le Pen

Brigitte Bardot, scourge of Islamisation and halal slaughter, has penned a note in endorsement of French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, published today in the French regional paper Nice-Matin. In it, she appeals for more local officials to lend their signatures to Le Pen’s nomination papers, for the latter is still short of the 500 required to stand. With only a few weeks to go until the 16th March deadline, there are some 60 signatures to be gathered. 

Bardot in her Prime
Bardot herself is of course no stranger to controversy, having been fined on a number of occasions for ‘inciting racial and religious hatred’, but she has stood by her beliefs. Who after all can disagree with her statement in her 1999 “Open Letter to My Lost France” that  "my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims" or her condemnation of the Islamisation of France in her 2003 book Un cri dans le silence:
Over the last twenty years, we have given in to a subterranean, dangerous, and uncontrolled infiltration, which not only resists adjusting to our laws and customs but which will, as the years pass, attempt to impose its own.
Bravo for Brigitte! Let’s hope that her letter helps Marine to enter the electoral fray not only for the first round of presidential elections on 22nd April, but the second on 6th May. For more on Marine Le Pen and her presidential campaign, as well as opposition to the Front National in France, click here.

Bardot's Letter


Tuesday 21 February 2012

Dispatches: the EDL and Sayful Islam

On Monday 27th February at 10pm, Channel 4 Dispatches will be screening a documentary on the EDL and Sayful Islam. As is to be expected, its billing reveals that its approach is not to be without a certain bias, for it has already been trailed as featuring two sets of “extremists”: the EDL and Sayful Islam's Islamists. The mandatory NUJ tag of “far-right” was also appended to the EDL, so although we may expect something rather more thoughtful and considered than Stacey Dooley’s primary school style ‘report’ on current divisions in Luton, we can be reasonably sure that a negative conclusion with respect to the EDL had been reached long before the first camera had started shooting. Then again, perhaps I shall be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

The documentary is said to have been a year in the making, so irrespective of its tone and political slant, it will be worth viewing if only to discover which tack the EDL’s opponents will be taking on this occasion. On a day when the media, particularly the BBC, are refusing to use the M-word (Muslim) in connection with the 11 men from Rochdale standing trial in Liverpool for grooming and sexual exploitation, and instead slurring “Asians” en masse for this phenomenon, it would seem that the existence of the EDL is as much needed today, if not more so, than when it was established in 2009. Click here for a video preview of the programme.  

Monday 20 February 2012

‘My Hometown Fanatics’ on BBC3

Stacey Dooley the documentary maker was, to put it bluntly, irritating. “Why’s my hometown becoming so divided?” she chirped at the programme’s outset. Perhaps I am being a little unfair in my evaluation of Dooley, so let me flesh out her character a little more, for she is more than just irritating: she is also ignorant, naïve and deferential towards Muslims and Islam. She appears to be one of those people who is so open-minded that her brains fall out, as Richard Dawkins might put it; someone ripe for conversion to Islam. Then again, this young woman is the product of a politically correct education system, so her lack of awareness vis-à-vis the fundamentals of Islam can be comprehended, if not forgiven. In sum, she’s as dense as a pig of lead, and thus perfect for presenting a piece celebrating Luton’s “diversity” on BBC3.

The first person she stated she wished to interview was EDL leader Stephen Lennon, whom, it transpired, she had vaguely known years before as the two of them had grown up in the same area of town. Upon his non-arrival for an interview at a local radio station she gave vent to some disparaging remarks about him, whilst savouring the opportunity to speak to the oleaginous Inayat Bunglawala who unfortunately proved to be on hand to extol the virtues of Islam. Dooley, Bunglawala and a local Muslim politician had something of a “love in”, with the latter commenting with respect to the EDL: “They’re not a nice bunch of people”. Not as “nice” as all of those devout lovers of Shariah, needless to say.

Dooley next headed to Lennon’s tanning salon, but sign of Lennon there was none. The reason for his absence and non-attendance at the radio station was, it transpired, that he had been arrested whilst protesting.

The next section of Dooley’s attempt to legitimise the Islamic presence in Luton consisted of a potted and incomplete history of the Muslim settlement of the town, which she attributed to the demand for labour in the Vauxhall Cars factory which closed in 2000. The area in which they chose to settle, as every Lutonian knows, was Bury Park, which now hosts a population of 30,000 “Asians” who happen to be predominantly Muslim. Dooley commented that she had never shopped there and that “it’s really interesting” as “you could easily mistake it for not being an English town”. Her squeals of delight were difficult to suppress, as she revelled in revealing that there are now circa (not the word she chose to use) 30 mosques in Luton.

Dooley’s next encounter was with a group of Lutonian Muslims, yelling the usual anti-British slogans and curses involving death, hell and sundry other unpleasantries. This was, apparently, a demonstration in “defence” of the wife of a Muslim resident who had bombed Stockholm. “I found their chanting provocative and extreme” said Dooley, enjoying the frisson occasioned by the slogan ‘British police burn in hell!’ All was not sweetness and light however, for even Dooley’s dimwittedness gave way before some burka-clad harridan’s injunction for the reporter to “put some clothes on” to cover up her nakedness: “I tried my hardest to sympathise with people who were different to me”, stated Dooley, but her patience was momentarily wearing thin. “One of the saddest things, is that people have brought their kids along” she continued.

The next interviewee was to be Islamist windbag Anjem Choudhary, whose speech bore in its cadence a startling resemblance to that of Nick Griffin’s: “If the law of the land is Islamic, we’ll respect it” he enunciated, in his typically self-assured manner. Still, Dooley was undaunted in leaping to the defence of Luton’s Islamic population: “Of the 30,000 Muslims living in Luton, there are less than a hundred at this rally.” Furthermore, although she ventured to comment, “I do feel shocked at this protest,” she was quick to emphasise her belief that it was not representative of the views of Muslims in Luton.

As was to be expected in a BBC ‘documentary’ of this type, the presenter paid a visit to her old school in an attempt to track down some of her old schoolmates. Strangely, she appeared to be unawares of the existence of the data protection act, so quite naturally her old teachers could not provide her with contact details of other ex-pupils. Sadly, one of them was an English girl who had converted to Islam, for which the school must be assumed to bear a considerable degree of culpability. In order to demonstrate her multicultural credentials, Dooley revealed that she had had a Muslim classmate named Amara, “what I would call a moderate Muslim.” Well, she so wished to seek her out because, after all, “Sometimes, Islam gets a rough old time.” How touchingly naïve of her to say so.

Unfortunately, Amara was duly tracked down, and when asked about the likes of Choudhary and Sayful Islam provided a typically slippery Muslim response which basically told us that she concurred with their views, but she’d prefer to deceive us on camera, describing them as “Not bad people, but people with different views.” So, this self-styled “moderate Muslim” turned out to be just as “moderate” as one would anticipate.

Having thus ‘established’ that other than the hundred or so slogan-chanting bomb enthusiasts all of Lutons Muslims were “moderates” it was time to rubbish the EDL by describing them as “extremists”: “Many believe they’re a violent racist organisation that recruit from football terraces.” Really? And what do you believe Dooley? There wasn’t much insinuation at play there, was there?

Next on the list of interviewees was leading EDL spokesman Kev Carroll: “I’m not aggressive, I’m just passionate, you know?” He singles out the “Islamic community” as alone amongst immigrant groups to who have not made any effort to integrate, unlike Sikhs, Chinese and blacks. Dooley though clearly thought that he was “extreme”, most likely because he didn’t have a holy book to back up his beliefs. If you have a holy back upon which to base your bigotry, then for Dooley this is entirely legitimate, as was evidenced by her total lack of awareness of the theory and reality of Shariah Law. After all, as Caroll indicated, the penalty for adultery is stoning. However, not to be dissuaded from trying to understand and empathise with the advocates of Shariah, Dooley spoke to a Shariah apologist who claimed that stoning was not really a punishment because there were supposed to be four witnesses to such a crime and there rarely were, so in practice people were not stoned for the crime. Did he believe with it in principle. Well, yes, as all Muslims want Shariah. Dooley proved to be blithely accepting of Omar’s explanation and naturally designated him a “moderate”. With such “moderates”, who needs “extremists”?

Dooley continued: “The problem with Luton, is although the central mosque preaches peace, down the road it’s a different story.” Down the road she happened upon Sayful Islam, a former member of Al-Mahajiroun who last year assaulted Stephen Lennon/Tommy Robinson, but he would not condescend to speak to her, claiming that he was busy. Thus, Dooley decided to speak to two others of his ilk who refused to shake her hand. They claimed that women in the UK are “degraded” and “humiliated”. They don’t believe in democracy and secularism and predictably claimed that “Islam is the real solution”. One implied that he supported Al-Qaeda, and eventually Dooley’s even chirpy, sugary idiocy dissolved: “That makes me feel that we’re always gonna have issues in Luton.” She suspected that they, and their kind, “would encourage and applaud others” who carried out acts of terrorism. Yes Dooley, that is how it is. You are not very quick on the uptake, are you girl?

At the central mosque, interviewees claimed that the extremists were loudmouths who were “cowardly”, because although they called for people to go and fight the Americans, they would not go themselves. “It saddens me that young vulnerable Lutonians are being groomed by the radicals” Dooley opined with respect to the malign influence of these Islamist poltroons.

Strangely, she described the call to prayer as a sign of “how diverse” Luton had become. How could this be “diverse”, given that it is a supremacist expression of confident Muslim monoculturalism. She then insisted on smiling at a couple of niqab-clad droids. They were, unsurprisingly, a couple of hostile individuals, who wore this garb as a deliberate statement of their rejection of the host society and its cultural norms. Dooley even went so far as to don full Islamic dress, niqab included: “I do feel so different in this. I feel like people are staring a little bit.” Someone told her to take her mask off: “Why do people think that they can dictate what you wear?”

At last, the final ten minutes of the programme finally brought the much-sought-for interview with Stephen Lennon, who claimed that the EDL had put Luton on the map for a positive reason: “I love Luton, and I want what’s best for Luton.” Dooley, as befitting her lack of morality engendered by her surrender to cultural relativism argued that Muslims should be able to live their lives by Shariah Law, in Luton: “I persuaded Stephen to walk through Luton with me.” He stated that he had not walked through Luton with his wife and kids for two years, and mentioned that she did not agree with the EDL, neither did her parents. Nonetheless, Lennon remained steadfast in his belief in the EDL’s cause for “Islam rules through fear and intimidation” and there was no way that he was going to let it silence him.

Dooley continued to be excruciating, defending the niqab and the burka, and insisted on speaking to a random Muslim on the street who stated that he wanted Shariah Law, yet she still considered him to be a “moderate”. More “moderates”, it would seem, were in the vicinity, for “Soon several young men were following us and I was beginning to feel on edge.” Muslims closed in on Lennon, attempting to intimidate him through force of numbers.

This documentary left me feeling exasperated at Dooley’s wilful ignorance and stupidity. The woman appears to be incapable of rational thought, preferring instead to emote and empathise, even with those who would treat her like trash. “Ignorance is what causes extremism”, Dooley concluded. Now, although I do concur with this conclusion, I do not do so in a manner that she would find agreeable, for it is the ignorance displayed by politically correct cultural relativist dupes such as Dooley that allows “extremism” to flourish. The BBC, once again, has excelled itself in producing a piece of apologia for Islam's presence, entrenchment and growth in contemporary England.

Stacey Dooley: a bit dim, or an animatronic mannequin?