Muslim Terrorists…..’Kind, clever, angry and idealistic… victims of the British State’




Jihadi John was a ‘beautiful person’…so said the extremists of Cage.

Apparently they were right.  Muslim extremists (when not being Churchill, Ghandi or Mandela) are, according to the BBC….kind, clever, angry and idealistic….and of course victims themselves of a tyrannical British state.

Kind of think the BBC has totally lost the plot….more so than ever I should add.

How would you persuade a young Muslim from becoming more devout and turning to fundamentalist Islam before heading off to Syria to fight the good fight?

Would you try to counter the narrative that he has been fed in the mosques, on-line and in the left-wing media?

Or…would you praise him and tell him he is right but just shouldn’t use violence, tell him he is kind, clever, angry, idealistic and that going to Syria would be dangerous so he’d had better stay ‘here’ where it’s safe and where you can fight the injustices, inequalities and persecution that drives you into the hands of the Extremists?

The BBC, via Shami Chakrabarti, has decided that the second option is the one that works….tell the potential terrorist that he is right to be angry about the grievances that he raises but the way is not to go to Syria but to fight them here in the UK.

In other words, the BBC and Shami, are telling us that it is an oppressive British society, the police state, the huge discrimination that Muslims suffer, the lack of jobs for a Muslim with two degrees, that turns a ‘young British Muslim’ into a terrorist murderer.

Not then a religion that tells Muslims they are superior to everyone else, that all who do not submit should be killed, that Allah’s religion must rule supreme over all?  Not the intolerant, anti-Western preaching in the mosques and madrassas?  Not the continuous narrative that the West is at war with Islam that is fed to Muslims via its ‘community leaders’ and the BBC?  Not the relentless claims that Muslims are discriminated against and are kept on the fringes of society, marginalised and disenfranchised by Islamophobia and racism?  Again a discourse spoonfed to Muslims by the BBC.


Shami has two targets in her short little playlet (so now we know what she intends to do now she has retired from Liberty….I would advise her to get the day job back).  The first target is those who want to control immigration, the second, as indicated above, is to turn Muslim terrorists into victims…victims of British society.

This is how those ‘kind, clever, angry, idealistic’ ISIS Muslim victims treat Christians…even the kids…

A child is photographed, waiting to be killed by militants. ISIS uses these images to terrorize others and to glorify their spree of terror.

…and if you really want to see the truth visit this site...warning very graphic photographs of the victims of those kind young men.

Shami’s little play brings us a mother talking to her son who wishes to leave to join an extremist group abroad. This is in the future, 2041.  The mother, naturally, is a single mother, an immigrant who came to where she now lives via ‘The Swamp’ in Calais…of course she has done very well for herself and is now a lovely, successful person who adores her new country.  Get it?  Let in migrants…they only want to be British citizens who live the place and will bring joy and prosperity to it.

We aren’t told that they are Muslim, we aren’t told which country they are in or where the son intends to go to but as we listen we can draw conclusions that there is going to be a ‘twist’ at the end…and Shami doesn’t disappoint…revealing that she fled a terrible war in Britain…a war that was a result of ‘greed, division, fear and hate as people turned in on themselves and on each other’….you are supposed of course to imagine you are a refugee fleeing war….empathise darlings, empathise and realise just how mean you’re being.

Ah yes…I am suitably chastised….wanting to limit mass migration is ‘greedy’, making a reasoned and evidence based analysis as to what such mass migration might bring to the country is spreading ‘fear’ based, not upon that reason, but upon the hate and racism of those insular beings who turned in on themselves…you know…the ‘Little Englanders’ of left-wing legend….and hence started a civil war.

Hmmm….the war might actually not be ‘civil’ but between the immigrants who try to impose their ideology upon Britain and the Brits who refuse to submit.  A completely different and far more honest assessment of the situation than the one Shami proposes.

Shami ticks every box in the race-baiter’s list of pet grievances that they know the BBC et al will lap up and put on the Frontpage.  Every complaint that Muslim agitators give voice to Shami puts into this piece…and doesn’t dispute or counter them at all….in fact she claims they are all credible basis for complaint.

She starts the piece with a beached whale (Just when did she write this?  Has she churned it out at lightning speed in the past few days and got it on the BBC?  It would seem so) We are supposed to equate the whale with immigrants dying on the beaches of Europe….‘They’re coming to clear you away before you offend…no one cares…only that you’re here now and what they’re going to do with you’.

Hmm…OK…how about this beach then?


No clever comment Shami?

Then we get the son who says ‘Everyday I get scanned for who I am, who we are…etc…I’ll never fit in…you don’t see what this country has become….penthouses next to prisons, investment banks and food banks, people who do nothing and people who have nothing….I want to live another way….I’ve no prospects, no privacy, no pride.’

Ah…so extremism is all about economics is it?  Jihadi John chopped off heads because he saw the inequality in life and knew he had to do something to change all that?

Curiously this ‘persecuted’ lad has to get a new identity because he is being watched by the security services….but Shami doesn’t bother to enlighten us as to the cause of that surveillance, she prefers instead to suggest the surveillance is just unfair persecution by the police in order to justify his extremism….so he’s not a budding terrorist to start with then?

Shami then goes on to attack Cameron and those who criticise mass, uncontrolled immigration…..apparently people were ‘treated like parasites, insects swarming the country leeching off ordinary, decent folk…scroungers’.

Ah yes the usual lefty diversionary tactic to avoid talking about the real issues…let’s talk about grammar and vocabulary….let’s not call migrants a ‘bunch‘…that’s ‘Quite horrible’.

Oh yes…‘This country is a prison…rife with injustice and discrimination.’...and let’s not mention those painted doors and coloured wristbands so reminiscent of Nazi Germany.


Shami hasn’t really put in much effort here, churning out something that any 14 year old could do in their sleep.  It is childish, ill-informed, wrong-headed and dangerous rubbish.  She has crammed in every left-wing cliched dogma and Muslim dog-whistle she could manage in 14 minutes.  However it is the same old stuff that the BBC has been churning out as news and current affairs analysis for years, so no surprise there.

As said many times before it is about time politicians and the security services started to take a closer look at what the BBC is feeding the Muslim community…..praising and hero worshipping those who entertain ideas of becoming Jihadi warriors setting out to create a Cliphate and a new world under Islamic rule in order to fight Western oppression must surely not be what was intended when the BBC was asked to maintain civil society and cohesion.

Lord Hall Hall should be dragged into court as his organisation glorifies terrorism, not just recklessly but with intent,  as this little play seems to demonstrate.

Lest we forget what it is that the BBC ‘understands’, praises and glorifies:










Islam’s ‘Dirty little secret’?



Remember when Islamist Mehdi Hasan tried to curry favour and win credibility with those who could further his inflitration of the media and grow his influence by admitting in a series of articles that Islam wasn’t perfect?  One such article delcared that ‘It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.’

Of course he was telling a truth but his motivation was to gain tactical advantage in order to infiltrate into the media and the Public’s consciousness as ‘someone they could trust’, a Muslim yes, but one ‘honestly’ critical of Islam….anything he said then about Islam would be listened to with favour.

Such an admission was though the truth and is relevant to what we see happening in Europe now as Jews are forced to flee once again due to growing anti-Semitism, much linked to the growth of Muslim immigration.  All of which makes the BBC’s approach somewhat  ironic, if that is the right word, a word not really conveying the powerful stupidity if not dishonesty and wilful cupidity that is involved in the BBC’s reporting.

The BBC, as we know, is desperately papering over the cracks in the unfolding disaster for Europe that is the mass influx of migrants from the Muslim world.  We are supposed to believe that the majority are from Syria, when that is far from the truth, we are supposed to believe that the majority are women and children when we know they are mostly young men, we are supposed to believe they are all despearte refugees from terrible wars and yet that again is untrue.

But that is not the worst of the BBC’s reporting.  The worst is their use of the Holocaust and the Kindertransport of Jewish children out of Nazi Germany to support the unlimited, mass shipment of migrant children (and there are apparently 14 million in the world) to the UK.

Most of these ‘children’, and they can range from any age, even up to 28, as the wool is pulled over uncritical eyes, are Muslim….the same community from whose ranks come those who are driving Jews out of Europe once again.

Some might call it a sick joke that the BBC is using the Holocaust to encourage the bringing to Europe of a huge number of people who espouse an ideology that is so inimicably opposed to other religions and non-believers and of which many of its members actively attack Jews.

Naturally for the BBC Muslims are the real victims of just about everything…

Remember Tim Wilcox suggesting Jews in Europe were a legitimate target for terrorism because of what Israel does?  (He naturally presumes that what Israel does is bad…just the usual BBC bias ala Israel)

Remember Mark Mardell explaining away Muslim terrorist murder of 13 American soldiers….Mark Mardell famously denied that Major Nidal Hassan murdered 13 fellow soldiers in the name of Islam,  that the murders were rather a  ‘senseless tragedy’…

Remember Evan Davis claiming that all the evidence pointed towards the Boston bombs being ‘domestic’, ie white, far right, anti-government, terrorism?  And of course when a fire started at a mosque in was the Far Right, wasn’t it?

Remember Jeremy Bowen claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood were moderates?.’The country’s only properly organised mass political movement outside the ruling party is the Muslim Brotherhood, and it would do very well in any free election.  Unlike the jihadis, it does not believe it is at war with the West. It is conservative, moderate and non-violent. But it is highly critical of Western policy in the Middle East. ’

Remember Mark Easton favourably comparing Muslim extremists with Churchill, Mandela and Ghandi?….’There is, it seems to me, an inherent contradiction between banning orders and the core British value that one should be tolerant of different viewpoints.  History tells us that the development of new ideas of governance and government require people to think radically. Extreme views are necessary to test the wisdom of the mainstream.

Remember Hugh Sykes telling us that Cologne was a Far Right conspiracy?….‘There are conspiracy theories in the air that the New Year’s Eve attackers were encouraged to make sexual approaches to German women, told that it was the normal thing to do on New Year’s Eve. If true, they may have fallen into a well-laid trap.’

Remember the BBC report that said Cologne was an IS conspiracy? …’Some analysts have suggested that IS has encouraged a link between refugees and terrorism in order to foster hostility to refugees in Europe, although it is not known if the latest attack was carried out in co-ordination with the IS leadership in Iraq and Syria.’

Anything but blame the attackers themselves and the conclusion that the immigration policies that brought them here were having a terrible fallout.

It does seem that the BBC has an agenda to misguide the audience as to the truth about Islam and many of its devoted followers.  This I might suggest is rather dangerous especially at a time when there is a clear conflict around the world between those who would like to impose Islam and the rest of the world.   Trump had his own solution…we should put a hold on Muslim immigration until we know what’s going on…or rather, as we know what is going on despite the BBC’s best efforts to fool us, until we get a grip on things, especially the narrative that is the foundation of the Muslim ‘radicalisation’….a narrative so often spouted by the BBC itself.  Until you reduce the attractiveness of that narrative Muslim communities already settled in Europe will still produce endless numbers of violent extremists…and so why import more who may potentially take up the same cause?

Not as if it isn’t happening already as ‘refugees’ are targeted for recruitment to Jihadi ranks….

“German Officials Warn of New Security Risk: Local Extremists Recruiting Refugees.” by Anton Troianovski and Ruth Bender, Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2015 (thanks to all who sent this in):

BERLIN—The Paris attacks have raised fears of terrorists slipping into Europe by posing as refugees. But in Germany, the top migrant destination, security officials have another worry: Local extremists will recruit the newcomers to join the Islamist cause once they arrive.

German authorities warn that migrants seeking out Arabic-language mosques in search of the familiar are increasingly ending up at those attended by Islamist radicals….


Islamic extremists ‘trying to recruit Syrian refugees in Germany’

Islamic extremists in Germany are trying to recruit Syrian refugees to their cause, the country’s domestic security service has said.

The warning came as one of Germany’s best known Islamist preachers published a list of suggestions for his followers on how best to approach refugees.


That’s of course those ‘refugees’ who aren’t already signed up to the cause…

Isil exploiting migrant routes to smuggle jihadists back to Britain using fake documents

Isil jihadists are exploiting the migrant crisis to smuggle terrorists into Europe with fake passports they can then use to travel to the UK, British intelligence officials fear.



Google Is Magic



Rich Hall appeared on the News Quiz on Saturday.  It’s probably the last time he will ever be invited on.

For some reason this troop of comedy greats were described as the ‘piranhas of satire’….more like goldfish….at least the lefties were…round and round they go, the same old stuff being trotted out time after time with no recall that they’d played that tune a thousand times…with one exception…Rich Hall.

The same old targets and the same old lazy anti-capitalism, anti-Tory, anti-anything right-wing faux morallistic bombast that we always get…and no surprise here, the first target was Google with Cameron’s ‘Bunch of migrants’ comment (A ‘Quite horrible’ comment according to the granddame of comedy Jeremy Hardy who thought any BNP voter should be shot) thrown into the mix along with the bedroom tax.  Of course no mention of Labour MP Jess Phillips’ labelling of Birmingham men as brutal sex attackers…odd that the first town that didn’t come to mind was Rochdale.

No mention of the reason for Cameron’s comment…that Corbyn wants to fling open the borders and let in all migrants who want to come here….no wonder the Left are staging a massive distraction away from that one…never mind the Unite union, which backs Corbyn and Labour, were involved in the migrant storming of Calais port and probably, through their proxy ‘blackshirt’ street thugs in the UAF, involved in attacking the anti-immigration protest in Dover.

Rich Hall threw a spanner in the works (5 mins in ) when he declared that Google shouldn’t pay any taxes…why?  Google is magic.   Because look at what they actually provide…apart from jobs, paying large amounts of business rates in London and sucking in investment.  Google provides us free at the point of use….Google Search, Maps and Earth, Google Translation, Google Books, Google image search and Android software that probably powers your phone and tablet….amongst many, many other products…not all free of course….but have you ever had a bill from Google?

Google is not avoiding tax or evading tax, it is just not paying the tax it is not required to pay.  If the politicans want more tax then produce a tax system that doesn’t allow for reliefs and allowances and practises that allow companies to be based in other countries for tax purposes….and don’t create ‘enterprise zones’ and tax reductions designed to attract in businesses to the UK…and then moan about it.

The UK can’t complain, it sets one of the lowest tax rates in the world precisely in order to attract companies and their investment to the UK….as the Guardian admits. 

A survey by PwC earlier this year revealed that 63% of the 1,344 chief executives surveyed worldwide put government tax policy high on the agenda when choosing where to operate their business.

Chris Morgan, head of tax policy at KPMG, said this move, along with a raft of other measures designed to attract the bigger international players has spurred investment and protected jobs.

So the government taxes a company ’til the pips squeak…then what?  The company upsticks and heads to a country where the tax rate is lower…taking jobs, investment and all the other taxes they do pay along with them….and when a big company comes in it drags in with it a lot of small ones who ride on their shirt tails….they go down when the likes of Google go down.  The government then loses that income and on top of that has to pay for unemployment and all that involves.

Funny thing is, when Hall first said Google should pay no tax there was a deep indrawing of breath and a stunned silence from the audience….but when he’d finished his piece he got what was probably the biggest cheer and loudest applause of the day.

Funny that.



A Trusted Brand




Why oh why is A&E struggling? asks the BBC.

Winters are always busy in the NHS and there are always difficult weeks. This one is unusual because of the scale of the increase in demand.

So what’s going on? Nobody, it seems, has a very clear answer.

Nobody except the BBC of course….it’s all down to a surge of elderly patients…and oh yes….people have such  trust in the NHS’s A&E they wouldn’t go anywhere else…

Heads of emergency departments point out there has not been a sudden new spike in numbers of people coming through their doors. They argue that there has been a steadily increasing trend going back a couple of years.

Familiar factors are quoted, including numbers of frail, elderly patients with multiple conditions needing an increasing range of care and treatment.

But the surge in hospital attendances was by no means dominated by the over-65s.

One theory being put forward is that A&E is a well-regarded “brand” amongst the public and is trusted to deliver high quality care even with a wait.

This could tie in with people feeling that their local GP practice is overburdened and a perception that appointments are not easy to get. In a 24/7 culture people increasingly expect instant service, including from the NHS.

So much tosh from our ‘well-regarded’ news brand.  A&E is the only ‘Brand’ available to most people, well-regarded or not….and GP’s overburdened?  Why?

A ‘steadily increasing trend’ over the last few years?  No coincidence immigration has surged and we have had nearly 1 million migrants, net, flood in over the last three years alone?  Any wonder GP surgeries and A&E are chocablock?

Odd how the BBC completely fails to mention immigration when talking about a strange surge in numbers using the NHS.





The BBC wants to see Hillary Clinton become the next POTUS. That much is obvious from their kid glove handling of her run to gain the Democrat nomination. The BBC wants ANY Republican other than Donald Trump to win the GOP nomination so they can lose nobly to Clinton, just as in 2008 and 2012. Hence the prominence given to this sort of nonsense…

US election 2016: Republican rivals mock Trump over no-show

The BBC might want to reflect on this…

Donald Trump dominates GOP field at 41%

Not seen and not heard


The BBC has been filling the airwaves with sad tales of asylum seeking children, well almost filling the airwaves, some stories the BBC is reluctant to tell.

If you are a regular listener or viewer of the BBC news you may recall many, many anguished reports condemning the government or the authorities because hospital patients, or people needing care or even prisoners were forced to travel long distances away from their homes to get treatment or to serve their time.  This was a very bad thing the BBC told us in no uncertain times….

Mental health patients forced to travel miles for care

Cumbria breast cancer patients still forced to travel

Call for more Welsh prison places

Sir Roderick Evans will call for more prison places in Wales saying families often have to travel long distances to visit relatives in jail.  This endangers family contact which is vital for prisoners’ reintegration into society, the judge will tell a Law Society event on Thursday.

However despite the BBC’s previous concerns about those having to travel such long distances or those forced apart from their families, and the BBC’s current obsession with the care of asylum seeking children, a story about British children being forced out of the care system in Kent into neighbouring systems because of those migrant children being given their places is censored by the BBC.

The Telegraph reported:

Migrant influx means British children forced to move away from Kent care homes, says councillor

Vulnerable British children in care have been forced to move away from their home area because of the massive influx of asylum seekers from Calais, a councillor has warned.

Peter Oakford, who oversees specialist children’s services in Kent, said youngsters from the area who needed foster care or other housing had been placed outside the county as it struggled to deal with a sharp increase in arrivals of migrant children.

The authority has seen a 30 per cent rise in unaccompanied asylum seeking children in the last seven months.

The county council is obliged by law to provide them with housing – even though its geographical area means it receives the majority of new arrivals from calais who make it to British soil.

The BBC chose to almost completely ignore that issue, instead headlining with a report that opens with pleas for tolerance of more and more migrants…

Syria: Pickles urges help for ‘at risk’ refugee children

Political pressure is continuing to grow on the government to take in thousands of unaccompanied refugee children who have made it into Europe.

Former cabinet minister Sir Eric Pickles said those “at risk” should be treated with “Christian spirit”.

Former Children’s Minister Tim Loughton said there was a strong humanitarian case to help those “in limbo”.

This report was on the ‘Politics’ page and only right at the very bottom do we get a link to the story about Kent….

Kent County Council has already warned it will not be able to accept any more unaccompanied children, saying its children’s services are facing “enormous pressure” and have run out of foster beds.

The Kent story never made it at all to the front page, the UK page or indeed the politics page…it was tucked away under the regional page of ‘Kent’….which you will only ever find if you look very, very hard, funnily enough.

The BBC essentially buried a story that told of problems caused by migrants….and even this report failed to mention that British kids were being forced out of the care system by migrants.

Kent County Council in lone child refugees warning

Kent County Council has warned it will not be able to accept any unaccompanied children under the government’s plans to resettle 20,000 refugees from Syria.

More than 960 asylum-seeker children are being cared for by the authority, up from 629 at the end of July. The year before there were just 238.

It said children’s services were currently facing “enormous pressure”.

Peter Oakford, cabinet member for specialist children’s services, said the council had run out of foster beds.

We get a clue about what is going on but no indication that it is British children being disadvantaged by the migrants who get first call on Kent’s services it seems….

“We’re having to place young people outside of Kent, whilst still retaining responsibility and having to support these young people,” he added.

This is what the Council actually said….

“This has affected our ability to place citizen children within Kent ourselves,” said the councillor.

“We have had to place Kent children outside of Kent due to the influx of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, which is not a good position to be in and is not a position we want to be in.

Why did the BBC change the wording?  We know why….all migration is good, there is no bad.

More like Big Brother every day.





Get Trump


The BBC’s golf correspondent, Iain Carter, (08:53) has a go at pressuring R&A chief executive Martin Slumbers into not running golf events at Trump owned golf courses….the tone is not of inquiry but of disapproval and arrogant moralistic bullying based upon Carter’s personal opinion of Trump’s politics…..which he calls ‘grubby’.  Carter’s clear intent was to very publicly put Slumbers in a difficult position, a kangaroo court, knowing full well that someone listening may, he hopes, take up the cause and start a very vocal campaign against the R&A to not use Trump golf courses…no doubt Carter feels the R&A are not looking as if they will close out Trump quickly enough for his own liking…

The R&A remains quiet over Turnberry’s place on the Open rota but acknowledges it is a question that won’t go away.

Not if the BBC’s Iain Carter has his way certainly.

Not sure the impartial and independent BBC should be interfering in American politics and deciding what is and what isn’t ‘acceptable’.  A great many people clearly believe Trump has a point, one which the brave journalists of the BBC don’t dare investigate themselves preferring instead to go for the lazy, easy, left-wing crowd pleasing attack on Trump without actually exploring the very real issues he raises.

The same accusation of the BBC ‘making the news’ could be levelled at its campaign against Google….the BBC has been chasing the EU Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager  (07:10) for an answer as to whether she will be opening an investigation into the government’s tax agreement with Google.  The BBC doing Labour’s job for it?  What’s new?

Lo and behold we then hear that the SNP have written to Vestager and made a complaint.







The BBC have been to the fore in cheerleading for the UK to accept many more refugee ‘children” from the tsunami that has fanned across Europe. Here’s an item they ran earlier….

The government has stopped short of accepting Labour and the Liberal Democrat’s proposal of resettling 3,000 refugee children in the UK from mainland Europe, although the government will now resettle more under 18s from the war torn areas around Syria. Speaking live in the studio is Kirsty McNeill, Campaigns Director at Save the Children.

Note the biased way in which this is written. How DARE the elected government “stop short” of accepting what the Opposition demand? And as for the immigrant hustling Save the Children “Campaigns Director” – when she speaks of all these poor “Syrian’ “Children” I wonder could she clarify if that group includes the 15 year old “Syrian” “refugee” “child” who stabbed the 22 year old Swedish woman to death a few days ago? (He was a Somali, unsurprisingly, but then again so are so many of these “Syrians”)

The BBC has blatantly colluded with those rabidly pro-Immigrant groups for some time now – determined to populate the UK with as many third world economic migrants as possible. It’s the BBC that is the menace.


The Today programme was particularly vile this morning. It ran TWO items between 7am and 7.30am. The first was with EU Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager and she there to tell us how the well intentioned EU could investigate how companies such as Amazon, Google and Apple conduct their tax affairs in the UK. The BBC continually play this “tax avoidance” angle up for all it is with – forgetting that these large corporations simply comply with the tax code the politicians put in place. The message was the EU was a force for good – defending us from the robber barons of these big companies.

The BBC also ran an interview with thew Chief Exec of Diageo. Lots of chat about how their brands are performing in different global markets and then…the BBC casually ask him whether he thinks the UK should stay in the EU. Absolutely – he responds. It would be madness for us to BREXIT. Gotta love how the BBC sets this pro-EU agenda up, don’t you?

Sleepwalking into segregation…and cultural disaster


Trevor Phillips’ 2005 speech in which he said that society was sliding into a dangerous segregation, and Muslims in particular were most at risk of doing so, is quite hard to find on the internet for some reason….at least I found it so.

In light of that I thought I would publish it in full here for you to read at your leisure…and as an easy place to find it in future…..


Here is the full text of the Trevor Phillips’ speech.
Britain: pride in diversity
America: a segregated society
The British balance
What makes us British
The path to integration
The drift to segregation
The integration agenda
Hard segregation
Soft segregation
Achieving integration
Since extracts of what I will say tonight became public, some have rushed to comment on what they thought I intend to say. Some have even used the opportunity to have a go at the CRE and its partners. Others have decided, incorrectly, that I want to criticise the government. I don’t intend to answer these critics directly tonight except in one specific area, concerning the work of the CRE itself.

What I want to focus on tonight is a question many Britons are asking themselves: how much has 7/7 changed the prospects for race relations in Britain? How will that affect the CRE family and its work? And how should we respond?

Some people have been surprised, I think, by what they would see as the Commission’s relative silence over the past few months.

It is true that after the initial reaction, in which we focused on appealing for calm and unity, we played little part in the public debates which followed about the causes of 7/7, multiculturalism, and the place of the Muslim communities.

This was partly because much of the debate involved issues outside our scope (foreign policy for example); and because on some of the underlying issues – such as the ‘meaning’ of multiculturalism – we already have a public position, which has been stated and debated many times.

But also we may have seemed silent because at this moment of national crisis, the CRE family needed to act rather than ponder.

In the weeks following 7/7, Commission personnel and more importantly, the thousands of folk we support in communities around the country, were concentrating on three crucial tasks:

    • encouraging communities to come forward with information that would help us to tackle the threat of terrorism;
    • reassuring communities from which the perpetrators of the 7/7 and 21/7 outrages came, that they should not be the targets or scapegoats of retribution; and
    • combating the divisions that these events threatened to open up within communities, and preventing those who would exploit those divisions for racist or Islamophobic purposes from doing so.

In practice this meant that we and our voluntary sector partners were in constant dialogue, collating information and sharing it around the country; preventing rumours taking hold; anticipating where trouble might flare and taking steps to defuse tensions; and encouraging all public authorities, from Ministers to local authorities to the police, and the media, to tread carefully.

People talk a lot about the race relations industry, usually disparagingly. I am proud to say that this summer, our industry did its part in holding communities together at a time of great stress. We experienced no major conflicts, and despite the fact that there definitely was an upsurge in anti-Asian activity post 7/7, we understand that this has now subsided; the GLA tells us that in London for example, the level of such activity is lower now than it was before 7/7.

This is in no small part due to the work of the people often casually abused as race relations busybodies, working on the ground, calming, cajoling and conciliating. Many are paid, but tens of thousands are unpaid, and do it because they want our country to be a better place.

So I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all those who worked with us in that period: the so-called race relations industry showed itself in reality to be a vital post-emergency service.

And our job has only just begun.
After the emergency services have done their lifesaving; the police have done their detection; the lawyers have done their prosecuting and defending; and the politicians have done their reassuring and legislating, they will pass on to new challenges. But we know that there will still be work for us to do.

It is the work of healing divided communities, reconciling black to white to brown, of Jew to Muslim to Hindu.
It is the work of reaching out to those so far out at the edge of our society that values common to the rest of us no longer have meaning for them.

It is the work of forging the common bonds of identity that should make it unthinkable for any of us to want to harm other people in pursuit of a political goal.

And it is about how we start that work that I want to speak tonight.
Britain: pride in diversity
As the mists have cleared over the summer, it would be all too easy to start congratulating ourselves on the silver lining to this cloud.

On July 6, the day we won the Olympics of 2012, Britain emerged as a beacon for diversity across the globe. There is no doubt that the IOC saw London as a place where anyone, whatever their background, could come and feel at home, could visit and know they would find a kindred spirit.

This is a tribute to the team that put together the bid, to our capital city, but most of all to our nation. And it provides part of an answer to that currently vexed question: what is Britishness?

I would put that question differently now, and ask instead: what makes us British?
July 6 and the days after showed that one thing that makes us special is our comfort with diversity.
Even in the desperate adversity of the days that followed the London atrocities, the fact of our multi-ethnicity and our ease with it stood out. Those who died came from myriad backgrounds. Likewise, those who rescued the survivors and reassured the city. It became clear that the people who planted, or wanted to plant, bombs, stood alone, without the comfort of any community that would support their actions.

Earlier this month, as we watched the tragedy of New Orleans unfold, many people, I think – and some said this to me – consoled themselves with the thought that such a thing could never happen here.

By such a thing I do not mean the hurricane itself. I mean the manifest neglect of a poor, largely African American district, and the criminal disregard of citizens who did not have the resources to get out of the way of Katrina. The fact is that these people were socially, economically, culturally and psychologically marooned outside the mainstream of American society.

It wasn’t that nobody cared about them. What happened was worse. The fact is that nobody who mattered even remembered that they existed. In a society where whites and blacks choose to live entirely separate lives, the black poor become invisible to the decision-makers and the powerful, unless and until they get themselves some guns and start to terrorise their own neighbours.

We, here, watching, could not imagine British people behaving like this.
Maybe we too have become blind to anything that isn’t on the TV news or tabloid newspapers. Perhaps it’s time that the cameras returned to the slow massacre of young men and women that is taking place on our streets in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham, for example. Perhaps it’s time that the newspapers showed us the gang warfare that goes on just yards away from our front doors or in children’s playgrounds, in communities we pass through but do not see.

We cannot and must not be complacent. We should learn from America’s failure to act until they were in too deep to get out of the state they are now in.
America: a segregated society
Until New Orleans held up the mirror to the USA, Americans, too, prided themselves on having found the holy grail of integration, with black millionaires, academics, business people and politicians alongside the sports and entertainment stars.

But in New Orleans the truth broke the surface. It showed us a society in which the average black child still attends a black majority school. A society in which the average white person returns home at the day’s end to all-white suburbs, where they won’t see a non-white face until they go back to the city the next day. A democracy in which black politicians, with a few notable exceptions, represent black districts, gerrymandered in order to provide the minimum of black representation. An economy in which black businessmen sell their wares largely to a black middle class. And an education system in which most black academics are teaching at all-black colleges or in urban institutions disproportionately packed with ethnic minority students.

This is a segregated society, in which the one truth that is self-evident is that people cannot and never will be equal. That is why, for all of us who care about racial equality and integration, America is not our dream, but our nightmare.

I think here we also have a different idea of what integration means. There I think the focus is purely on equal rights for different groups. Amongst America’s hyphenated identities, the part of their identity that marks them out as different seems to have become as important, even more important, than the part that binds them together. Americans have all fetched up at the same restaurant; but every group has its own separate table, with its own menu, its own waiters and its own way of paying the bill.
The British balance
I think we have a richer interpretation here that prizes both our individuality and our nation over and above our ethnicity. There are some old-fashioned types who think of integration as just another word for assimilation. But no-one seriously believes that we should all, speak, look, dress, worship and act the same.

However, there has to be a balance struck between an ‘anything goes’ multiculturalism on the one hand, which leads to deeper division and inequality; and on the other, an intolerant, repressive uniformity. We need a kind of integration that binds us together without stifling us. We need to be a nation of many colours that combine to create a single rainbow.

Yes, that does mean recognising diversity and rejecting assimilation. But I believe we are in danger of throwing out the integrationist baby along with the assimilationist bathwater. In recent years we’ve focused far too much on the ‘multi’ and not enough on the common culture. We’ve emphasized what divides us over what unites us. We have allowed tolerance of diversity to harden into the effective isolation of communities, in which some people think special separate values ought to apply.

For example:
Evangelical African churches that see it as acceptable to traumatise a child, claiming they are ridding her of evil spirits.

Sikh activists who think that their feelings of offence caused by a play are more important than the principle of freedom of expression.

The almost casual acceptance that the majority of children in the African Caribbean community grow up without a father-figure, in spite of all the evidence that this causes immense damage both to them and to the community as a whole.

And white communities so fixated by the belief that their every ill is caused by their Asian neighbours that they withdraw their children wholesale from local schools, and allow their children to make a sport of persecuting every local family that is not white.

The fragmentation of our society by race and ethnicity is a catastrophe for all of us. That is why the most important outcome of this summer’s events should be a new resolve to bring our people together, and to remind them what being British is about.
What makes us British
Too much that is too abstract is already being said on the subject of Britishness, but there are some simple truths that should bind us together.

First and foremost, our shared values: for example an attachment to democracy, freedom of speech, and equality, values which anyone who expects to live in Britain must respect and abide by, both notionally and in practice.

Second, we share common traditions which, whatever we do at home, we all agree to respect and observe in our everyday encounters. Central to these I would say are our common language, our good manners, our care for children.

We also cherish a tradition of poking fun at politicians, priests and do-gooders, and – though I qualify for mockery on two counts – I think that is a tradition not to be tampered with lightly. And as long as new customs do not conflict with our values, let’s embrace them as part of the fabric of our community life. They too will one day join our shared traditions, the outstanding example of course, being the Indian restaurant – now not Indian at all but almost wholly British.

Thirdly, we maintain diverse, individualistic, even eccentric lifestyles in our private lives. No-one tells us how to speak, how to dress, what we should eat or how we should worship. These are all individual choices, to be respected as long as they do not interfere with our fundamental values, or our long-cherished traditions. And unlike some other countries, we tend to embrace new additions to our lifestyle choices – whether it is new music, or new kinds of clothes.
The path to integration
Having set that out, I think we must also be clear that integration has to be a two-way street, in which the settled communities accept that new people will bring change with them. Newcomers realise that they too will have to change if we are to move closer to an integrated society.

We already know a lot about what an integrated society looks like. It has three essential features:

    • Equality: everyone is treated equally, has a right to fair outcomes, and no-one should expect privileges because of what they are.
    • Participation: all groups in the society should expect to share in how we make decisions, but also expect to carry the responsibilities of making the society work.
    • Interaction: no-one should be trapped within their own community, and in the truly integrated society, who people work with, or the friendships they make, should not be constrained by race or ethnicity.

This is a big agenda. It won’t happen without positive action and loads of effort.
Some people believe that with time and goodwill we will inevitably move towards a more integrated society.
Others say that it isn’t inevitable, but that what we need is more law and more aggressive enforcement of anti-racist principles.

Yet others argue that integration has little with race or identity. That if we can get the economics right – more jobs, more equal pay – then all will be fine.

I believe all three views are wide of the mark. Let me deal with the first two now; I’ll return to the ‘it’s all economics’ school a little later.

Where we work at the CRE, and on the front lines patrolled by our REC colleagues, we know that we need strong anti-discrimination law, as discrimination is undoubtedly one cause of inequality. But it’s not the only one. It may no longer even be the most important one.

As the United States has proven, powerful anti-discrimination laws, including affirmative action, will not, by themselves, lead to an integrated society. In much of America, non-white Americans are relatively poorer and more excluded than ever before.

In fact the dismal truth is that sixty years after segregation in American schools was ruled illegal, and massive resources were pumped into backing up that decision, the integration process is in reverse gear.

And by the way, in case you think this is political, that process began just before Bill Clinton took office and continued unabated through his eight years and the five years of George W Bush’s administration. So the law, though necessary, will never be sufficient by itself.

What, then, about the passage of time? Won’t familiarity and goodwill, given enough opportunity, close the gaps, bring us together, and instil fairness? I don’t think so. I agree with Geoff Mulgan, speaking at a CRE conference in July, when he said that integration doesn’t just happen:

Integration is a learned competence – like maths or driving a car. It is not instinctive. And these skills determine whether events escalate
or dampen down. In the way that they know what to say and what not to say, when to be firm, when to turn a blind eye …………These are very subtle skills, and where they are abundant societies can cope with great shocks. Where they are thin on the ground small issues can become crippling crises.

So we can’t rely on law, and we can’t just sit waiting for trouble to take place.

The drift to segregation
In fact, I believe that time is becoming our enemy in the fight for an integrated society. Here in the north I think you see things more clearly. We who live in London can all too often persuade ourselves, as we sit around the dinner table, that we are a model for the world, because we eat exotic foods, we watch foreign films, we take our children to the park to play with children whose names are not like ours; and because we ourselves would never dream of discriminating racially.

But the writer Max Hastings, formerly the editor of both the Telegraph and the Evening Standard, where he made strenuous efforts to diversify his newsroom, cut through this smugness recently when he wrote that, having though about it, he could not remember ever having invited a Muslim to his house, and rarely saw a black face at parties. I know he is right about the latter, since I was often one of those isolated black faces.

Yes, some individuals and some ethnic groups are doing comparatively well. But many are not. And among those who are not doing well are some white groups: poor white boys are failing at school. New migrants from Eastern Europe are struggling to make ends meet.

Nor is this just a matter of class, though as ever in Britain, who and what your parents were cannot be ignored. What your parents earn and own still matters. But where they came from and how they worship may now be just as significant in determining what sort of life you have, how you do at school, what work you do, who you marry, where you live, and indeed, when and how you die.

The fact is that we are a society which, almost without noticing it, is becoming more divided by race and religion. We are becoming more unequal by ethnicity. Our schools – and I mean the ordinary schools, not faith schools – are becoming more exclusive.

Our universities have started to become colour-coded, with virtual ‘whites keep-out’ signs in some urban institutions; and if you look closely at the campuses of some of our most distinguished universities, you can pick out the invisible ‘no blacks need apply’ messages.

Residentially, some districts are on their way to becoming fully fledged ghettoes – black holes into which no-one goes without fear and trepidation, and from which no-one ever escapes undamaged. The walls are going up around many of our communities, and the bridges that so many of you in RECs and the voluntary sector have laboured to build are crumbling.

If we allow this to continue, we could end up in 2048, a hundred years on from the Windrush, living in a New Orleans-style Britain of passively co-existing ethnic and religious communities, eyeing each other uneasily over the fences of our differences.

This is not only, or even principally, about Muslims. But the aftermath of 7/7 forces us to assess where we are. And here is where I think we are: we are sleepwalking our way to segregation. We are becoming strangers to each other, and we are leaving communities to be marooned outside the mainstream.

We could have a different future. But if we want that different future, we have to put policies and programmes in place to stop the drift towards disaster. If we don’t, two things will happen.

First, when the hurricane hits – and it could be a recession rather than a natural disaster, for example – those communities are set up for destruction.

And second, even if there is no calamity, these marooned communities will steadily drift away from the rest of us, evolving their own lifestyles, playing by their own rules and increasingly regarding the codes of behaviour, loyalty and respect that the rest of us take for granted as outdated behaviour that no longer applies to them. We know what follows then: crime, no-go areas and chronic cultural conflict.

We have the chance to prevent this happening; but we have to act now. We have a vital duty: to make sure that, insofar as it lies in the hands of our own communities, we are a safer society, not just next week, or next year, but in the next generation and the one after that.
The integration agenda
The integration agenda for the next two generations rests squarely on our shoulders.
We know that the next generation’s migrants won’t look like the last. They are likely to be more European, more diverse in their origins, not English speaking. Whatever their faith – Somali Muslims, Polish Catholics, African evangelicals – they will, unlike most of us, probably take that faith very seriously and live by what they profess.

They will be both highly skilled and unskilled, fitting the requirements of the so-called hourglass labour market. They will probably, for a while, be more male, and many may not stay as long as did the post-colonial, Windrush wave – and as a consequence may not regard the need to ‘fit in’ as being so important.

None of this should disturb us, as long as we are prepared for it, and as long as we make a positive effort to integrate these newcomers – many of whom may become new Britons.

Some people will think that because of their personal experience, things are getting better. They (especially if they live in London) see teenagers of different races chatting together in the streets; they work with diverse groups of people; they stand in the bus queue or on the underground platforms with folk of every shade or shape imaginable. But personal experience may not tell the real story. New research from leading academics is giving us a different picture about both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ segregation in the UK.
Hard segregation
Increasingly, we live with our own kind. The most concentrated areas, what the social scientists call “ghettoes”, aren’t all poverty stricken and drug ridden. But they are places where more than two-thirds of the residents belong to a single ethnic group.

    • Residential isolation is increasing for many minority groups, especially South Asians. Some minorities are moving into middle class, less ethnically concentrated areas, but what is left behind is hardening in its separateness.
    • The number of people of Pakistani heritage in what are technically called “ghetto” communities trebled during 1991-2001; 13% in Leicester live in such communities (the figure 10.8% in 1991); 13.3% in Bradford (it was 4.3% in 1991).
    • To get an idea of what this looks like, compare it with African Americans in Miami and Chicago, where 15% live in such communities.

Even among those who don’t live in the most concentrated areas, the ethnic separation is far too high for comfort.
Social scientists now use what they call the index of dissimilarity to describe just how segregated a district is. The figure tells us what percentage of any given group would have to move house to achieve an even spread across the district. Below 30% is regarded as low or random (for which read tolerable, even if we don’t like it); 30–60% is moderate (for which read cause for concern); and above 60% is high (for which read that if a black person is seen in a white area, it’s time to call the police; and if a white person is seen in a black area, he’s lost).

Happily, we aren’t yet in this range – mostly. But too many communities, especially those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage in some cities, are up around the 60s and the 70s, even in London.

This is not primarily a class problem. Professor Ceri Peach of Oxford University suggests that less than 10% of ethnic segregation is explained by economic factors; much more is down to history and to choice.

Most of us would hope that, even if this level of residential separation stays put, we can make the future look different by ensuring that children meet each other at school. New work from Bristol University throws some cold water on that hope. Professor Simon Burgess and his colleagues, in an exhaustive study, show that far from schools becoming sites of integration, children are slightly more segregated in the playground than they are in their neighbourhoods; and that means that not only are the children not meeting, but nor are their parents.

A study by the Young Foundation in London’s east end, to be published as ‘The New East End’ next February, shows that, despite heroic efforts by the local education authority, the choices made by parents themselves in Tower Hamlets are also entrenching segregation. There:

In primary schools in 2002, 17 schools had more than 90% Bangladeshi pupils; 9 schools had fewer than 10%.
In the 15 secondary schools, figures from Ofsted reports since 2000 show that three denominational schools (of which two are Roman Catholic) had fewer than 3% Bangladeshi pupils, whereas two schools had over 95% Bangladeshi pupils and a further three over 80%.

I want to emphasise one point here. People make the mistake of believing that most racial segregation in school arises from faith schools. This is wholly incorrect.

First, where such schools tend to be exclusive because of the faith qualification – Jewish, Sikh and Muslim schools, for example – the numbers are tiny and unlikely to grow substantially. There are just five maintained Muslim schools out of 25,000 schools in England and Wales. Even a twenty-fold increase would still be educating a tiny minority of Muslim children.

Second, the third or so of schools which owe their existence to the Catholic or Anglican church, where the faith qualification is less of a hurdle, actually tend to be more diverse than most, in the true sense of the word.

Data from OFSTED shows that when we look at the ethnic mix of schools, Catholic schools tend to be far more mixed than local authority schools. A healthy mix might be a school with a proportion of ethnic minority pupils somewhere between 5% and 40% – where these children neither predominate, nor are they isolated.

Among state schools, about a quarter (25.6%) fall into this group. But among Catholic schools, a third (32.5%) would fit this description. So the passion being spent on arguments about whether we need more or fewer faith schools is, in my view, misspent. We really need to worry about whether we are heading for USA-style semi-voluntary segregation in the mainstream system. That would be a grim prospect.

In the USA, according to the 2000 Census, whites form 69.1% of the population; African Americans are about 12.5% of the population; Hispanics the same; and ‘Asians’ around 3-4%. For some years in the 1950s and 1960s, levels of segregation decreased; but in 1970 the process went into reverse.

The average white child now attends a school that is 78% white, 9% black, 8% Hispanic, 3% Asian; the average black child attends a school that is 57% black. The proportion of the average black child’s schoolmates who are white has dropped from 32% in 89/90 to 28% in 99/00.

Nine out of ten white children are in white majority schools – and nearly half (45%) are in schools where more than 90% of the children are white.

Among African American children, nine out of ten go to black majority schools, and one third are in schools where they account for 90% of the pupils.

Why does all this matter? First, for the obvious moral reason that no human being should have their destiny determined by the colour of their skins.

And second, because segregation destroys talent. The evidence shows that the quality of school in the US is also colour coded; most black children are in rubbish schools, most whites in good ones. We believe that data on universities will show tell the same story.
Soft segregation
If we all lived separately but knew, liked and mixed with people of different races and backgrounds, we might regard that as a tolerable compromise. But we know that human nature is not like that. And our own research at the CRE is damning.

Alongside hard, spatial segregation, we increasingly inhabit separate social and cultural worlds. Attendance at football matches where there are black players, the odd bit of identity tourism in Chinatown, or the local Indian restaurant really doesn’t cut it.

When we leave work, most of us leave multi-ethnic Britain behind.
Last year, we showed that most Britons could not name a single good friend from a different race; fewer than one in ten could name two – and even in London, which is one-third black or brown, a derisory proportion of whites had non-white friends. Just as alarmingly, we showed that young people from ethnic minorities were twice as likely to have a circle of pals exclusively from their own community, as were older ethnic minority folk.

This year we repeated the exercise.
Behaviour in white Britain has not changed a bit. Last year, 94% of white Britons said that all or most of their friends are white. This year it is 95%. Once again a majority – 55% – could not name a single non-white friend, and this was true of white Britons of all ages, classes and regions.

What the figures tell us about the behaviour of ethnic minority Britons is even bleaker. Last year, 31% of ethnic minority Britons said that most or all of their friends were from ethnic minority backgrounds; we found that this trend was stronger among the young than the old. This year the figures show a marked turn for the worse.

The 47% of ethnic minority Britons who last year said that most or all of their friends were white has now shrunk to 37%; and the proportion who have mainly or exclusively ethnic minority friends has grown from 31% to 37%. This is way beyond any statistical fluctuation.

It also remains true that younger Britons are more exclusive than older Britons. It must surely be the most worrying fact of all that younger Britons appear to be integrating less well than their parents.

I can imagine the glee in some quarters at the picture we are reporting. But those who see this as an argument against immigration should not take comfort from what I am saying. History does not support their case. The speed and scale of immigration have had little impact on the levels of integration in the past sixty years.

For example, among minority groups who seem to have found integration easiest, East African Asians arrived in a rush – over a period of months, whilst Jews took decades to get here in numbers. There are twice as many African Caribbeans as there are Bangladeshis, but their levels and ease of integration are very different.

More relevant is a new issue on the horizon: the majority-minority city, where the majority of the citizens are not white.

This will come about within the next decade in Birmingham and Leicester, as well as in Amsterdam and one or two other European cities. There is no intrinsic problem with a city in which white people are in a minority – it’s true of many cities in the world.

But research by John Logan in the USA suggests that when minority groups form over 20% of a city’s population, it becomes harder to reduce their isolation.7 It will take all the ingenuity and skill of the leaderships of these new majority minority cities to arrest the trend towards separate and competing ethnic fiefdoms within their city walls.

I’ve painted a pretty bleak picture. But the point is that it does not need to be like that. In this as in other things, Britain can walk its own, better path than its American cousin, or its European neighbours.

We can start by deciding what we want to achieve. In my view, there are two clear priorities for government and the nation:

    • Now: protection of citizens, and reassurance on security.
    • Soon, very soon: maximising integration, minimising extremism.

We do not want the second to compromise the first: we shouldn’t seek to achieve integration by sacrificing security. But we won’t find lasting security without integration; so achieving the first should not be allowed to compromise the second.
Achieving integration
I identified earlier the three preconditions for an integrated society: equality, participation and interaction. This is a three legged stool – without all three, none of them will really be achieved. As I showed earlier, people who are unequal do not interact; societies where not everyone participates don’t treat everyone equally. And so on.

So there are ways in which we could get it very wrong. One crucial error we could make is to forget that equality is an absolute precondition for integration. A society in which most ethnic minority Britons are poorer, less well educated, less healthy and less politically engaged won’t be integrated. Another is to imagine that because we don’t have battles in the streets we are content with each other. To paraphrase Spinoza’s remark about the absence of war, the absence of racial riots does not imply the presence of racial integration.

But we do start with a great advantage. Modern Britain is ready for the challenge of integration.
CRE research shows that for the first time in sixty years we are growing more relaxed about our ethnic differences. We accept that there is a need for immigration:

    • in our April YouGov poll, one quarter of our respondents said there should be no arbitrary limit on the proportion of the UK’s population which is immigrant; while
    • two-thirds think a proportion of over 15% is okay.

Since the migrant and ethnic minority populations are still below 10%, we have a way to go before Britons feel threatened by pure numbers.

But, while we are tolerant of more immigration, we are clear that we need to be sure that newcomers will fit in. We are very specific about what’s expected of migrants: first, a job or qualifications, and demonstrable skills including English; second, good health; and third, some evidence of loyalty to Britain. In short we are looking for migrants who have the ability to participate in our national life, and the willingness to interact with the rest of us.

Minority Britons by and large share these sentiments. They would understandably like a greater focus on equality. Some minority communities are restive about the relentless public focus on Muslim communities, feeling that perhaps this might lead to their communities being neglected.

But there is no doubt that Britain has a clear demand from us, the CRE family: to make the process of integration real, active and urgent. So this autumn the Commission is setting out its plans for an ambitious new programme to encourage greater integration. It will inform everything we do, and we want the whole CRE family to play a part in this work.

At its heart will lie three aims:

    • a relentless focus on greater equality;
    • a drive towards more equal participation; and
    • steps to promote renewed interaction between Britons of different backgrounds and different traditions.

At the core of our equality work lies our enforcement of the Race Relations Act. We are this year spending over a million and a half pounds on support of meritorious legal cases brought either to the CRE or to our local grassroots partners. We intend to continue that support.

There has been some suggestion that the CRE has, in recent times, been less than vigorous in its enforcement work. This is particularly surprising since we have just seen a record award in an employment tribunal in a case of race discrimination – an award of £1.6m. It is surprising given that the CRE is spending well over a million pounds on grassroots legal support, in addition to handling several hundred cases directly. This year we expect to win in excess of a million pounds in settlements of cases handled by CRE staff; this will be multiplied several times by our partners in grassroots law firms, RECs, trades unions and CABx.

We have begun and concluded nearly 300 enforcement actions against public authorities in the past 18 months; we started and completed the largest ever formal investigation – into the police – in the Commission’s history; and we have just expanded our enforcement team after many years of its being starved of resources.

It may be that in the past, people got used to the CRE talking a lot and doing little. We now prefer it the other way around.

But we intend to go further. We will step up our efforts to work with government and public authorities to enforce the race equality duty. A vital weapon in this work is our raceequality impact assessment. We will expect public authorities, including government departments, to conduct serious impact assessments on anti-terror laws, or whether, for example, the move of jobs from London will have a disproportionate and adverse impact on ethnic minorities.

If the answer is yes, we expect the policy to change. And let me be clear, if it does not change, we will seek redress in the courts.

But in our equality work we won’t ignore the fact that racial inequality and disadvantage strikes all kinds of people. Our investigation into the treatment of Gypsies and Travellers is all about people who are white; and the work we are doing on the educational achievement of boys may pay as rich dividends for white boys as I hope it will for black boys.

We will also be seeking new approaches to tackling institutional racism in both the public and private sectors: equality audits, new powers for company directors to demand information about equality performance of potential partners, and new incentives for shareholders to hold their boards to account on equality issues.
However, we know that real commitment to equality in government, in our neighbourhoods, and in the workplace won’t happen until minorities have a voice. That is why this year we will be working with you to increase the diversity of those appointed to public bodies and positions such as health boards, school governors and cultural institutions.

We also intend to start the drive early to make political parties more inclusive in their nominations for parliamentary and council seats. Since 2001 the proportion of ethnic minority councillors in the UK has slumped. There are still only 15 ethnic minority MPs when there should be more than 50. That has to change.
The work in equality and participation will be taxing enough. But I believe that it is in ensuring greater interaction that we face the hardest challenge and the most urgent need. I have already spoken about the way that our communities are drifting apart. We need practical action to reverse the trend.

The CRE intends to bring consult with its partners on concrete steps and to put serious resource into this area. We need big ideas and radical steps. Let me give you a flavour of what we have in mind.

    • Sport

We have already announced that we will, over the next three years, with our partners in Sport England, spend over £2m in supporting integrated sport.

We heard that one of the bombers of 7/7 was a keen cricketer. The suggestion was that made him puzzlingly normal. Unfortunately if he only ever took the field in a team of eleven people exactly like him, playing another eleven from the same community, his sporting activities may have served to separate him from the real life of Britain, rather than to encourage a sense of commonality with the rest of us.

As we’ve seen this summer, sport can bring all of us together; but it has to go beyond the rare occasion of national triumph. It has to do that job every evening in every gym or sports centre, and every weekend on every playing field. That is why we will be making grants available to create more integrated sport, especially for young people.

I hope that some time in the next twelve months we will be able to announce a similar scheme in relation to the arts and music – activities which can either serve to keep us in our separate ghettoes, or to bring us together.

    • Summer camps

We believe that bringing young people together has to be the key to eliminating isolation and prejudice. Contact won’t necessarily make you like someone, but it may stop you fearing them and regarding them as an enemy. That is why we believe that American style summer camps, or French colonies de vacance, offer an exciting prospect for integration.

Whether it is football camps, music camps, or art courses, where young people do the thing that interests them, perhaps under the tutelage of professionals – think of the David Beckham football camp, or the Jamie Oliver cooking week – any opportunity that puts young people in the same place as people they would not otherwise mix with, has to be a contribution. That is why we will also be working with government ministers and the private sector to promote a growing programme of summer camps for young people of all backgrounds.

    • Schools

These are important initiatives and we believe they could make a difference. But none of this will work if we find that young people are daily separated in the place where they spend the greatest part of their time: schools and universities.

I told you earlier about new research demonstrating that schools tend to be more segregated than the neighbourhoods they are in. I also pointed out that partly as a result, our universities are becoming racially coded. The impact on jobs and life chances is inevitable.

I wish that we could reverse these trends without government or statutory intervention. But we may not be able to do so.

That is why the time may soon come for us to consider how best we prevent schools becoming mono-ethnic and monocultural – whether the ethnicity is all white or all Asian, or the culture all Christian or all Muslim.

Let me be clear. I do not favour quotas, and I think that bussing showed itself to be a failed solution. But we cannot simply stand by and see the next generation schooled to become strangers. We need to think of creative solutions.

For example, should we be considering using the funding system to encourage schools to attract a diverse range of children? Should we, the CRE, as part of our monitoring of local authority race equality schemes require them to show us that their catchment areas are being drawn in a way that encourages integration, rather than cutting people off from others who do not share their race? Ultimately, should we have a national understanding of what kind of mix is desirable and what undesirable?

These are all difficult questions, which will no doubt provoke cries of “social engineering”. So be it. I would rather bear that albatross than allow our children to continue marching into educational ghettoes.
Much of what I’ve said tonight is controversial, I am aware. But my job as chair of the CRE cannot involve sitting on the sidelines when we are facing such a huge challenge. And you would rightly feel betrayed if we continued playing the same old, failed tunes while you are facing new realities.

I know that there are many who would rather I did not raise these issues in this way, or indeed at all. Others I am sure will say that I am being alarmist. But isn’t this the way it’s always been when we fight for racial equality? When we are polite and euphemistic, our friends criticise us for being too soft. When we tell it like it is, and say what has to be done, they attack us for being too strident.

Well, we all of us have a job to do, and we need to start it now. Race campaigners are fond of quoting Martin Luther King, speaking of his dream. But it’s time to wake up.

In a letter written during one of his regular incarcerations in jail, he wrote this:
Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say “wait”…… But there comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair.

We are a long way from that abyss. But we can see it and unless we stop our drift now we too will one day look over the edge. That is why, as King said, “We can’t wait”.




Submission to…intellectual, legal, political and media terrorism


One of our commenters (apologies can’t remember who) linked us to a tale of the ‘Lancaster Plan’ alleged plan that was concocted by the Establishment in order to not have to deal with the ‘Muslim problem’ that was inevitably going to ensue as bunches of Muslims swarmed into Europe…their plan was to prevent any objections and opposition to the encroaching Islamisation and silence debate and criticism to stop people realising there was a problem until it was too late.  By doing so they hope to prevent outbreaks of violence against Muslims as people woke up to the realisation that British society was being conquered and colonised by Islam.  They prefer to see Islam dominate than to see possible violence on the streets.  Never mind that Islam is the end of history and the beginning of a new Dark Ages.

There is of course no such plan, in writing.  However it most certainly is the plan in reality, by default and as a result of  overweaning cowardice. A plan in which the BBC has a leading role in trying to quell discontent and disharmony by spreading disinformation…to ‘maintain cohesion and civil society’….the classic example being the repeated, and false, mantra that Islam is the religion of peace.  Politicians are scared witless of actually doing anything concrete and taking the necessary actions to prevent the Islamisation of society, they would rather see Britain become Islamic than be the ones to go down in history as the racist and Islamophobic politicians who ‘fought’ Islam and Muslims…Cameron makes some ‘brave’ speeches denouncing so-called Islamism (that’s not Islam mind) and headline grabbing but half-hearted policies such as teaching Muslim women English or  wishy-washy policies on the veil in schools and other public places but doesn’t actually make any of it law, leaving it to others to decide ‘in the circumstances’ if it is appropriate that someone should wear a veil…knowing full well most will not brave the storm of abuse they receive if they do stop a Muslim wearing the veil.

We have others who actually endorse the Islamification of Britain….remarkably so many of them Christian clergy…..Rowan Williams suggesting we should allow a parallel Muslim legal system to develop, one of his chums astonishingly suggests Christian clergy should wear beards to engratiate themselves with Muslims…and then there’s Trevor Phillips.

Trevor Phillips’ journey into Submission illustrates perfectly how the ‘Lancaster Plan’ works……the plan isn’t so much a pro-active plan needing a positive investment of thought, policy and ideology, it is merely a plan to stand back and let things happen, quell any voices of opposition (such as the EDL) and allow Islam to gradually dominate society as leading public figures eventually cave in to the relentless pressure from Muslim attack groups and their supporters in the media not to make negative comments about Islam and indeed finally submit and go the other way and start advocating for Islam for a quiet life.

That old bogey-man, Hitler, mastered the take-over of a society by terrorising it and at the same time making the Establishment think he was the answer….Muslim activists employ the same tactics….propaganda is far more effective when backed by terrorism…everytime a bomb goes off they are there denouncing the violence but claiming Muslims are the real victims and that the media needs to silence any debate about the role of Islam in terrorist ideology otherwise Muslims will feel ‘besieged’ and become ‘radical’….a blackmailing bluff that politicians dare not call…..these activists  launch relentless attacks, in the media, poltically and in the courts, to bully and intimidate opponents who they know will eventually tire and submit as Hitler himself understood……

I realized the infamous intellectual terrorism of this movement targets the privileged-class, which is neither morally nor spiritually a match for such attacks. They tell a barrage of lies and slander against the individual adversary it considers most dangerous and keep it up until the nerves of the group being attacked give in and they sacrifice the hated figure just to have peace and quiet again. But the fools still do not get peace and quiet. The game begins again and is repeated until fear of the villain becomes a hypnotic paralysis.

They  are  successful  in  creating  the  impression  that  giving in  is  the  only  way  to  win  peace and  quiet  from  them  while  they  quietly,  cautiously,  but  unerringly,  conquer  one  position after  another,  either  by  quiet  extortion  or  by  actual  theft  when  the  public  attention  is  on other things. The public is distracted and either unwilling to be interrupted or they consider the  situation  too  small  to  worry  about  and  believe  it  is  not  worth  provoking  the  angry  foe again.


Trevor Phillips has fallen victim to the enormous pressure that any critic of Islam or Muslims is forced to endure.

In 2005 Trevor Phillips told us that we were sleepwalking into a segregated society with the Muslim community especially ‘marooned outside the mainstream’ and he predicted that this will have serious consequences …..

Those communities are set up for destruction.

And second, even if there is no calamity, these marooned communities will steadily drift away from the rest of us, evolving their own lifestyles, playing by their own rules and increasingly regarding the codes of behaviour, loyalty and respect that the rest of us take for granted as outdated behaviour that no longer applies to them. We know what follows then: crime, no-go areas and chronic cultural conflict.

We have the chance to prevent this happening; but we have to act now. We have a vital duty: to make sure that, insofar as it lies in the hands of our own communities, we are a safer society, not just next week, or next year, but in the next generation and the one after that.

A vital duty to stop that segregation….to stop crime, no-go areas (yes those) and chronic cultural conflict (bit late for that).  How times change….no doubt due to the barrage of abuse Phillips received as a result of that speech in 2005.

Trevor Phillips now says that Muslims should be allowed to live separate and parallel lives as they will never integrate..indeed...“it was disrespectful to suppose that Muslim communities would change”….

Muslim communities are “unlike others in Britain” and “will not integrate in the same way”, according to the former head of the equalities watchdog. 

He claimed that we should accept that Muslims “see the world differently from the rest of us.”

Mr Phillips said part of the integration process was for “the rest of us to grasp that people aren’t going to change their views simply because we are constantly telling them that basically they should be like us.”

Phillips has blown apart the narrative that there is a ‘British Islam’, that Muslims will integrate, that Islam will reform to fit in with a liberal, democratic, Western progressive society.  It won’t.  We’ve always known that.  The BBC et al just refused to admit it because then they would have to start explaining what that will mean for Britain, for Europe, for the World, as Europe, one of the main bulwarks of freedom, democracy, liberal beliefs, succumbs to an ideology that is directly opposed to so much of its own beliefs.

Any wonder that the BBC has not published a word of Phillips’ speech, nor has the Guardian?  The BBC knows full well he has made the speech…Nicky Campbell had quotes from it at the ready this morning because he knew it would be mentioned on his programme….he used the quotes to try and crush criticism of Islam strangely enough.

Campbell’s programme was about the Ofsted announcement that schools could be marked down if they allowed pupils or staff to wear the veil.  Consider that Phillips’ comments were a highly dramatic and devastating admission about how society is being shaped, one that has enormous and unpleasant ramifications for everyone, you would be justified in asking why the BBC chose instead to talk about a relatively minor matter of wearing the veil in public.

Campbell thinks of himself as an expert in Islam and the Koran having been mentored and intellectually succoured, or is that suckered, by the clown Mo Ansa.  As we’ll see, Campbell is mistaken…Mo Ansa had no answer.

John Morris, former Ofsted official, stated (8 mins 50 secs in) that Trevor Phillips said that Muslim communities were “unlike others in Britain” and “will not integrate in the same way”.

Campbell jumps in and states that Morris was quoting Phillips ‘rather selectively’…Phillips said it would be disrespectful to expect Muslims to change…Trevor Phillips is actually calling for tolerance Campbell claims.  Campbell says Morris is ‘falsely inferring from what he is saying’.  No he wasn’t, he quoted exactly what Phillips said and did so in correct relation to what was being discussed.

It seems a highly appropriate quote in a discussion about the veil in that it shows that Muslims have no intention of integrating, and indeed cannot…the veil is jst one very obvious example of that.  It is Campbell who selectively quotes and inteprets as he wants….is Phillips calling for tolerance or is he saying because Muslims refuse to integrate we should just roll over and accept that?…that’s submission not tolerance.

At least we know Campbell knows what Phillips has said…so again I ask why is that not the subject of this discussion when it is such a bombshell admission with cataclysmically dire consequences for our society?

Campbell, who as you may expect, is always edging towards acceptance of the veil, then claims that this is not a religious requirement but merely cultural…..if that is the case then why do Muslims have such an issue with a ban in certain places?

Campbell states that the Koran makes no mention of the veil and there is no Koranic requirement for the veil to be worn.   The Koran however does clearly stipulate that women must cover up if they go out in public…but in fact the preferred place for a woman is to stay closed up in the home away from the eyes of other men.

And stay in your houses and (do) not display yourselves (as was the) display (of the times of) ignorance the former.

It shall be no offence for the Prophet’s wives to be seen unveiled by their fathers, their sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, or their slave–girls. Women, have fear of God; surely God observes all things.

Prophet, enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers to draw their veils close round them. That is more proper, so that they may be recognized and not be molested. God is ever forgiving and merciful.

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty.

Campbell also has an oft repeated mantra that there is no one Muslim community…there are many different ones….however, again, that’s just not true…there may be different cultural communities who happen to be Muslim but there is only one Islam, one God, one Faith, one Mosque…that’s the founding essence of Islam…it was revealed because Christians and Jews did not follow their scriptures to the word and broke up into sects…the Koran orders…..

Turn to Him and fear Him. Be steadfast in prayer and serve no other god besides Him.
Do not divide your religion into sects, each exulting in its own doctrines.

Do not divide your religion into sects…hence break-away sects such as Shias and Ahmadis etc are not considered Muslims.

There is a reason the Islamic State hold up one finger, it has a very real meaning…and there is a reason they feel able to kill Shias and anyone else not considered Muslim.  It’s in the Koran.

Campbell is either entirely ignorant and is bluffing his way or knows what the Koran says and is lying.  Either way he is covering up the truth, a very important truth and one that reveals exactly the thinking of those who ‘radicalise’ and explains their actions.  You might think that was important.  It is.  Which is why the BBC doesn’t like to admit it as it owuld start to raise very difficult and unpleasnt questions about Islam…as lefty academic David Goodhart said…the more people get to know about Islam the more alien they will find it.  The BBC’s aim is to stop you finding out those inconvenient truths.









Question Time Live Chat

David Dimbleby chairs this weeks spectacle from Stamford, Lincolnshire. On the panel are Conservative transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin, Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley Jess Phillips, Moray MacLennan, boss of M&C Saatchi with Angus Robertson from the SNP and Independent columnist and whitey-hater Yasmin Alibhai-Brown tussling for last place in order of relevance.

Kick off tomorrow (Thursday) at 22.45

Chat here

Register here if necessary.