The British Wiped Out The Dinosaurs…no…really…says BBC

 

Muslim fundamentalists set off bombs in the UK killing and injuring hundreds, Muslim fundamentalists launch attacks on British citizens driving vehicles into them killing and injuring them, Muslim fundamentalists attack British citizens with knives in the street, Muslim fundamentalists impose their religion upon schools using intimidation and deception, Muslim fundamentalists use the race card to ‘blackmail’ government and institutions to bow to their demands, Muslims who see them as prostitutes and trash target white girls on an industrial scale for abuse…and who is to blame?  Us, the non-Muslims.

Of course non-Muslims are to blame….for hasn’t it always been thus as the BBC frequently tells us?

Take Partition in India and the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh.  The mass murder of maybe one million people and the mass forced migration of 10 million people as they ran for their lives….again…the fault of the British.

We know this because the BBC tells us this is the way it was as it reinvents the history of Partition.  This is a classic BBC revisionist programme but with a twist…not only do we get the usual ‘white guilt’ BBC institutional anti-British prejudice we get the ‘history’ as interpreted by non-British reporters, or reporters of Asian ethnicity, who add their own anti-British tinge to the narrative….so we get a double dose of bashing Britain.

The BBC does that BBC thing…giving us facts on the one hand but totally ignoring them in its conclusions on the other as it spins the real message it wants you to ingest.  It will tell us Muslims and Hindus were bashing the hell out of each other before Partition but then tell us all communities lived in splendid harmony together until the British forced Partition upon them.  The BBC can tell us that both Hindus and Muslims wanted the British to exit India as soon as possible and to divide up the country…then they will tell us the British prematurely abandoned India and left it to its fate as it was in their interest to do so thus causing the mass murder as law and order broke down…then telling us that there was already mass murder going on before Partition.  The BBC will tell us that poor old Cyril Radcliffe was to blame as he carved up India with a careless flick of his pencil across the map…and yet they will also tell us that he was handed a poisoned chalice…a task that the demands of the various parties made impossible….and of course completely ignoring the fact that no border can possibly allow for all the competing demands of each community…if they want and demand a border then compromises have to be made…or other solutions adopted…such as mass murder and ethnic cleansing.  The BBC thinks a chat over a bit of tiffin and a handshake would have sorted all the nastiness out…as usual ignoring the reality of human nature and geopolitics….the problem was not the actual route of the line but the idea of Partition itself and the creation of a Muslim state…and who was it that demanded that?

The BBC portrays the British Empire in India as pretty malign, indeed one of their favourite India ‘experts’ is William Dalrymple…a man who can’t find anything good to say about the British and has essentially ‘gone native’.  His latest comments are that the arrival of British traders in India was very, very sinister…a rogue multi-national corporation [how very BBC] conquered India….well not without the collusion and collaboration of the various rulers of India….the British Establishment in India was tiny…maybe around 760 civil servants ruling over 400 million.  They could in no way have controlled India without the willing help of the locals……for example Afghanistan proved impossible to tame because the locals put up a fight whereas in India the local rulers thought the British could benefit them as allies against their own enemies.

Ahh… actually it was Churchill who was to blame.  Kipling was a racist…in fact all Brits were very, very racist….their failure and refusal to understand and love brown faced people condemned so many Indians to a grisly death.  Or was it Queen Victoria rising from her grave and personally stabbing all those Indians to death, or maybe the sinister East India Company mowing them down in order to sell more bullets?  Maybe it was the wicked Daily Mail….what a grand wheeze….partition India, massacre a million and put 10 million refugees on the road in order to sell a few more papers!

Let’s admit who is really to blame, ultimately and predominantly.  Go on BBC, admit it! The Muslim separatists who agitated and fought to get a separate Muslim state.  They caused the violence and upheaval by demanding Partition…the British may not have administered the process perfectly but who could?  Staggering bloody clashes were inevitable whatever the process…it was the idea not the process that was the real cause of the death and suffering.

A lesson there for anyone who advocates multi-cultural societies in which certain groups refuse to integrate whilst growing exponentially in number until they feel strong and confident enough to make demands along the lines of a separate state for themselves.  It’s a classic ‘trojan horse’ tactic used by many throughout history…Hitler used German populations in other countries as an excuse to invade in order to ‘protect’ them just as Putin does now in the Crimea and Ukraine, annexing off part of another country or taking over the whole country.  What the BBC doesn’t tell you about the fighting in Burma is that it is caused by Muslims trying to annex part of Burma to set up their own state…the BBC just tells us it is racist Buddhists attacking Muslims.

‘Mini-Pakistans’ dotted around the UK are possibly not a good idea.

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to The British Wiped Out The Dinosaurs…no…really…says BBC

  1. Rick Bradford says:

    Lying by omission is one of the favourite tactics of the Left, as it offers a veneer of plausible deniability.

    The BBC’s print arm. The Guardian demonstrated this perfectly with its article yesterday entitled Three British men to be caned for sexual assault of woman in Singapore.

    Now, you’ll be thinking lager lout/football hooligan types, or a rugby team on tour. We learn later that the names of the three perpetrators are Khong Tam Thanh, Michael Le, and Vu Thai Son, which are unmistakeably Vietnamese names.

    But The Guardian fails to inform us of this fact anywhere in the article, and if challenged, would no doubt point to the men’s British passports, or claim that their ethnicity is not relevant, or that it would be racist to mention it (see, I can do Leftist arguments, too. It’s easy.)

    I would argue that their ethnicity is relevant, as it plays into the debate of ‘what does being British mean?’, which also encompasses the millions of ‘British’ Muslims who have nothing but contempt for their adopted homeland.

    But that debate is one the Left at all costs does not want to have.

       116 likes

    • vesnadog says:

      “Mini-Pakistans’ dotted around the UK are possibly not a good idea.”

      Coming soon! Islams back-to-back council houses in Blackburn Lancashire!:

      9HQpwbo.jpg

         13 likes

  2. Wild says:

    It is simply virtue signalling. They don’t care about what actually happened, if they did they would be worried about Muslim immigration to this Country. What they are interested in is their feelings, and if you are on the Left it feels more virtuous to condemn ourselves. Hatred of the White man (and the English male in particular) is how the Left get their jollies. They are sick in the head.

       87 likes

  3. TrueToo says:

    I guess BBC hacks would find it difficult to take a consistent propagandist stance on British involvement in Palestine. On the one hand they must loathe the authorities of the time for the Mandate to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. On the other hand they must be delighted that in the end they did all they could to deny the Jews that homeland, to the extent of arming the Arabs while disarming the Jews and even fighting on the side of the Jordanians during the desperate struggle for Israel in 1948.

       36 likes

  4. Deborahanother says:

    The BBCs take on the partition of India is that the British lost control which led to the bloodshed .As I remember history the British kept the peace in a violent and ungovernable country and when withdrawing as requested by Indians the Muslims wanted their own part of the country .India was set up as a secular democracy .Muslims don’t do secularism.
    An older indian lady I saw being interviewed stated it has not turned out as they expected.There is still religious division and lack of equality throughout India. BBC blames Britain for it all of course.
    I’m not apologising for the Empire ,I wasn’t there so its not my fault BBC.

       58 likes

    • ID says:

      Deborahanother
      Yes, last night’s Newsshite with Squark as waffler-in-chief was a classic example.
      Hindu types lecturing the English public about inequality and social injustice when their ancient caste system is still in existence. In fact, the Hindu “community” has introduced this practice into modern day Britai. Cicero mentions the custom of widows fighting for the honour of being the only wife to be burnt with the husband. Hindu society is stagnant for a thousand years and these people have the gall to blame the British Empire for their backwardness – when it was imperial officials who were the first to try to curb these primitive tribal practices. If the legacy of the British Empire is so repugnant to them, why did they ensconce themselves in Britain in the first place? .

         31 likes

  5. Up2snuff says:

    I have now discovered why the BBC appear to be anti-India on this major anniversary of Independence thanks to last nights The World Tonight on BBC Radio 4. The BBC are so transparent at times and it became clear that the BBC does not approve of Prime Minister, Narendra Modi.

    No neutrality from the BBC who should be exactly that. The BBC are just like a British national newspaper with its inherent bias. Those newspapers do not receive public funding via threat of fine and imprisonment. Should the BBC remain so especially privileged?

       46 likes

  6. Doublethinker says:

    I didn’t bother watching the daily tripe broadcast by the BBC because I already knew the script pretty well and I knew the conclusion off by heart. The Brits were bound to be the root of all the calamities that befell India and Pakistan from when Brits first set foot on the sub continent , through the Raj and partition and right up to the present day. It’s all so predictable , just another load of distortion, suppression of the truth and outright lies from the world’s biggest generator of fake news and anti British historical fiction. Just how the corporation thinks this will help their cherished social harmony policy Is a bit of a mystery. But I suspect that they think that by taking the sins of the entire world on to British shoulders , apologising and abasing ourselves , we will be forgiven for what they consider to be heinous crimes. They, the BBC, not our past, is the stain on our country. The sooner we are shut of this pile of s**** the better.

       68 likes

  7. JamesArthur says:

    I have listened most of R4 discussion on partition whilst driving – well, for as long as I could stand it 🙂 and apart from a minor foray, the role of muslims and their demand for separation from Indians (non muslims) and the violence that took part (without any involvement from Britain) was glossed over.
    But they did manage to go back to 1919 ( not really anything to do with partition) and spend time with a BBC reporter whose Great Grandfather had role in the laws that lead to the Amritsar massacre (forgot to mention that Gurkhas were also with the British) – whilst I had no issue with him apologising for his great grandfather – WHY did he have to apologise for Great Britain? I am not apologising for something 100 years ago..when will we have to stop this BBC /Left led historic apologetic behaviour.

       57 likes

    • engineerdownunder says:

      Rewriting and apologising for historical events is a classic left wing tactic. Of course a rational personal cannot apologise for events 100 years ago. But the aim is to undermine us in present day.

      The BBC for last 2 days has been blaming Britain for India’s partition; the aim is solely to bash Britain and quash residual feelings of national pride. Don’t worry, it’s quite deliberate and quite normal for the marxists at the BBC.

      Every time the “70th Anniversary” was mentioned yesterday I wanted to know, not what happened 70 years ago (which has been covered by the BBC time and time again), but how have India, Pakistan and Bangladesh developed over the last 70 years? What was the subcontinent like before British rule, how did British rule change the subcontinent and living standards. Has post independence development matched that in the West and East and if not why not?

      Nope none of these more interesting but difficult topics. Just lots of Britain bashing based on events of 70 years ago. No other broadcaster behaves this way. Why do we have to pay for a state broadcaster that only wants to bash the British?

         63 likes

      • Clare says:

        “But the aim is to undermine us in present day.”

        Hit the nail on the head there.

        Britain has left the world in such a state, hasn’t it? Hell-holes like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US (founded by disillusioned Englishmen – OMG, yes, “men” !). Mistakes were made, obviously, but India is far from a basket case and we didn’t withdraw every single investment and benefit in 1947 – partly because, as I understand it, a lot of our expertise had already been passed on to native Indians.

        By way of comparison, I can’t think of a single Spanish success story of any significance.

           42 likes

        • Grant says:

          Clare,

          Funny you should mention the Spanish. It was all death and destruction. And look at Spain now. Just barely clinging on. Jesus Christ , they had a Civil War as recently as 1936-39. !!!!

             22 likes

          • Doublethinker says:

            Grant,
            I take your point but I’m not certain that the UK is immune to somethingg approaching a civil war given the way we Brits are being oppressed . Is oppressed really the right word to choose? Well everyone one is oppressed these days but white Brits are being marginalised in their own country and are on the edge of being persecuted for speaking their mind by their own government and police. The establishment seem to believe that they can keep on piling s*** on us and we will just keep on taking it without complaint. I’m not sure that they are right about that. Everyone has their limits of tolerance .

               26 likes

            • Alicia Sinclair says:

              The beauty of watching our traitor class every night on the telly is that we`re not dealing with the likes of Ernst Rohm or Leventy Beria in this country.
              Our clueless poltroons include the likes of Vince and Tim, assorted Jeremys and Phils.
              Safe to say even I could take these creeps on after a sherry.
              The likes of Soubry would be harder-but if we hide the booze , we`ll walk it.
              No-these clean fingernailed nobodies won`t scare the British people, especially when they can`t even write a law or risk a visit to the social club or supermarket anymore. They are traitors and reviled by all but their bubble pals in the media or Parliament.

                 14 likes

        • engineerdownunder says:

          Clare,

          The BBC’s Britain and Empire bashing also didn’t mention the support provided via the Commonwealth (which the BBC hates) to all it’s newly independent states nor the on-going state aid which I believe UK still gives to India and Pakistan and Bangladesh.

          OT: but just turned on R4 for background noise and it’s yet another 30 minute eulogy to an unknown, black, female, american authoress. Good grief. Back to Talksport it is then!

             27 likes

    • Amounderness Lad says:

      My grandfather served Queen and Country, that’s Queen Victoria and not our current Queen, in the Army in India in the late 1800s. He was well advanced in years when my mother was born and died shortly before I was born.

      I might have been told as a child that I had a duty as my brother’s keeper, as taught in the Scriptures, but I sure as hell am certainly not going to be made to believe I have a duty to ever become my grandfather’s keeper.

      I do not know what he was actually involved in doing during his period in India and even if I did and discovered it was not very nice I certainly wouldn’t ever consider I had any right to make any apologies for his actions. If I found he had been involved in some atrocity or some similar behaviour I might agree with somebody who pointed it should not have happened but I most certainly would never feel any guilt for things over which I could not possibly have had any control.

      I consider that behaving in such a manner to be nothing more than pathetic posturing in an attempt to parade one’s self as morally superior to others and the absolute heights of absolute hypocrisy. There is nothing more ridiculous or totally pointless than the current obsession, especially amongst people in the public eye, of engaging in Guilt by Proxy especially when it is so obviously done for nothing other than purely political or PR purposes. .

         26 likes

      • Doublethinker says:

        Well said lad. The emoters are ridiculously self indulgent and ,much more seriously , far from improving their precious community harmony , actually Stoke the fires of ani British sentiment and anti white hate which is reaching epidemic proportions.

           19 likes

    • charmbrights says:

      I demand that Italy apologise for invading Britain, albeit 2000 or so years ago!

         21 likes

      • Grant says:

        charm,

        The Italians should be paying us compensation as part of the Brexit deal.

           17 likes

      • Doublethinker says:

        What about the Norman French as well? When your rulers speak the language of the conqueror for three hundred years I feel you are justified in believing that your ancestors were oppressed. What is good enough for just about every country that formed part of the British Empire is good enough for us. So come on Macron sack cloth and ashes and on your knees apologising and begging forgiveness. As for Merkel well she would certainly get housemaid’ knee from all the kneeling.It is no less ridiculous than the British PM apologising to India, Pakistan, etc etc etc for the Empire.

           14 likes

        • GCooper says:

          This is a very valid point and one that deserves wider application.

          The BBC and the rest of the far Left media never miss an opportunity to grovel over some supposed misdeed the British have committed, yet who were more ill-treated and oppressed than our own people at various times in history? They rail against the ‘vast riches’ accrued as a consequence of the slave trade and suggest that ordinary men and women in this country should somehow feel guilty because of it. Why? The fact is that many, if not most, ordinary people received no benefit from it and were themselves treated little better than slaves!

          At some stage people have to grow up and stop blaming their problems on the actions of the long dead.

             11 likes

          • Cranmer says:

            GCooper, you rarely hear this point of view in the media.

            A good example is the Highland Clearances, which are always portrayed as the evil English oppressing the brave little Scots, like some tartan version of the Hobbits. Yet the English had their clearances as well, in the form of the Enclosure Acts.

            Slavery also existed in Britain in the form of indentured labour well into the nineteenth century.

            ‘Votes for women’ is always shown as a struggle of women against male oppressors, but until 1918 many men did not have the vote either, because of the property qualification.

            The British Empire is portrayed as racist, yet aristocratic Indians mixed on equal terms with aristocratic Britons.

            In short, you rarely hear the side of any story which does not conform to the cultural-marxist oppressor/underdog formula.

               14 likes

            • Grant says:

              Cranmer,

              There are still many Scots who bang on about the Clearances, forgetting that many Scots happily colluded with their English ” masters “. ” Never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine ” . Private Fraser lives on !

                 8 likes

              • Doublethinker says:

                Grant,
                I am reluctant to mess with a Scot but I thought that the clearances were performed by the lairds who thought that sheep would generate more profit than their clansfolk. The English had nothing to do with it. Have I been a victim of an education based around English imperialism ? I could be a victim because I was at school from 57 to 70 and we all know that the BBC has laid bare the miseducation that was the norm then! People like me who were miseducated by the fascist state of the time should receive compensation. Anyone know a good lawyer?

                   7 likes

                • Grant says:

                  DT,

                  Well, I think it was a mixture, but the Scottish Nationalists try and blame it on the english. But they blame everything on the english !

                     3 likes

                  • Doublethinker says:

                    Grant,
                    OK I will settle for that. As for the SNP they would blame the fall in the price of oil on the English. They remind me of local town councillors. I can’t understand why the canny Scots , whom I worked amongst for 25 happy years , can’t see that the SNP are a bunch of deluded idiots.

                       4 likes

    • fitz says:

      … the question is not that that gibbering male dimwit “apologised” on behalf of Britain — but that the BBC broadcast such ethno masochistic tripe and without comment … out BBC, out …

         1 likes

  8. Nibor says:

    Well I’ve met ordinary people from the subcontinent who sometimes say.It Was Better When The British Ruled It .
    The Beeboids won’t meet such people . They don’t go to places such as warehouses where workers earn a living

       33 likes

    • Grant says:

      Nibor,

      It is the same in Africa. Today I am chatting with a lady in Zimbabwe. She just said ” Why did you British leave us ? ” Will never be on the evil BBC , of course.

         32 likes

      • Doublethinker says:

        Grant,
        I read that the standard of living of the black population in Southern Rhodesia before independence was the highest in Africa. The standard of living in Zimbabwe is now amongst the lowest. No wonder the passing of Southern Rhodesia is regretted by many Zimbabweans.

           10 likes

        • Clare says:

          When I was at school, Rhodesia was the sort of place people emigrated to, like Australia. Seems laughable now.

             8 likes

  9. Cranmer says:

    I can perhaps comment as I have visited India several times and worked there for a few months, getting to know a few of the ‘natives’.

    Unlike the BBC, India has largely ‘moved on’ and the days of the Raj and Partition, although known about, are considered part of India’s history and not something to worry too much about. There seemed to be almost universal respect for the British amongst Indians I met, but more in the sense of Britain being an important contemporary world power than a former colonial ruler. One colleague of mine said he felt the British had been far fairer colonial rulers than, for example, the Chinese (with whom India had a war in 1962).

    They also have no illusions about militant Islam. One man I knew said ‘When you learn the identity of the persons caught after a bomb outrage, it is ALWAYS a Musulman.’

    The ONLY people I heard anti-British, marxist type sentiments from were anglicised Indians who had lived in Britain and been through the British education/indoctrination system.

    In fact I have heard Britain praised several times by people in different countries, including in eastern Europe and Africa. When I have asked why, the reply has been something like ‘because you are an important country that has done a lot for the world’. It is so different from the cultural self-hatred and guilt that we are brought up to have.

       54 likes

    • Grant says:

      Cranmer,

      If I had £5 for every African who has said to me ” We wish that you British were still governing us “, I would be very wealthy !

         34 likes

      • fitz says:

        … another century of government from London was needed – and a firm hand at all times …

           0 likes

  10. tarien says:

    The BBC of course are the main supporters of Multicuturalism in the UK and where possible in Europe. Just consider the amount of recent publicity has been directed at this Muslim woman who won ‘The Bake Off’ Nadya Hussain, her face has been plastered everywhere, especially the Radio Times, programmes designed especially to focus this woman as a truly British subject, apart from the baking a cake for the Queen which as my wife remarked who, is a very accomplished cook, was awful-then we are subjected by the BBC to a programme highlighting the culinary attributes of this Nadya female about British food and goodness what other programmes she is being promoted in by the BBC et al-what I ask about the other very excellent Bake Off entrants? Were they not as good if not better? Oh no, it’s because this woman is a Muslim and the general public must be reminded of our Multicultural stance. B……o…..ks-My wife’s father and his brothers and sisters were born of white Scottish Parents in Culcutta-they knew India before and after WW2 -the fault lay with the Ideology of Islam, that was of course not talked about by the BBC for obvious reasons. How sad and depressing it all has become.

       46 likes

    • richardofkent says:

      Don’t forget Sir Mo and Mr Bolt both of whom got wall to wall coverage by the BBC during the recent World Athletics. The BBC act like a child desperate to be friends with the ‘new kid on the block’, their behaviour is frankly so nauseous and sycophantic as they try too hard to show that they are not racist that in the end they lose all sense of proportion and treat them differently because they are black, muslim etc, which in it’s own sense is racist.

         11 likes

  11. vesnadog says:

    “Muslim fundamentalists set off bombs in the UK killing and injuring hundreds, Muslim fundamentalists launch attacks on British citizens driving vehicles into them killing and injuring them, Muslim fundamentalists attack British citizens with knives in the street, Muslim fundamentalists impose their religion upon schools using intimidation and deception, Muslim fundamentalists use the race card to ‘blackmail’ government and institutions to bow to their demands, Muslims who see them as prostitutes and trash target white girls on an industrial scale for abuse…and who is to blame?”

    2lyLuNj.jpg

       53 likes

  12. Alex says:

    Muslim paedo-supporting Labour now pressure their members into resigning for telling the truth:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40952224

    Corbyn and his despicable crew of commie scum care more about Islam than this country’s children

       28 likes

    • Grant says:

      Alex,

      They are nihilists. They do not care about anything except themselves .

         16 likes

    • fitz says:

      … more than they care about the girl children in Rochdale, Rotherham, Luton, Oxford … Newcastle… Canterbury (!) …

         0 likes

  13. Richard Pinder says:

    The rush to partition and decolonise India was the policy of the Labour Party. So why is it British, British, British, and not the Labour Party, Labour Government and a Labour Prime Minister.
    No mention of the Labour Governments “Indian Independence Act 1947” which accepted the partition of India.

    Should the BBC also be called the unpatriotic sounding “Labour Broadcasting Corporation“, not the patriotic sounding “British Broadcasting Corporation“?

       20 likes

  14. EnglandExpects says:

    Excellent analysis of the BBCs lies about Indian partition . Indeed it’s a warning from history for the UK .Now that so many Pakistanis and other Muslims have been let into the UK, partition is already happening. No-go areas in our cities are a reality. Few white residents , no white owned shops or businesses. No churches. Mosques everywhere. Sharia law. No pubs.The police reluctant to intervene or maintain a presence. The rape of young white girls is continuing and many of those convicted will be soon out of jail, having served half of their terms. No evidence that the rape culture has changed. Schools are exclusively Muslim and indoctrinate the next generation with muslim culture and dogma. Local authorities in these areas are increasingly run by Pakistani councillors. Much corruption has been uncovered but doubtless much more is undiscovered.
    How long before central government is told to get out too? Then we have independence based on partition. Due to Pakistani/ Muslim population growth the partitioned areas will be much bigger than the ghettos are presently. I doubt that city centres in many instances will be viable areas for non Muslims either because they will be surrounded by Muslim independent enclaves.

       27 likes

    • Deborahanother says:

      Its tragic that this is happening without so much as a word other than rhetoric from politicians.I live in an area that is devoid of pubs now and the local schools might as well be Islamic faith schools. Where to go though ? We are serious now about moving out but its going to have to be a country village or such like ,which is daunting for a Born Londoner.I still love the theatre and cultural life but I don’t want to be old in an Islamic area.

         15 likes

      • Donbob says:

        Deborah I moved out of the East End at 62 and now live in Edinburgh – worth a look if you don’t mind Jocks.

           7 likes

      • Cranmer says:

        Deborahanother, I am a Londoner who moved out to a fairly remote small town/large village. I am glad I did it – everyone is very friendly and there is a sense of community, which you don’t really get in London. (We are a non-‘enriched’ area). There are theatres and cultural life in the nearby cathedral city or I can get to London in about 1.5 hours by train. You do need to make the effort to join in however, and get involved in local things like the cricket team, pub quiz, church, etc.

           6 likes

  15. Pounce says:

    Untitled-1.jpg

       24 likes

  16. Martin Pinder says:

    William Dalrymple? No relation to Theodore of course.

       2 likes

  17. Foscari says:

    I just filled in an ESTA to be able to travel to the USA. Any of you who have completed this form know how
    comprehensive it is. ” Have you ever been involved in terrorist activity?” Do you know anybody who has?”
    Let’s have a census of everybody in the UK to find out what they think!! There has been polls according
    to Douglas Murray which at least 50% of Muslims in the UK would not tell the authoroties if they know
    somebody was involved in terrorism.
    Let’s find out who these people are. In the film ” A few good men” Lt Caffey believes he can trap Col Jessup
    because he really wants everybody to know that he ordered a code red. I believe that quite a fair percentage of
    Muslims in the UK want Sharia Law. To be part of a Greater Caliphate. Make Homosexuality a criminal offence
    etc etc. Lets have census to find out what everybody really wants for the UK. I do believe that the Muslims
    amongst others really want to tell us things the BBC would never want us to hear.

       2 likes