Free Speech and Islam — The Left Betrays the Most Vulnerable - "When surveying the ill-informed, shoddy work that at times passes as in-depth journalism regarding Islam these days, a rationalist may well be tempted to slip into a secular simulacrum of John Bunyan’s Slough of Despond. In reputable press outlets, articles regularly appear in which the author proceeds from an erroneous premise through a fallacious argument to a fatuous conclusion. Compound all this — especially in the main case I’m about to discuss, that of the British former Islamist turned reformer, Maajid Nawaz — with the apparent intent to defame or cast aspersions, and you get worthless artifacts of journalistic malfeasance that should be dismissed out of hand, but that, given the seriousness of the subject, nevertheless merit attention... Calling the noun Islamophobia “sinister,” Ali A. Rizvi, a Canadian Pakistani-born physician and prominent figure among former Muslims in North America, told me via Skype recently that the word “actually takes the pain of genuine victims of anti-Muslim bigotry and uses that pain, it exploits it for the political purpose of stifling criticism of Islam.” In fact, denying Islam’s role in, for instance, misogynist violence in the Muslim world, said Rizvi, is itself racist and “incredibly bigoted, because you’re saying that it’s not these ideas and beliefs and this indoctrination [in Islam] that cause” the “disproportionately high numbers of violent, misogynistic people in Muslim majority countries, it’s just in their DNA.” Also, remember that Islam claims jurisdiction not just over its followers, but over us all, with a message directed to humanity as a whole. Which means Islam should be susceptible to critique by all... No better evidence of this strain of illogical, muddled intolerance of free expression exists than the suspicion and ire regressive leftists reserve for former Muslims and Muslim reformers working to modernize their religion. In her moving, 2015 must-watch address, Sarah Haider, who is of Pakistani origin, recounts being called everything from Jim Crow to House Arab to native informant by American liberals for having abandoned Islam — by, that is, the very folk who should support women, regardless of their skin color, in their struggle for equality and freedom from sexist violence and chauvinism... The latest cases of regressive leftist skullduggery target Maajid Nawaz himself. With the neuroscientist and groundbreaking “New Atheist” Sam Harris, Nawaz (who, again, is Muslim) recently co-authored Islam and the Future of Tolerance — a book of dialogues between the two men covering the prospects for reforming the faith that is the leading cause of terrorism the world over. For engaging in this much-needed conversation — probably the most-needed conversation imaginable these days — Nawaz has suffered a hail of abuse from regressive leftists. “Well-coiffed talking monkey,” “porch monkey,” “House Negro” and “House Muslim” are just some of the insults he has had hurled at him. He also finds himself the object of an insidious attempt at discreditation — an essay in The New Republic entitled “What Does Maajid Nawaz Really Believe?” written by Nathan Lean. Lean’s screed is wordy and rambling, and leaves the gullible among its readers bewildered, thrashing about in thickets of innuendo, and inclined to conclude Nawaz is a disreputable character, if not demonstrably guilty of anything outright reprehensible. The bio note at the foot of the page describes Lean as the author of a book about Islamophobia (so, yes, the spirit of Hitchens’ “stupid term” will permeate his piece), but it makes no mention of his employment at the Saudi-funded Prince Alaweed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, where he directs research at the “Pluralism, Diversity and” — yes — “Islamophobia project.” This is something readers should at least be aware of. Anyway, so, according to Lean, what does Maajid Nawaz really believe? Lean cannot tell us, since he nowhere offers Nawaz’s own words on the subject, which are a matter of public record and are (for example) available here... Nawaz has stated that, “There is no such thing as ‘Islamophobia.’ No idea should be immune from scrutiny.” Coming from a Muslim who slogged through five years in an Egyptian prison for Islamism (specifically, for association with the radical Hizb ut-Tahrir organization), such a declaration carries weight... Lean spills much more ink trying to convince us that Nawaz may not have really been an Islamist, but only posed as one, and may not have renounced the Islamism in which he may never have actually believed because he actually turned against it. (You should be confused after reading that.) What could have motivated Nawaz to give up those Islamist views he possibly never held? “State dough,” and oodles of it, doled out to the Quilliam Foundation (a think tank Nawaz established in London to counter Islamist extremism). “Last year,” writes Lean, “Nawaz drew a salary of more than $140,000.” But how on Earth can receiving remuneration for working to end Islamist violence be held against Nawaz — or anyone else?"
From 2016
Why Does Everyone Want To Silence Ex-Muslims? - "After every Islamist terror attack, we liberals go into overdrive with our hashtag empathy. #IllRideWithYou and #TerrorismHasNoReligion start trending from Calgary to Canberra. Non-Muslim women, who cannot tell a Surah from the Shahada, upload selfies on Instagram in their £4.80 floral headgear from Cherry Blossom Hijabs (plus £3.25 Royal Mail standard delivery), in solidarity with their Muslim sisters. The irony of choosing this grody regalia of repression as a symbol of camaraderie is so thick, I will require a separate 1000-word post to dissect it. Liberals have consistently taken the onus of protecting Muslims from bigotry (and rightly so), often suppressing the debate on radical Islam in the process. However, there is a minority within this minority -- the ex-Muslims, whose existence we seldom acknowledge. This small group of freethinkers have broken the fetters of dogma, committing the most egregious infraction in Islam - apostasy, a crime for which they face imprisonment or execution in more than 20 countries... Folks like Armin Navabi, Maryam Namazie, Ali Amjad Rizvi and Eiynah, articulate that it is possible to criticise religious ideologies while simultaneously denouncing bigotry against its practitioners; that human life is sacrosanct, but ideas are not. You'd think these secular warriors (non-jihad variants) would be the darlings of Western liberals, but instead, the political left treats them as pariahs, as much as their own native community does. Ignored by the mainstream media (and browbeaten on University campuses), they have primarily used social media platforms to get their stories out. However, YouTube and Facebook -- which were considered to be bastions of free expression thus far -- have begun stifling these dissenting voices...
'We are cast out of conversations about our own communities and lives, we are refused platforms in mainstream media to avoid offending Muslim sentiments, and more recently we are viciously targeted on social media. Where enough complaints against content can not only have it removed for no real reason, but also have our social media accounts suspended entirely; it leaves us abruptly cut off from the only place we've safely managed to tell our stories and form an outspoken community... There is an organised, systemic effort to silence the voices of those who critique Islam from within. It only serves to demonstrate how much weight our voices carry in such a political climate.'"
Imtiaz Mahmood on X - "It's incredible how people worry about not offending Muslims while Muslims have no problems offending everyone else. That's a big Islamic victory."
Angela Rayner on X - "The rise in anti-Muslim hate crime is unacceptable and has no place in our society. Today I am launching a new working group, chaired by Dominic Grieve KC, to define Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia."
Paul Golding on X - "An utterly tone-deaf post for a country suffering with endless Islamic terror attacks, grooming gangs, sharia courts and extremism. 50,000 Muslims on a ‘terror watchlist’ and you’re moaning about imaginary ‘islamophobia’ ๐คฏ"
Chris Rose on X - "Roughly 38,700 Islamist Extremists on the MI5 watchlist. Two men have been arrested and charged for burning a Quran. Batley schoolteacher is still in hiding after 4 years for showing an image of Muhammad. A 14 year old was threatened after smudging a Quran. Wrong priorities."
Nick Timothy MP on X - "Your reminder that the original proposal for an official definition of “Islamophobia” gave the rape gangs as an example of “Islamophobic” narratives."
David Atherton on X - "Dep PM @AngelaRayner announces a "new working group, chaired by Dominic Grieve KC, to define Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia." It begins with "It is the first duty of government to keep its citizens safe." Out of 100 terrorist murders since 2000, 97 were committed by Islamists. Estimates of girls who were groomed range from 250,000 to 1 million, the latter comes from Rotherham Labour MP @SarahChampionMP . MI5's watchlist is comprised of 90% Islamists, with 75% of investigations being Islamic terrorism. Don't you think you are looking down the wrong end of your telescope?"
Allison Pearson on X - "Politicians have got a huge problem they have no idea how to solve so they introduce a law to criminalise people who mention it."
Islamophobia laws are just censorship. Britain’s Muslims already have solid protection - "Anybody could tell them that there are already more than enough laws in this country that protect people from abuse. And there are more than enough laws that prevent acts of criminality. For instance, it is already illegal to attack a mosque, like any other building. It is also already illegal to harass or harm someone. Furthermore, the woeful expansion of the “non-crime hate incident” as a part of the non-laws of this country has already allowed the police to come knocking on the front doors of people perceived to have said something mean online. But for those pushing for a definition of “Islamophobia” none of this is enough. They do not want more laws to protect Muslims or Islam. They want special laws to protect one particular religion – and this is intolerable. It would be as though there was a large drive in this country to protect the feelings and views of Catholics. If there was a vast push, led by the government, to come up with a special working definition of “Catholic-ophobia” then people might start to suspect something. And they would be right to do so. What would be the aims of such a move? Surely it would be to give extra protection to people of one faith? Protections above and beyond those which already protects citizens of any faith or none. What would be the societal repercussions? I can say with some certainty that it would introduce – among much else – a nervousness among elected representatives, newspaper editors and other public figures about exposing any mistakes or crimes carried out in the name of the Catholic Church, or by a Catholic. The average citizen in the pub or on social media would soon feel that pressure, too. Wonder about making a lame joke about all Catholic priests being child-abusers and you would have to wonder if there wasn’t going to be a knock on the door from some low-grade police official. So it will be if this push to define “Islamophobia” gets what it wants. After all, it is not as though there is already a level playing field when it comes to religious offence in this country. Ever since the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 every writer in this country has known that Islam is out of bounds when it comes to criticism. There is a reason why this age has not seen an outpouring of novels satirising the origin story of Islam. Likewise, cartoonists and others – who are often on the front lines of free-speech disputes – all know one thing above all: mock Christianity and attack Jews, but don’t under any circumstances draw anything that might offend the sensibilities of Muslims. Their slain colleagues at Charlie Hebdo in Paris stand as a stark reminder of what happens if you poke that particular hornet’s nest. In other words, none of this is theoretical. Everybody in Britain who has any care for using their free-speech rights in this country already knows that there is a religion and a subject which has been put assiduously off-limits by men of violence. And now comes the kicker. Which is that with that piece of censorship by the sword already put in place, this Government now seeks to put in place legislation which will without doubt prevent anyone from noticing the violent ways in which parts of the Muslim world already go about their business. If you were to notice that large crowds of Muslims in Bradford approved of the murder of Salman Rushdie would you be guilty of “Islamophobia”? What if you noted that after the 2015 massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo almost 80 per cent of British Muslims said they found images depicting the founder of Islam as offensive and 27 per cent of British Muslims said that they had “some sympathy” for the motives of the jihadists who carried out the attack? There will be softer cases which will come to hand even faster than these. Earlier this month there were huge celebrations in Piccadilly Circus with the turning on of the now traditional “Ramadan lights”. The Muslim Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was joined by other Muslim celebrities as tens of thousands of lights appeared across the centre of London celebrating a Muslim religious event. Mayor Khan told media: “If you had told me all those years ago that, within my lifetime, we would have lights in London celebrating Ramadan like we do Christmas, I wouldn’t have believed you.” Well, me neither. But I can’t say that I am especially thrilled by this “progress”. I don’t see it as especially desirable that a tourist travelling through central London should be under the impression that they were in Islamabad, just with better lighting. But that would almost certainly be “Islamophobic”. What of the football fans who have had to start to get used to the new tradition of the match stopping so that Muslim players can break their fast during Ramadan? Is this something to be desired? If Catholic players insisted that they had to halt the game in order to celebrate the Holy Eucharist would everyone be expected to accept this with equanimity? I don’t know. Try it at a Rangers-Celtic game some day. But in the meantime, people on the terraces will have to get used to the idea that feeling irritation (let alone expressing it) about this new tradition could itself become a crime. Say that you’re not keen on an ultra-religious Muslim being the new head of Ofsted and you’ll wade into equally tricky waters."
Matt Goodwin on X - "Islamism “is responsible for 94% of all deaths from terrorism in Britain since 1999, 88% of all injuries, 80% of police counter-terror work last year & 75% of MI5’s” (source: Andrew Gilligan) We have lost sight of the fact that Islamism, not the “far right”, is the main threat."
Laura✡️Marcus๐ฌ๐ง๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ค๐️ on X - "They have a great deal more protection than Jews. Do mosques or Muslim schools need guards the way synagogues & Jewish schools do? Are people allowed to march thru central London calling for the death of all Muslims the way people allowed to openly call for the death of all Jews?"
Thread by @CapelLofft on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Here's a story (I won't name the person who told me this) that illustrates where we are in modern Britain. Someone who was a Labour Party agent in a town in Britain with a sizeable Muslim population was asked to meet a 'community leader' to discuss the next election. He went and sat down at a table. The person threatened to withhold the votes of the hundreds of postal votes he controlled because the Labour candidate had not satisfied him on a particular issue. To illustrate that this was not an idle threat, he brought in shoeboxes full of postal votes from the last election, all filled in for Labour but unposted. 'This will happen again unless you do as I say' was what he pretty much explicitly said. This agent (a decent person who is no longer in Labour) just left & refused to have anything to do with it. I'm afraid that not all Lab agents etc who find themselves in a similar position react similarly. Sometimes the threat isn't made as blatantly, it's more implicit. But we have imported the corrupt sectarian politics of clientelism into this country & then let it fester. It stinks
I also spent years canvassing for Labour. One road in my ward had a lot of Muslim voters. Hundreds of times this is what happened. A woman in a veil opened the door. She spoke no more than a few words of English. When I managed to get across to her that it was an election, she would say 'Ask my husband' or 'My husband is not in'. Once I got a woman who spoke reasonable English. She was quite explicit and said 'My husband tells me how to vote, I obey him as a good Muslim'. The idea she would be allowed a political opinion of her own was outlandish
This wasn't just one or two. This was the default. Occasionally you might get a younger Muslim woman who appeared to defy this. But 98% of the time this was the reality. I am sorry, it's not on. We shouldn't accept this as ok. This is Britain, not rural Pakistan
So you can see why, when I see Labour politicians blithering on about Islamophobia and how we need to restrict free speech to 'tackle' it, I see red. They are ignoring reality and putting on an act to curry favour with corrupt Islamic vote-harvesters. It is rotten. If thinking that all of this is not ok, if thinking that Muslims should either adapt to our basic social and political norms (e.g. not being corrupt, not being misogynists) or not be here, makes me an 'Islamophobe' or whatever, so be it. I don't care. The hour is late. Wake up
Also, the silence of most 'feminists' on these issues is shameful. There are lots of women right under your noses who are oppressed. But because they wear hijabs & you're too cowardly to criticise Islam, you ignore it & blither on about 'tampon poverty' or whatever instead"
Inevitable West on X - "A Muslim doctor in Leeds was caught trying to blow up an entire maternity ward for Allah. The government didn’t even bother informing their citizens about this. It’s just everyday stuff now. Britain is fucked."
Leeds hospital bomb plotter guilty of terror charge - "A man who plotted to bomb a hospital in Leeds and an RAF base has been found guilty of preparing acts of terrorism. Mohammad Farooq, 28, targeted St James's Hospital in January 2023 but was stopped by a member of the public. A trial at Sheffield Crown Court heard how the clinical support worker had planned to "kill as many nurses as possible" by detonating a pressure cooker bomb... Farooq was arrested outside the hospital with the pressure cooker bomb, which was designed to be twice as powerful as those used by the Boston Marathon bombers in 2013. The court was told he had immersed himself in an "extremist Islamic ideology" and went to the hospital to "seek his own martyrdom" through a "murderous terrorist attack"."
Clearly, this is the fault of Islamophobia
Charity watchdog chided for letting off mosque accused of misogyny - "The Charity Commission closed an investigation into a mosque that posted a video of a preacher saying a man is allowed to hit his wife if she refuses sex, and instead sent it “advice and guidance”. The An-Noor Masjid and Community Centre in Birmingham, a registered charity, posted a video on its YouTube channel in September of a sermon explaining the circumstances in which it is acceptable for men to beat their wives. The video shows Mahamed AbdurRazaq, a volunteer lecturer, telling the congregation about a scenario in which a wife refuses to have sex with her husband... The National Secular Society (NSS) campaign group complained to the Charity Commission, which investigated the video but chose not to launch a full inquiry. The watchdog told the NSS last week that it had closed the case after sending the mosque statutory guidance governing the procedures for hosting speakers. It said the charity had since removed the video and suspended AbdurRazaq from further speaking engagements. Megan Manson, the head of campaigns at NSS, said it was wrong that the regulator had not taken stronger action against the mosque, and accused it of exploiting its charitable status to promote violence against women... Lord Walney, the former anti-extremism tsar, said last week that a climate of fear at the Charity Commission was stopping it taking on organisations that try to undermine British values and sow division."
Reporting this increases Islamophobia. The Times needs to be stripped of its licence for hate speech
Germany's Leftist Government Refuses to Confront Islamism - "In September 2022, [German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser] discontinued the so-called Expert Group on Political Islamism (Expertenkreis Politischer Islamismus). The group, which consisted of eleven people from a variety of academic disciplines, had been established by the previous government to identify measures to counter the spread of Islamism in Germany."
German interior minister admits country has Islamophobia problem - "Interior Minister Nancy Faeser admitted that Germany has an Islamophobia problem"
German gov’t vows to combat Islamophobia, discrimination - "The German government will take resolute measures to combat Islamophobia, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said"
Britain's new blasphemy laws are a return to empire - "It was the British rulers of India who introduced blasphemy laws to the subcontinent. The 1860 Indian Criminal Code outlawed “uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings”. This was not because the British had acquired religion — any more so than they arrived with, at any rate — but because they were sick of handling the violence and disorder that resulted from religious provocation in a diverse community. “Empire”, Talleyrand supposedly said, is “the art of putting men in their place”. Nation states are “ruled in the name of a nationally defined people”, neatly slotted into cultural institutional frameworks that suit them. Empires, on the other hand, spread and sprawl. They govern culturally, linguistically, and religiously diverse groups of people. They require ways of controlling the disparate groups within their borders, of functioning with diversity, and are rarely particularly subtle about it. Quietly, and almost unnoticed, Britain has become an empire again. In keeping with modern decolonial thought its ambitions are no longer external but internal. Rather than governing cultures spread across a quarter of the earth, it governs cultures from across the world gathered in its core; an empire in its own land... You may think that people in Britain retain the liberty to treat their own private property as they wish, so long as their actions are not undertaken with the intent of hurting others. You would be wrong. The primary objective of the modern British state is managing the tensions between the constituent parts of its empire. This priority goes a long way to explaining the behaviour of politicians and state officials. It explains, for instance, the asymmetric nature of liberalism — where religious views are decried based on who holds them — or the strange emphasis on investigating right wing views critical of the current social consensus. Anything which would disrupt the structures of empire is a risk to peace and order. The new blasphemy laws are the price of governing diverse cultures without assimilation. Some are overt; we have laws against inciting religious and racial hatred, or speech which is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character”. Others are tacit, and take the form of social taboos. What they have in common is the aim of suppressing intergroup tensions. This might be broadly acceptable if people were generally aware that this is now the way the state functions. The problem is that they aren’t. Time and time again, we find someone pushing the boundaries — showing a cartoon, making an unwise comment, or simply stumbling unawares into an area of ‘cultural sensitivity’ — and suddenly finds that the state, far from a neutral arbiter of the law or the protector of their liberties, is mostly interested in ‘managing community tensions’. People are generally unwilling to spell out the ‘soft’ blasphemy laws explicitly, or state outright that the state now sometimes views enforcing the religious sensibilities of conservative minorities as part of its remit. This makes the topic hard to engage with in public life... Often they end up with the idea that it’s playing into the hands of the far right, despite the obvious objection that in no other realm would they use this to oppose a policy (“No, we can’t have more immigration, it just plays into the hands of-”). Nobody particularly wants to engage with the fact that Britain has fundamentally changed the nature of both its country and its state. Decades of politicians have maintained a collective pretence that we can simultaneously shift to historically unprecedented levels of immigration without assimilation, that nobody will need to change anything in their lives or behaviour because of this, and that the state will remain unchanged. This was not true, and soft blasphemy laws are an inevitable consequence. If you’re going to be an empire, you need to act like an empire."
Sam Ashworth-Hayes on X - "Britain has de facto blasphemy laws because it's the easiest way to suppress "community tensions". Having imported groups that don't sign up to liberal tenets, it finds it easier to police everyone else's behaviour than to assimilate them. This is why the rules only go one way."
Globe Eye News on X - "BREAKING: Anti-Islam extremist Salwan Momika, known for burning the Quran several times, was shot dead in Sweden."
๐๐ง๐ on X - "Leftists: "Yes, well he was asking for it, purposefully being provocative, should respect people's religion etc etc."
The same Leftists: "Stupid dumb Christian bible-bashers, look at this cartoon of gay Jesus LOLOLOL.""
Yasmine Mohammed ๐ฆ ูุงุณู ูู ู ุญู ุฏ on X - "The way the media just loves to describe @Salwan_Momika1 as a ‘man who burned a Quran’ is truly indicative of the dumpster fire the west is embroiled in. No mention of the fact that his family were tortured and killed by ISIS for being Christian in Iraq- a formerly Christian country before it was colonized by Muslims. No mention of how he was seeking asylum and being mistreated by the ‘free and secular’ European countries that preferred to pander to the terrorists who want them dead vs protecting the brave man who was trying to warn them. I’m tired. I’m tired of screaming. Since 2019 when I published @unveiledxx , I’ve been repeating myself. And for what? I’m silenced and cancelled more this year than ever. Two events where I was scheduled to speak next month got cancelled- one in the UK and one in Canada. You don’t want to know. You don’t want to hear. You want to be left alone as you slowly march to the death of your societies. You want to step over bodies and swim through rivers of blood only to emerge screaming about Islamophobia. So that’s what you deserve then. When you choose to pander to extremists braying over some burned paper over supporting those who value freedom of expression and belief, then you will get what you are begging for. You’ve earned it."
Meme - Nuriyah Khan @nuriyahk: "Some of you may disagree, but for an allegedly “moderate” Muslim, she harbours some extremely problematic and disturbing views, perfectly in line with Islamists who can justify killing in the name of blasphemy. Or, she just happens to be even dimmer than we initially thought and clearly mistakes the rest of the world for Pakistan? Nevertheless, if these are Islam’s “moderate” followers, imagine the extremists!"
Bushra Shaikh @Bushra1Shaikh: "Some of you may disagree but the public desecration of any holy book should be viewed as a hate crime and the offender should face consequences."
Readers added context they thought people might want to know: "This post was written after the assassination of Salwan Momika, known for burning copies of the Quran. Given the timing of her claim, it can be inferred that Bushra is referring to the murder of Salwan whose actions were legal. Sweden does not have any blasphemy laws.">
Chris Rose on X - "At a hate march the Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester, the tea towel idiots ripped up Union flags right in front of @gmpolice officers who did nothing. Isn’t this ‘inciting hate’ of the country they live in? The officers would move if someone was ripping apart or burning a Quran."
James Harvey on X - "Of course, they sent two muslim police officers to arrest the man setting fire to the Quran in Manchester. Imagine that... Muslims arresting British people for criticising Islam, in Britain."
Man arrested after live video of Quran being burned in Manchester : r/unitedkingdom - "UK police are 90% motivated by fear of being called racist"
Man arrested after live video of Quran being burned in Manchester : r/unitedkingdom - "Why aren't all the Palestinian protesters arrested then? They cause distress to a lot of people."
Man arrested after live video of Quran being burned in Manchester : r/unitedkingdom - "If he burned a Bible the police would ignore him and the Guardian would write a piece calling him stunning and brave."
UK rabbi-politician burns Christian Bible, sparking ire - "A high-profile rabbi and aspiring politician stirred up controversy in British media when he burned a Bible on the eve of Passover. Rabbi Shneur Odze, a 33-year-old United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) candidate for mayor of Manchester, tweeted a photo of the burning bible"
Church in Wales inquiry after rector burns Bible pages - "The Church in Wales says it is investigating after a Gwynedd rector burnt some pages from the Bible. The Reverend Geraint ap Iorwerth of St Peter ad Vincula Church, Pennal, also cut up pages from the King James Bible to create an artwork."
Of course, people will still deny that there's two-tier policing
Man arrested after live video of Quran being burned in Manchester : r/unitedkingdom - "A lot of times if you do report a burglary, the police don't even show, they will give you a crime reference number for insurance purposes and that will be it. I'm reminded of that Dr Lawrence Newport video where his bike was stolen, right outside Scotland Yard HQ, near the Houses of Parliament, in full view of numerous CCTV, he reported the stolen bike (which had GPS tracking), the police closed the case within 1 hour of it being reported, gave him a crime reference number and told him to stop wasting police time by trying to get them to actually investigate."
Nick Timothy MP on X - "I asked the Home Secretary if it should be a criminal offence to desecrate a religious text. She said we have no blasphemy laws in Britain. But in two recent cases people have been charged using the Public Order Act for damaging the Quran in protest. What will she do about it?"
