Rafe Heydel-Mankoo on X - "The CHILDREN of asylum seekers or Pakistani migrants were responsible for these & other attacks:
Manchester Synagogue
Southport
Manchester Arena
London Bridge
Westminster Bridge
Sir David Amess
7/7
These attacks ARE connected to our asylum & immigration system. The issue few want to address, but which I've long raised, is that asylum seekers AND THEIR CHILDREN are more prone to terrorism & criminality -- esp. if they experienced violence But our media and political class would rather pretend otherwise (eg "Axel Rudakubana was a Welsh choirboy"). That the attackers were born or grew up in Britain is IRRELEVANT. This is a fundamental fact no one wishes to discuss. The implications are so explosive politicians and broadcasters would prefer to say it is "far right" misinformation to suggest the these terror attacks are linked to the asylum system. THIS IS WRONG. The link is obvious. More broadly, the asylum system has imported HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of fit, young men, many of whom have seen - or participated in - unspeakable horrors and have arrived in the UK as bogus applicants. Huge numbers are poorly adjusted, emotionally dead and suffering serious psychological issues - others are simply evil. The same goes for the 1,000+ radicalised British-born immigrant offspring who left Britain to fight for ISIS in Syria and have returned psychologically disturbed but brutally hardened, many of them murderers. Why would any society knowingly import people who fail to become productive members of society, are a burden on on our overstretched mental health services and - worst of all - pose a potential risk to both the safety of individuals and the security of the nation? The personality, psychology and mental health of those we import to this country - and of their British-born children - is a major issue; yet it remains a taboo few are willing to discuss. We are importing a population of "ticking time bombs".
Picture: #ManchesterSynagogue alleged attacker Jihad al-Shamie, who arrived in Britain as a young child of Syrian parents."
Moment hotel migrant carries out sex attacks on multiple women while cycling through town - as he's spared prison after claiming he was 'unfamiliar with UK laws' - "An asylum seeker was captured on video carrying out sex attacks on multiple women while cycling through the town where he was staying - and has now been spared jail after claiming he was 'unfamiliar with UK laws'. Qais Al-Aswad, 26, who is originally from Syria, sexually assaulted three women as he passed them on the same cycle lane in Horley, Surrey in May and June this year. Al-Aswad, who was staying at the Four Points by Sheraton Hotel at the time, was seen on CCTV footage reaching out with his hand and sexually assaulting his victims as he cycled past."
Robert Jenrick on X - "Keir Starmer is determined to cover-up the consequences of mass migration. It’s why last night he forced Labour MPs to conceal the data about migrant crime, voting down our proposals to uncover the truth. And it’s why he resisted the rape gang inquiry and has allowed it to be manipulated - with attempts to change the scope and control the questions. The public deserves to know the truth about who is entering our country. And lawmakers need the truth so they can act on it and keep the public safe. Last night, every MP had a choice. They could have voted for our amendment, which would have compelled the Government to publish the migrant crime data. That means the background of offenders by their nationality, visa status, immigration status, and route of entry, recorded and released in every single criminal case. It would give us the full picture about crime and mass migration. Or, they could vote to continue the cover-up. Shamefully, Keir Starmer ordered his Labour MPs to do just that. Previously Starmer has campaigned for a ‘transparency revolution’, but yesterday he abandoned his long-held view and chose to block the crime data from being released. It’s because Starmer’s squeamish about confronting the negative consequences of mass migration. He’d rather foreign nationals continue to commit crime here than face up to the reality that extreme levels of immigration have caused immense harm to the country. It’s truly spineless behaviour. I've been calling for transparency on this issue for a long time. Revealing the truth on this issue is so important. It's data that's published openly in other European countries, like Denmark. As lawmakers, Starmer's continuation of the cover-up means that we don't have all the facts - facts which should be informing how we keep the public safe, and how we design our immigration system. Because of Starmer’s decision, policymakers can't design a system that serves the interests of the public. He's putting you at risk. The indicative data shows that there's huge variation between the crime rates of different migrant groups. Some, like Albanians and Eritreans, have a higher crime rate than British citizens. Albanians nationals, for instance, are 153 times more likely to go to prison for drug offences than British nationals. Others, like Indian or French nationals, have a lower or similar rate of criminal convictions. But we need the full, verified data. That will allow a full and frank conversation about the clear risks of migration from certain countries. Yet Starmer refuses. He chooses to cover it up. The British people deserve so much better."
Moral crusader politicians have forgotten the real purpose of our Navy - "At the height of the Cold War, there was a spectacular conflict over fish. In what became known as the “Cod Wars,” the UK fell out with Iceland over the delineation of territorial waters, leading to clashes between fishermen in the North Atlantic. This was a trade row with an adversary that was usually an ally and was well understood. Moreover, the dispute posed no threat to our national security. Nonetheless, the UK government sent in the Navy, with as many as 53 warships taking part. Fast forward to today, and tens of thousands of men, many of whom are of fighting age, are breaking into our country. We have no idea who they all are, but we know for a fact that many come from hostile states, and that some represent a very real danger. According to former Tory immigration minister Robert Jenrick, “dozens” of terror suspects linked to Islamic State and Al-Qaeda have “waltzed” into the UK on small boats claiming to be refugees. Others stand charged with spying for Iran. Still more who cross the Channel illegally go on to commit violent crimes on our shores: assaulting, raping and even murdering innocent British citizens. Day by day, the threat to life posed by this continuing farce becomes more terrifyingly apparent, including a deadly risk to the migrants themselves. Many cannot swim and get into difficulties before they even board overloaded dinghies for the treacherous journey to the UK. Nonetheless, the Government simply will not hear of sending in the Navy, insisting on treating the mass influx of undocumented foreign nationals – nearly 60,000 since Labour came to power – as a civilian matter, rather than a national security crisis that requires a resolute response. Bewilderingly, some MPs seem to think that what is left of our much diminished Navy (today, the 53 vessels despatched to face down Icelandic fishermen would represent almost our entire fleet) has far better things to do, than trouble itself with the small matter of stopping an invasion... The fact that whenever migrant dinghies head our way, a French corvette can usually be seen lurking in the background, suggests that the French have no problem with this idea. What exactly is their warship doing? Answer: its job, namely protecting French interests. Unfortunately, those interests are in direct conflict with ours."
Too bad maintaining borders is a violation of basic human rights
The Royal Navy won’t stop the boats. But this is how to do it for real - "In the Mediterranean, a lot of seaborne migrants are picked up by dedicated commercially-run rescue vessels operated by misguided Left-wing charities and other NGOs. These vessels normally then seek to land the migrants in Europe where they want to be. This, of course, incentivises the migrants and the people smugglers just as the Lifeboats and the Border Force do in the Channel. But there’s no reason that such ships have to be operated only by Lefty open-borders fanatics. What’s needed in the Channel is a fleet of foreign-flagged rescue ships operating from some suitable base, probably in North Africa. These ships could rescue migrants in peril and they would not have any opportunity to apply for asylum in Britain: only in the ship’s flag state, which could be anywhere. Liberia is a popular flag of convenience, but there are many other possibilities. Regardless of asylum applications, the only place the rescued migrants would be given a chance to disembark would be the ship’s base port, in Libya or some other nation willing to receive migrants for a modest fee. (The Libyans, incentivised by Europe, already pick up and bring back large numbers of migrants trying to get across the Mediterranean from Africa.) The run to Libya from the Channel is only a matter of five days for a vessel cruising at 20 knots. There are rescue vessels available faster than this, with the range to make the trip carrying significant numbers of people – if not in any great comfort. Maritime law and custom are absolute on the point that life must be saved at sea. There is nothing to say that rescued people have any right to be put ashore where they want to be put ashore. If people deliberately put their own lives at risk, they can scarcely complain about the manner in which they are saved. If the British government offered a payment for every person rescued in the Channel and delivered to a suitable African port, profit-making commercial rescue ventures would probably appear on their own. And nobody could possibly criticise such a life-saving operation, the more so as it would be actively damaging and disincentivising the evil smuggler gangs – rather than helping and incentivising them as the RNLI, the Border Force and the do-gooder rescue ships now do. The levels of payment required would surely be enormously cheaper than the current asylum system, let alone the added later costs of low-skilled migrants in terms of social housing, benefits and all the rest. Legally it would be very simple as the migrants would never have been under British jurisdiction at any time. If the government won’t pay for it, there’s no reason that suitable life-saving charities can’t be set up. I’d sign up for a monthly contribution like a shot: it would make a lot more sense than giving money to the Lifeboats under the current circumstances. Maybe there’s no need to wait four years until the next election before anything can be done about the terrible loss of life in the Channel. Maybe there’s no need to wait for our useless Government to act. Maybe people of good will could start taking action ourselves."
Without a plan for integration we face endless distrust and disunity - "There is the obvious apologia, more or less openly expressed by the government’s defenders: that by devising one ruse after another to avoid identifying Pakistani men as the perpetrators of a systematic network of torture and rape, they are trying to avoid providing any encouragement for racism. In truth, they are making the situation worse by creating vague confusion and so potentially tarring all Asian men... Then there is the other, less sanctimonious, explanation: that Labour is terrified by the threat of losing its majority in constituencies with large Muslim (and specifically Pakistani) populations. To stage an inquiry whose clear intention was to reveal the pervasiveness of this grooming pattern and thus entail mass prosecutions would probably put an end to a large number of hitherto safe Labour parliamentary seats. Needless to say, this is not something that Labour, now stuck in the midst of a shambolic and genuinely unsavoury mess over its doomed inquiry, could ever admit. But there is a less dishonourable account which, for more complicated reasons, the government cannot admit. There is a significant danger that the multi-cultural society, idealised by those who believe that people with radically opposed social values and moral standards can somehow live side by side in one cohesive nation, will inevitably produce sectarian politics. We have already seen the first independent Muslim MPs elected to Parliament. There is not yet a parliamentary party dedicated specifically to promoting Islamic influence in the running of the country, but that, Labour may fear, might not be long in arriving – especially if Muslim voters are led to believe that the established parties will use their monopoly governing powers to persecute them. The emergence of such a party, or even an organised voting bloc, in Parliament would bring something much more destructive than conventional political divisions. There have been religious sectarian groupings before (Ulster Unionist parties, for example) who have worked within Westminster for their constituents’ specialised interests. But a true Islamic party morally obliged to promote the rules of Sharia law, would present an altogether different challenge to the practice of democracy as we know it in modern Britain. Even if its candidates were to accept, for the purposes of their participation in Parliament, the basic principles of the British legal system and its concept of civil order, the very existence of such an electoral force would encourage the permanent divisive separateness of the Muslim community... The ritualised patriotism of American schooling – reinforced by popular culture – seems absurd to the British who do not really do the patriot thing, regarding it as humourless and rather sinister (which it is). Perhaps it is not suitable, in its most garish form, for an old nation which has learnt to wear its identity modestly and with a good deal of irony. But there must be an offer that can be presented to those who sincerely wish to settle here which will genuinely express the respect that most British people feel for their country. Without that, there will be endless disunity and distrust."
Asylum seeker assaulted women as he rode past on bike - "An asylum seeker was filmed sexually assaulting three women as he cycled past them. Qais Al-Aswad, originally from Syria, was living at a hotel in Surrey when he assaulted the women in Horley in May and June. He has avoided jail for the attacks and was instead handed a six-month custodial sentence, suspended for two years, at Staines magistrates’ court on Wednesday. After initially denying the assaults, Al-Aswad claimed he was “unfamiliar with UK laws regarding physical contact”... In a victim impact statement to the court, she said: “What upsets me the most about this whole incident is how an individual who himself claims to be seeking safety and happiness, feels he has the right to remove those same things from myself and other women.” The court heard that when she swore at the defendant after he assaulted her, he blew a kiss at her."
Asylum seekers made bomb threats at hotel where migrant murdered worker - "Asylum seekers at a hotel where a worker was murdered made bomb threats, harassed young women and kept machetes and axes in their rooms, it has emerged. Rhiannon Skye Whyte, 27, was killed by Deng Chol Majek, a migrant who arrived to Britain by small boat, on Oct 20 last year in a “vicious and frenzied” attack at a deserted train station in Walsall, in the West Midlands. Majek, a Sudanese national, followed Whyte from the Park Inn hotel after she finished her shift before stabbing her 23 times with a screwdriver. After the migrant, who claims to be 19 years old but is probably at least 27, was found guilty of her murder, a former colleague of Ms Whyte described the hotel as a “ticking timebomb”. Majek had previously denied that he had murdered Whyte or had been in possession of a screwdriver. In the aftermath of her death, Whyte’s family accused Sir Keir Starmer of having “blood on his hands” over her death. Just three weeks after she was attacked, Alexandra Whyte, her older sister, urged people in her community to be vigilant after it was announced that a new asylum hotel was being established in Warwick... During the trial, Whyte’s co-workers told jurors that throughout the evening Majek had been staring “intimidatingly” towards a group of female staff, including Ms Whyte. “He just couldn’t take his eyes off any of us,” Louise Brittle told the court. CCTV footage from inside the hotel showed him staring at the women with his eyes wide open. Chris Durham, Whyte’s former colleague who worked as a housing officer for Serco, which ran the Park Inn hotel, said that on numerous occasions police were called after migrants harassed women and followed them home. The 46-year-old said that the hotel staff were doing their best in challenging circumstances but it was just a matter of time before a serious incident occurred. Mr Durham said that while some of the asylum seekers were friendly, a large number appeared “unstable and withdrawn”... Mr Durham, who left Serco shortly before the murder, said that West Midlands Police were called to deal with incidents at the hotel on a regular basis. He said: “Some of [the migrants] made threats to kill, to blow up the hotel, that they had a bomb in their bag. A few of them followed hotel staff on the bus journeys home.” Mr Durham said on one occasion an asylum seeker trailed a young woman after her shift finished before getting on the same bus as her and sitting next to her. “He just kept badgering her and wouldn’t leave her alone. She reported it to Serco but nothing came of it”, he added. Another Serco housing officer, who did not wish to be named but still worked in hotels in the Birmingham area, said that “nothing had changed” following Whyte’s death... Another major concern for staff at the Park Inn hotel was that many residents kept weapons, including Zombie knives and axes, in their bedrooms. Mr Durham said: “Because the bedrooms are technically classed as their homes, we can’t physically remove anything out of them. We can report it but we can’t go in and take them out. “One man had this big Rambo knife in his room. He was constantly losing his temper and threatening everybody.” The former housing officer said that all reports were logged on a national computer database run by Serco. He said that often migrants would arrive at the Park Inn hotel with dozens of reports against their name. The atmosphere at Park Inn was often tense, with many migrants prone to outbursts at hotel staff, Mr Durham said."
Time for the UK to allow police to raid homes without warrants to look for weapons to keep people safe
Sister speaks of ‘catastrophic’ loss of hotel worker stabbed at Walsall station - "She always saw the good in everyone, and with her working at the hotel, it meant that she was making a positive difference to people in need.”
So if you see the good in everyone, you end up dead
The lethal naivety of Britain’s asylum system - "In October last year, Deng Majek was seen on CCTV waiting for Rhiannon Whyte to finish her shift at the Park Inn hotel in Walsall. He followed Whyte to the station, approached her on the platform and proceeded to stab her 23 times with a screwdriver. Eleven strikes penetrated her skull. Video tapes presented to the jury during his trial showed Majek running from the scene, throwing the victim’s phone into the river, popping into a local shop to buy a drink, then returning to his hotel in high spirits. Whyte died three days later. Majek was ‘clearly excited about what he had done’, argued prosecutor Michelle Heeley KC, in reference to videos of him ‘dancing and laughing’ at the hotel following the attack. None of Whyte’s co-workers could recall any issues that might have motivated this ‘vicious and frenzied’ stabbing. She had only worked at the hotel for a few months. Her job involved cleaning and serving food. ‘There had been an issue about some broken biscuits with some of the residents, but nothing serious’, said Heeley. Now that the trial is over, it has become clear that Whyte’s murder was merely the tip of the iceberg. Chris Durham, who worked as a housing officer for Serco, revealed that migrant tenants harassing and stalking female staff members was a regular occurrence at the Park Inn Hotel. ‘A few of them followed hotel staff on the bus journeys home’, he said. Before Whyte’s murder, another female staff member had been followed on to her bus by a resident who ‘kept badgering her wouldn’t leave her alone’. According to Durham, ‘she reported it to Serco but nothing came of it’. He also added that a significant number of the residents were ‘unstable and withdrawn… They wouldn’t take no for an answer from the female staff.’ During the trial, other hotel workers described Majek specifically as a ‘loner’. According to another anonymous housing officer, a number of the migrants had arrived at the hotel with ‘dozens of reports against their name’. ‘Some made threats to kill, to blow up the hotel, that they had a bomb in their bag’, said Durham. West Midlands Police were regularly called to deal with incidents on the premises. Weapons such as zombie knives and axes were discovered in residents’ rooms, but could not be removed from what were technically classed as the residents’ ‘homes’. Tragically, violent incidents connected to the asylum system are no longer a rarity. This is surely to be expected when seemingly limitless men are welcomed into the system, with minimal or often zero vetting. This doesn’t just affect local communities, but also those who work with asylum seekers – and even asylum seekers themselves. The list of horrific incidents is constantly growing. In October 2023, Ahmed Alid from Morocco stabbed a passing 70-year-old man to death in Hartlepool ‘in protest against Israel and the Gaza conflict’. This was after Alid had tried and failed to murder his Iranian housemate, a fellow asylum seeker, while he slept. Previous reports of his threatening behaviour had been dismissed by police. In 2022, Eritrean Esayas Neguse knifed his 71-year-old lawyer in the chest and hand during a meeting. Neguse had recently been released early from a 12-month jail term for being abusive towards police officers, and had 11 previous convictions. In the same year, Afghan fugitive Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai stabbed and killed a 21-year-old man outside a Dorset takeaway. When he arrived illegally in the UK in 2019, he immediately sought asylum. Posing as a minor, he was even placed in the foster-care system, despite his carer’s suspicions about his age. More extensive background checks would not only have revealed he was an adult, but also that he had murdered two people with a Kalashnikov rifle in Serbia. In 2020, Sudanese asylum seeker Badreddin Abdalla Adam Bosh stabbed three fellow asylum seekers, two hotel workers and a police officer at a hotel in Glasgow, having made threats to do so 24 hours prior. Those threats, predictably, went ignored. The tragedy of these cases is compounded by the fact that they were all entirely preventable. None of these men would be in the UK at all if they weren’t able to take advantage of our dysfunctional asylum system. Background checks were either deficient, or not carried out at all. Warnings about their behaviour, even after their arrival, were routinely ignored by the authorities."
Migrant crime is a policy choice. We don’t have to live with it - "Serco maintains a national database of concerning behaviour by migrants and that often they “would arrive at the Park Inn hotel with dozens of reports against their name”. Across the country similar incidents have been reported. Indeed, sexual assault on a child by Hadush Kebatu, an Ethiopian asylum seeker, sparked weeks of protests this summer. Although he was jailed in September it has been reported this afternoon that the prison service has released him by mistake. Just last week, three asylum seekers were charged with raping a woman on Brighton beach... Since Rhiannon’s murder 45,556 migrants have crossed the Channel in small boats. In most cases we know nothing of their backgrounds, of what crimes they may have committed in their home countries, or even how old they are. Deng Majek has given dates of birth suggesting that he is either 19 or 27. He, and hundreds of thousands more like him, are here because of choices. Every single crime committed by asylum seekers is a result of choices. The choices of open-borders fanatics in charities and NGOs to transport migrants, coach them on how to claim asylum and fund their legal battles to stay. The choices of judges to resist any effort to control our borders. And ultimately because a succession of politicians have chosen the appearance of kindness over the safety of our people. As a result of these choices, Rhiannon Whyte is dead and her son is an orphan. It is time for our politicians to choose. The whole legal framework of the Refugee Convention and Human Rights Law is causing direct, predictable and irreparable harm to the people of Britain. It must go."
The 'one in, one out' scheme is proving farcical - "A Channel migrant deported to France under Sir Keir Starmer’s “one in, one out” scheme has returned to the UK on a small boat. Is anyone surprised? The would-be asylum-seeker is currently being held in a detention centre pending a Home Office decision on what to do next. The obvious answer is to deport him once again, but that assumes France would agree to accept him. In that case, he should be removed to his home country, Iran, but it is likely to be considered too dangerous. The irony here is that the migrant says it is France that is too dangerous. He told The Guardian how he feared for his life from the smugglers, even though he was apparently taken to a safe shelter in Paris. He claims to be a victim of modern slavery, a concept introduced several years ago under Theresa May which is being used to thwart deportation decisions in the courts. The obvious flaw in the man’s argument is that if he was so frightened of the people smugglers, why did he entrust them once again to get him across the Channel and how did he afford to pay them? The real issue here is that it exposes the farcical nature of Sir Keir’s deal with Emmanuel Macron, a device to distract criticism from Labour’s failure to stop the boats or “smash the gangs”. Human rights campaigners are now depicting France as an unsafe destination. One said the men returned under the scheme “have spoken of their horror to find themselves back in a country where they do not feel safe”. But if this argument were to be accepted as grounds for asylum it would turn the whole concept of what constitutes a “safe third country” on its head. So far under the scheme, 42 migrants have been removed to France while 23 asylum-seekers have been sent to the UK. These numbers should be set against almost 60,000 who have made the journey since the election last year. The only way to stop this traffic is to make it impossible for anyone arriving in this way to stay in the country. The ill-fated Rwanda scheme, scrapped by Labour, was at least designed as a deterrent. Migrants knowing they would end up in Africa if they paid for passage across the Channel would think again before taking to a boat."
Freedomain - with Stefan Molyneux, MA on X - "If Indians set foot in England and become English. Then the English who set foot in India became Indian. Therefore the English did not rule India. There is no such thing as ‘colonization.’ QED"
David Atherton on X - "A man's daughter was out celebrating the end of her A Levels in Bournemouth, as designated driver she was not drinking. A man of apparently of Pakistani heritage sexually assaulted her & stole her phone. It seems he is an asylum seeker at the Roundhouse Hotel. There have been over 300 rapes reported, as many as 80% are unreported in the area. The @dorsetpolice declined to investigate, hotel security disinterested. Hat tip @jomickane"
Asylum seeker attacked ‘Good Samaritan’ after leaving a Newcastle refugee centre - "An asylum seeker shown kindness by a 'Good Samaritan' at a refugee centre was jailed for a prolonged assault on the elderly man. Xhulian Dhamo had been given accommodation at the voluntary worker's home in Durham a couple of times while homeless and making an asylum application. But Durham Crown Court heard it reached a stage in the asylum process where the regulations prohibited the volunteer from putting up the Albanian man at his home anymore. Despite having been returned to a refugee centre in Newcastle, Dhamo made his way back to Durham and turned up at the 84-year-old man's home, this time uninvited, on November 13, last year. Robin Patton, prosecuting, said that although the voluntary worker told him he was not permitted to stay there anymore, he did give Dhamo a cup of tea. But when the householder went to take the defendant's belongings out to his car, he was struck repeatedly with a wooden pole over the head and body. The slightly-built victim, at that stage covered in blood, tried to leave the property to raise the alarm, but was dragged back in and further beaten. Mr Patton said it was only later, when Dhamo was not looking, that the victim managed to escape and speak to a neighbour."
Why do you think it's only Brits who won't admit the mismanagement of asylum seekers? : r/AskBrits - "I'm a legal immigrant in the UK, employed full-time and never been on benefits - wouldn't have even been entitled to any. I know that not every Brit supports the UK government's mismanagement of undocumented migrants and asylum seekers, but everyone who supports it is a Brit, which I find extremely weird as the UK is their home country. I'm yet to meet a legal immigrant like myself who's not opposed to the numbers in which the government is letting undocumented migrants in, the expensive accomodations and billions they cost and the potential national security issues they're posing."
Meme - "Home Office wins appeal to keep asylum seekers at protest-hit hotel"
"Labour when schoolgirls are sexually assaulted and raped by illegal migrants - i sleep
Labour when illegal migrants lose access to their 4 star hotel rooms - real shit"
