United Kingdom
All posts tagged United Kingdom
The WEF is evil and may even said to be Satanic! https://open.substack.com/pub/makismd/p/propaganda-series-disease-x-propaganda?r=pbjs4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
‘As Voltaire once mused, “Prussia is not a nation. It is an army that controls nations.” Today, that army is an invisible enemy, hiding behind a complex matrix of globalist corporations. It has infiltrated governments and central banks worldwide. It has taken over national education systems and indoctrinated our youth to hate everything about their culture. At the helm of this monolithic beast sits the World Economic Forum, or as we have named it, the ReichsWEF.
In partnership with King Charles, the ReichsWEF have pronounced their new joint-venture to the world. That venture is The Great Reset. Charles and Klaus publicly launched the initiative early on in the Great Plandemic:’https://prussiagate.substack.com/p/reichswef-23-death-squared?publication_id=538054&post_id=97795985&isFreemail=true
Speaking the truth in this present society will all too often have a real personal cost.
The following is the 2021 Easter Creation Conversations between John Mackay and Joseph Hubbard.
‘Greater Manchester Police announced last week that it has launched a dedicated child sexual exploitation (CSE) unit consisting of 54 police officers and staff. The new unit will commit resources and skills to “investigating large scale and complex CSE investigations.” I assume that this is badly worded and that it will not merely ‘investigate investigations’.
The unit will also “have strategic oversight of all multi-victim/multi-suspect CSE investigations taking place across Greater Manchester.” This ‘multi-victim/multi suspect CSE’ language is code for ‘grooming gangs’. It is good to see Greater Manchester Police dedicating resources to addressing this problem, but it has taken decades to get to this point.
Victims failed by police
This follows an announcement last year that three former police officers that led an inquiry into child sex grooming in Greater Manchester Police were being investigated. A report about CSE in Greater Manchester found that the police were aware in 2003 of at least 57 white girls aged 12-16 years old who were known to be having sex with older ‘Asian’ men, often against their will. Nearly 100 persons were found to be involved in this sexual exploitation. The police, however, were focused on trying to find other ethnicities to arrest rather than dealing with the offenders they knew about.
Over 800 suspects so far
Manchester Evening News reported that there are now 70 police investigations by Greater Manchester Police involving multiple victims of CSE. I assume that means 70 grooming gang investigations. Police have said that there are 809 suspects across these investigations, and some 468 victims discovered so far.
With this latest statistic, the gigantic industrial scale of the grooming gang phenomenon continues to be exposed. If there are over 800 perpetrators in Greater Manchester alone, how many are there across the country as a whole? One survivor estimates that there have been 500,000 victims over 40 years. We know that almost 19,000 victims of CSE were identified in 2018-19. This is not just something that happened years ago, it continues today. To date there have only been around 400 convictions for grooming gang crimes.
Police: ‘We think your [under-age] daughter is prostituting herself’
Earlier this month, an alleged new victim of a grooming gang in Walsall has claimed that the police accused her of lying when she bravely went with her mother to report the first rape when aged 12 or 13-years old. She subsequently became a regular victim of an ‘Asian’ grooming gang. Her mother picked her daughter up from the police station after she had been found by police. The police explained to the mother, “We think your daughter is prostituting herself.” She was a young girl at the time. It was illegal for her abusers to have sex with her. Yet the police did not tackle that obvious crime. A grooming gang is known to have operated in an area of Walsall with a large Pakistani population. The victim says that her abusers are still at large today, abusing other young girls.
Political correctness continues
It is good to see a dedicated unit set up to address grooming gang crimes. This is not before time, but it is at least better late than never. I hope that Greater Manchester Police has learnt some lessons from the huge failures around grooming gangs that have been exposed. Whether they have remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, the recent government report into the characteristics of grooming gangs refused to consider religion or Islam as a factor. If the government refuses to address this subject with plain language, you can be sure the police will be very cautious. Every time I learn more about these grooming gangs I wonder: How many more girls will we sacrifice to political correctness?’https://christianconcern.com/comment/over-800-grooming-gang-offenders-in-greater-manchester-alone/
The Court of Appeal has today ruled that it was lawful for a Christian non-executive NHS director and magistrate to be sacked for expressing in the media that children do best when raised by a mother and a father.
Mr Richard Page, 74, from Kent, was suspended from the magistracy and forced out of a role at an NHS Trust, after explaining on television that he had been discriminated against for his Christian beliefs on parenting while presiding over an adoption case.
After a six-year legal battle seeking justice against the decisions to remove him, today’s judgment has instead taken a significant step in developing further limitations on freedom of speech for Christians in the workplace.
Mr Page now intends to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
‘Views might cause offence’
In his judgment on Mr Page’s claim against NHS Improvement, Lord Justice Underhill stated that:
“The extent to which it is legitimate to expect a person holding a senior role in a public body to refrain from expressing views which may upset a section of the public is a delicate question.”
He recognised that Mr Page “had a particular interest in expressing publicly his views about same-sex adoption in the context of his removal as a magistrate, which was a legitimate matter of public debate” and that he expressed his views ‘temperately’ in the media.
However, he judged that Mr Page’s views on same sex-marriage and ‘homosexual activity’, might cause ‘offence’.
The ruling suggested, for example, that Mr Page should have “declined to answer” Piers Morgan’s questions on his beliefs during an interview on Good Morning Britain in 2016.
Mr Morgan’s treatment of Mr Page during the interview led to 70 complaints to Ofcom.
However, it was ruled that Mr Page’s responses to Piers Morgan’s questions justified his removal from his financial role in the NHS, as they might inadvertently “deter mentally ill gay people in the Trust’s catchment area from engaging with its services.”
Lawyers representing Mr Page had argued at the hearing in November 2020 that upholding his removal on these grounds would force Christians holding traditional views about sexual morality into silence, making it almost impossible for them to hold any kind of public office.
Concluding his judgment however, Lord Justice Underhill stated that, “the issue raised by this case is not about what beliefs such a person holds but about the limits on their public expression.”
He added that:
“the freedom to express religious or any other beliefs cannot be unlimited. In particular, so far as the present case is concerned, there are circumstances in which it is right to expect Christians (and others) who work for an institution, especially if they hold a high-profile position, to accept some limitations on how they express in public their beliefs on matters of particular sensitivity.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “This is the first time the Court of Appeal has endorsed the perverse distinction between unlawful discrimination for Christian beliefs and lawfully dismissing someone for offending an LGBT audience by expressing those beliefs.
“This is simply an artificial way to exclude Christian beliefs from the protection of the law. Nobody would get away with applying a similar distinction to any other protected characteristic. You would not get away with dismissing a homosexual for coming out as a homosexual, and then saying: “we duly respect your sexual orientation as long as you keep it to yourself”. This is an unfair and chilling decision, and the Supreme Court should put it right.
“The judgment sends a direct message to Christian public servants that if they allow their beliefs to influence their decision-making while in public office, they must self-censor and be silent, and are ultimately unfit for that office. If they express their beliefs in private to colleagues, they will be reprimanded, and if they then state those beliefs to the media, they will be sacked and will have their lives torn apart.
“The idea that you can remove a director from the NHS based on a perception that members of the LGBT community may be offended by something he said in the media, is extraordinary and should concern us all.
“This ruling provides a green light for employers to punish Christian employees who do not fall in line with and unquestionably support LGBT ideology. We will continue to stand with Richard Page as he seeks justice. We will not stop until this wrong is put right.”
Responding to the outcome, Mr Page said: “This is another deeply concerning ruling from the courts against Christian freedoms, and I intend to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.”‘https://christianconcern.com/news/court-upholds-richard-pages-sacking-for-sharing-christian-views-on-family/
The UK government seems to be kowtowing to Islam when it comes to what may or may not be printed in the press concerning Islam. For example, ‘The press regulator guidelines on Islamophobia were leaked this week and reveal a serious threat to press freedom when it comes to Islam related issues.
Newspapers and magazines are regulated by the Independent Press Standard 
Organisation (Ipso) which was set up in 2014 following the phone-hacking scandal. For months, Ipso has been working on a project to draft guidance for journalists on how to report on issues connected with Islam and Muslims. Drafts of this guidance were leaked to the thinktank Policy Exchange which has issued a report about the revelations.
Miqdaad Versi’s influence
Miqdaad Versi is a prominent member of the Muslim Council of Britain. He has made it his personal mission to complain about so called ‘Islamophobia’ in UK media. He has issued multiple complaints to Ipso and frequently obtains corrections or apologies. In one case he succeeded by complaining to Ipso in getting mainstream newspapers to issue an correction stating “We are happy to make clear that Islam as a religion does not support so-called honour killings.” This correction notice is actually false. At the very least, there are many Muslims who would disagree with it. Backing in Islamic texts for killing someone who has apostatised is found here. Will Heaven cites a national newspaper editor as confirming that he frequently corrects stories when Versi complains about them as this will put a stop to a deluge of emails which will follow if no correction is published.
It turns out that Versi is a member of the group which has been drawing up the new guidelines about Islam and Muslims. This means that he will soon be complaining to Ipso about stories he objects to, using guidance which he helped to draft. In other words, someone with a vested interest has helped draft the guidance which he will later use for his own ends. Will Heaven explains that in the commercial sphere this is known as ‘regulatory capture’ which means that he will be able use his own rules to his own advantage.
Versi is an activist who wants to dictate what the media can and cannot say about Islam. He controls the Muslim Council of Britain’s ‘Centre for Media Monitoring’ which issues reports about supposed ‘Islamophobia’ in UK media. There is a serious question to answer as to why Versi was involved in drawing up Ipso guidelines at all?
The proposed guidance
A key paragraph in the proposed guidance is the following:
“Journalists should be aware that their content can have an impact on the wider community and on how minority communities are treated. Inaccuracies and insensitivities can damage communities and prevents their accurate representation. They can also contribute to members of communities feeling divorced from, or misunderstood, by the media. Finally, inaccuracies and unbalanced coverage can work to increase tension between communities, which can make harassment more likely.”
Is it really the fault of journalists if minority communities are badly treated or harassed? I am all for accurate reporting, but who defines what is ‘sensitive’? Assuming it is accurate, would it be insensitive to report that a terrorist attack was carried out by a Muslim who explicitly stated he was inspired by the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad?
Then who defines ‘unbalanced’? The media can be accused by every campaign group and political party in the country of being ‘unbalanced’. For one thing, they focus much more on negative news than positive news. Is that something a regulator should interfere with though? Where will this lead to in terms of press freedom? What happens when the regulator complains that your reporting is ‘unbalanced’? Does that sound like a free country?
If the media worries about causing offence then we do not have a free press. It is already the case, as the Casey Review pointed out, that too many public institutions shy away from tackling Islam related issues for fear of being branded ‘Islamophobic’. If the press also felt constrained then we could have been living in a world in which there was no reporting about the ‘Trojan Horse’ affair in Birmingham, or of Islamic rape gangs which has at least led to convictions and girls taken out of shocking abuse.
Who are ‘experts’?
Another disturbing warning in the guidance is the following:
“Identifying the ‘right’ person to speak to can be extremely challenging and journalists should be aware that individuals and organisations may have different interpretations of a particular belief.”
“Does the person you are speaking to have the relevant expertise?”
Clearly there will be different interpretations, but does that mean that one cannot state what the Bible or the Qur’an clearly say? Who decides ‘expertise’ in this context? Perhaps it will be someone who doesn’t agree with that interpretation?
An earlier draft talked of ‘representativeness’ rather than ‘expertise’. Policy Exchange point out that this is a frequent complaint of Miqdaad Versi and the MCB who want the exclusive right to determine who represents Muslims in the UK. This kind of argument can also be made in terms of ‘expertise’. Ipso appears to be openly facilitating this agenda from the MCB and Miqdaad Versi. This is in spite of the fact that the government does not engage with the MCB because of concerns about its association with extremism. This does not bode well for freedom of the press.
Defining ‘Islamophobia’
Versi is a vocal supporter of the proposed APPG definition of Islamophobia. I have warned about the dangers of this definition for free speech here. Several other advisors to Ipso on the guidance have also publicly supported the APPG definition. Whilst the government has rejected this definition, it seems that Ipso is moving down this line in providing guidance which can be used to censor criticism of Islam.
A chilling effect
There is already a ‘chilling effect’ reported by editors and journalists in relation to how they report about stories that touch on Islam and Muslims. Will Heaven is right to note that “there is a degree of self-censorship going on” when it comes to Islam. Some of our top investigative journalists have been labelled ‘Islamophobic’ for their reporting on rape gangs for example.
Ipso is moving in a disturbing direction. It appears to be aiding and abetting an activist agenda to protect Islam and Muslims from offence. Is this an appropriate role for a press regulator? Furthermore, they have accepted Miqdaad Versi and the MCB as the representatives of Muslims in the UK – a very dubious representation. Are there Christian representatives, or for that matter Jewish, Hindu or Sikh representatives? And would Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, or even Muslims want to be represented by one particular group, let alone individual?
Religious thought police
Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, wrote the foreword to the Policy Exchange report. He is scathing in his criticism of Ipso, arguing that it is: “putting a veto in the hands of self-appointed community spokespeople, or ‘media monitors’ – in effect a religious thought police, which might not seem out of place in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, but which should have no function in the UK.”
He continues:
“What is most worrying is that, increasingly, those charged with the responsibility to resist this creeping censorship and disguised segregation are quietly surrendering to its advocates. In many cases the reason is a fear of ‘causing offence’. Yet, the job of a journalist is to tell the truth irrespective of the feelings of those involved, if there is a public interest. But increasingly, the words ‘public interest’ are being read as ‘opinion of a well-organised, well-funded, persistent and ruthless lobby.”
Press freedom is about to fall
Philips concludes: “If we give way to the demands being made, the only people who will find themselves silenced will be those who want to tell the truth.”
The freedom of the press is under threat from Muslim activists who want to control what is said about Islam. Ipso, the press regulator, is capitulating to their demands. Unless things change, press freedom is set to fall. Truth will be the victim.’ https://christianconcern.com/comment/islamic-thought-police-target-the-press/
Good News out of the UK on the Freedom not only to speech but to preach Christ.
‘Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, a Christian street preacher has been offered £2,500 in exemplary damages from the Metropolitan Police in relation to his false arrest, imprisonment and unlawful detention.
In February, a video showing the aggressive arrest of Pastor Oluwole Ilesanmi (64) was 
watched by millions around the world, prompting outrage. Officers were shown forcibly handcuffing the preacher, claiming that he was breaching the peace and had made “Islamophobic comments”.
A petition was quickly launched calling on the Home Secretary to investigate the guidance and training given to police officers nationwide on the freedom to preach in public.
Marking the resolution of his case, Pastor Oluwole will deliver the petition, now with over 38,000 signatures, this Tuesday (30 July) at 10.30am at the Home Office to the new Home Secretary Priti Patel, as well as to London City Hall. The Christian Legal Centre, which has assisted Pastor Oluwole throughout the case, has written to chief constables across the country, asking them to uphold the freedom of street preachers to speak freely about Jesus Christ in public. This letter will be delivered on Tuesday to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick.
‘Exceptional humiliation and degradation’
On 23 February 2019, Pastor Oluwole was preaching outside Southgate Underground station. A member of the public, Mrs Ambrosine Shitrit, saw a tall hooded man squaring up to a street preacher. Thinking that the preacher was about to be assaulted, she pulled over and started filming with her phone.
Two police officers shortly arrived in response to a 999 call claiming that the preacher had been “Islamophobic”. The hooded man, who had identified himself as a Muslim, left the immediate vicinity and the police began asking the preacher to leave the area for supposedly “breaching the peace.”
The video, which shortly afterwards went viral online, shows Pastor Oluwole explaining his freedom to continue preaching to the officers, who arrest him, forcibly handcuffing him and snatching his Bible.
Pastor Oluwole was then driven five miles away from the scene, beyond the area he could use his Oyster card, and left with no means to pay for his ticket home. Police initially denied that this had happened, later changing their story after evidence backed the pastor’s claim.
Motivated by the desire not to see other street preachers treated the way he was, Pastor Oluwole authorised the Christian Legal Centre to write a pre-action letter to the Metropolitan Police. In response, the police force has agreed the sum of £2,500 in damages, including general damages for false imprisonment in the sum of £500, plus £1,000 for the exceptional humiliation and degradation and £1,000 for the mental trauma caused to Pastor Oluwole.
Petition to be delivered
Following the initial incident, questions were asked by MPs, peers and London Assembly members concerning Pastor Oluwole’s treatment.
A Christian Concern petition was also launched, supporting Pastor Oluwole and calling for the Home Secretary to urgently investigate the training given to police officers nationwide to ensure that they protect the freedom to preach in public.
The petition, now signed by over 38,000 members of the public, will be delivered this Tuesday (30 July) by Pastor Oluwole to the Home Office.
The Christian Legal Centre will also deliver a letter to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, which is being sent to every chief constable in the country that calls for many of the misconceptions about street preaching freedoms to be addressed through specialist training.
The letter explains:
“Many street preachers have found themselves in trouble. This has included being arrested, and prosecuted, despite the law recognising their rights to both manifest and express their religious beliefs. None of the clients we have assisted has been convicted; accordingly, that might suggest the criminal justice system is working appropriately; however, the problem is that many officers simply do not understand the interplay between the public order legislation and the right to freedom of speech.”
‘Christians and freedom of speech must be protected’
Pastor Oluwole said: “I am glad that the police have recognised that it was not right to arrest me for preaching from the Bible. It was traumatic being arrested and left many miles from my home. But God was always with me and even though I was left in a place I did not know, I was determined to get back to Southgate and start preaching the gospel again.
“When I came to the UK it was a free Christian country, but now preachers like me are being arrested for speaking the truth. Christians and freedom of speech must be protected, especially by the government and police. I hope this recognition of fault can lead to more Christians being protected and the police gaining greater insight into what it means to lawfully proclaim the Word of God on our streets.
“I am amazed and so grateful for the support I have received from people across the world and the Christian Legal Centre.”
‘Critiquing ideas is often motivated by love and not hate’
Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Street preaching has a long and honoured history in the UK. In many ways it is symbolic of the kind of freedoms we have treasured in this nation.
“However despite laws that theoretically support the freedom to preach in public, in practice, police officers are quick to silence preachers at the first suggestion that a member of the public is offended. Freedom of speech means that each one of us needs to be able to critique all religions and ideas without immediately being labelled and silenced as offensive. Critiquing ideas is often motivated by love for others and not hate. The result of this also chills free speech through self-censorship.
“While the extent of the public outrage at Pastor Oluwole’s arrest was unique, what he faced from the police and members of the public was not. We are constantly supporting street preachers who are being silenced and penalised on our streets by the police, and their poor treatment and the injustice they face is too quickly forgotten.
“So whilst we are pleased that the police have agreed to pay compensation for what has happened to Pastor Oluwole, we now need to see tangible action from the government, the police and the Mayor of London, offering assurances that Christian street preachers are free to preach the gospel within the law without fear of prosecution.” https://christianconcern.com/news/police-payout-after-christian-street-preacher-arrest/
“The video of the arrest of street preacher Oluwole Ilesanmi on Saturday 23rd February outside Southgate Tube station quickly went viral, causing outrage all over the world.
Oluowole was preaching on the streets as he often does. The police officers confront him and then arrest him for breaching the peace. However, it is clear from the video that there is no-one whose peace is being breached.” https://www.christianconcern.com/our-issues/freedom-of-speech/police-caught-out-by-street-preacher-evidence
whatyareckon 