Bradistan: Importing a Culture Gap

Our expatriate English correspondent Peter returns with a look at the Islamization of the UK over the past three decades. He accompanies it with this brief note:

This piece includes my impressions of Islam in the UK from 1998 when I returned from my travels until 2003, when I gave up. I gave up for several reasons, mainly because the UK publishing industry was so far up itself I would only get into print if I changed my name to Victoria Beckham. They were also into self-preservation and were reluctant to publish Islam-critical material after what happened to Viking over the Satanic Verses.

Bradistan: Importing a Culture Gap
by Peter

I cannot blame anyone in Pakistan for coming to the UK, either as a refugee or as an economic migrant seeking a better life. Indeed, I am surprised that anybody stays there at all, as Pakistan has little to recommend it. What does surprise me, though, is that a number of Pakistani immigrants seem determined to bring Pakistan with them and, having arrived here, resist all inducements to integrate with the host community. This situation should have been addressed and arrested a long time ago but it has been allowed to fester over the years with disastrous consequences.

When I went travelling in 1994, Islam was firmly entrenched in the UK but very few people viewed it as the threat it ultimately became. Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund put out monthly newsletters giving up-to-date bulletins of murders and other crimes committed internationally by Muslims against Christians and other denominations but for the most part, the main stream media tended to view Islam as a joke. Looking back I can understand why. There were three stock comic characters continually featured in the daily press who were viewed as Falstaffian personalities while preaching bile and hatred against their western hosts, but for the most part they stopped short of outright incitement to violence. They were Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Hamza Al Masri and Abu Qatada — none of whom was Pakistani, but the vast majority of their followers were and they believed every word these maniacs uttered.

Syrian-born Omar Bakri Muhammad, real name Omar Bakri Fostock is an Islamic hardliner who was instrumental in developing Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK before setting up Al Muhajiroun until it became a proscribed organization in 2004. For several years Bakri was one of the best-known Islamic militants in the UK and was frequently quoted and interviewed in the British media. Although he was described as “closely linked to al Qaeda” he was more commonly known as the “Tottenham Ayatollah”, and considered to be a bumbling incompetent more akin to Inspector Clouseau than Osama Bin Laden.

By way of contrast, the fearsome, hook handed Mustafa Kamel Mustafa born in Egypt on 15 April 1958 and more commonly known as Abu Hamza al-Masri was formerly the Imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque in North London, where he preached extremist Islam and Jihadism. He was subsequently imprisoned for incitement to violence and ultimately deported to the USA where he was convicted of terrorism and is currently awaiting sentence when, it is hoped, he will never again see the light of day.

Abu Qatada al-Filistini, born Omar Mahmoud Othman in 1960, is a Jordanian national of Palestinian origin. He had been in and out of prison in the UK and although rumoured to be Al Qaeda’s right hand man in Europe and being involved with Islamic terror in London and elsewhere, he has never been found guilty of any crime. After a long drawn out legal battle, he was deported to Jordan to face terrorism charges and subsequently acquitted. The UK Government has stated that he will not be returning to Britain but expect this to be quietly overturned if Labour win the General Election in 2015.

Apart from Islam, the other characteristic these people had in common was that they all lived on welfare generously provided by the British taxpayer, including free palatial housing for their multitudinous dependents, with both Bakri and Hamza receiving additional payments for disability. There are many, many Muslims in the UK today receiving the same level of benefits for doing absolutely nothing but sitting around and procreating. Is it any wonder why they congregate in Calais from all points of the Islamic compass to jump onto the UK gravy train?

I returned to the UK in 1998 and, as my flat in Hayes was let until December 1999, I took lodgings in a shared house in South London where I became aware of a number of changes. Firstly, there were far more Muslims on the streets than there had been when I went away, and although they were far more assertive in projecting their Islamic identity, newspaper articles were fewer and far less critical of their activities.

In the summer of 2001, the strained relationship that had long existed between Britain’s Muslim population and its Anglo-Saxon hosts finally erupted into violence on the streets of Oldham, Burnley and Bradford. Three different Government enquiries took place after the events and produced a plethora of recommendations. They highlighted as the main causes of the unrest a lack of social cohesion and the fact that both sets of communities had been allowed to develop in tandem, living polarised lives with little attempt at integration. Muslim communities in particular came in for criticism for being inward-looking and reluctant to accept the British way of life. But none of these conclusions was unexpected.

After the destruction of the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001, Europe was forced to accept the fact that the bitch that bore the Taliban was now in its midst, and she was in heat again.

In the UK, Britons were incensed to discover that a disturbing proportion of their Muslim population not only supported the atrocity, but celebrated it. They were even more indignant when it was revealed that a number of vociferous Islamist organisations were active in their cities urging and recruiting young British Muslims to fight alongside the Taliban against the allied forces in Afghanistan, while increasing numbers of rogue clerics were preaching violence, race-hate and religious intolerance to congregations, a significant number of whom, were anti-British, anti-Western and anti-white. While the outrage of the British public was understandable, the revelation should have come as no surprise. Islamist organisations had been in this country for decades, and successive British Governments had been criticised by many of their European counterparts for their tolerance of the nefarious activities of their Muslim guests. The French Government, in particular, had accused London of operating “a revolving door for Islamic terrorists.”

That racial violence should finally break out on the streets of Oldham, Burnley and Bradford should not have been received as a bolt from the blue as the signs were there for all to see. For decades, there had been exclusively Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian, non-English-speaking enclaves in many of our major cities, where the occupants offered no allegiance to the United Kingdom, neither did they feel bound by its laws. Bradford itself has long been known as “Bradistan” — Little Pakistan by its Pakistani community. In the months leading up to the riots, stories had been appearing in the newspapers about “no-go” areas for whites in Oldham, while police figures for Greater Manchester up to April 2001 showed a record level of racial attacks, and that 60% of the victims were white.

Rabble-rousing agitators from the BNP (British National Party) and the ANL (Anti Nazi League), surely two ends of the same pantomime horse, were also operating on the fringes, presumably hoping to make capital out of any unrest they might stir up. Although serious, the violence was the tip of a very large and sinister iceberg that has been allowed to grow by successive British governments who habitually swept racial issues under the carpet in the vain hope that they would go away. The Blair government exacerbated the problem, stifling much-needed debate by smearing anybody who attempted to highlight racial difficulties as ‘racist.’ Similar attitudes have handicapped the police and numerous care agencies in their approach to minority ethnic groups and enabled such things as drug trafficking, extortion, generic domestic violence, gang rape of white minors and forced marriage to continue unabated within those communities.

During the late 1990s the issue of forced marriage abroad gradually gained recognition until the extent of the problem was finally acknowledged. Stories started to appear in the press about the plight of Pakistani-Muslim girls in the UK and of the way those in authority persistently looked the other way while the rights of those girls were being systematically abused. Allegations were being made that thousands of girls, some as young as 13 or 14, were being taken out of school in the UK every year and forced to marry much older men in Pakistan, Bangladesh or India. There were also veiled suggestions that female genital mutilation was being carried out in the UK or that girls were being sent abroad to have this vile thing done to them beyond the reach of UK justice. But the major issue was that of forced marriage and the apparent indifference of the authorities who were reluctant to interfere in case they were deemed to be racist.

In 1999, the UK had what I believed to be its first trial for honour killing. In May of that year, Shakeela Naz and her son Shazad were sentenced to life imprisonment at Nottingham Crown court for the murder of nineteen year old Ruksana Naz, who had been married at 15 by arrangement to an older man and who had hardly seen him since. This did not prevent her from bearing him two children and she was seven months pregnant with the child of her lover when she was murdered. Her mother and brother believed that her actions had insulted the honour of the family and, when Ruksana refused to submit to an abortion, her relatives had no doubt that this gave them the right to commit murder. An appeal that the verdict was unsafe was dismissed by the High Court in March 2000.

It was also in May 1999 that the stark realities surrounding forced marriage within the Pakistani community were officially recognised when Anne Cryer, then MP for Keighley, Yorkshire, introduced her constituent Zena Briggs (not her real name) to the Immigration and Home Office Minister Mike O’Brien. Zena had refused to go through with a marriage arranged by her family to a first cousin in Pakistan. Her family forced her into hiding as they first sent private detectives then bounty hunters and finally hit men after her. Zena had a contract out on her life and she and her English husband Jack had been living in fear for the previous six years. Around this time, one of the UK daily newspapers ran a similar story about a young woman in Bradford they called Yasmin Darr (also not her real name) It is possible that Zena and Yasmin were one and the same person. Whatever the truth might be, there was no doubt that Zena’s family believed that they had the right to murder both her and Jack in order to restore their honour, and that is the root of the multicultural lie. Like so many of their fellow countrymen and women, Zena’s family had been allowed to conduct themselves in Britain as though they were still living in their villages in Pakistan, where tribal, Islamic law prevails, women are no more than commodities and human life has little value. This state of affairs has been made worse by the complete refusal of a section of the Pakistani community to integrate with their hosts who they regard as degenerate, decadent and inferior.

Without question, the incidence of forced marriage abroad increased significantly since the abolition of the “Primary Purpose Rule” in 1998. Under this rule, foreign nationals had to prove they were marrying for the right reasons and not just as a pretext by which to gain entry to the UK. Soon after it was elected, the Blair Government caved in to pressure from various leftist, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi lobbies who claimed that this rule discriminated against arranged marriages and was therefore “racist”(groan) Since then, immigration officials have been unable to question the validity of a marriage, and the production of a marriage certificate is now enough to guarantee the holder the right to enter the UK.

In 1996, the British High Commission in Islamabad issued 1,960 visas to Pakistani-born potential husbands heading for the UK. In February 1998, after the abolition of the “Primary Purpose Rule” this number had risen to 5,080. A research document produced by Bradford City Council claimed that 57% of all marriages within its Asian community involved a spouse — more often than not, a husband — born and domiciled in Pakistan.

Philip Bamforth, a former Bradford Police officer who was employed in the 1990s by the West Yorkshire Police Race Relations Department, said that he dealt with 300 runaway Asian girls in 1998, most of whom were fleeing from a forced marriage or were trying to escape from a husband who had been forced upon them. He said he had dealt with over a thousand cases in the previous three years and the number was increasing. However, he suspected that he only heard of about 1% of the real number. He also expressed concern at the increase in the number of professional bounty hunters who were being paid a high premium to return fugitive wives or daughters to their Asian families. In other cases, Bamforth had to rescue young Pakistani women who had been imprisoned in their homes. Many of them were illiterate and had never been allowed outside since landing at Manchester airport. In the winter of 1998, he released a woman from a flat in Bradford where she had been kept prisoner by her drug-abusing husband ever since she had been brought to the UK from Pakistan. The woman had no knowledge of English and, said Bamforth, “We had to teach her how to use money, how to use telephones, even how to take the bus.”

In December 2001, “Our Voice,” a women’s group based in Bradford, advocated the reintroduction of the Primary Purpose Rule because of the increase in the incidence of forced marriage since its abolition. Anne Cryer had opposed this view in 1999, as she believed that the Primary Purpose Rule was offensive to those Asians who genuinely participated in arranged marriages abroad. However, she did feel that protective measures were necessary to prevent the Muslim community indulging in what she called “ the cruel practice of making their girls go back to Pakistan to marry first cousins or those to whom their family owe a favour.” Ominously, she warned at the time that civil unrest could occur if this practice were to continue. Her chilling prediction came true two years later, although forced marriage was not officially listed among the causes. The Blair government eventually brought in a mealy-mouthed response to this issue, but failed to criminalise what was clearly a criminal act.

Just before Christmas 2000, I heard the story of Narina Anwar, a British-born teenager of Pakistani origin and her two sisters who had been duped into visiting relatives in Pakistan only to find that all three of them were expected to marry local men, even her youngest sister who was only fourteen years old at the time. Their passports had been taken from them by their relatives, who threatened to kill them if they refused to go through with the marriages or tried to escape. Narina described her intended husband as “unsuitable.” The last time I heard a prospective Pakistani husband described in this manner, he turned out to be a malodorous, hairy-faced illiterate, who spoke no English and had never ventured further than forty miles from his village in any direction for the whole of his life up until then. Faced with being dragooned into marriage to such a man, the three sisters felt that they had no option but to escape, regardless of the death threats they knew to be genuine. They finally reached the British High Commission in Lahore, where flights home were arranged for them and they were taken into local authority care on arrival. The British High Commission had stated that in the year 2000, they had intervened in 70 cases where British-born girls were being forced to marry Pakistani men. Narina Anwar was last heard of working as a volunteer counsellor in a community liaison unit set up jointly by the Home and Foreign Offices to work on behalf of victims of forced marriage abroad.

In 1990s Pakistan, the forced marriage of British Asian girls to Pakistani men was a generally acknowledged route by which the latter could gain unfettered access to the UK. The abolition of the Primary Purpose Rule has removed a formidable obstacle to the success of this deception. Clearly, any action by the British Government to prohibit the practice of forced marriages abroad would go some way towards closing this particular loophole in our immigration laws. Predictably, there are some Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians who resent what they see as the “interference” of the British Government which, they feel, has no right to “stick its nose into” family matters, culture or traditions. They see Government initiatives to counteract forced marriage as unwarranted interference, telling Asians how to live their lives. Such attitudes present a significant barrier to integration and the achievement of a genuine multicultural society, as they demonstrate quite clearly a complete absence of any comprehension of the workings of the liberal democracy by which the UK is governed. There are laws in our country against such denials of human rights and we must all observe them without exception. [I can’t believe I wrote that back then. — P] There is another serious issue here, too. Asian families, particularly those from Pakistan, might claim that their culture and religion entitle them to force their daughters to marry abroad and, in our civilised society that is hard enough for us to accept. But when that marriage brings with it the uncontested right of the husband to enter and remain in Great Britain, then the families concerned are clearly granting a concession that was never theirs to offer.

In 2001 , I came upon a newspaper report that highlighted once again the human casualties of the east-west divide in the UK today. On 15 June 2001, one Munir Hussain, a 51-year-old Muslim from Walthamstow, East London pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his 23-year-old daughter Shanaz, because she went to the local pub. Mr. Hussain, described as a strictly religious man, wound rope around his daughter’s neck and throttled her to death. He then wrapped her body in plastic bags and put it in the boot of his car before driving to the police station and confessing to her murder. He pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was ordered to be detained indefinitely under the Mental Health Act.

On 20th October, 2003, two men who had murdered a bride on her wedding day were sentenced to life imprisonment in Birmingham. Rafaqat Hussein of Camberley, Surrey, had pleaded guilty to stabbing his cousin Sahjda Bibi 22 times in an honour killing, while his cousin Tafarak Hussain drove the getaway car. Apparently, the pair had decided to murder the young woman because she had decided to marry a divorced man. In sentencing the killers, the Judge, Mr. Justice Wakerley, told them “Those who live here in our multi-cultural and multi-racial, tolerant society must accept our laws.”

Good luck with that.

I started to write these notes in 1998 when people were still talking about bogus asylum seekers rather than serial benefit claimants, jihadis and child molesters. As everyone knows now, things in the UK have become much, much worse with Islamic inspired violence on our streets, Muslim Patrols to enforce Sharia Law in East London, vast numbers of under aged white girls being groomed for sex by Pakistani men while in some areas, there appear to be mosques on every street corner. Things are much the same across Europe.

Everybody knows that the problem is the unholy alliance between Islam and the left. I cannot predict any positive outcome to this, only that it will not end well.

Peter is an English expatriate who now lives in Thailand.

Previous posts:

2014   Sep   19   Why I Left England’s Mean and Unpleasant Land
    Oct   5   Pakistan I: The Blasphemy Laws
        6   Pakistan II: The Hudood Ordinances

23 thoughts on “Bradistan: Importing a Culture Gap

  1. Ignorance has the impossible dream in the palm of its hands. All it needs now is to keep the hypnotized goody two shoes western suckers off balance with fear while pouring in reinforcements. A bit like ISIS really. Just like Turkey Erdo says. We are tools.

  2. ” when Anne Cryer, then MP for Keighley, Yorkshire, introduced her constituent Zena Briggs (not her real name) to the Immigration and Home Office Minister Mike O’Brien.”

    Big mistake! This disgusting creature Mike O’Brien wrote one of the most appallingly toe-curling, cringe worthy articles in The Muslim Weekly, Issue 081 in 2004, which has since disappeared. A perfect example of full-blown dhimmitude which should be kept for posterity.

    Apologies for the long text of the article which follows:

    Labour and British Muslims:
    Can we dream the same dream?
    by Mike O`Brien MP

    Are some Muslims about to vote against the best friend they have ever had in government? Can people really claim that the Labour Government is a friend of Muslims after Iraq? The answer may surprise you.

    Understandably, many Muslims are very angry about the war. Traditionally they have supported Labour but some are now switching to the Liberal Democrats, Respect or even the Tories. But the real question is whether there is a danger that anger may be causing Muslims to vote against their own long-term interests?


    [Read the rest at Bharat Raksak.]

  3. I would certainly be an interesting historical project to document the islamization of Europe as it is happening. It would make grim reading for later generations. It is important also because much of the proof of what happened, and which traitors made it happen, will be destroyed as islamic revisionists get to work rewriting history.

    • But that is what all the Counterjihad sites are already doing – i.e., documenting what would otherwise be countless and faceless atrocities. And they’re doing it in real time. Not quite live-streaming the takeover but pretty close.

      When the Ummah arrives how much of that record will survive? Probably quite a bit, but only if it can be preserved in places where the dummies who run the dhimmis to death can’t find it. Nor will it be available to the ruling classes who found this takeover convenient for their own reasons.

    • Mr. Copeland — happy to oblige:

      Go up to the top of the page
      Click on HOME
      That will bring up the main page. Look on the upper left corner.
      Click on the words “Email us”.
      That click will provide the information you need.

  4. Wow, what a thorough and courageous illumination of the sad, sad truth. Sad on so many levels. Glad to have a place like “Gates” where the unvarnished truth can be told. I wish we could start the University of the Gates of Vienna.

  5. Missed that one Phoebe. Labour really is the nasty party and the islamo-commies are still in parliament. Please do not vote Lib/Lab/Con in 2015 – unless of course you want to be a Dhimmi.

  6. Once again excellent (and depressing and enraging), Peter. I hope you’ll write up your impressions after your imminent return visit to the UK.

  7. A very interesting article Peter. The Muslim immigrants who came to the U.K. didn’t want to adopt a new way of life, they just wanted to carry on as they did in their countries of origin, but with a higher standard of living paid for by someone else.
    As Colin Dye wrote in The Islamisation of Britain “There are digital ghettos where many Muslims prefer to watch Asian TV channels, rather than mainstream British ones, and so are not becoming attuned to British ideas.”

  8. Firstly I should state that I live in Bradford and have done so for 38 years.

    Peter in his first Para states ‘is that a number of Pakistani immigrants seem determined to bring Pakistan with them and, having arrived here, resist all inducements to integrate with the host community’

    Er, you what Peter ? What ‘inducements to integrate with the host community’ ?

    I have never seen any such ‘inducements’ Where are they, who is providing them, where is the funding coming from for them ? I should add that I was for nearly ten years a school governor and for part of that time a chairman of governors. I was forced out of my chairmanship at the first school I was chairman at by a headteacher who loathed me. Her method of getting rid of me was to whisper to a lot of governors that the ‘Paki parents weren’t happy with a Jewish chairman of governors’.

    I have seen schools in outlying areas of Bradford (mainly white pupils) where the teaching staff are unhelpfull as hell to pupils & parents. Why ? Because the schools are funded much less than schools in inner-city Bradford so they do not have money for more teaching staff, more IT, more staff to be funded for higher grade positions, more classroom assistants. No matter how well these schools perform in league tables they get no thanks or recognition from the authority.

    In comparison inner city schools (mainly Muslim Pakis) get massive budgets. Remedial teachers, extra classroom assistants, higher grade pay for the teachers to attract teachers to these schools, Urdu language interpreters, latest IT technology. The achievements of these schools are trumpeted from the rooftops and outer area schools are told they should learn ‘good practise’ from these hellholes.

    Some of the children in these schools are fourth or fifth generation in the UK. They still arrive at school speaking Urdu. They are not allowed to speak English at home by parents who were often educated in the UK !! They play Urdu computer games, watch Paki TV from the satellite and ‘go home’ to Pakistan every summer for extended family holidays where they have to speak Urdu. Pakis call Pakistan ‘home’ even if their birth certificate says ‘Bradford Royal Infirmary’.

    Finally ‘Gary Fouse’ says ‘And who represents Bradford in parliament? George Galloway.’

    Bradford City has three Parliamentary constituencies. Galloway is MP for Bradford West. Bradford West is one of the most poverty struckin areas in the UK and is mostly Muslim. Labour have treated the voters of Bradford West with contempt for decades assuming they had a God given right to represent Bradford West. Galloway at least tries to represent his constituents. He was elected by a majority of over 10000 in a revolt against the Labour candidate a lazy, arrogant, corrupt Paki Cllr who thought he could now be promoted to take part in the Westminster gravy train.

    I personally live in Bradford South where my local Labour MP Gerry Sutcliffe (who I have known for decades) is a decent man.

    If you want real unpleasantness try Bradford East where the sitting Liberal MP David Ward was elected by a majority of 360. He is doing everything possible to try and get the Muslim vote to achieve re-election next year. He was suspended by the Liberal Party for three months summer 2013 for his anti-Israel statements. You have to be extreme to be disciplined by the Liberal Party !! This year he had to apologise for and retract several tweets during the Gaza campaign.

    • The British powers that be are living in a delusional Downton Abbey where they have burned down the village church and built a mosk, enslaved the white village freemen as estate servants and gifted their freeholds to foreign usurpers in the mistaking cause of deference.

  9. “…is that a number of Pakistani immigrants seem determined to bring Pakistan with them and, having arrived here, resist all inducements to integrate with the host community.”

    Yes, indeed, the names of many other ethic/religious groups could be readily substituted for “Pakistani” throughout the West, Muslims are just the most notorious, and of course, Multicultural ideologues will reflexively blame “White”majority racism for the failure to integrate. The West’s multi-culti useful idiots can never admit that (1) immigrants bring toxic cultural baggage with them and (2) some of their culture is inimical to liberal democracy, that would be heresy.

    The Islamisation of the West must be one of the most grotesque events in history–an advanced and powerful civilisation, is slowly surrendering to an invasion by a pre-industrial culture.

  10. ‘An advanced and powerful civilization’ has invaded itself with the the dregs of a 7th century cult and surrendered. The traitorous turkey muslims have a saying that ‘if you find yourself going down the wrong road – turn back’.

  11. The preference is to indulge in socio-political internecine on the British Isles even if that means importing foreign leverage and appropriating their customs and cults.

    The British State in the 21st century has the suicidal tendencies to prosecute its native peoples rather than confront alien ideologies and threats from within.

    The Britishness of Enoch Powell has long since been betrayed by the British State, the dissolution into leaner and meaner constituents on these Isles maybe the saving grace.

    The premise that Britishness would cease to exist without the presently configured British State is fatally flawed thinking.

    London is already a de facto multicultural city state and is probably lost to the English, in terms of demographics, economics and politically. Because of these factors the case could easily be made for moving the administration of the British State out of London to Winchester or York.

    • Jolie, London actually work better than many UK cities, probably because Muslims are only one slice of the ethnic pie, and most groups do want to get along without imposing their beliefs on others.

  12. Rabble-rousing agitators from the BNP (British National Party) and the ANL (Anti Nazi League), surely two ends of the same pantomime horse, were also operating on the fringes, presumably hoping to make capital out of any unrest they might stir up.

    One end of the pantomime horse has been subjected to relentless media and official hostility but still won two seats in the European elections. The other end is a Trotskyist front that couldn’t win any kind of election. So I don’t think the comparison works. The BNP are the only election-winning party that would accept a racist and Islamophobe like Winston Churchill, if he came back to life. He would certainly find no place in the modern Conservatives. He might find a place in jail, though, if he repeated his old views on Islam. And on the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution:

    Zionism versus Bolshevism. A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.

    Note that the link is to David Irving’s site. He’s a nazi, of course, like the BNP, but with cultural Marxism ruling the roost, nazis are sometimes the only ones prepared to speak forbidden truths.

  13. I watched the documentary about the mosque a while ago. There was nothing surprising in what the imaam preached, but I paid attention to the congregation. They listened silently. This gives a reason to ask a couple of questions:
    -Did the tv crew conveniently arrive at the scene just when the preaches began?
    No, they’ve been going on for a long time, not only in the Regent’s par mosque.
    – Why was the recorder undercover?
    Because if he hadn’t been there would have been a different sermon.
    – Why didn’t anyone raise his voice when his new homeland was defamed and denigrated? It would seem to me that if something similar had taken place in anglican church or, indeed, any other religious assembly, it would have been all over the pages as soon as it happened. So why did this go on here, and would have kept going on, if there would have been an undercover agent in the mosque?
    Because this is what the congregation came for to hear
    Because they liked what they heard
    Because Britain is NOT their homeland.
    – So now that there are no more hate preaches in the Regent’s park mosque, things are ok?
    Have the congregation that came to hear this message changed their opinions? Not likely.

    -What would I do if I wanted to spread an undercover message?
    I would spread leaflets just moderate enough to still be legal. I would arrange hate meetings in private areas, where the press has difficulties to enter. In small groups possible traitors are much easier to identify, which also keeps them more loyal to the cause. I would gradually increase the zeal, and listen to a couple of friends I had placed in any group of newcomers. I would tell them to spread the message to their children and relatives. In this way it would be almost impossible for authorities to detect me.

    Summa Summarum: It’s still going on, my british buddies, as nefarious and virulent as ever. It’s just out of your sight. For the moment.

  14. Peter wrote:

    “What does surprise me, though, is that a number of Pakistani immigrants seem determined to bring Pakistan with them and, having arrived here, resist all inducements to integrate with the host community.”


    “This situation should have been addressed and arrested a long time ago but it has been allowed to fester over the years with disastrous consequences.”

    If Peter’s “surprise” is not merely rhetorical but sincere, he should not wonder at why the situation was not addressed and arrested long ago; it’s part and parcel with the stubborn refusal to realize that Muslims — all Muslims — are invading us (either actively or in ideological spirit), not merely “seeking a better life”.

    • The socio-political consciousness or essence of the UK has changed drastically, psychologically British society has become brutal not in a competitive sense but in an authoritarian oppressive way. A way that has left Christianity behind and is moving towards and integrating with the unsparing socio-political controls of islam.

  15. Hesperado, I first wrote those words in September 1998, some two months after I returned to the UK. The buzz words in use then were “Bogus Asylum Seeker” rather than foreign invader. I got a contract job on the fringes of the race industry with the local council where 20% of the local population was black or minority ethnic. That was considered unusually high for that time but, as I stated above, things have got much, much worse. I am returning next week for a month. I sure it will be interesting and I will remember to watch what I say and do.

Comments are closed.