Tag: united kingdom

Experts predict a civil war in the UK; there is no political solution

In a recent interview, Richard Kemp, an expert on security, intelligence, counter-terrorism and defence, issued a stark warning:

“The more it develops – and it is going to develop more and more – the more unrest we’re going to see … I would go as far as to predict not just civil unrest but civil war in the UK, in the coming years … I would hate to be right on this, but I believe I know that there is no political solution.”

At MCC Feszt in Hungary, Connor Tomlinson sat down with former British Army Colonel Richard Kemp to ask what the main threats facing the West from within are, why our politicians appear incapable of or unwilling to address them and whether ignoring problems caused by immigration and Islam will bring Britain to the brink of civil war.

Kemp issued a stark warning that the United Kingdom is on a trajectory towards civil war due to the failure of political leaders to address a growing threat from an alliance between far-left activists and Islamist extremists.  He stated that this alliance, which he believes is fostered and funded by hostile foreign powers like Russia, China and Iran, poses a significant danger to the nation’s cohesion, culture and political existence.

Kemp criticised UK politicians for being short-sighted and risk-averse, operating with a “horizon is four years” mentality focused on re-election rather than taking the decisive action needed to prevent societal collapse.

He emphasised that while he does not encourage violence, he believes the public may ultimately feel they have “no option” but to take matters into their own hands, leading to widespread unrest and potentially full-scale civil war if the current situation continues.

“The more it develops – and it is going to develop more and more – the more unrest we’re going to see … I would go as far as to predict not just civil unrest but civil war in the UK, in the coming years … I would hate to be right on this, but I believe I know that there is no political solution,” Kemp said.

Keep reading

Flag Wars Everywhere!

One of the curious aspects of moving from the UK to the US is adjusting to the everyday cultural differences. There’s the tipping, the peculiar phrases (waiters often say ‘I appreciate you’ rather than ‘thank you’), and the kind of generalised politeness from strangers that in London I would naturally treat with suspicion. For me, one of the most notable variations has been the unabashed patriotism. The Stars and Stripes is a common sight, fluttering above public buildings, as bunting on shops, and from huge flagpoles erected along the highway. It’s almost as though these people are actually proud of their country.

In the UK, by contrast, the national flag has long been distrusted. Some view it as a symbol of racism and the legacy of empire, but more often it evokes a kind of embarrassment, as if patriotism itself were a form of bad manners. This week the Labour-run council in Birmingham ordered the removal of British and English flags from lamp posts, claiming that such “unauthorised attachments” can be “dangerous”. At the same time, Palestinian flags are flown with impunity throughout the UK, and many suspect that the police are too frightened to take them down.

The backlash against Birmingham council has become an unexpected flashpoint in the culture wars, with locals in various towns and cities now hoisting the flags of the Union and St George in defiance. The movement has been dubbed ‘Operation Raise the Colours’, spreading rapidly to London, Bradford, Newcastle, Norwich, Swindon and beyond.

Inevitably, woke activists see the British flag as threatening and “unsafe”, a declaration of support for colonialism and slavery, as though a nation’s flag can only possibly represent the worst aspects of its history. These same activists do not seem to baulk at the raising of the Progress Pride flag in public, in spite of the fact that this design is associated with the mutilation of children, the destruction of women’s spaces and the rolling back of gay rights.

The hypocrisy has been particularly obvious in areas such as Tower Hamlets, a council that has consistently displayed the Palestine flag, but has now said that any UK equivalent will not be tolerated. But why should the national flag be considered controversial in any area of the country it represents? In military terms, it is unthinkable to allow a flag to fall, because that is to suggest surrender or defeat. But in places like Tower Hamlets, the concept of raising it in the first place seems anathema.

Of course, all of this comes down to what the flag signifies. To many, the Union flag serves as a rallying point, binding people to shared values within one nation. To others, it is a symbol of dominance and jingoistic supremacy. But the same could surely be said of the Palestinian flag. While some will argue that it is a show of solidarity for a cause, in many cases it appears to function less as a unifying symbol than as a political provocation, aimed at alienating those who dissent from its message.

Take for instance the example of Labour donor and entrepreneur Dale Vince, who is currently displaying an oversized 30-foot-long Palestinian flag outside his office in Stroud. He had previously hung the European Union flag at the same spot. For Vince, flags are not simply a means of declaring his political affiliations. They are also instruments for his culture war; a way to hammer home his point of view while goading his Cotswold neighbours in the process.

I have had some personal experience of how flags can be used to promote dissent rather than unity. When I was at university, my mother moved to a house in the Brandywell area of the city of Derry in Northern Ireland, not far from where she grew up. In the surrounding roads there were plenty of Irish Tricolours painted onto walls, and even some of the kerbstones were decorated in the green, white and gold. You could argue that this was all in celebration of Irish culture, but of course these were really territorial markings, a way to ensure that Unionists knew they were not welcome. In turn, the nearby Fountain Estate was plastered with the colours of the UK flag, and remains so to this day.

Keep reading

Jeffrey Epstein committed his first crime in the U.K. and it involved a bizarre deadly weapon

Jeffrey Epstein once admitted being convicted of a bizarre crime involving possession of an offensive weapon in the U.K.

The late disgraced billionaire revealed under oath that he was convicted of having a sword disguised as a walking cane, a device known as a ‘swordstick.’

It is unclear what Epstein’s punishment was for the crime, which happened decades ago, but records show a man later convicted of the same offense received a suspended jail sentence.

The incident, according to Epstein himself, resulted in his first criminal conviction, long before he admitted soliciting a minor in 2008, and was then charged with sex trafficking of minors in 2019.

Epstein spoke about the peculiar episode during a sworn deposition in a separate financial investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in New York in 1981.

According to a transcript of that deposition he was asked if he had ever been convicted of a crime, and replied: ‘I’ve been convicted of a crime in Great Britain at one point…I don’t believe it’s…no (U.S.) federal jurisdiction.’

He was then asked by an SEC lawyer: ‘Do you know offhand if it’s a felony or a misdemeanor?’

Epstein responded: ‘No I don’t.’

The lawyer went on: ‘What did it concern? What was the allegation and what was the conviction?’

Epstein said: ‘The allegation was I bought an antique swordstick and they said that could not be carried in the country, it had to be shipped out.’

Keep reading

Man ARRESTED In UK For Saying “We Love Bacon”

A British man has been arrested for saying “we love bacon” while protesting the building of a proposed giant mosque.

The Telegraph reports that the protest occurred at the site of planned super mosque in the Lake District, which is populated by an almost 100% white population.

The report further notes that the 23-year-old man, was not otherwise being disruptive, causing any damage or being in any way violent.

The arresting police officer claims that the grounds for the detainment were “racial abuse.”

Telegraph writer  Isabel Oakeshott notes:

Of course Muslims don’t eat pork. As a result, they cannot share this particular delight with the rest of us. However, despite a steady rise in our own Muslim population, the UK remains a Christian country. Supposedly, we also enjoy free speech. Why then did the unfortunate father find himself frogmarched away from the protest by two police officers?

Saying ‘We love bacon’ is simply a truism. We British do love it, and there is nothing wrong with saying so.

As for remarks about bacon near a religious site or in the company of Muslims, they hardly constitute public disorder, still less ‘racial abuse,’ as the officer who arrested him can be heard suggesting.

The South Lakes Islamic Centre, often referred to as the Kendal mosque due to its proximity to the town of Kendal in Cumbria, is a £2.5 million facility under construction in Dalton-in-Furness on the edge of the Lake District.

Keep reading

JD Vance Stops UK Apple Backdoor Order Threatening Americans’ Privacy

Vice President J.D. Vance played a decisive role in persuading the United Kingdom to drop its demand that Apple provide the government with a “backdoor” into personal user data, according to U.S. officials.

The negotiations followed months of quiet but direct engagement between American and British leaders on the matter, as reported by Fox News.

A U.S. official told Fox News Digital that Vance was “in charge and was personally involved in negotiating a deal, including having direct conversations with the British government.”

The official said Vance worked with U.K. partners to negotiate “a mutually beneficial understanding” that led the British government to withdraw the order.

The agreement, the official added, ensures “each country’s sovereignty while maintaining close cooperation on data sharing.”

The vice president’s background in technology, along with his stated commitment to privacy rights and the U.S.-U.K. alliance, shaped his involvement.

Keep reading

UK Government Moves to Investigate 4chan Under Draconian ‘Online Safety Act’ — Platform’s SAVAGE Response Leaves Them Humiliated

The British government is at it again, weaponizing its so-called “Online Safety Act” to crack down on speech it doesn’t like.

This time, the target is none other than the online forum 4chan, the notorious online discussion board where anonymous users post unfiltered commentary that sends elites into fits.

On June 10, 2025, Ofcom, the UK’s Orwellian Office of Communications, opened an official investigation into 4chan.

According to Ofcom, the platform failed to hand over information on demand, did not file the “appropriate illegal content risk assessments,” and didn’t bow to London’s censorship mandates. In other words, 4chan refused to bend the knee.

By August 13, Ofcom escalated matters, issuing a provisional notice of contravention under the Act and threatening fines of £20,000 ($27,100) plus daily penalties until the platform complied.

According to the notice:

Provisional Decision: Information Notice duties

In accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, we have today issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention.

Ofcom is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the provider has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply with two requests for information. We will consider any representations provided in response to this provisional notice before we make a final decision on this matter.

The additional duties under investigation

On 10 June 2025, we opened an investigation into whether the provider of 4chan has failed/is failing to comply with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 to:

  • adequately respond to a statutory information request;
  • complete and keep a record of a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment; and
  • comply with the safety duties about illegal content.

Ofcom’s investigation continues to examine concurrently whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the provider has failed, or is failing, to comply with the other duties under investigation, including duties to protect its users from illegal content. We will provide updates on these matters in due course.

But instead of cowering, 4chan and its legal team fired back with a blistering response that left Ofcom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s censors utterly humiliated.

In a blistering legal statement posted by Byrne & Storm, P.C. and Coleman Law, P.C., 4chan’s lawyers dismantled Ofcom’s fantasy that they had authority over an American company.

The statement went further, warning that U.S. federal authorities had already been briefed and that the Trump Administration should be prepared to step in to defend American companies against foreign censorship mandates.

The statement reads:

According to press reports, the U.K. Office of Communications (“Ofcom”) has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter.

4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.

American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.

If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles.

United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.

The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was reportedly warned by the White House to cease targeting Americans with U.K. censorship codes (according to reporting in the Telegraph on July 30th).

Despite these warnings, Ofcom continues its illegal campaign of harassment against American technology firms. A political solution to this matter is urgently required and that solution must come from the highest levels of American government.

We call on the Trump Administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers available to the United States to protect American companies from extraterritorial censorship mandates.

Our client reserves all rights.

Keep reading

‘This is the UK in 2025!’ — Police face backlash after failing to arrest asylum seeker who entered elderly woman’s home

London’s Metropolitan Police has been accused of failing to protect the public after an asylum seeker housed at the Britannia Hotel in Canary Wharf entered an elderly woman’s home without permission — and was returned to the hotel without arrest.

The incident took place on Aug. 13, when police were called to Marsh Wall at 6:07 p.m. Officers claimed in a statement posted on social media that the man entered the property through an open door while “being followed by a group of men” in the street.

Police claim no intent could be proven, and the man was not arrested.

However, the response was markedly different toward protesters angry about the housing of asylum seekers in the area. Three demonstrators outside the migrant hotel, questioning why the man was not arrested, were themselves detained — including a 22-year-old woman facing multiple charges such as common assault on a security guard, possession of an offensive weapon, and affray. A Section 35 dispersal order was issued in the area, leading to the arrest of a 28-year-old man and a 57-year-old woman for breaching it.

Keep reading

‘This Is The UK In 2025’: Police Face Backlash After Failing To Arrest Asylum-Seeker Who Entered Elderly Woman’s Home

London’s Metropolitan Police has been accused of failing to protect the public after an asylum seeker housed at the Britannia Hotel in Canary Wharf entered an elderly woman’s home without permission — and was returned to the hotel without arrest.

The incident took place on Aug. 13, when police were called to Marsh Wall at 6:07 p.m. Officers claimed in a statement posted on social media that the man entered the property through an open door while “being followed by a group of men” in the street.

Police claim no intent could be proven, and the man was not arrested.

However, the response was markedly different toward protesters angry about the housing of asylum seekers in the area. Three demonstrators outside the migrant hotel, questioning why the man was not arrested, were themselves detained — including a 22-year-old woman facing multiple charges such as common assault on a security guard, possession of an offensive weapon, and affray. A Section 35 dispersal order was issued in the area, leading to the arrest of a 28-year-old man and a 57-year-old woman for breaching it.

Keep reading

Immigration, Censorship, and the Deep State in the Yookay

Mass immigration and the refugee crisis have transformed European politics over the last decade. The United Kingdom has experienced some of the biggest changes, as repeated popular revolts against immigration have led to both Brexit and the collapse of the Conservative Party in favor of Reform UK. The American Conservative sat down with Connor Tomlinson, a British journalist and political commentator, to talk about the impact of immigration on the UK and the country’s future.

Let’s start with something that I think a lot of Americans have found quite puzzling looking at the situation in the UK. Immigration is the question in British politics, especially right now. Every British government for years has been elected on the promise of lowering immigration. None have done so. Why?

When you say for years, that means going back to 1974. Every single election referendum since has promised lower migration and never delivered. There’s a few reasons. 

The first, I think, is the economic system. Anytime someone promises to cut immigration, a pie chart is wheeled into the room by the so-called experts, and they say, “If you do this, we won’t be able to fudge the numbers on the population, which then builds our annual GDP up, which then allows us to borrow even more debt to pay down for subsidized socialized medicine and pension system.” One thing that Keir Starmer ran into when he was elected to government was that because the Treasury predictions are done on an annual cycle, you can’t cut the size of the civil service, because if you make anyone lose their jobs—and it’s very hard to do the extra legislation anyway—but if you make anyone lose their jobs, they get a year severance pay, and it doesn’t register as cuts. If you cut immigration in the short term, there might be a dip in GDP, because you cut X amount of totally useless jobs. So instead, all they ever do is cut the very few things that they can do—the extra payments and pensions and things like that, which ends up estranging entire swathes of their voter base. 

So economics is one reason. The other one is that there is a human-rights industrial complex that has taken root. Keir Starmer, when he was a human-rights lawyer busy going around the world acting on behalf of murderers to get rid of the death penalty, actually helped write the text for Tony Blair’s 1998 Human Rights Act, which wrote the European Court of Human Rights and Convention on Human Rights into British law. So even after Brexit, we still have European laws on our books, because they’re a separate entity.

That means that you get Pakistani pedophiles or Albanian gangsters who say, “My son doesn’t like the taste of foreign chicken nuggets,” appealing to the statue and saying, “My right to a family and private life should mean that I get to stay in this country even though I’m a criminal.” No politician wants to touch that because of the deep taboos that have existed since 1945, since the atrocities of the Holocaust, since Hitler killed a lot of people in a very racist way. So all these antiquated human rights doctrines, like the UN Refugee Convention, like the European Convention of Human Rights, which were written with Dutch Jews fleeing persecution in mind, are now pertaining to North African rapists, and we’re just battery-farming them at the taxpayers expense. 

The final reason, I would say, is that the government has a hell of a lot of contracts with private security and housing firms like Serco. So local councils which mismanage their budgets and these private security firms and these hotel chains will take direct government subsidies to house not just legal migrants that come over (95 percent of whom aren’t paying any taxes at all, and are just a net drain), but also loads of illegal migrants who have come over the physical barrier of the English Channel. These illegal migrants have been picked up by the RNLI, our border force, ferried back, and are now housed in four-star accommodations at the cost of over £14 billion a year to the taxpayer.

Keep reading

British Police Told Reveal Ethnicity, Migration Status of Suspects in High-Profile Cases

British police forces have been told that they should disclose the ethnic background and nationality of suspects in at least high-profile cases to rebuild trust with the public amid accusations of politically correct cover-ups.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing have issued interim guidance to forces across England and Wales, advising them to disclose more information about suspects in high-profile cases, rather than merely disclosing their age and location of arrest, London’s Daily Telegraph reports.

The guidance comes in the wake of controversy surrounding the alleged gang rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton last month. Police faced accusations that they tried to prevent the public from being informed that the two suspects in the case, Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir, were asylum seekers from Afghanistan out of concern that it would inflame “community tensions”.

Warwickshire Police Chief Constable Alex Franklin-Smith denied that there was a “cover-up” but said that the decision to not publicly reveal the immigration status of the suspects was a result of “national guidance”.

A similar excuse was reportedly used to keep the Liberal Democrat-run Portsmouth Council in June from disclosing that a rape suspect in the area was being housed in a government-funded migrant hotel, leading to accusations of an intentional cover-up amid growing public anger and safety concerns over often young male illegal migrants being housed in communities across the country at the taxpayer’s expense.

Keep reading