When segmented social groups aren’t merely protected but maintain the appearance of favour, the ancient traditions of British justice simply cannot function. Democracy ceases to be the rule of majority, serving the tyranny of minority. We must face the reality of the situation we have inherited.
STAN ROBINSON
Facts are stubborn things, so said the venerable John Adams. They’re ugly things, on occasion. If you’re British, you were probably raised to believe our justice system is, and of a right ought to be, blind, impartial, and applicable to everyone equally — regardless of colour, creed, caste, class, or connections. But look closely at how certain crimes are policed, prosecuted, and punished in 21st century Britain, and you’ll see a very different reality thrust in your face: an unfamiliar country where some groups are socially divided along sociological lines so they can be treated with kid gloves, while others are made examples of. This theory has emerged from cheap, discredited sociology degrees.
The naivety of our politicians is a national security risk. The equality religion is an economic and cultural disaster. Holding public office means you are bound to seeing the world as it is, in reality at all costs, not how you want it to be. The seat of government is not a temple of your wishful desires. The world can be beautiful, but it is counter-balanced by what is ugly.
Since 2000, Islamist extremists have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of terror-related deaths in the UK. MI5’s own assessments make clear where the largest portion of their watchlist focus lies. Yet, despite this, the political establishment treads on eggshells — so desperate not to be accused of “Islamophobia” that they often avoid confronting the full scope of the threat.
The same double standard is seen in the rape gang scandals industrial-scale child sexual exploitation in towns and cities across England and Wales. We were told these were “historic” offences. They weren’t. Many were happening under the noses of police and social workers who admitted — sometimes openly — they were afraid of being called “racist.” Worse still, a disturbing number of police officers have apparently been involved. When was the last time fear stopped them from kicking down a door in a white working-class estate?
Then there’s female genital mutilation (FGM). We know it’s happening — NHS data alone records thousands of cases every year. Yet after decades of legislation, how many successful prosecutions have we had? Exactly. If this barbaric practice were being carried out by another group, the knock-on-the-door would have happened long ago.
Add in the higher-than-average prison representation, stubbornly low employment participation, over-representation in social housing, and stark health outcomes — and the question becomes unavoidable: why are the institutions which demand our trust refusing to confront problems when they involve certain communities?
Yes, not all Muslims. But what exactly is the threshold when it becomes the “significant percentage,” “critical level,” or “median demographic average”? What is that specific number? How many does it take? 2%? 40%? If a political revolution only needs 3.5%, what is the acceptable number of raped children before our politicians are allowed to point to a segment of the country and lay the blame at its door? How many Pakistani Home Secretaries have to say it?
How many years does it have to be 100% every time before it’s no longer acceptable to cite small exceptions and claim the rule isn’t true? Does a sunny day in winter mean it’s not winter?
It’s not “racist” to ask these questions. It’s responsible. Because if we carry on with one set of laws for some and another for everyone else, we will tear apart the very fabric of our country.
The British people deserve equal protection under the law — and equal accountability to it. Anything else isn’t “diversity” or “tolerance” — it’s surrender. And it’s dangerous.
This article (Who Voted For A Two-Tier Society?) was created and published by The Restorationist and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Stan Robinson
See Related Article Below
Lord Hermer Faces Outrage Over His ‘Pathetic’ Two-Tier Sentencing
CP
Serial offender gets 15 months, less than half the term Lord Hermer authorised for Facebook post.
The Attorney General is under fire as the Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp brands case of “two-tier justice” and demands review.
The Shadow Home Secretary has accused the Government of “two-tier justice” after a man who threatened to gang rape and burn an air stewardess alive received just 15 months in prison, less than half the sentence given to another offender for a social media post.
Salman Iftikhar, with six previous convictions from 15 offences, was sentenced at Isleworth Crown Court on 5 August 2025 after making more than 100 threats in eight hours to Virgin Atlantic cabin crew on a flight from London Heathrow to Lahore.
Court reports say he told stewardess Ms Walsh: “You will be dragged by your hair from your room and gang raped and set on fire.” He also called her a “f…ing white Welsh c” and threatened to “blow up the floor” of the Avari Lahore Hotel where crew were due to stay. Ms Walsh later said she was “traumatised by the threat of being gang raped” and took 14 months off work.
Salman Iftikar was sentenced to only 15 months in prison for threatening an air stewardess with gang rape and for racially aggravated harassment. He has multiple previous convictions.
Yet Lucy Connolly got 31 months for a far less serious offence.
This is two tier justice in… pic.twitter.com/qkMgC7jW0J
— Chris Philp MP (@CPhilpOfficial) August 12, 2025
In a scathing letter to Attorney General Lord Hermer KC, Chris Philp MP wrote:
“I am writing concerning the sentence imposed by the Isleworth Crown Court on 5 August 2025 upon Salman Iftikhar who received a 15-month sentence for threatening and abusing an air stewardess, saying she would be dragged out of her hotel room, gang raped, and set on fire.
“…Despite this, Iftikhar only received a 15-month sentence, less than half of Lucy Connolly’s 31-month sentence (a prosecution which you authorised). Connolly made a wrong and distasteful social media post which she then deleted, but Iftikhar made over 100 sickening threats including of gang rape directly to Ms Walsh personally, face to face, and to other members of the cabin crew’s faces and has multiple previous convictions.
“I am sure you agree that this cannot be right… If you decide not to refer his sentence for reconsideration, then this would be yet another example of two-tier justice under this Government.”
.
Philp has formally referred the case under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, which allows certain sentences to be challenged in the Court of Appeal.
Critics say Lord Hermer now faces a clear test of whether he will side with victims of violent threats or protect what Philp calls “shockingly soft sentencing.” Any refusal to act will fuel claims that the Government talks tough on crime but protects offenders from meaningful punishment.
The Attorney General’s Office has not yet announced whether Lord Hermer will refer the sentence for review.
Main Image of Lord Hermer – Creator: Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street | Credit: Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street Copyright: Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence
This article (Lord Hermer Faces Outrage Over His ‘Pathetic’ Two-Tier Sentencing) was created and published by Conservative Post and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author CP
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply