The Key Lesson of 2024: In Labour’s Post-Riots Britain, the Truth Must no Longer be Seen or Heard

STEVEN TUCKER

January is a time to look back on the year just gone, and detect pressing trends. For me, one of the major observations to make about life during 2024-cum-1984 is that it showed conclusively U.K. Criminal Codes are getting longer with each passing year. The newest offence to be added to the country’s continually growing statute books? Being in possession of a fully functioning pair of eyes – at least when it comes to the ever more obvious disaster that is uncontrolled mass immigration.

Here, for example, is a very strange eye-test for citizens recently cooked up by H.M. Government. On the one hand, the British state quite commendably wants to keep its citizens’ children safe, just as it should. This is why its functionaries put up highly useful warning signs like the one below in branches of the national Copthorne Hotel franchise, some of which have been recently commandeered to house Channel migrants from culturally enriching lands abroad:

But then, right next to it, the state simultaneously erects a sign intended for use of the migrants themselves, reading as follows:

Somehow, the authorities expect local parents to heed the warning of the first sign, but remain completely oblivious and blind to the content of the neighbouring one, without which there would be no need whatsoever for the first one to actually exist in the first place. Talk about selective vision.

In the Kingdom of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is in Prison

The latest stubbornly non-blind individual to fall victim to this unspoken new wave of pan-U.K. anti-ocular ordinance is a champion ex-boxer turned podcast host named Derek Heggie, who in early December pleaded guilty to some kind of nonsensical speech-crime relating to the widespread anti-immigration and anti-Islam riots which had taken place earlier that summer.

Heggie’s case has already been very ably detailed here on the Daily Sceptic, but perhaps deserves further scrutiny once more as a paradigmatic illustration of the state-mandated myopia we are now all compelled henceforth to contract.

According to evidence presented to Carlisle Magistrates’ Court, Heggie had made “grossly offensive comments” in two August YouTube videos, the specific given example being that he had dared suggest that, across the U.K., underage white girls were being raped by majority-Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs.

Heggie did this, prosecutors argued, with “the purpose of causing distress or anxiety”. Initially, his argument to police once arrested appears to be that he was simply telling the truth – which he was. It is a simple fact that Muslim-majority grooming gangs really have been deliberately targeting white English girls, specifically based upon their victims’ ethnicity.

When interviewed under caution, therefore, Heggie “sought to portray himself as a [citizen] journalist”, maintaining that, as such, his posts “were justified”. Thus, he initially chose to plead not guilty. And yet, by early December, once his case had finally come before the Court, Heggie had changed his mind and decided to plead guilty instead, receiving 10 months and two weeks once sentenced, most of which he’d already served on remand.

This was very handy for the authorities as it made the big scary anvil-headed white working-class boxer sound like a genuine criminal thug, and not a mere helpless political prisoner, which is what many sceptics may say he is. But what was Heggie actually pleading guilty to, precisely? Simply to the crime of noticing.

A Lie For an Eye

You’re not supposed to notice what 25-30 years of continuous uncontrolled post-1997 mass immigration has done to our country. Here, verbatim, is what the BBC reported Heggie as having wickedly observed in one of his YouTube videos: “Young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs.”

Now, here’s how tiny local news outlet Cumbria Crack, whose spectacles (or hearing aids) are evidently far better than those of the BBC, reported this very same comment of Heggie’s: “Young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs that worship the Prophet Muhammad.” (emphasis added)

As very few persons besides Muslims tend to “worship the Prophet Muhammad” (other than the entire modern-day Labour Party and BBC News Department, perhaps), this can only be interpreted as being a reference to Islam: a reference the BBC reporter strangely elided. Why omit this piece of information, even though it is blatantly obvious to which particular groups of people Heggie had been referring in his YouTube videos – e.g. probably not white Englishmen? You could be forgiven for thinking it is because the BBC too, just like H.M. Government, did not wish you to notice.

Derek Heggie did want you to notice, though. Indeed, he pointed it out to you directly, with a big fat luminous arrow. And, for this, he spent almost a year behind bars.

Following this summer’s riots, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (who himself wears glasses, but apparently only when he feels like it) implied that online commentators were being prosecuted for inflaming further potential violence by spreading alleged ‘disinformation’, and, funnily enough, during sentencing, Heggie’s YouTube comments were called “ill-informed and potentially dangerous”. Possibly they were – but how are the general public now to know?

Reports have singularly failed to detail precisely what else Mr. Heggie said in his now presumably deleted YouTube videos. But, if he really had been spreading ‘disinformation’, then, without necessarily being incredibly explicit, one may have expected court reporters to list the very worst of it, at least in general terms. For example, if he had said something clearly untrue like “I know for a fact 10,000 hardcore Somali child-rapists with bayonets for hands are currently being put up in Hotel X, what you gonna do about it?” then I think it very likely we would have been told.

Instead, if the most incriminating quote they can come up with is a demonstrably factual one about mainly Muslim grooming gangs raping white girls on a semi-industrial scale over recent times, then to the poor, ill-educated eyes of a legal layman like myself, the defendant is not guilty of spreading ‘disinformation’ at all: merely ‘information’. The BBC should try doing this itself sometime.

Legal Blind Spots

Still, at least the official judicial punishment for having eyes is not yet to have them plucked out and then stamped down into viscous jelly beneath a jackboot, like Gloucester in King Lear. Reputedly less fortunate was one 15 year-old white boy from the Scottish city of Glasgow named Kriss Donald.

The recently departed 2024 marked 20 years since the basically forgotten (on purpose) 2004 murder of Kriss by a group of Pakistani Muslim-heritage gangsters who abducted the unfortunate child in a stolen car one day before proceeding to torture him for several hours with knives, finally dousing him in accelerant and burning him alive.

Kriss had done nothing to them, but some of the gang had been involved in an altercation with a group of wholly unrelated native Scottish youths in a nightclub the evening beforehand, so their leader had reportedly gone out to pick up some random white boys to persecute in sheer racial revenge.

Although it appears Kriss did not actually have his eyes scooped out that day, it had been the alleged avowed intention of the ringleader to “chop them up, take their eyes out and stab them”. Following the atrocity itself, however, the ones who actually had their eyes forcibly removed were the great British public.

Almost nobody in the U.K. today has ever heard of Kriss Donald. And yet the names of various innocent black citizens murdered by white criminals are firmly embedded within the public’s minds, as a result of endless blanket media coverage of their sad fates: Stephen Lawrence, Anthony Walker, Damilola Taylor. You’ve heard of all of them, right? Kriss Donald, though, was different, even though his own suffering was even more prolonged and horrific than any of theirs. Why?

Two years after Kriss’s death, data were released following a Freedom of Information request (i.e., not voluntarily) demonstrating that, in clear repudiation of the skewed impression you get from British TV and newspapers, in the 10 years 1995-2004, almost 50% of racially motivated murders in the U.K. were perpetrated upon white victims, at 24 out of 58 cases.

Discussing this, the unusually straight-talking Chief Constable Peter Fahy, then a police spokesman on race-related issues, explained it was very difficult to get the media interested in cases where the usually assumed racial pattern was reversed, and whites were killed by blacks or Asians. Politicians didn’t like to publicise such things either, fearing it might cause ‘community tensions’. Not as much tension as has since been caused by deliberately covering such things up, it might be argued.

The Blind Misleading the Blind

In the wake of Kriss Donald’s murder, in-house allegations emerged that Glasgow police had deliberately wound down investigations into the area’s many rampant Pakistani criminal gangs to avoid looking ‘racist’. Had they not done so, possibly Kriss would not have been killed in the first place?

According to one senior Scottish policeman’s account, the end result of the police being forced to look the other way was simply that local gangs began to “believe they are beyond the law”, able to get away with blatant and completely unhidden crimes – such as, for example, driving around the city in cars torturing innocent white teenagers to death.

The Kriss Donald case featured the first ever conviction for racially motivated murder in all of Scottish history – so you would expect it to have been a major news story, right? Not on the BBC. Unlike the cases of Stephen Lawrence, Anthony Walker and Damilola Taylor, which could only be escaped by putting out your own eyes with sharp pins and then eating them, the related trial appeared on national U.K. BBC bulletins a pathetic three times, most coverage appearing only on little-watched regional Scottish local news shows.

When the actual verdict was returned, the BBC pleaded there was simply no room left on full U.K. bulletins to report it, despite the fact there had been time to report on pointless insignificances like the opening of a new regional arts centre in Gateshead.

The BBC’s then-Head of News Gathering, Fran Unsworth, denied this was anything to do with shielding the public’s delicate peepers from witnessing uncomfortable racial truths, but instead was an innocent example of “Scottish blindness” on their behalf – that is, they thought viewers in England and Wales wouldn’t really care about news of a dead Scotsman. If the dead Scotsman in question had been black or Asian, and murdered by a ring of marauding whites, would their seeming official policy of ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil‘, still have pertained, I wonder?

Across the entirety of Great Britain, we are all being forced to suffer from this same strange and pandemic optical disease of “Scottish blindness” right now. Cases like those of Derek Heggie and innumerable other speech-crime prisoners from the time of this summer’s riots would seem conclusively to prove it – if only you have eyes to see the fact. But beware if you do: remember, owning a fully functioning pair is now tacitly borderline illegal.

According to no less a far-sighted authority than Jesus Christ, “The truth will set you free.” In Keir Starmer’s Blind Britain, it’s more likely to get you a 10-month sentence.

Steven Tucker is a journalist and the author of over 10 books, the latest being Hitler’s & Stalin’s Misuse of Science: When Science Fiction Was Turned Into Science Fact by the Nazis and the Soviets (Pen & Sword/Frontline), which is out now.

---

This article (The Key Lesson of 2024: In Labour’s Post-Riots Britain, the Truth Must no Longer be Seen or Heard) was created and published by Daily Sceptic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Steven Tucker

••••

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.