

ALP MEHMET
LAST WEEK the Office for National Statistics bulletin informed us that our population will grow by five million by 2032 and ten million by 2047, driven entirely by immigration. This was my comment in a Migration Watch press release:
I wrote a commentary in last Wednesday’s Daily Mail in which I said that I am a first-generation immigrant myself.

You can read the article here. I wrote: ‘My parents and I came to this country in the 1950s from our native Cyprus, then still a British ‘My parents came because they wanted to embrace this country’s values and culture.
‘However, that is not the case for a great many immigrants today who, under the much-trumpeted value of multiculturalism, cleave to their own values while politicians beat us over the head with the repeated mantra that diversity is our strength.
‘They can say it as often as they like, but the reality is this is not a belief held by a vast swathe of the electorate. Indeed, the failure of both Labour and the Conservative parties to control immigration – legal and illegal – was the overwhelming reason many voters turned to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK at last year’s election.
‘In a recent survey, more than 70 per cent of those polled said they wanted an end to uncontrolled immigration.
‘This is not xenophobia or racism. It is simply the view of a population who are sick and tired of not being listened to.’
In Thursday’s edition of the Telegraph, an interesting report had the headline ‘Britain reliant on foreign mothers to stop fertility rate falling through the floor’. This almost makes it sound as if it’s by design. The paper spotted that while the fertility rate of foreign-born mothers has increased in the last couple of years to 2.03 per woman, UK-born women’s fertility rate has fallen to 1.54, a 31 per cent difference.
As we at Migration Watch have been saying repeatedly, this means that migration is now the sole reason for rapid population growth. The higher birth-rates of foreign-born mothers, and even more, the high level of foreign immigration, simply means that the ethnic minority proportion of the population will exceed 50 per cent (in other words become the majority) sooner than previously thought – the mid-2060s.
A little nugget was uncovered by the perspicacious Karl Williams at the Centre for Policy Studies: in the first six months of 2024, more than 78,000 health and care visas were issued. Just 15,650 of these were to actual workers while 63,000 were to their dependants. Four dependants for each minimum-wage worker. The top five nationalities accounting for the visa were India, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Ghana. It gives an inkling as to why legal migration is so out of control, and why we doubt that net migration will fall to anything like the 340,000 per annum from 2029 that the ONS has been advised will happen.
Then on Thursday came the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The most pointless piece of legislation imaginable. It will achieve nothing. It most certainly will not smash the gangs; the boats will continue streaming across the Channel. The legislation is tantamount to issuing an open invitation to carry on regardless.
You can access the Home Secretary’s House of Commons statement by clicking here. The statement was breathtakingly vacuous, reflecting the vacuity of the Bill. The Rwanda Act will be repealed – of course. Yvette Cooper’s statement includes this cringeworthy sentence: ‘The Bill sets out new, transformative measures to provide law enforcement agencies with stronger powers to pursue, disrupt and deter organised immigration crime.’
These gems too. The legislation will be:
‘Creating new offences for supplying, offering to supply or handling items suspected of being for use in immigration crime, for example the buying, selling and transporting of small boat parts’;
‘Creating a new preparatory acts offence for collecting information to be used by organised immigration criminals to prepare for boat crossings’;
‘Creating new powers to enable the search for and the seizure of electronic devices’.
And this: ‘These new counter terror-style powers, including making it easier to seize mobile phones at the border, along with statutory powers for our new Border Security Command to focus activity across law enforcement agencies and border force will turbocharge efforts to smash the gangs.
‘The Bill makes it an offence to endanger another life at sea, to act as a deterrent to boat overcrowding and reduce further tragic loss of life among those making the perilous Channel crossings.’
At the same time the Bill will water down border laws introduced by the Tories only two years ago designed to block illegal migrants from obtaining citizenship and to force them to submit to scientific age checks.
Seriously, Home Secretary? You really believe this Bill is going to smash the gangs, stop the boats and deter migrants from trying to cross the Channel illegally to claim asylum? Dream on, ma’am.
This article (Racist? Xenophobic? No, sick and tired of being ignored about migrants) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Alp Mehmet
See Related Article Below
Political Islam is already in Britain
Lutfur Rahman and the case study of Tower Hamlets
DANIEL DIEPPE
The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is under the full political control of an exclusively Bangladeshi-Islamic male-only political party, called Aspire. Replacing Labour as the party in power in 2022, Aspire shocked the political establishment by winning the local elections with no mainstream support, sectarian campaigning, and a leader, Lutfur Rahman, previously banned from office due to electoral fraud and practicing undue spiritual influence.
The case of the Aspire Party, which only operates in Tower Hamlets, has become increasingly common in multicultural Britain under the increasing influence of Islam. Whilst Muslims make up 6.5 per cent of the total UK population, they account for 40 per cent of the Tower Hamlets population — making it the most Islamic and most Bangladeshi local authority in Britain. Although still unusual, the election of several independent “Pro-Gaza” MPs, the disruption of Parliament and political meetings has alerted political commentators of the increasingly isolated political views of British Muslims from the mainstream. Tower Hamlets, in a sense, is the first British manifestation of such opinion.
The power-grab in Tower Hamlets by an ethno-religious political group has not been without consequence. The Aspire Party has spent twice as much as Labour, largely to the benefit of its own voters. In 2023, The Times revealed that Rahman gave £250,000 for a mosque engagement charity with an annual income of £20,000 chaired by a man who publicly declared that it was important for Islam that Rahman won.
More incriminating is the 2015 court judgment which found Rahman guilty of electoral fraud and undue spiritual influence in the 2014 local elections. No fewer than 101 Imams and Muslim leaders signed a letter to “Make Lutfur Rahman Victorious” before the election, resulting in the first charge of undue spiritual influence since the 19th century. Explaining the judgement, the Judge said Rahman’s career had, “relied on silencing his critics by accusations of racism and Islamophobia … ” and “ … if he had not enlisted the help of the Muslim clergy to put unlawful pressure on Muslim voters, the result would have been very different”. Tower Hamlets contained eight Bengali television channels all entirely supportive of Rahman and there was a very supportive Bangladeshi press. The letter signed by 101 Muslim leaders was only published in Bengali, making it inaccessible to the scrutiny of the English-only-speaking electorate.
A halt to mass immigration would prevent further communities from coming under the spell of sectarianism
The judgement further found that the majority of public money had been kept in Bangladeshi areas and that Rahman was guilty of voting fraud, false statements accusing his rival of racism, bribery, treating (e.g. free food if you vote for Rahman) and illegal practices. Only in very rare circumstances had Lutfur Rahman selected non-Bangladeshi candidates, and never in winnable wards.
As the social analyst Sam Bidwell has noted, Rahman is “the most extreme manifestation … of sectarian politics conducted along ethno-religious lines.” Yet Rahman refuses to acknowledge the ethnic-Islamic links to his party’s successes. Rather, Rahman has built a profile encouraging the idea that Islamophobia is rife in British public life. Shortly before news broke that the Government was to appoint inspectors to monitor decisions made by Rahman, Rahman peddled the line that Islamophobia is normalised, and personally attended a Tower Hamlets-funded Islamophobia Awareness Month Conference in November. In his own words, an “Islamophobic witch-hunt” has plagued his entire career.
As our research has shown, however, the links between Aspire and the Muslim population are overwhelmingly strong. Ward-by-ward analysis shows that areas with a higher Muslim population directly correlates with a higher Aspire vote.
Such claims, however, are controversial or even incendiary in today’s political discourse. As the 2015 High Court Judgement which found Rahman guilty noted, “anything that concerns Islam is extremely sensitive”. After all, Rahman’s “hair-trigger reaction is to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of racism and/or Islamophobia”. This sort of accusation by Rahman dogged the local Tower Hamlets Labour Party and dogged the Metropolitan Police. More broadly, islamophobia created the conditions of silence that allowed heinous crimes against girls to be committed across generations in the UK.
If we are to be serious about combatting the rise of sectarian politics exemplified in Tower Hamlets, then it is clear an honest evaluation of the causes must take place. It is seriously concerning that Britain’s most Islamic local authority, with a population of 350,000, is under the political control of a man found guilty of undue spiritual influence and election tampering. The lack of sway held by mainstream parties means that the Aspire Party is not under the pressure or expectations that a national party would receive from the national press. For instance, whilst the Labour Party deselected Rahman because his extremist links could damage their prospects nationally, the Aspire Party has only prospered from his candidacy.
Worse, the Aspire Party have no website or public constitution and accountability structure, making their policy position rather opaque to voters. There is no attempt to defend their positions or stances in public forums. Many residents of Tower Hamlets will not be aware of Lutfur Rahman, the Aspire Party or the extraordinary court judgement of 2015 that banned him from standing for five years.
The solution to the rise of local sectarian politics like Tower Hamlets is to launch a crackdown on the rule-benders. The law of undue spiritual influence — far from being an arcane piece of jurisprudence from the 18th Century — must be enforced in full, with serious sentences for those convicted. The police, on the other hand, need a radical overhaul. If the Sunday Times’s recent revelation that Leicestershire police made insulting jokes about a journalist’s inquiries into the election of Independent MP Shockat Adam is anything to go by — this cannot come soon enough. If the police fail to protect democracy, even in these under-resourced, crime-ridden times, what will they protect?
Finally, atop of a national debate, a halt to mass immigration would prevent further communities from coming under the spell of sectarianism. The Government must urgently review the teaching of “British values” in schools, and ensure the inclusion of the common foundations of Christianity, and shared British culture, history and habits. Difficult though it is to define “British values”, the false credo of multiculturalism can last no more — but this demagogy of sectarianism will only die if true democrats can be roused to action.
This article (Political Islam is already in Britain) was created and published by The Critic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Daniel Dieppe
Featured image: infobae.com
••••
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