FRANK FUREDI

I have always thought that Prevent was a useless institution that was incapable of understanding Islamist Terrorism. Now, I realize that it is also a threat to our freedom. Its latest act of losing the plot over terrorism was to declare in its online guidance that ‘cultural nationalism’ could be a reason for referring someone for deradicalisation![i]

Hopefully I am not going to be referred by this quango for participation in their de-radicalisation indoctrination programme. I happen to think that cultural nationalism is a legitimate standpoint that should be taken seriously in our public conversation. Cultural nationalism aims to promote a common cultural outlook through which a string sensibility of national community can be forged.

Prevent is a hyper-multiculturalist outfit that regards any serious manifestation of patriotism as symptom of a cultural crime. That is why it has also decided to warn officialdom about individuals who are concerned about mass migration. Prevent Online guidance asserts that such concern is linked to a terrorist ideology. In its official ‘refresher awareness course, Prevent contends that cultural nationalism is a ‘sub-set’ of terrorist ideology. In effect the expression of the belief that shared cultural norms help sustain social solidarity and relation of trust are deemed to be no less dangerous than the conviction that Britain should be part of an Islamic Caliphate.

As an illustration of the working of this supposed terrorist ideology, the website cites the ‘conviction that ‘Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups’. Prevent’s de-radicalisers are going to have their hands full because there are millions of people in Britain who are deeply worried about the impact of mass migration on society as they are about the failure to assimilate new arrivals to embrace the norms of British society.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Prevent has decided to prevent the free communication of views about immigration and multiculturalism.

Why are they targeting cultural nationalism? 

There are two reasons why Prevent has chosen to target cultural nationalism. Firstly, Prevent want to control what can or cannot be said in British society. In particular it wants to ensure that critical voices regarding the wisdom of allowing mass migration are silenced. It also wants to silence people who are sceptical about the impact of multiculturalism on people’s lives. Until now the Ideologues of multiculturalism relied on silencing critics by dismissing them as simply racists. Now Prevent has gone a step further and seeks to shut down critical voices regarding migration by treating them as would be terrorists.

In effect Prevent believes that curbing the freedom of voice of opponents of multiculturalism is a small price to pay for silencing them. Prevent knows that once critics of multiculturalism succeed is putting their case in front of the public it will gain traction amongst the electorate. That is what it tries to Prevent!

The second reason why Prevent has decided to criminalise cultural nationalism is because it is committed to promoting the claim that asserts that the real terrorist threat facing Britain emanates from the British white community rather than from Islamicists activist. For some time now Prevent has been reluctant to openly discuss the threat posed by Islamist terrorism to British society. In this respect Prevent’s approach echo those of the British Establishment. The British media discourages a forthright discussion of this subject on the ground that it might be interpreted as Islamophobic.

As the criminology Ian Acheson wrote in his critique of Prevent’s naïve approach towards the threat posed by jihadist terrorist this organisation fears coming across as racist of Islamophobic. He observed that ‘nice, middle class’ Prevent officials ‘are being deceived and manipulated, often because there is a race disparity in it’. He added ‘we don’t have the robust challenge we should have because everyone is so afraid of being racist’[ii].

‘Nice, middle class members’ of the mainstream media often insist that Islamic terrorism should not be the only focus of counter-terrorist activity. They feel far more comfortable about speculating whether or not misogynist INCELS should be classified as terrorist[iii]. The reluctance to discuss jihadist terrorism stands in sharp contrast with obsessing about far-right white terrorism. The phenomenon of far right- terrorism has been elevated to the point, where according to sections of the media it is represented as a greater threat than that of jihadist terror. The Guardian, in particular conveys the impression that the ‘record number of children’ arrested for far right offences constitutes the defining threat of terrorism[iv].

The obsession with right wing terrorism has also influenced Prevent’s behaviour. Acheson is concerned about Prevent’s disproportionate focus on far-Right extremism, saying it is given a ‘false equivalent’ to Islamist extremism. The inflation of the threat posed by far-right terrorism in Britain is underpinned by an identity-politics influenced narrative that reduces cause of the problem of society to white privilege and racism.

Earlier this year a leaked Home Office report concluded that the focus of counter-terrorist strategy should radically alter[v].

It recommends that the Government’s approach to extremism should no longer be based on ‘specific ideologies of concern’ but instead on ‘behaviours and activities of concern’.

So far, so confusing. Inevitably, there are no prizes for which ‘specific ideology’ is being relegated down the watch list. It is, of course, Islamism.

Instead, the report cites a whole new raft of behaviours which our security services ought equally to concern themselves with.

Among them is being a ‘conspiracy theorist’, a ‘misogynist’, having a propensity for violence against girls and women or engaging in what is termed an ‘online subculture called the manosphere’ (websites, blogs and online forums promoting traditional masculinity and opposition to feminism).

In one section, the report even claims that those who believe we have a system of ‘two-tier policing’ – the argument that some riots and demonstrations are dealt with more leniently than others – are subscribing to a ‘Right-wing extremist narrative’. Now scepticism about the benefits of multiculturalism is added to the list of views that demand the attention of Prevention’s operatives.

As matters stand it is unlikely that the police will come knocking on your door because you posted a statement criticising mass migration. But the point of Prevent’s guidance is not to increase Britain’s prison population with cultural nationalists. Its aim is to silence discussion on issues to do with race, Islam, social cohesion and multiculturalism. It wants to ensure that so-called controversial view on this subject are silenced and that the concerns of people become inaudible.

Our right to express are views is under threat by Prevent. We must respond to them by boldly affirming the importance of free and open debate. We must not allow cultural nationalist sentiments from being placed under quarantine. On the contrary at a time when the elites that run Britain have given up on securing Britain’s border, standing up for the integrity of the nation assumes a special importance.

[i] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/06/concern-over-mass-migration-terrorist-ideology-prevent/

[ii] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/11/prevent-failing-say-terror-experts-murderer-ali-harbi-ali-deceived/

[iii] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/03/incel-movement-terror-threat-canada

[iv] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/09/record-number-of-uk-

[v] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14331447/FRANK-FUREDI-falsehoods-Home-Office-review-counter-terrorism-Britains-security.html

---

This article (They Are More Interested In Cultural Silencing Than Countering Terrorism) was created and published by Frank Furedi and is republished here under “Fair Use”

Politics: we are all terrorists now

.
RICHARD NORTH

One thing useful to emerge from the clown show that Reform has become is an interview in the Sunday Times with ex-chairman “Mo” Yusuf”.

Actually, most of the interview is wiffle, not worth the expenditure of time, but the one useful bit is where he says that, on reflection, his “personal view” is that “if there were a vote and I was in parliament”, he would probably vote to ban the burka.

He adds that, “philosophically I am always a bit uneasy about banning things which, for example, would be unconstitutional in the United States, which such a ban no doubt would be”, but then goes on to say: “I do not think it is one of the most important issues British people face when they go about their day to day lives”.

Apart from the helpful aspect of having this man, a practising Muslim, express such views on the burka, what this also serves to illustrate is the low-grade superficiality of political thought in this country, where a highly placed man in a political party can come up with such complacent tripe, suggesting that the issue is not “one of he most important” facing the British people.

On its own, of course, burka-wearing is not an important issue at all, any more than is wearing a gimp-suit in public, but for what it represents, the nature of which I set out in yesterday’s post. For that reason, it is important and an increasing number of people, exposed to this “symbol of domination”, are extremely concerned about it.

The issue takes on even greater importance in the light of the article in the Telegraph yesterday headlined: “Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent”, with the sub-head, “Online guidance says: ‘cultural nationalism’ could be a reason for referring someone for deradicalisation”.

In detail, the piece tells us that the government’s anti-radicalisation programme, mis-named “Prevent” – as it very rarely does – lists “cultural nationalism” as a belief that could lead to an individual being referred to the deradicalisation scheme.

This, we are told – with a reliance on a summary source on the government website – encompasses a conviction that “Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups”.

That is bad enough, but reference to the Prevent website, hosted on the main national police website, is even more explicit. Defining what it calls “the threat from Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism (ERWT)”, it characterises the “ideologies” that drive this form of terrorism.

Here, we see “cultural nationalism” defined as an ideology, with a longer passage that takes in the definition from the government website but adds: “The ideology tends to focus on the rejection of cultural practices such as the wearing of the burqa (sic), or the perceived rise of the use of sharia law”.

In essence, therefore, an official arm of the state, supported by the police, is taking the view that objections to the wearing of burkas are allied with extreme right-wing terrorism. Not only, it seems, must we tolerate this offensive garment being worn in our public spaces, to object openly to the practice is to lay oneself open to suspicions of terrorism.

How we ever got into this situation is hard to fathom, but as the Telegraph rightly notes, this is an example of officials, police and the courts appearing to restrict free speech.

But there is more to it than that. Since multiculturalism has been sneaked in to become official policy, this is a transparent attempt to suppress dissent, seeking to outlaw legitimate public concerns, providing official succour to creeping Islamification.

Even Charles Moore in the Telegraph gets it, noting that you can see politicians and public authorities tiptoeing round the subject. Surefootedness is certainly better than clodhopping where religion is concerned, he says, but there is a growing, justified fear that we shall not continue as a free country if we defer to the angriest Muslim voices.

That makes “Mo” Yusuf very wrong indeed. The official stance ramps burka-wearing to one of the topmost concerns, as it symbolises the state’s support of an alien, hostile culture implanted in our midst, and its determination to control the narrative and criminalise objections to Muslim intrusion.

Recent events, though – triggered by Sarah Pochin’s PMQ – do suggest that the government and its agencies are losing control of the narrative, as even Badenough is joining the ranks of the heretics.

In an interview for the Sunday Telegraph she states that “bosses should have the right to ban staff from wearing burkas and other face coverings in the workplace”, and she also hits out “at sharia courts and first-cousin marriage for acting as an ‘insidious’ barrier to integration”.

This is a weak response to the growing threat of Islamification in our society, and the woman is still focused on pursuing integration, apparently unaware that the greatest barriers to integration are the immigrant-heritage communities. She seems unable to cope with the idea that integration in many areas has ceased and is going backwards.

However, it is at least a response, one which would seem sufficient to flag up the leader of the opposition as a candidate for deradicalisation, lest she might even become a “self-initiated terrorist” (SIT).

Nevertheless, Badenough’s intervention in the debate is helpful, not only in weakening the government’s grip on the narrative but also in widening the parameters of the debate and normalising discussion on the topic after years of attempted suppression.

With that, we would do well to note that we are by no means alone in our concerns. Denmark has been a leader in this field, having introduced a burka ban in 2018, with a fine of 1,000 kroner for first offences on individuals wearing garments which cover the face.

Strictly, the garment being banned was the nikab, the burka which also covers the eyes with a gauze mesh being very rare in Europe, largely confined to primitive nations such as Afghanistan.

At the time it was introduced, the law provoked protests from nikab-wearers, with one protester declaring: “I chose to wear niqab a couple years ago as a very spiritual choice. I did it for the sake of God and a way for me to connect with God. It is a part of my faith and a part of my identity”. She added: “This ban is discriminating, oppressing and is built on Islamophobia”.

Subsequently, we are told it has been enforced rarely. It has been largely out of the public spotlight for some time, but is now set for a new round of public debate after prime minister Mette Frederiksen announced last week that the ban should be extended to schools and universities.

Frederiksen also said she wanted to see an end to prayer rooms at universities, declaring: “God has to step aside. You have the right to your faith and to practice your religion but democracy takes precedence”.

Other issues aside, in making this statement Frederiksen is acknowledging that Islamic practices are incompatible to the maintenance of a liberal democracy. That essential point should be kept in focus. Religious freedom and the oppression of women are issues, but in a secular society the demands of a religion – any religion – must take second place to needs of democratic governance.

We need to remember that Islamic states do not recognise the distinction between state and religion, a factor that has been instrumental in stunting their development. As such, the imposition of Islamic mores in this country cannot and should not be tolerated. The very nature of our society is at stake.

And if the “burka ban” becomes a symbol of our resistance, so be it. Joined together in our determination to stem the encroachment of Islam in our public spaces, we can take comfort in the fact that we are all terrorists now.

---

The Extremism Trap

The real subversives have won

DOMINIC ADLER

Behold! The offical PREVENT definition of beliefs feeding TERROR;

.
I think Sir Keir ‘Island of Strangers’ Starmer needs to watch his step, before Old Bill arrive at Downing Street. Incidentally, I was a police ‘subject matter expert’ (I hate the word expert, but that’s what they called it) on far-Right extremism (I’ve written about it here). Which is why I’m confident when I say PREVENT is talking overly-simplistic bollocks. Policing’s been hopelessly captured (or infiltrated, or both) by the academic-activist complex. It’s suffering from acute Stockholm Syndrome. And dimwit chief constables have lost the plot.

I’ve written about this stuff before. Indeed, it’s become a recurring theme of this Substack. It’s as much a comedy of errors – and police politics – as it is Orwellian cosplay at the Home Office. Nonetheless, I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion the People In Charge are genuinely nuts. Perhaps it’s a perverse manifestation of human rights and equalities fundamentalism? ‘X’ and ‘Y’ can only be subversive if WE’RE ALL SUBVERSIVES, RIGHT?

It’s only fair. Or what Patrick West describes as ‘asymmetric multiculturalism’, which;

Informs Prevent’s lopsided approach to terrorism, one that overplays the threat posed by the far right and underplays the one posed by Islamists. It was behind the ‘double standard’ that the damning Shawcross Review on Prevent spoke of in 2023, with the programme’s ‘expansive’ definition of right-wing extremism that included ‘mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation’.

I watched this happen, in real-time. Those of us working on the coalface warned our bosses, but we were told to FIFO (Fit In or Fuck Off). It gives me no pleasure seeing our predictions come true, because I don’t want to live in Stasi-land.

Regular readers will know I’m a former Special Branch officer, then worked in SO15, the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command which replaced it (except it didn’t, more of which later). One of my jobs was investigating crime, disorder and threats to the Queen’s Peace motivated by politics and ideology. This is, obviously, a sensitive and controversial area of policing. After SO15 was hatched, back in 2006, I saw a cohort of dim but ambitious senior police officers eagerly swallow the PREVENT pill hook, line and sinker. the Home Office championed subcontracting ‘domestic extremism’ investigation to a woolly, politically-correct hybrid of multi-agency policing and social work. This meant SO15’s senior bosses were unshackled to concentrate on their favourite things; barking orders in flashy operations rooms. Watching the SAS blow stuff up during training exercises. Delivering presentations to the FBI at Quantico (business class, obvs).

This is a story (others are available, LOL) of how this came to be. People deserve to know, especially if we’re going to fix it.

If that isn’t a bit, you know… extreme?

In 1936, during the Spanish civil war, Nationalist General Emikio Mola advanced on Republican-held Madrid. As four columns of Franco’s troops streamed towards the city, Mola boasted a secretive ‘fifth column.’ These were subversives and militants inside the city, Franco sympathisers. They would rise up, paving the way for the main invasion force. Ever since, ‘Fifth Column’ has been a pejorative term for an enemy within. It’s been used to justify discrimination, such as the 1950s House Un-American Activities Committee.

All governments are alive to the possibility of ‘a threat within.’ Politicians are also, by virtue, often spiteful and narcissistic. They’ll never admit it, but they rather enjoy the idea of keeping a discreet eye on the other side – after all, today’s extremist might well become tomorrow’s mainstream politician. Leading political figures, from all parties, have traditionally flirted with edgy student politics. The police, at their best, provide an institutional buffer between politicians and crime linked to politics.

The concept of subversion – a fifth column – also has parallels with today’s obsession with misinformation and disinformation. Of censorship. A suspicion of technology. The practice of ‘cancelling’ those expressing views contrary to fashionable ideological beliefs.

Nonetheless, there has always been a shadowy interface between politics, ideology and crime. In Western democracies, such threats were monitoried by domestic security agencies, assisted by specialist police departments. For over fifty years, most worked on a model dedicated to foiling Communist subversion, ‘fifth columnists’ sponsored by the USSR.

In Britain, with its localised policing model, each constabulary maintained a department responsible for liaising with MI5, the Security Service. These were special branches (Met SB was formed in the 1880s, predating MI5, to combat ‘Irish Fenian’ extremism). When I joined, the national guidelines stated Subversion (a core SB responsibility) was any activity that might;

“threaten the safety or well-being of the State, and which are intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.”

Although this was never a statutory definition, it was one we worked to. It turned on intent, including violent and non-violent activities so, inevitably, created grey areas. Obviously, not all extreme left-wing groups (for example) were formenting violent revolt. Some, on the other hand, were. For example, Trots are programmed to attempt entryism to subvert less militant organisations. I give you, for example, the Trade Union and wider Labour movement. It’s always suffered from an existential struggle between moderates and wannabe tankies.

Anyhow, this isn’t a history of the Soviet threat to Western democracy, except to say intelligence agencies on both sides actively sought to undermine the economies and societies of the other. KGB money – ‘Red Gold’ – funded left-wing causes and terrorist groups. CIA money funded right-wing causes and terrorist groups. Domestically, there was collateral damage; idealistic young people dabbling in radical politics occasionally ended up with Security Service files (not that it did them much harm, for example Jack Straw ended up as Home Secretary). Veteran Trots knew the most effective members of their strange little grouplets were MI5 informants – they worked harder than anyone else in order to glean information. In short, it was all a bit Le Carre-esque (and, occasionally, Kafkaesque too).

The Cold War over, domestic intelligence agencies shifted their attention to terrorism and organised crime. Yes, extremism too, but not on the same scale – that was shunted off to Plod in a dog-eared envelope labelled ‘public order’. I remember special branch, in the late 90s, still navigating this post-Cold War world. We were still busy. There was, of course, the IRA. There were also Eco-warriors and animal rights nutters (who cost the British economy a bloody fortune due to protest activity, disruption and sabotage), not to mention the occasional Neo-Nazi. Real ones, with bombs and stuff. Taking on a public order investigation impacting on freedom of speech? It was a big deal, the legislation used sparingly. I know, because my old squad were the only unit in the Met who dealt with them. The CPS would – quite properly – scrutinise such cases for reasons of proportionality. Yes, this was before the internet became the forum it is now. Nonetheless, the threshold for prosecution was high.

Then, this happened:

9/11. The most significant moment in postwar counter terrorism. Virtually every part of the British intelligence, security and law enforcement apparatus was reconfigured to combat Islamist mass-casualty terrorism. I switched role; I spent 2006, for example, working on Operation Overt and associated operations, which were tremendous examples of CT policing.

That was twenty years ago. Mass casualty terrorism remains a significant threat, but now there are others. Technology, rapid socioeconomic changes and all of the other fuckery we associate with the 2020s means police and intelligence services are tackling a new threat environment… using the tools of the old. This reminds me of the 1990s, when our Cold War / IRA mindset required refiguring for Al-Qaeda. Generals always fight the last war. And, when change happens, babies are always thrown out with the bathwater. Was ever thus.

However, there was a wild card. The bosses didn’t see it (or they’d already jumped on the bandwagon). Those of us who did were labelled malignant backwoodsmen. The wild card? Policing’s increasing obsession with politically-divisive social justice politics and Human Rights legislation, given rocket boosters by the Blair administration. After the Macpherson Report, the direction of travel was clear – a journey involving the police accepting the tenets of critical theory. I won’t dwell on what I call ‘The Blairite Reformation’ too much, but here’s an article I wrote for The Pimlico Journal touching on the subject. It discusses, among other things, how;

Public bodies have pandered to human rights utopianism ever since, to the detriment of service delivery. Blairite law satisfies only our legal clerisy, activist quangocracy, and the criminal classes. The police soon found themselves stymied by their duty to act compatibly with ECHR convention rights by the Human Rights Act 1998. But the Human Rights Act was only the start: later, intersectional politics ran riot in forces due to the ‘protected characteristics’ requirements under the Equality Act 2010 — enacted in the dying days of New Labour, but supported and primarily implemented by the Tories.

This is the philosophy informing counter extremism and PREVENT. Why? Because it’s underpinned by law.

When they reconfigured CT in 2006, traditional approach to investigating domestic extremism was seen as effete, elitist and not in keeping with the new management’s macho, bash-’em-up policing style. SB officers reading newspapers, discussing anarcho-syndicalism and pondering the Kremlinology of fringe political groups baffled the Flying Squad guvnors drafted into CT. They’d no interest in how we informed operational decision-making for uniformed commanders (SB, in many respects, acted as the Job’s default think tank / research unit on ideology and social issues).

The new bosses worked to a simple calculus; ‘reorganisation means seventy jobs are up for grabs. Do we keep these wankers doing The Times crossword, or carve up their posts for our mates languishing on divisional CID? They can take statements, do CCTV trawls and sit in the cafe inside St. James’s Park station drinking cappuccino.’

Yes, this is a bitchy generalisation. SB had its fair share of floggers. Reform was no bad thing. Nonetheless, the stereotype contains an uncomfortable grain of truth. In fact, more than a grain; I met more than a few gloating SO15 detectives who insisted ‘they’d won’ some sort of existential struggle between Special Branch and the CID.

This is all something of a footnote, I suppose, but as I was there I’ll mention it for posterity. It also caused an unintended consequence, because everything political – including policing – abhors a vacuum. The void created when SO15 banished its SB officers to staff reactive investigation teams created opportunities for ambitious police officers, civil servants and the activists-posing-as-academics increasingly informing their thinking.

And, thus, three things happened (via the CONTEST strategy);

1. The police developed an almost childlike belief: online monitoring could effectively replace conventional, messy, counter-extremism investigation (I ended up working on such units, our management honestly thought Twitter was a crystal ball of top grade intelligence, rather than the Internet’s toilet wall)
2. Offline engagement would be delivered via PREVENT, which would monitor those people prone to radicalisation leading to violent extremism. In short, Stasi-like ‘interventions’ in schools and workplaces in order to detect wrongthink. Interventions, incidentally, were the stuff of Key Performance Indicators. Yes, I’m sure you can work it out for yourself. Low-hanging fruit and all that.
3. The Blairite legal-political genome spliced into policing’s DNA rendered it uniquely vulnerable to the ‘Awokening’ of 2020 onwards. This is why the fatuous Lysenkoism influencing Non-Crime Hate Incidents (etc) became so influential.

As the Shawcross Review into PREVENT suggested (being a too little, too late Tory attempt to curb the programme’s excesses), ‘asymmetric multiculturalism’ whereby wider sensitivities around Islamist terrorism – and potentially offending Muslim communities – became the default position. Long before PREVENT became a bete noire among freedom of speech advocates, it was despised among the Left and Islamist groups too. In any case, the Starmer administration didn’t like Shawcross’s conclusions (look at the Cabinet’s slender majorities in their seats) and therefore ignored them.

So he we are. In a cack-handed attempt to juggle to contradictions of a rapidly changing multicultural society, our establishment ended up implementing what critics describe as a version of the Ottoman ‘Millet’ system. This involves, in a multi-faith society, dividing everyone into identity and interest groups with limited autonomy. Ours, though, includes the majority.

As a young SB officer, I’d prepare assessments on the political and ideological factors impacting on policing environments (we were encouraged to read journals, broadsheet newspapers and textbooks in office time). Back in the 1990s, there would have been nothing controversial about positing how a society facing a dizzyingly rapid level of immigration, during a time of economic and political turbulence, might experience growing nativist political sentiment. Nonetheless, much of this sentiment would be legitimate and not necessarily indicative of crypto-fascism*.

After all, in 1970, 95% of Britons were ‘White British.’ By 2024 it was hovering around 80%. That’s an unprecedented level of change. Of course, people should be free to argue whether this is good, bad or indifferent. Nonetheless, it doesn’t take (as they say in the army) ‘the brains of an archbishop’ to predict a few dramas might occur along the way. Now? I wonder if suggesting something this obvious might attract the attention of PREVENT. If they like, they can pop over for a chat and a cuppa. Be warned, though, I charge an hourly rate for advice.

And so old-fashioned domestic extremism investigation (looking for potential offenders amongst certain political groups, accepting not all involved might commit offences) was replaced with… monitoring us all, just in case. It’s easier, when you think about it. It’s an Aldi ‘middle-aisle-of-crap’ variety of authoritarianism. Look for a stupid comment on Facebook. Maybe consider a bit of the old malicious communications. Perhaps issue an NCHI warning, or if there’s been fisticuffs, get the Attorney General involved. You know, that one. Old Bill get a pat on the head from the Home Office and the rest of the Blob in charge of policing.

Is this a conspiracy? I’m not sure it is. Not really. It’s certainly a direction of travel, albeit seeded with ideological booby-traps. As for the postmodern academics and activists who infiltrated policing? The police chiefs who swallowed handfuls of diversity, equality and equity pills? They, perhaps, were the real subversives all along.

Bravo.

As someone who used to keep an eye on you – and knew your game – I can only say well-played. Now, I’m putting the kettle on. The police know who I am and where I live, after all. And they might fancy a cup of tea.

* Back in the 1990s, this approach was referred to as ‘being fair-minded.’

---

This article (The Extremism Trap) was created and published by Dominic Adler and is republished here under “Fair Use”