The "Don't Look Back In Anger" Department
The British government coerces grieving families into making statements that maintain "community cohesion" after murders like Henry Nowak's, and terror attacks like the Manchester Arena bombing.
The Daily Mail has published quotes from an anonymous source who claims that the Home Office’s Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU) have been manipulating the family of Henry Nowak and stage-managing the state’s response to the riots in Belfast, Northern Ireland, following the attempted beheading of Stephen Ogilvie by Sudanese asylum seeker Hadi Alodid last week.
When the mobs took to the streets of Northern Ireland last week following the stabbing of Stephen Ogilvie, allegedly by Hadi Alodid, a 30-year-old Sudanese asylum-seeker, RICU swung into action to advise the police in the province on how to ‘control the narrative’.
A source said: ‘They are working with the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s C3 intelligence unit to identify those posting the online ‘calls to protest’ in Belfast and other areas, as well as giving strategic messages to the police to ensure that the protesters were portrayed as unsympathetic thugs, rather than activists, and effecting behavioural change.’
The source said that the unit had also been advising the police in Southampton following the horrific murder of Henry Nowak by Vickrum Digwa – who falsely claimed he had been racially abused and had acted in self-defence – saying: ‘RICU made sure that the liaison team dealing with the family were well briefed.’
It has also been claimed that the unit intervenes to write statements by the families of victims of potentially racially linked incidents to stop them from inflaming tensions further with their remarks.
The source said: ‘You can see their fingerprints all over the statements released by the families of victims in these volatile situations – they usually have a similar tone.’
However, RICU is regarded by many Whitehall insiders to be ‘out of control’, after last year putting its name to a Home Office recommendation that the police should record more ‘non-crime hate incidents’ – the controversial, sub-criminal measures used to inhibit people from making reference to matters of race, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
It has a long history of ‘covertly engineering’, in the words of one expert, ‘the thoughts of people’ at times of crisis, being quick to spring into action after terrorist incidents such as the London Bridge attacks in 2017. Eight people died when a van was driven into pedestrians on London Bridge and the three occupants ran to a nearby market and began stabbing people.
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘RICU provides analysis on extremist use of propaganda and exploitation of the internet to inform the UK’s counter terrorism system. We cannot comment on its operations.’
As I suspected on the day of Vickrum Digwa’s sentencing, the tropes recycled by RICU in every grieving family’s impact statement were present in the speech that Henry Nowak’s father gave to the press outside Southampton Court. Lines such as “Henry was one of the most inclusive individuals...”, and “This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism...”, and “This doesn’t mean going to extremes…” would have been fed to the Nowak family by RICU, via the community liaison officers — who Mark Nowak referenced in his remarks — to reduce “community tensions”, discourage social disorder, and with the threat that civil unrest might jeaporise court proceedings.
The state is obliged to do this, under the various iterations of the Race Relations Act, consolidated in the Equality Act (2010), which places a statutory duty on government departments to
in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
Pursuant to fostering “good relations” between the host population and minority, often violent, communities with “protected characteristics”, the state will instruct politicians, police officers, and media outlets to call for calm, denounce division, and extol the virtues of multiracial pluralism, all while unilaterally policing the negative opinions held of minorities by majorities with Public Order offences, non-crime hate incidents, and prison sentences for imprudent social media posts.
Every government department is commanded to “advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it” — mandating discrimination against heterosexuals, men, whites, and Christians, on behalf of racial, religious, and sexual-preference minorities. It also makes it almost impossible to fire them, when they can log discrimination complaints as members of groups with “protected characteristics”.
This leads to the consolidation of activist networks within the civil service, who then use bodies like RICU to pursue their own goals — such as the 700-member Islamic Network, who
promote the recruitment, retention and progression of Muslim staff in the Home Office” and “influence policymakers so that policy is more inclusive of Muslim needs.
One civil servant told GB News that
“Having an Islamic lobby group inside the Home Office represents a serious threat to the Government’s aims in combating Islamic extremism and granting asylum to those fleeing Islamic countries over religious persecution.”
The presence of a member of the Charity Commission on the recommended Counter Extremism Ministerial Board also demonstrates an intent to double down on DEI policies. The Charities Act (2011) enshrined in law the obligation for the government to allocate taxpayer funding to organisations which pursue
“the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;”
Just like in the United States, with the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service, this results in security agencies liaising with self-appointed community representatives, who idea-launder on behalf of Muslim groups. It also establishes identity interest groups, like the Islamic Network, who are most likely to give extremists purchase within the halls of power.
Essentially, RICU is the nerve centre of two-tier policing.
This will not shock those of you who have read my previous reporting on RICU, the “Don’t Look Back In Anger” division of the British state, who craft politicians’ speeches and dictate media coverage of terror attacks to deflect blame from immigrants, multiculturalism, and Islam. (Here, here, and here.)
It appears the Daily Mail have lifted, without attribution, from my previous reporting on RICU to provide examples of the department’s previous activities — including coordinating “controlled spontaneity events” after the 2017 London Bridge attacks, the beheading of British aid worker Alan Henning by ISIS in 2014, and “Rapid Analytical Sprint” report produced after the Southport murders and subsequent civil unrest in 2024.
The article, however, misses a number of case studies of RICU’s psychological warfare operations — including their involvement in the vigils following Valdo Calocane’s stabbing spree in Nottingham in 2023, and the Manchester Arena Bombing in 2017 — and also neglects to implicate many of the architects of RICU in both the Labour and Conservative parties.
The Mail also decided not to credit the work of journalists like Steven Edginton, Laura Dodsworth, Andrew Gilligan, and Dr Paul Stot, who have reported on RICU’s insidious work for years.
I have consolidated my previous reporting on RICU here, to serve as a resource on this nefarious organisation. I have done my best to raise awareness of their methods for the last few years, to build up public immunity to these grotesque manipulation tactics. I hope the following article is useful.
In May 2017, after Libyan Muslim Salman Abedi detonated a homemade nail bomb at an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena, killing 22 and injuring 1017, a vigil was held in St Ann’s Square. Following the minutes’ silence, the crowd began, seemingly spontaneously, singing Oasis’ “Don’t Look Back In Anger”.
The Guardian said “Don’t Look Back In Anger” became "the “symbol of Manchester’s spirit” in the aftermath of the vicious attack. The Mayor of Greater Manchester, and possibly our next Prime Minister, Andy Burnham said, “That moment was something special. That’s what you need to know about Manchester.”
From then on, the murder of 22 men, women, and children was treated like an unpredictable natural disaster, and any anger directed at both the community which produced the perpetrator and the state that imports them as disproportionate and inappropriate. If you were angry, you were now the problem.
We know now that this wasn’t spontaneous. The woman who began the rendition was Lydia Bernsmeier-Rullow: an actress, who is now co‑Chair of BBC Pride, and leads the BBC’s LGBTQ+ staff network. It is conspicuous that a professional Diversity activist instigated this spontaneous sing-along. Liam Gallagher has since said,
“That song got hijacked. ‘Don’t Look Back In Anger?’ You should look back in fuckin’ anger. You should be fuckin’ kicking off, you should be finding out why these fuckin’ things are going on fire. People should be pissed off because we’re getting fuckin’ shafted.”
Liam refused to perform alongside his brother Noel at the One Love Manchester concert following the bombing, where the song was played.
But it was confirmed when the guilty conscience of government disaster planner Lucy Easthope compelled her to write, in The Guardian, that
The “I Heart” messages that appear in cities, in the wake of a terrorist attack, are not always spontaneous [but instead] carefully planned in advance.
So yesterday, as I tried so hard to follow Andy Burnham’s advice to rise above it all, and went to a series of pre-planned meetings with anxious colleagues, checked my email and ate my sandwich, I realised that perhaps he and I have got it wrong on this one. This horror is too raw and too visceral and has too many children as targets for “business as usual” to ever have been the right message. Instead we need to be given a bit more time to rage and roar like wounded animals; we need a day of national mourning; we need a brief moment away from social media to decide how we really feel. And if that is a day spent screaming at the sky and then cuddling our toddlers then so be it.
I was wrong to insist in my training that the first message should be “we will overcome” as if the enemy was on the beaches and weakness would be letting someone or something win. Yesterday I realised that the fight rhetoric has gone too far and instead what we need to do is to admit how much this hurts. Ever since 9/11 there has been a sense that falling to our knees in despair would be letting “them” win but there is perhaps a greater bravery in admitting what the loss of people means to us. By rushing to show that this will not break us we are also allowing a cycle to emerge; we are hit; we will stand strong; we are hit; we stand together and thus we allow our leaders to never address just how much damage is being done to our nation.
Easthope insinuated that the British state had a hand in coordinating the response, which involved telling the grieving parents and British public, “Don’t Look Back in Anger”.
The body responsible is called RICU — the Home Office’s Research, Information, and Communications Unit. Some learned about it during the COVID pandemic, thanks to Laura Dodsworth’s A State of Fear.
Others may have heard of it from a report commissioned in August 2024 by then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, in the aftermath of the civil unrest across Labour constituencies following the murder of three children and maiming of ten by anti-white Rwandan terrorist Axel Rudabukana in Southport. Cooper instructed civil servants working for RICU to conduct a “Rapid Analytical Sprint” to rewrite policies on extremism. (Both myself and GB News’ Steven Edginton reported on initial leaks from this document in November 2024.)
The paper warned that “right-wing extremist narratives (particularly around immigration and policing) are in some cases ‘leaking’ into mainstream debates”. Among these narratives were “anti-communism”, “Cultural Nationalism”, and the belief that “Western culture is under threat from mass migration”. Another example was that “Claims of ‘two-tier’ policing, where two groups are allegedly treated differently after similar behaviour”.
The Pakistani rape gangs, which continue to ruin the childhoods of thousands of girls in fifty towns and cities in the UK, were dismissed as a “grievance narrative” invented by “right-wing extremists”:
“right wing extremists frequently exploit cases of alleged group-based sexual abuse to promote anti-Muslim sentiment as well as anti-government and anti-‘political correctness’ narratives”
The use of “alleged” implies a denial of the thousands of documented cases of group-based child sexual abuse by predominantly-Pakistani Muslim men.
The full documents were then procured by Policy Exchange, which published new details in January 2025, and revealed the extent to which the government has been gaslighting the British public. The Labour government has denounced the report twice: with Home Office minister Dan Jarvis saying he has "rejected this advice". However, given the above revelations by the Daily Mail, it remains a reliable forecast for where the state’s priorities will lie for the foreseeable future.
The report, titled “CounterExtremism Sprint: Understand”, was jointly authored by Prevent, RICU, and Homeland Security Analysis and Insight (HSAI). It covers nine types of extremism, in the following order:
Islamist extremism
Extreme right-wing
Extreme misogyny
Pro-Khalistan extremism (Sikh separatism)
Hindu nationalist extremism (Hindutva)
Environmental extremism
Left-wing extremism
Anarchist and single-issue extremism (LASI)
“Violence fascination”
“Conspiracy theories”
The breadth of the report indicates that Prevent doesn’t have its priorities right. As Policy Exchange authors Andrew Gilligan and Dr. Paul Stott remind us, Islamists are responsible for 94% of all deaths and 88% of injuries caused by terrorism since 1999; and comprise 80% of Counter-Terror Police and 75% of MI5’s open caseload, and 63% of terrorists in custody. Only 10% of Counter-Terror Police and 25% of MI5’s open caseload are “Far Right” extremists — a term redefined beyond recognition in recent years. However, the Prevent document only dedicates one page to Islamist extremism, the same page space given to “conspiracy theories,” Khalistani Sikh separatism, misogyny, and environmentalism.
Only 160 words were dedicated to the sole case Islamist study of Anjem Choudary’s al-Muhajiroun, which had proven links to 25% of all convicted Islamist terrorists in the UK by 2016. Neither the 2017 nor the 2019 London Bridge attacks were mentioned, despite being committed by al-Muhajiroun supporters. Choudary was finally imprisoned for life, for directing a terrorist organisation, belonging to a proscribed organisation, and encouraging support for a terrorist organisation, on the 23rd of July 2024. His is the only case of a conviction in the UK for Da’wah — ideological laundering of Islamist ideas, which inspires, but never actually commits, terrorist violence. This took decades, and Choudary was allowed to rebrand with multiple activist organisations, all while advocating for Jihad, the conversion of British monuments into mosques, and calling for the execution of Pope Benedict XVI.
More words (320) are spent on “Punish a Muslim Day”, which the activist organisation Tell Mama reported only resulted in one incident of school bullying. Prevent staff spent more time subdividing the “Manosphere” into Men’s Rights Activists, Pick-Up Artists (PUAs), and involuntary celibates (or incels) than on identifying Islamist extremists.
RICU has also received notoriety in recent years as the parent body of the counter-extremism programme Prevent. Like many ostensibly neutral institutions, Prevent has been subject to ideological capture since its inception. Some will have seen the absurd training video, warning that young men could be reported to counter-terror police for posting anti-immigration stickers in a public park. Others will have played the much-memed Amelia game Pathways, which resulted in protagonist Charlie accompanying a purple-haired classmate to a remigration protest, and being punished with an anti-extremism intervention from his college tutors. But RICU’s insidious activities stretch back decades.
Former MI6 officer Charles Farr established RICU in 2007. In 2011, a government review concluded that an effort to “identify credible partners” and develop “more professional counter-narrative products” was required. To oversee this, they appointed Richard Chalk, chief of staff to then-Conservative Party chair Baroness Warsi, as its head.
In September 2024, Warsi announced that she had withdrawn her party whip in protest against “how far right my Party has moved”. She used the news to promote her new book, titled Muslims Don’t Matter. As our review on Courage noted, this book about Islam features staggeringly few references to the Quran (two) or the Prophet Mohammed (four). She then supported a report by the Runnymede Trust, warning of a ‘bleak and dystopian’ future for Muslims in the UK. Chief executive Shabna Begum told the Guardian that
“Sayeeda Warsi coined the term ‘the dinner table test’, but I think we’ve got even beyond that… The way politicians talk about Muslims now is so derogatory, it’s in the most brutally divisive terms.
“Politicians are engaging in a popularity contest and that popularity contest is measured by how far they are willing to bully and demonise Muslims. And that has become not just an acceptable kind of currency, but a way in which to earn your political stripes.”
The Trust is infamous for having introduced the term “Islamophobia” into common parlance in 1997 — the same year the Blair government came to power, and proceeded to revolutionise Britain’s legal system. “Islamophobia” was devised as a means to silence criticism of Islam by the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood. Former Islamist, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad confirmed a meeting took place where members of a Muslim Brotherhood outfit, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, plotted to “emulate the homosexual activists who used the term ‘homophobia’ to silence critics.”
It seems to have been successful, given that the Prime Minister that Warsi worked under, Lord David Cameron, refused to ban the Brotherhood in 2015, despite them being banned in multiple Islamic countries, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and sanctioned in Qatar and Turkey.
Cameron’s government also produced a report on the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain, which said that “for some years the Muslim Brotherhood … played an important role in establishing and then running the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).” In 2009, a government report found that 80 per cent of British-trained imams were Deobandi and affiliated with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). It also alleges that the MCB was created and dominated by the Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami and was a “focus of controversy for its linkages to Islamist movements”. Despite this, the Muslim Council of Britain were not banned either, and joined Warsi in supporting the Runnymede Trust’s report.
When appointed under Warsi, Chalk had just returned from conducting classified work in Baghdad during the Iraq war, for British PR firm Bell Pottinger. David Hill became Bell Pottinger’s CEO in 2007, after serving as Tony Blair’s Director of Communications since 2003. Hill replaced spin doctor Alastair Campbell — infamous for compiling the “dodgy dossier” which encouraged Britain and America to invade Iraq in search of fictitious WMDs. Hill is married to former Downing Street press officer Hillary Coffman, herself previously married to David Seymour, who was Alastair Campbell’s editor at the Daily Mirror.
This incestuous network might explain Campbell’s demand that Douglas Murray be arrested for suggesting Blair and his successors’ immigration policies fuelled the riots following the Southport massacre. The permanent fixtures of the political establishment have grown so intolerant of criticism, that Murray’s bestseller, The Strange Death of Europe, earned a place on Prevent’s terror watch-list.
A review of Prevent found that, in 2019, RICU had compiled a dossier of materials circulated by social media users described as ”actively patriotic and proud”. The canonical texts of these far right radicals include: books by Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips, and Douglas Murray; Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan; John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government; Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France; The Lord of the Rings; Beowulf; C.S. Lewis; Micahel Portillo’s Great British Railway Journeys; and, without a hint of irony, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Curiously, the Qur’an and Hadiths were not mentioned, despite Islamic groups being the predominant perpetrators of lethal terror attacks both in the UK and around the world. Islamists are responsible for 94% of all deaths and 88% of injuries caused by terrorism since 1999, and comprise 80% of Counter-Terror Police and 75% of MI5’s open caseload, and 63% of terrorists in custody. Ninety per cent of the suspects on MI5’s watchlist are Islamic terrorists — equivalent to 1% of the entire British Muslim population. Since October 7th, arrests for terror offences in the UK have increased by 23 per cent. But this embarrassing obsession with neo-Nazis hiding beneath every bed led to Prevent thinking watching The Thick of It would turn you into Anders Breivik.
Why are Prevent so resistant to record Islamist extremism? Sir William Shawcross warned in his Independent Review in 2023 that, “It is worth restating that Islamist terrorism is currently the largest terrorist threat facing the United Kingdom”, but that “Prevent is not doing enough to counter non-violent Islamist extremism”. Between 2015 and 2019, referrals for Islamist extremism plummeted. Only 22% of Prevent referrals between 2020 and 2021 were for Islamic extremism; outnumbered by “right-wing extremism” at 25%. Most were for “Mixed, unstable, or unclear ideology.”
2025 saw the highest number of people referred to Prevent (8,778) since records began in 2015, with the highest distinct share (21 per cent) being for “extreme right-wing ideologies” (1,798), a 37% rise from 1,314 (19%) in 2024. The largest cohort was individuals with no ideology (4,917), but only 10 per cent of these cases were taken forward beyond referral stage by the intervention pnale, whereas 34 per cent (612) of “extreme right wing ideologies” and 27 per cent (126) of those with a “fascination with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks (where no other ideology)” were adopted by the programme.
Prevent duty training, available on the GOV.UK website, lists “Cultural nationalism” alongside “White/ethno-nationalism” and “White supremacism” as “extreme right-wing terrorism”. If you believe that “Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups”, then you would qualify for a referral to Prevent on the grounds that your beliefs are extreme and may inspire terrorism. The likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg were cited as examples of “cultural nationalists” in a 2019 research report. Former civil servant Andrew Hale-Byrne, was interrogated by police for being a “far-Right extremist”, and asked if he voted for Brexit, because he posted a selfie with Sir Jacob on social media.
However, under the definition of “Islamist terrorism” in its Glossary of terms, Prevent insists that “Islamist should not be interpreted as a reference to individuals who follow the religion of Islam.”
This was condemned by the US State Department, in an exclusive statement provided to me in June 2025:
“Western culture is not something to demonize, diminish, or apologize for. Rather, Americans and Europeans should honor our shared heritage of self-government, liberty, and rule of law. Extremism comes not from those who respect our traditions, but from those who seek to erase them. We must continue to uphold these values and cease efforts to censor, marginalize, or stigmatize individuals for their beliefs, while rejecting all violent extremism.”
Despite this, Prevent has not changed its guidance and continues to proscribe patriotism as being akin to terrorism.
Meanwhile, referrals for Islamic extremism continued to fall, from 13 per cent (913) in 2024 to 10 per cent (879) in 2025. 26 per cent of cases referred for Islamist extremism were adopted by the Prevent intervention team. This is despite an overrepresentation of referrals from Asian (19 per cent, 789), black (8 per cent, 320) and other (8 per cent, 338) demographic groups.
It is also despite multiple Islamic terror attacks in the last year: Syrian Jihad Al-Shamie stabbing Jews at a Manchester synagogue before being shot dead by police on 2 October 2025, and Somalian Essa Suleiman stabbing two Jews before being apprehended by police in Golders Green on 29 April 2026. Both perpetrators evaded interventions from Prevent, despite Suleiman having been referred to the service in 2020.
Multiple terrorists have been missed by Prevent. In 2021, Abi Harbi Ali stabbed Southend MP Sir David Amess to death at a constituency surgery. Abi targeted Amess, and other Conservative MPs, as “revenge” for “harming Muslims”, by voting for military action against Islamic State in Syria. Abi’s father, Harbi Ali Kullane, was the former director of media and communications for a former prime minister of Somalia, and worked on counter-extremism operations against al-Shabaab. A July 2024 coroner’s report found Ali was reported to Prevent in 2014, but “missed” his six-month case review, and had his case closed after a 12-month review reported “nothing of concern”. Amess’ daughter, Katie, said that her efforts to get an inquest into her fathers’ death were met with denial, dismissal, and threats of legal action from Prevent staff and her father’s former colleagues.
Kaite has since pushed for another Prevent review after it was revealed that Southport murderer Axel Rudakubana had also received three referrals to Prevent between 2019 and 2021, for his obsession with ISIS and genocides, but no action was taken. Prevent’s unwillingness to monitor Islamist terror, while focusing on an ill-defined “Far Right” threat, and obscuring motives by deflecting to mental health and family issues, is costing lives by failing to thwart massacres before they happen.
What explains this pattern of negligence? Shawcross said that Prevent staff were unwilling to consider Islam as a motivator of terrorism and extremist violence:
“When discussing Islamism, Prevent staff frequently came back to issues relating to mental health concerns and ‘vulnerabilities’. Ideology, if acknowledged at all, was treated as a secondary factor and a derivative of a wider psychological or social issue. Put simply, ideology was not seen as an essential part of the trajectory towards terrorism, instead it was viewed as one of many potential radicalising factors.”
Shawcross concluded that “Prevent is not doing enough to counter non-violent Islamist extremism”, and has applied “a double standard when dealing with the extreme right-wing and Islamism.” He criticised Prevent because
the present boundaries around what is termed by Prevent as extremist Islamist ideology are drawn too narrowly while the boundaries around the ideology of the extreme right-wing are too broad.
Former head of COBRA, Colonel Richard Kemp, likewise criticised Prevent for
“trying to emphasise far-right extremism rather than Islamic extremism [...] In the interests of trying to appear even-handed and appease people that criticised the Prevent programme for focusing on Islamic extremists”.
This desperation to increase the number of “Far Right” referrals, for political reasons, led to a 90% increase in the number of pensioners referred to Prevent in 2021.
Shawross expressed concern that the focus of Prevent and counter-extremism programmes was being purposefully drawn away from Islamism by bad-faith actors. He notes that the founding chair of the National Association of Muslim Police’s (NAMP) West Midlands branch shared videos on his social media which called for the destruction of Israel and described Jews as “filth”, and speeches delivered by a pro-Hamas cleric and a former Guantanamo Bay detainee (who has since joined CAGE). That same NAMP branch chair authored a paper in 2020, advising Counter Terrorism Policing to drop the terms ‘Islamism’ and ‘jihadism’. Other NAMP branches have hosted events with Muslim Engagement and Development (Mend), whose former members have been accused of glorifying terrorism.
This trend has continued recently: with the Met Police distancing itself from former advisor Mohammed Kozbar, a board member at Finsbury Park Mosque and member of the Met’s London Muslim Communities Forum, who “inform and help shape police policy and procedure at a strategic level”. Kozbar praised Hamas as “the master of the martyrs of the resistance” after October 7th, and expressed support for the now-proscribed group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Shawcross credits the campaign against Prevent monitoring Islamist extremism to Hizb ut-Tahrir, writing
In 2008, the revolutionary Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir published a report framing the strategy as an attempt by the state to gain “control over the Muslim community in Britain”, to bring about a “reformation of Islam”, and to “ban Islamic ideas”. These lines of argument have set the tone for much of the campaign against Prevent ever since.
Kozbar’s praise of Hizb ut-Tahrir may help explain why, in response to a video of Hizb ut-Tahrir gathering after October 7th to call for “Muslim armies” to wage “Jihad” against the West, the Met Police obfuscated by saying on X, “The word jihad has a number of meanings”, and that they had “not identified any offences arising from the specific clip.” In January, the Conservative government proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation, making belonging to or supporting the group a criminal offence. This had been attempted by the Conservatives back in 2007, while in opposition — but Keir Starmer, then-Director of Public Prosecutions, took it upon himself to submit an application to the European Court of Human Rights in June 2008 on Hizb ut-Tahrir’s behalf, saying “it is very important that everyone is represented”.
Despite Shawcroft’s findings, the Labour government intends to focus on using counter-terrorism bodies to tackle “Extreme misogyny” and the “radicalisation of young men online” by influencers like Andrew Tate instead. This follows police chiefs declaring a “national emergency” due to a rise in violence against women and girls — following a 37 percent increase in four years (2020 - 2024). The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, found the average age of male sexual abuse suspects is fifteen, and the average age of female victims is thirteen, with violent pornography referenced in fifty per cent of case transcripts.
However, no mention was made of the impact of immigration on sex offences committed against grown women, increasing by fifty per cent on public transport between 2022 - 2024. This coincides with an unprecedented level of third-world migration (>80% of the 5.6 million legal immigrants UK since 2020) commit violent crimes and sex offences two to eight times more than Western Europeans and East Asians. Freedom of information requests revealed in September that migrants were arrested 34 per cent more often than British nationals in 2023. Solving this problem would require that the government acknowledge its immigration policy is to blame. Policing Instagram reels instead keeps up the pretence that the government’s reputation remains unblemished.
Why are the government and civil service’s priorities so eschewed? One explanation may be a decades-long effort of Muslim entryism in the Home Office.
After the Shawcross report was published, members of the Islamic Network attended a course called “Issues in Countering Terrorism” at King’s College London. One civil servant “argued Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism” — before pointing and laughing at a jihadist in an ISIS recruitment video, saying, “He used to go to my school! I know him!”
All the civil servant participants were given a topic to research and present. One attendee said her brother had been radicalised and fought in Syria for Islamic State (ISIS). ’Phew’, I thought. At least one person here will understand the problems of extremism (!) Her presentation was about the UK’s Counter Terrorism Strategy, Prevent. She argued Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism. The mere mention of Islamist extremism makes Muslims ‘feel uncomfortable’, she argued. Her brother would most certainly have agreed.
Later on, we were shown an ISIS propaganda recruitment video filmed in Syria. The same attendee’s face lit up. Laughing and pointing at the Jihadi in the video, ‘He used to go to my school! I know him!’ she exclaimed. Mouth agape, I looked around the room for responses to yet another disclosure involving personal links to ISIS terrorists. I appeared to be the only one to find this extraordinary.
The lecturer delivering the course described Shawcross as “the type of person who would say all current counter-terrorism professionals are woke… He is of that ilk”. They asked civil servants to propose methods to censor the likes of “Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan [who] are both examples of the far right.
‘To what extent should Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray be suppressed?’ he asked. ‘They have millions of followers. To de-platform them would cause issues.’
Concluding his talk, the lecturer told a room full of government professionals, ‘so, society needs to find other ways to suppress them.’
Many of the civil servants working at RICU and Prevent will belong to the 700-strong Islamic Network within the Home Office, who have worked since 2005 to recruit more Muslim staff, "influence policymakers", and “Facilitate and support Home Office engagement with external stakeholders from Muslim communities” to support "Muslim needs". In March 2024, former Permanent Secretary Matthew Rycroft and other senior civil servants attended an Islamic Network event to celebrate Ramadan. This may explain why Rycroft and former Home Office minister Jess Philips MP refused to answer questions from civil servants concerning which foreign nationals commit the most crimes in Britain.
Perhaps the growth of this network has been influenced by the appointment of Muslims to positions of power within the Home Office. The current Director General for Immigration Enforcement, Bas Javid, is the son of Pakistani immigrants, and brother of former Home Secretary Sajid Javid. The same goes for the former government Counter-Extremism Commissioner, and Independent Adviser for Social Cohesion and Resilience, Dame Sara Khan. Khan was appointed to the Home Office’s Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Working Group in 2005, following the 7/7 Bombings, and has presented herself as an authority on moderate Islam ever since. Her charity, Inspire, launched the #MakingAStand campaign supported by then-Home Secretary Theresa May. May later appointed Khan the government’s first Counter-Extremism Commissioner, under then-Home Secretary Amber Rudd, when she was Prime Minister.
In December 2024, Sara Khan co-authored a report on “extremist narratives and conspiracies” with communist organisation HOPE Not Hate. Khan employed HOPE Not Hate to do the polling and provide definitions for types of extremism. In 2017, HOPE Not Hate ran an article from #MakingAStand’s Sara Khan in its State of Hate report. Kahn became commissioner of the May government’s Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group, which appointed Nick Lowles as a member.
Hope Not Hate was previously given grants of £50,000 and £141,380 in 2019-2020 to “brief multiple departments… on emerging trends in UK hate”, while the Khan sisters ran RICU. Home Office-funded charity the Paul Hamlyn Foundation also gave Hope Not Hate £585,000 over eight years to establish local pro-immigration protest groups in towns and cities across the UK. Hope Not Hate is also infamous for crafting the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims’ definition of “Islamophobia”, which called the rape gang scandal an example of racism against Muslims:
“the issue of ‘grooming gangs’: […] clearly, it is aimed at (and can achieve) harm to individual Muslims, and is not rooted in any meaningful theological debate but rather in a racist attempt to ‘other’ Muslims in general,”
This attitude would explain the dismissal of the Pakistani rape gangs scandal in the 2024 RICU report.
Following the 2024 report with Hope Not Hate, Khan also suggested the Home Office should censor MPs like Nigel Farage for “using language that talks about distrusting the police or attacking an ‘establishment’”.
Also in this Working Group was the founder of Tell Mama, Fiyaz Mughal OBE. In 2018, Tell MAMA’s annual report accused then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson of causing a reported 375 per cent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes with a Telegraph column which compared Muslim women wearing niqabs to “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”. The evidence for this? An increase from 8 to 38 self-reported call-ins to a Tell MAMA helpline, which required no proof of crime nor a police report. As one might expect, this Working Group was disbanded when Johnson became Prime Minister.
However, Johnson’s leadership rival, and permanent fixture of Conservative government cabinets, Michael Gove sought to appoint Mughal as an anti-Muslim hatred adviser under the later Sunak government. Mughal refused the role after receiving criticism from fellow Muslims, who accused him of being “a sell-out”. As then-Communities Secretary, Gove liaised with RICU to shape the Prevent strategy. According to senior Conservative sources, Gove became obsessed with carving off and incorporating “large parts of the Home Office and Justice into his department.” In my attempts to uncover why, one prominent Tory who worked with Gove told me, “He’s a control freak.” It appears personal career ambitions may have advanced Islamic interests in government just as much as ideology. It is also worth remembering that this department, now titled the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, is responsible for approving the planning permission for various mosques — including the planned conversion of Piccadilly Circus’ landmark Trocadero building into a mosque and community centre.
The response of Gove, the Sunak government, and the Home Office to the pro-Palestine protests, which occupied Westminster every weekend after October 7th, was to tackle nebulous “extremism” and focus more on the phantom threat of “the Far Right” than the very real Islamic calls for intifada. Gove drafted a new definition of extremism, citing Tell MAMA statistics claiming “a 335% increase in anti-Muslim hate cases” since October 7th. Stating that the UK is “a multi-national, multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy [made] stronger because of its diversity”, Gove defined extremism as:
the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).
He stated that the definition was based on a 2021 Operating with Impunity Report, written by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley and Sara Khan.
Khan has since focused her efforts on lobbying the government to proscribe Patriotic Alternative. In 2024, deputy leader Sam Melia was sentenced to two years in prison for “intent of stirring up racial hatred” after putting up anti-immigration stickers in public. Conspicuously, RICU’s “Understand” report dedicated 430 words to a sticker campaign (presumably Melia’s) — 270 words more than to the case study for Islamist extremism. 2024’s Prevent training video, encouraging viewers to refer 17-year-old boys to counter-terror police for posting anti-immigration stickers in public parks, also seems to refer to Melia, and proves just how subversive Prevent’s focus on nonviolent right-wing activism has become.
Khan’s charity, Inspire, manufactured one of the “products” used by RICU in its efforts to stage-manage the state and media’s response to terror attacks, designed to quell public outrage and maintain “community cohesion”. RICU’s tactics take two forms: directing print, broadcast, and social media to run prefabricated headlines, hashtags, photos, and videos; and “controlled spontaneity” events, where groups of activists and imams would be mobilised for vigils and photo ops. As Laura Dodsworth wrote in A State of Fear:
After the terror attacks on London Bridge in 2017, there were bunches of flowers and graffiti messages of solidarity behind the cordons at the scene of the attack. On social media there were outpourings of support and positively-themed hashtags, such as #TurnToLove, #ForLondon and #LoveWillWin. The media resounded with comments from faith leaders and politicians. You probably thought all of this was spontaneous. Some of the flowers might have been – the British public is generous and demonstrative – but much of the response was reportedly pre-planned by the UK government.
Following the Home Affairs Select Committee hearings in 2016, The Guardian reported that, “Under Chalk’s leadership, RICU began communicating with British Muslims in a manner more reminiscent of counter-insurgency operations than a traditional public information campaign”.
Middle East Eye reported on internal RICU documents which stated the unit worked “at an industrial scale and pace” to develop messages which “effect attitudinal and behavioural change”. Methods were modelled on observing how social media was used to coordinate the 2011 Arab Spring, and contingencies to manage public anger in the event of a terror attack during the 2012 London Olympics.
After British aid worker Alan Henning was beheaded on video by ISIS, an image of a woman in a Union Jack hijab, produced by Inspire, was published on the front page of The Sun newspaper on October 8th, 2014. This was printed to “promote the true face of Islam among vulnerable UK communities” in the aftermath of Islamist violence. It was also the image used to launch Khan’s Inspire campaign at the event attended by Theresa May.
Emails procured by freedom of information access requests show RICU monitored online responses to the front page, calling it “our product”. As was Khan’s #MakingAStand campaign — with a 2015 government document, titled “Prevent Strategy: Local delivery best practice catalogue”, referring to the campaign as a “RICU Product”.
It’s just a coincidence, I’m sure, that Sara Khan’s sister, Sabin (also Sabine) Inayat Khan, was working as the deputy head of RICU under Chalk at the same time. Around 1996, Sabin, using the name Sabin Inayat, worked as consulting editor for a magazine called Trends, distributed by the Ilford branch of Young Muslims UK, an organisation affiliated with the Muslim Council of Britain. She was then appointed to the Women’s National Commission in 2006, and the 19-member National Muslim Women’s Advisory Group was launched by Prime Minister Gordon Brown in January 2008. She spoke alongside her sister at the launch of Inspire in 2009. Their brother, Adeeb Khan, then-director of a brand management company in Bradford, also collaborated with Inspire by registering their domain name (wewillinspire.com) in 2008.
A similar coincidence happened during the COVID pandemic: as Clap for Carers founder, Annemarie Plas, had a friend working in Downing Street, and suddenly saw her campaign attract support from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the Beckhams, and the Prime Minister within twenty-four hours.
These same tactics were deployed following the 2017 London Bridge and Westminster Bridge attacks, and are suspected to have been used after the 2023 Nottingham stabbings and 2024 Southport murders.
During the Finsbury Park Mosque attack in 2017, an imam was reported to have intervened and prevented the perpetrator Darren Osborne from being beaten to death by those at the scene. However, as the Daily Mail reports:
It later emerged that the reports about the peace-making imam had originated after journalists were approached at the police cordon by a woman called ‘Gabbie’, who said she worked for a company called ‘Horizon PR’ and offered to introduce them to a third party who ‘stressed to the journalists the role that the mosque’s imam had played in protecting Osborne until he could be handed over to police’.
The story was the work of an agency called Breakthrough Media – which had been paid by RICU.
RICU wasted £400,000 of taxpayers’ money on sending obscure boyband Mr Meanor to tour schools in Burnley, Manchester, Leeds, and Blackburn, singing about 9/11 and 7/7, after a former student at Parrs Wood High School in Manchester travelled to Syria to join ISIS. Song lyrics included
See these hashtags all night, Turn the TV on and something else ain't right, More people gone don't know how we sleep at night. What I'm hoping is we can lead a precious life, 9/11 changes how we view these things, People want to terrorise, And 7/7 left behind more broken lives right before our eyes.
Comms for the tour were also handled by BreakThrough Media, the PR firm that produced RICU “products” including Khan’s Union Jack hijab image.
In June 2023, when paranoid schizophrenic Valdo Calocane stabbed two 19-year-old students, Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar, and 65-year-old school caretaker Ian Cotes in Nottingham. Before the identity or motive of the murderer had been revealed, a vigil was organised in Old Market Square, where O’Malley-Kumar’s mother said, “Look after each other, don’t have hate in your hearts,” and Webber’s mother told the crowd, “Please hold no hate that relates to any colour, sex or religion.” Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner Caroline Henry said: “There is no place for hate in the healing process… It’s important that we remain united and come back stronger from this tragedy as Nottingham together.”
This was strange, as there was no evidence suggesting this had been a racially-motivated attack or an act of Islamic terror. Even stranger were the prefabricated balloons and banners present at the vigil, saying “Choose Love,” and “One City #NottinghamTogether”, suspended above the stage where the parents gave speeches. Behind the parents was a procession of priests, imams, and Sikh granthis, presumably to show solidarity among religions. This seems eerily reminiscent of the London Bridge Attack in 2017, after which #TurnToLove, #ForLondon, and #LoveWillWin were trending on Twitter, and Middle East Eye reports a government official telephoned Southwark Council to inform them “We’re sending you a hundred imams” to read out a pre-prepared statement, condemning the attack. Again, this is despite the Nottingham stabbings not being an Islamic terror attack.
Instead, Calocane was free to commit the three murders because Nottinghamshire mental health services had failed to section him, despite him previously assaulting a police officer and being detained in hospital four times. He had an outstanding warrant for his arrest when he was released from the hospital, because the orderlies didn’t want to be accused of racism for detaining a violent and psychotic black man. The same reason that the Manchester Arena Bomber was not challenged by security guard Kyle Lawler. The same reason the police, social services, local councillors, media, and politicians continue to cover up the Pakistani rape gangs in towns and cities across Britain. The same reason that Henry Nowak bled to death in handcuffs, as the police arrested him on suspicion of being racist to his killer. Antiracist ideology has ruined and cost thousands of lives, and RICU spends your tax money on manipulating you to ensure this ideology remains in place.
At Calocane’s trial, his charges were downgraded to manslaughter, meaning he received no prison time, and is even entitled to claim thousands in state benefits (including universal credit and employment support allowance). Webber’s mother, Emma, has given interviews since, expressing disgust that the BBC had given “quite a sympathetic” interview to Calocane’s parents, and saying she has “no sympathy” for the “family that brought that individual into this world and into our country.”
Webber has spoken much more candidly when not involved in a vigil, organised by Nottingham’s local government. She now blames the state for trying to silence the victims’ families.
“The Calocane family are clearly aware and we were aware for many, many years how sick and troubled their son and brother was,” she says. His brother took phone calls from him the day before, the morning of and in between the murders. What did he actually do?
“We’ve had a letter from the family, written I believe on behalf of the parents and the brother. Dave and I are the only ones that haven’t read it. We can’t face it. But it’s there in the inbox.
“I know the contents of it, an overview, because James Coates and Sanjoy and Sinead have told me. From what I understand they don’t take any responsibility. They blame the authorities and the agency failings.
“I was thinking I will probably read it after the anniversary has passed. What I don’t want to do is inflict more anger upon myself. I have no compassion for the Calocane family. His mother hasn’t lost her son. He is still living and breathing. He is still there.
“I can’t think too much about them. It’s because of the Calocane family coming to the UK when he was 16 that my son is no longer alive.
“I wouldn’t trust myself to be near them at the moment. I don’t want to look into the faces of the people that brought this monster into the world. That sounds awful but it’s what I think.” ...
… Webber said she could not name a single institution, apart from the CQC, that had “acted with integrity, transparency and candour” since the attacks. “I would say, without exception, we’ve had evasive, defensive approaches from all of them,” she said. “Marking their own homework and closing of ranks to try to keep us quiet.”
In a joint statement, the families of Webber, O’Malley-Kumar and Coates said they had been met with “failure and silence” for too long and the inquiry “is about holding those who neglected their jobs to account”.
Since Nowak’s murder, Emma Webber has asked why Barnaby’s murder was not treated as racist, despite the obvious disparity between Calocane and his victims.
“What we do need to do is be brave and have those really difficult discussions in this country,” she continues. [Calocane] was a black man who killed three white people and tried to kill another three white people, and that was never part of the conversation. If it had been the other way round, it would have been.”
So has Siobhan Whyte, the mother of Rhiannon Skye Whyte, who was stabbed to death 23 times with a screwdriver by Sudanese illegal migrant Deng Chol Majek in 2024. She explained that the state instructed her family to stay silent, advising that it could jeopardise court proceedings. Once Majek was sentenced, Siobhan said, “Starmer has blood on his hands” and demanded the government stop and reverse illegal migration to keep women safe. Starmer, keen to use Nowak’s family as a human shield, conspicuously decided to decline Siobhan’s requests to meet with him.
In the aftermath of the Southport massacre and subsequent spontaneous riots across Labour constituencies in England, people grew suspicious when multiple newspapers with different ideological leanings ran the same image and headline of anti-racist protestors as a united front against “the Far Right”. Suspicions intensified when this Socialist Workers Party and Stand Up To Racism rent-a-mob gathered in opposition to “a hundred Far Right rallies” reported by national news outlets — all of which failed to materialise. Yet again, it appeared the narrative control engine had been kicked into overdrive.
Dodsworth found that, in 2020, the UK Cabinet Office spent £184 million in public funds on pandemic advertising — including £35 million on the ‘All in, All together’ campaign in national and regional newspapers. Public Health England became the UK’s largest advertiser, and the government the sixth biggest advertiser, during this year. Was the same done here, to suppress the nation’s grief and outrage after the butchering of yet more children by a psychotic migrant?
I inquired via a Freedom of Information request about RICU’s involvement in coordinating the coverage. I received a dismissive response, stating that RICU had no involvement in writing each newspaper's headlines.
Given today’s revelations from the Daily Mail, I believe the response to my FOI was a lie.
Nick Lowles, head of HOPE Not Hate, admitted at the time that, “Yes, the list was a hoax, but just look at the front pages of today’s papers”. Perhaps the protestors were members of the “UK network of young migrant leaders” established by Hope Not Hate through grants of £240,000 (2022/2023), £275,000 (2019/2020), and £60,000 (2015/2016) received from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation? This was part of the Foundation’s “Migration Fund” finances efforts to create “network of leaders and organisations within towns who will respond to local needs and pressure points and share learning to enable rapid response to provocative elements.” The grants were subheaded “More and Better: Inclusive Towns”, and the “Hopeful Towns Network”. In other words, money was given to Hope Not Hate to mobilise large crowds in towns and cities to counteract public opposition to mass immigration and multiculturalism. Was Hope Not Hate involved in coordinating the admitted “hoax”, which led to anti-racist activists creating crowds to be photographed for the front page of multiple newspapers the following day, during the Southport riots?
Between 2020 and 2023, the Paul Hamlyn Foundation received £1.36 million in government grants. All of this was done while the Conservatives were in power. This is despite the Hamlyn Foundation giving the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants grants £225,000 in 2023, £60,000 in 2022, £210,000 in 2019, and £60,000 in 2016. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants campaigned against the government’s Rwanda Plan and “all other third-country forced resettlement agreements.” It also funded Detention Action, which brought a legal case against the Rwanda Plan. This activist network has sought to influence the Government’s Migration Advisory Committee: an unelected body established by Tony Blair, which sets the annual expected level of immigration as policy. Director of the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory, and daughter of Thatcher ally Lord Sumption, Madeline Sumption has been a member of the Migration Advisory Committee since 2016. She has received a 10-year £2 million funding grant by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation for her organisation, Compas, and sits as an advisory board member on pro-migration NGO, Reunite Families UK. It is little wonder, then, why anytime a Conservative MP or Prime Minister promised to reduce immigration, the Migration Advisory Committee recommended policies which resulted in Britain receiving record new arrivals instead.
Hope Not Hate has repeatedly and conspicuously evaded prosecution for spreading false information — including about acid attacks on Muslim women during the Southport riots, which led to armed Muslim militias taking to the streets and attacking British bystanders. Their operative, Harry Shukman, used a fraudulent passport to entrap subjects of their documentary Undercover: Exposing the Far Right. Another Hope Not Hate employee, former Labour councillor Liron Velleman, was convicted of child sex offences after being caught in a police sting sending explicit messages and images to (who he thought was) a 13-year-old girl. Velleman faced no prison time for the heinous crime.
Perhaps the Attorney General could intervene? Unlikely, given Lord Richard Hermer has condemned complaints about two-tier policing as “frankly disgusting” and “wrong”, and worked at Searchlight magazine while Nick Lowles was the editor. Hermer was still part of Searchlight’s Research Associates team as late as 2016.
Despite accusations that RICU “targets vulnerable young British Muslims”, the purpose of the British seems to be coercing the British public into accepting mass migration, multiculturalism, and Islam in the immediate aftermath of brutal murders and terror attacks. The Home Office funds violent communist activist groups to ruin the reputations of any private citizen who dares to look back in anger. A shell game is played with civil servants, government advisors, activists, and politicians, all of whom hire one another for working groups, think-tanks, and government departments to produce reports which provide a pretext for more censorship of dissident voices. Anti-racism is the sole, lethal animating principle of the British state. They will go so far as using the families of the victims of their ideology as human shields.
Effectively, the Home Office acts as a PR body for Diversity in the UK. They demand that the British public not be enraged following the atrocities perpetrated by violent immigrants that they brought into our country, before their children's bodies are cold.
The only thing that can be done is for a future government to take the British public’s side instead, promise to disestablish RICU and turn Prevent into a counter-terror programme fit for purpose, to investigate and publish all the psychological warfare operations waged against our people for decades, and to prosecute every public official involved in them. Their efforts to run interference for the crimes of immigrants have needlessly cost thousands of lives. None of these people needed to be here. But billions in resources have been spent in convincing you otherwise.
For such a government to take power, you must reject the conditioning. You have to look back in anger. You should be angry at every atrocity. You should be angry at everyone who told you not to be. And you should be angry at everyone who is still telling you that it is impossible to solve this problem. We can, and we must.
This is a seriously excellent article. Well done.
The government have been told for over three decades that they need to prepare for the possibility of civil war by the modern war fighting experts within the ministry of defence and academia. It was, largely ignored. They set up the likes of CPNI (now NPSA) and provided some grants to water companies to better protect their critical infrastructure. They didn't however do anything to grow the MODs ability to protect CNI from attack by citizens (as we saw at Brize Norton last year). Instead they setup dystopian Orwellian departments like RICU and the rest Connor has outlined above, to try and put a cap on the simmering anger and unrest. Fast forward to today, the truth, just like water, is getting out of their net and the true situation is becoming obvious. We are being ruled by venal mendacious incompetents who have no interest in our well being, the long term socioeconomic health of the country, and who will stop at nothing to keep their positions of power and wealth and foist their excuse for doing so, their ideology, on us. I think it's fair to say we have all had enough of it now.