Our complicit elite is to blame for every sexual assault by an illegal migrant
Kirstie's journey to college takes her past a former RAF base now occupied by illegal migrants who crossed the Channel in small boats. Their ranks have swollen recently to several hundred as the Government struggles to fulfil its promise to empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament. Not by deporting the legions of undocumented young males from Africa and the Middle East – of course not, silly! – but by secretly redistributing a majority of those migrants from hotels into HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) and military facilities, presumably in the hope that the public will be less likely to notice and kick off.
But girls like Kirstie cannot fail to notice. Not when the foreign males who leer and hiss at them, as if they were living in Egypt not Essex, now outnumber the population of their village. Not when it is girls who were born here who are advised to change their behaviour to accommodate the culture of the new arrivals by being less provocative, and walking a different way to school.
Lately John, like a lot of fathers I suspect, has started fearing the worst. 'We were talking in the pub the other night and we decided that, in the end, it's men like us who will have to go down and defend our southern border,' he said to me that day in the garden.
The bees went about their buzzy business in the hollyhocks, there was a gentle trickle of water in the pond, its pump just mended by this good and reliable man. It was a quintessential English summer's day, temperate and benign as the people of these islands tend to be until roused, yet there we were, drinking our coffee and picturing thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Johns, the backbone of our country, the sturdy yeomen who have always come to the rescue in centuries past, marching to the beaches of Kent to protect us against invasion. To protect their women and children.
That may sound alarmist, apocalyptic even, but is it really? When men like John are discussing in Wetherspoons what normal people can clearly see is a national emergency, no online Starmer-Stasi snoopers can stop them much, though a panic-stricken, authoritarian government would like to shut down free speech.
Things that we would once have thought unimaginable, indeed completely bonkers, now feel like weekly, almost hourly, occurrences. Over 25,000 migrants, mostly young males, have already broken into Britain this year (49 per cent more than at the same point last year), and the nation that launched the D-Day landings against a mighty foe is now reliant on a spell of bad weather to keep the numbers down. Or on the latest doomed government 'one-in-one-out' scheme, beginning today, in which France generously allows herself to be bribed at British taxpayers' expense to take back maybe one of the 700 migrants who make the crossing in a single day, only to send the UK a substitute asylum seeker. Probably not a brain surgeon, to take a wild guess.
Not only will such a tiny chance of being deported fail to act as a deterrent, it allows Labour to slyly open up a legal route into the UK while pretending it's a benefit to us.
What would those who gave their lives in 1944 think of us – from Operation Overlord to Operation Over-Run in 80 years?
Since the 2015-2016 New Years's Eve celebrations in Cologne, when around 1,200 women were raped or sexually assaulted by gangs of foreign men, I have warned repeatedly of the consequences of admitting young males from backward, misogynist cultures into a liberal, Western society. Naturally, telling the truth got me called 'racist' and I earned a coveted place on an Islamophobia list.
But the pretence that a farmer from Afghanistan suddenly turns into Hugh Grant the minute his trainers hit the shingle at Dover was always a progressive fantasy. Sex-starved lads raised to regard women as livestock (Afghan women are no longer allowed to speak outside the home let alone go to school) are poor candidates for integration. They were always going to take gross liberties with our liberty. And so here we are.
In leafy Nuneaton, a 12-year-old girl was allegedly raped by two Afghan asylum seekers. Despite Warwickshire Police's best (make that worst) attempts to conceal their identity, Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, was charged last week with rape, while Mohammad Kabir, 23, was charged with kidnap, strangulation and aiding and abetting rape. The police explained they did not wish to reveal the suspects' immigration status for fear of exacerbating our old friend 'community tensions'. In this case, community tensions is code for furious parents who strangely don't want their daughters abducted, their innocence torn from them by barbarians who shouldn't be here in the first place.
In another incident on July 13, a Sudanese man who was living in a three-star asylum hotel in the upmarket Cheshire suburb of Wilmslow allegedly tried to lure away a girl aged 10 while she was with her father.
Epping, meanwhile, has seen fierce protests after an Ethiopian, who had only come ashore eight days earlier and was being put up at the Bell Hotel, was charged with the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl.
These alleged attacks are not an aberration; they are exactly what you would expect if you were to drop a gang of marauding vikings into a high-school prom at an all-girls' school. That has, effectively, been the policy of successive British governments. Our political class prefers to burnish their reputation among 'our international partners' by remaining in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), making deportations almost impossible, while young girls – catcalled, groped, raped, strangled, abducted – are just thought of as unfortunate collateral damage. If they think about them at all.
When it was disclosed recently that a superinjunction had been taken out by the last Conservative government to cover up importing thousands of Afghans into the UK, following a leak of names, I was berated on X by former defence minister Ben Wallace for daring to suggest that that underhand humanitarian mission could raise the level of risk for British women and girls.
Mr Wallace thought the noble purpose of extricating men who may (or may not) have aided our armed forces was what mattered. I disagreed, foreseeing ever more rapes and cultural disintegration. A fate also predicted with some urgency, I notice, by US vice president JD Vance who last week accused Europe of 'engaging in civilisational suicide'.
Coincidentally, a reader in Wiltshire got in touch to report how all those Afghans resettled in a local army camp are getting on. 'It's horrific, Allison,' she said. 'The behaviour of the Afghans in Larkhill – loitering around children's playgrounds, lads 'messing' with girls on school buses, human faeces regularly found on dog walks in camp. The GP practice is closed to soldiers one day a week to allow the migrants exclusive access. The reception staff have been handed crib sheets on how to greet Afghans in their own language. They are incensed. 'Why aren't the immigrants given crib sheets on how to address us in our own language?' '
My source says the Afghan families have been allocated most of the large houses, while soldiers who are entitled to bigger quarters are told 'there isn't a three-bed house in the whole of Wiltshire'. It's no surprise to learn that 'resentment is massive. The Afghans get free food – the truck goes round at least twice a day.
'If you drive through the camp you'd think you were in Kabul – groups of several men walking ahead of the women all covered in head-to-toe niqabs. Since the news of the superinjunction broke, they've been put under curfew. All the lads were warned that if they spoke out they'd be put on a charge.'
See how the state acts to cover up its crimes against the British people. Whether it's silencing squaddies deprived of their rightful quarters or threatening with arrest those marvellous mums and grandmothers in raucously defiant pink who performed the Hokey-Cokey before staging a sit-in outside the Britannia Hotel asylum centre in Canary Wharf. It is politicians and senior civil servants who should be arrested, I reckon. They waste stupefying amounts of our money on people unlikely to ever make a net contribution to Britain and call it compassion. For whom? The National Audit Office has just predicted that, within 10 years, the cost of asylum accommodation will reach £15.3bn. It is intolerable. Imagine all the good such a sum could do to help struggling businesses and boost employment for our young people.
Even when the popular sense of anger is palpable, as it is right now, the ability of our ruling class and much of the media to deny any adverse consequences of immigration is astonishing. I listened with mounting anger to Radio 4's PM programme on Monday (Sorry, mea culpa. I know you've told me to ditch the BBC!) where a reporter was trying to discredit data which showed that 40 per cent of sexual crimes in London were committed by foreign nationals. That, he explained, was only because migrants tend to be younger, and young men are most likely to commit those offences. I'm sure that will be a huge comfort to the traumatised women.
All credit to Nigel Farage and Robert Jenrick for causing consternation among the Open Borders fanatics by making the link between out-of-control migration and soaring rape figures. Compare the response of our woefully weak Prime Minister who wants to 'put pressure' on police chiefs to be 'as transparent as possible' about the ethnic background and immigration status of those charged with crimes such as rape and sexual assault. Even though it is the Crown Prosecution Service, which Sir Keir Starmer once ran, that refuses to keep track of the number of sexual offences by asylum seekers. We know why, don't we?
Government sources said they hoped greater transparency would 'help rebuild the public trust'. As if. That's the same government which is mounting unprecedented and sinister surveillance to keep track of 'anti-migrant' opinion. Fifty million people will shortly be helping the police with their enquiries.
'If you come here illegally on a small boat you will face return,' Sir Keir Starmer warbled at migrants yesterday. Not, 'You will be deported immediately' but 'you will face return.' Or, let's face it and far more likely, 'You will be handed a free phone and free accommodation which we will pinch from a soldier's family if we have to.'
Compare with Greece, which has set up secure camps to detain all illegal migrants for three months, all of them denied the ability to claim asylum. Emergency legislation is allowing Greeks to circumvent the ECHR. Denmark, another ECHR member, has practically closed the borders and is using gated detention camps, some housing up to 2,000 migrants who are allowed out for just two hours a day and cannot work. If a government wants to put its citizens first, it can. Ours doesn't.
From now on, I suggest we put the blame for every rape, abduction and strangling by an illegal migrant squarely where it belongs – on the Government, Home Office civil servants and complicit media class.
We don't want a one-in-one-out scheme, thanks all the same. We want a 50,000-in-50,000-out scheme. We want Kirstie and every girl like her to be able to walk unmolested to school, not to be hissed at by men who lack all respect for our values and our women.
If our leaders are too weak to act, lovely John and the yeomen of Britain will go to the border, and they will do what needs to be done.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
We must have transparency over migrants and crime. The politicians who lose control of our borders cannot be allowed to hide the consequences from us
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, looking more beleaguered and sounding less convincing than ever, said yesterday that the police should routinely reveal the nationality and asylum status of those charged with criminal offences. New legal guidance, she promised, would shortly be issued for police forces to provide greater 'transparency'. Not for the first time, Labour was rushing to follow in the footsteps of Nigel Farage 's Reform party. Only 24 hours before, as part of Reform's 'Britain is lawless' campaign, Farage had called for the ethnicity of suspects charged with rape and sexual assaults to be made public. Now Cooper was in a hurry to oblige.
Daily Mail
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
What a Hiroshima-sized blast would have done to LONDON: Unseen government diagrams imagine carnage if nuke was used on UK in 1945
Imagine a very different end to the Second World War. Instead of the US dropping the world's first atomic bombs on Japan, it was the Japanese hammering London with the devastating new weapon. In 1945, that is more or less what was considered by the British government, which was freshly in the hands of Labour's Clement Attlee after his triumph over Winston Churchill at that year's election. Official diagrams envisaged the impact of atomic bomb blasts in London, with the force described as being equivalent to what was unleashed on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945. One of the two maps - recently seen by the Mail at the National Archives in Kew, West London - imagines the impact of a bomb detonated over Trafalgar Square. It said everything within 1,000 yards of the epicentre - so all of Whitehall, Covent Garden and St James' Palace - would be totally wiped out. Then, there would have been damage 'beyond repair' to areas within a distance of one mile - including the rest of Westminster, Buckingham Palace, the BBC 's headquarters and the British Museum. The likes of St Paul's Cathedral, Smithfield Market, Victoria Station and Marble Arch were within the third ring up to 1.5 miles away, described as 'uninhabitable without major repairs'. The final ring - up to 2.5 miles away - includes King's Cross Station, the Bank of England, Tower Bridge, Battersea Power Station and Regent's Park. Everything in this area would have been 'uninhabitable without first aid repairs', the report's authors said. The two maps feature as part of a file that also includes a report titled, 'An Investigation of the Effects of the Atomic Bombs Dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki', which was compiled after an official visit to the ruined cities by British officials. The other map gives a wider view, showing the impact of five blasts over London. Again the explosions are 'as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki'. As well as the bomb over Trafalgar Square, four others are depicted detonating over Poplar in East London; in Primrose Hill above Regent's Park; in Hammersmith in West London and in Tooting in South London. Collectively, they would have rendered nearly all of Central London a flattened wasteland. Areas such as Lambeth in the south of the capital would have been unscathed, but the borough's inhabitants would have faced having to grapple with a likely total breakdown in law and order and a collapse of the emergency services. Although the official report - which was compiled by the British Mission to Japan - is dated December 1945, the maps themselves were made the following year, as an Ordnance Survey label on them shows. The key on the map detailing how everything up to a distance of 1,000 yards from the epicentre of the blast would have been 'demolished' The foreword to the report optimistically concluded: 'His Majesty's Government consider that a full understanding of the consequences of the new form of attack may assist the United Nations Organisation in its task of securing the control of atomic energy for the common good and in abolishing the use of weapons of mass destruction.' The British mission included scientists and senior officials in the Home Office, War Office and Air Ministry. It laid out in horrifying detail the devastation wrought by 'Little Boy' and 'Fat Man' - the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by US forces. In Hiroshima, the blast - at 8.15am on August 6, 1945 - obliterated everything within the surrounding square mile, killing around 80,000 people in the blink of an eye. At least 30,000 more died from their devastating injuries in the 48 hours that followed. A total of five square miles of the city were consumed by fire storms, and the blast obliterated 90 per cent of Hiroshima's structures. The police, fire and ambulance services were all virtually wiped out, with survivors left to fend for themselves before help arrived from further afield. The attack on Nagasaki came on August 9, after Japan refused to surrender despite the carnage in Hiroshima. The key for the second map, explaining the colours detailing the respective levels of destruction The device - Fat Man - was carried by the B-29 bomber named Bockscar. It claimed at least 50,000 more lives and wiped out a third of the city. Japan finally agreed to the Allies' terms of surrender on August 14. The British Mission's report estimated that, for several reasons, the impact of a blast like the ones that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be less devastating in London. Because of factors such as population density, the presence of well-built houses offering more protection and better rescue services than in Japan, the death toll from a single blast is estimated at 50,000. But the report chillingly added: 'The comparable figure for the German V2 rocket was about 15 dead'. The authors continued: 'The figure of 50,000 dead from one atomic bomb in average British urban conditions is probably the most important which this report contains. 'It shows that much of the most serious effect of the atomic bomb is in producing casualties. 'The problem of providing against and of treating gamma ray casualties is exceptionally grave and difficult.' The explosion of a bomb of the power of those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have wiped out around 30,000 houses in a British city. Between 50,000 and 100,000 more properties would be rendered temporarily uninhabitable. The report went on: 'Thus a total of roughly 400,000 people might be rendered temporarily homeless'. It was not until the 1970s - when the risk of conflict with the Soviet Union was high - that the Government's public information campaign advising what to do in the event of a nuclear attack was released. The 'Protect and Survive' series told Britons to prepare a 'fall-out room' in which they would need to store enough food and water for two weeks. They were also advised to bring the likes of kitchen utensils, a portable radio, toilet paper, a bucket and a first aid kit. Shortly after the leaflet was released, expert critics said the advice would not be helpful. One said the protective measures were 'illusory' because people would immediately 'panic' in the event of a nuclear attack. The Protect and Survive campaign also included newspaper adverts, radio broadcasts and public information films. Whilst the campaign had been intended for use only in an emergency, it came to public attention in a series of newspaper articles. The Government then decided to publish the leaflet in May 1980 and the public information films were leaked to the BBC and anti-nuclear group CND. The 1984 BBC drama Threads depicted the horrifying consequences of a nuclear attack on Britain. Threads was watched by seven million people on BBC Two and won four Baftas, but it also left many viewers traumatised. The gruesome details - the shocking burns, the radiation sickness, the obliteration of buildings following the imagined attack on the city of Sheffield - were a constant presence in the drama. Dozens of those who watched were so shaken that they called the charity Samaritans for support.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
UK to bear transport costs of ‘one in, one out' asylum seeker deal with France
The UK will pay the costs of transporting asylum seekers to and from France under Keir Starmer's 'one in, one out' deal with Emmanuel Macron, it has emerged. The deal will have to be renewed by 11 June next year, and can be ended at a month's notice by either side, documents made public by the government indicate. A copy of the agreement was released on Tuesday as the prime minister comes under increasing pressure to stop boats carrying asylum seekers from crossing the Channel. The deal will allow the UK to return one person who has entered the country by irregular means in return for taking someone in France whose claim for asylum in the UK is expected to have a greater chance of success. It has been trumpeted by ministers as a 'gamechanging' deal but Home Office sources said it will only apply to about 50 asylum seekers at first. 'All transport costs incurred in connection with readmission pursuant to this agreement shall be borne by the United Kingdom,' the documents state. They continue: 'Those accepted for admittance [from France] … shall be provided by the United Kingdom with transport from a designated place to the United Kingdom (at the cost of the United Kingdom).' If people have an outstanding claim for asylum, they cannot be removed, the deal says. France can reject a requested removal if it 'considers that an individual would be a threat to public policy, internal security, public health or the international relations of any of the Schengen states'. So far in 2025, 25,436 people have arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel in small boats – a record for this point in the year since data began being collected in 2018. This is up 48% on this point last year (17,170) and 70% higher than at this stage in 2023 (14,994), according to PA news agency analysis of Home Office data. At least 10 people have died while attempting the journey this year, according to reports by French and UK authorities, but there is no official record of fatalities in the Channel.
