logo
I fear Britain is lurching towards civil war, and nobody knows how to stop it

I fear Britain is lurching towards civil war, and nobody knows how to stop it

Yahoo03-04-2025

I now fear Britain is heading for open sectarian conflict, possibly war, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Here's a snapshot of what I'm hearing.
On one night in Westminster, I met someone who argued for voluntary repatriation, two generations back; a Labour activist told me we must 're-educate' Muslims; and Jacob Rees-Mogg, debating me on GB News, said Britain should take 'zero' refugees. I spluttered a reply about the good Samaritan and staggered off to bed, confused and depressed.
For two decades I've argued for controlling immigration, and successive governments, including Jacob's, increased it. Suddenly I've woken up in a land where everyone manically wants to reduce or even reverse it, and they've leapfrogged me into a pool of dark resentment.
Nigel Farage is mocked as a 'dhimmi' for appointing a Muslim to chair his party; he looks nervous of his own supporters. Even Labour has turned on the Sentencing Council, which, for all its faults, was trying to fix a genuine racial disparity (it's black people who tend to get longer sentences than whites, not the other way around).
On that last saga, so much hinges. It goes to the heart of how a society kills itself with kindness.
Nearly 200,000 YouTubers have watched an interview given to Louise Perry by David Betz, a professor of conflict studies at King's, London. Betz argues that the conditions for a failed state we ordinarily apply overseas are now found here: frayed social contract, falling trust, polarisation. Into this mix Britain injected multiculturalism, encouraging millions to move here without expecting integration.
If you think 'fear of the other' is a human instinct, the policy was mad to begin with. Combine it with economic decline and you invite ethnic competition over services and jobs.
Implicit in the Sentencing Council's guidance is the belief that when you operate a multicultural society – packed with groups with different values and experiences, advantages and handicaps – the only way to achieve equal outcomes is to treat people differently. In this spirit, says Betz, the modern state acts like an imperial administrator, promoting the interests of preferred minorities while trying to avoid a riot.
I grew up in a post-colonial world where we said 'I don't see race' and honestly, if naively, meant it. Over the past 30 years, liberal institutions have taught us to see race again – by stressing the wonders of diversity so persistently that some white people feel the state has actively taken a side against them. Ancient, binding concepts, such as 'equality before the law' ring hollow. The latest Police Race Action Plan openly rejects the principle of 'treating everyone the same' in favour of 'equality of police outcomes'.
A situation in which millions believe cops are not impartial public servants but an occupying force is the headline metric of state failure. Mainland Britain has become Ulster.
It isn't an endorsement of white resentment to acknowledge that it's real and growing, that beyond the curated Question Time audience, millions have evolved from irony to nihilism to something more disturbing. Just read the comments beneath the Betz video. 'As a 28-year-old, fighting-age male, I am ready to lay down my life for Mother England and the survival of my folk.' Viewers refer in code to Rotherham – to avoid being muted in the forum – and the grooming scandal that suggested the authorities were willing to cover up rape to maintain the peace.
The UK is 'a tinder box waiting to explode', writes an unhappy reviewer, which is also the worry of Canadian officials. In 2024, its police force produced a report warning their nation might be further buffeted by inequality, climate change and 'paranoid populism'. Separately, a government think tank warned of 'civil war… in the United States' as a potential 'underanticipated disruption'.
In fact, the low level insurgency has already begun. Ireland has seen arson at asylum hotels. Last year, Britain had riots. Why did No10 insist that so many be thrown into jail? Betz notes that while Islamist terrorism is more lethal than far-Right extremism, there are only 4 million Muslims whereas there are around 50 million whites.
Were the latter group radicalised, things might go south very fast, hence some in the security forces clearly regard white Britons as the emergent threat.
Well, when 'a formerly dominant social majority fears it is in danger of losing that dominance,' to quote Betz, it doesn't surrender its position quietly – and yet this is what elites constantly tell the white working-class they must do, while refusing to abandon their own privileges.
Labour, the party of racial and gender equality, has never seen fit to elect a non-white or a woman as leader. Neither is it willing to revive the economy with free market capitalism; nor to revive solidarity with socialism.
Instead it tries to knit the country back together with petty cash thrown at potholes or a roundtable on the spectre of white male violence. Centrist dad redux.
Labour's instinct is to lean into multiculturalism, flirting with laws against islamophobia: the worst response imaginable. In that vein, what moron thought it would be clever to ban Marine Le Pen from running for office?
Every conspiracy theory is confirmed, and without a democratic outlet for anger – seeing their aspirations limited and being too poor to emigrate – where else will a militant faction of angry whites go but to violence?
Reform is a vehicle for dissent but offers no programme for change. The Tories lack imagination, and the world they exist to preserve is dead. We have no national culture to reunite us; no universalising religion to appeal to. When I saw a Tory MP tell GB News that the Sentencing Council evinced a bias against 'white Christian' defendants, I laughed at the innocence. If someone's in the dock for murder or rape, they probably don't go to Evensong.
Betz sees no solution, so suggests we prepare for anarchy. I'm more concerned about fascism. We're not far away from a politician running for office as explicitly anti-Muslim, and to those who say authoritarianism cannot happen here, I reply: lockdown.
Did you ever think the state could imprison us in our homes? And if it can isolate the diseased from the healthy, the vaxed from the unvaxed, do you think it can't, or won't, someday separate us based on race or religion? We are literally debating the legalisation of euthanasia, a favourite tool of tyrants.
As my companion on that horrid evening spoke of repatriation, I imagined foreign-made parts of me being politely invited to leave and floating off through the window, an arm to Ireland, a foot to France. What remained prayed silently that if this country does go mad, I won't lose my head.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

It should be legal to make people angry, even by burning the Koran
It should be legal to make people angry, even by burning the Koran

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

It should be legal to make people angry, even by burning the Koran

Had Hamit Coskun torched a bible on the steps of St Paul's Cathedral would he have been charged with any crime? If he had set fire to a copy of the Torah outside a synagogue in north London's Stamford Hill, what then? Judging by this week's conviction of Coskun for burning a Koran outside the Turkish embassy in London it all depends on the reaction. His case has become a totemic free speech issue, yet it is really about how the courts interpret the law on public order and so-called 'hate' offences. People take the desecration of holy texts extremely seriously. The limits of tolerance were tested in Sweden a few years ago when a Muslim activist threatened to burn a Torah scroll outside the Israeli embassy in Stockholm. The odd thing about this was that provided permission from the police had been sought it was a perfectly lawful thing to do. But when the go-ahead was given under a constitutionally protected right to 'freedom of assembly, expression and demonstration.', the roof caved in. Isaac Herzog, the Israeli president, said 'permitting the defacement of sacred texts is not an exercise in freedom of expression, it is blatant incitement and an act of pure hate.' The threat (which in the event was not carried out) was made in response to a series of Koran burnings in Stockholm that caused fury in the Islamic world and led to an attack on the Swedish embassy in Baghdad. So, are such texts to be protected by law or does freedom of expression mean those who do not share the faith, or hold any religious beliefs, are licensed to do whatever they please? Many people in response to the Coskun case appear to believe free speech is an absolute in this country; but it isn't and never has been. For a few centuries, it is true, people have been free (or used to be free) to say what they thought provided they did not incite violence. One exception was the common law offence of blasphemy and the related crime of blasphemous libel. These were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland only last year. They continue to be offences in Northern Ireland and apply only to the Christian faith. Burning a bible in Armagh would, presumably, be considered blasphemous. English law does not forbid the burning of a holy book. Indeed, the district judge in the Coskun case was at pains to say he was not being arraigned for this but for disorderly behaviour under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Public Order Act 1986. Coskun, a Turkish-born opponent of president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, held the burning book aloft and shouted 'Islam is the religion of terrorists' and 'the Koran is burning'. It was what happened next that made this a crime. A man emerged from an adjacent property and attacked Coskun, threatening to kill him, and a passer-by joined in. He was found guilty of disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress,' motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam.' The judge said: 'What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language… That the conduct was disorderly is not better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people.' Yet if someone carrying out a legal activity, namely burning a book, is attacked then surely it is the assailant who is at fault. Arguably, Coskun was not aiming his protest at Muslims but at their religion. The two are not the same, even if adherents disagree, and our right to criticise a religion must be upheld. But our free speech protections have become so tied up with other laws that they are rendered redundant. The prosecutor in the Coskun case said his conviction did not represent any restriction on criticising religion but that is disingenuous to put it charitably. The cause of this legal confusion is the expansion of a multi-cultural society and Parliament's belief that criticising a faith is a proxy for racist hatred. Politicians believe we need laws to protect minority groups from abuse; but these are now used to shut down perfectly legitimate opinions and activities. Over the years we have seen the gradual prohibition of ideas because they hurt someone's feelings or make them angry. But as long as there is no attempt or intention to provoke violence, why should this be a matter for the criminal law? Moreover, why should it be forbidden to criticise any faith whether it be Islam, Judaism or Christianity? We are assured that this is still permitted and yet it evidently isn't if to do so leads to an arrest because it inspires a hostile reaction. The Public Order Act means any conduct deemed 'likely' to cause someone 'harassment, alarm or distress' can be punishable. The word 'likely' needs to be removed from legislation since it is impossible to define. Indeed, the fault here lies with Parliament's constant tinkering. America's founding fathers introduced the First Amendment to the constitution because they did not trust the legislature to uphold free speech. It states that 'Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech'. That is unambiguous whereas legislators here have done nothing but meddle to the point where no-one is clear where the boundaries lie any more. There is more to come with a new definition of 'Islamophobia' being drawn up by a committee appointed by Angela Rayner due to be published next month. The Coskun case has become a cause célèbre, taken up by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society which objects to the revival of a blasphemy law and is backing an appeal. In particular, it is seen as a unique protection for Islam, though I doubt Hasidic Jews would take kindly to a Torah being burned outside their synagogue after a Shabbat service. Any threat of disorder would presumably trigger an arrest, though I would not be confident of that. The cost of defending freedom can come at a much higher price than the £240 fine received by Coskun. The Swedish Koran burner, Salwan Momika, was murdered in Stockholm earlier this year. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Teenage social media influencer killed for rejecting man's advances
Teenage social media influencer killed for rejecting man's advances

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Teenage social media influencer killed for rejecting man's advances

A teenage female TikTok star was shot and killed by a man for rejecting his desperate advances, in a cold-blooded murder that shocked Pakistan with a history plagued with crimes against women. Sana Yousaf, 17, was shot at by the man who sneaked into her house in the capital Islamabad on Monday night and killed her in front of her mother, local police chief Ali Nasir Rizvi said. The police on Tuesday arrested the 22-year-old culprit from the city of Faisalabad in the central province of Punjab after several raids, online surveillance of security cameras and tracing of mobile phone locations, Rizvi said. The man confessed to his crime. 'It was a case of repeated rejections. The boy was trying to reach out to her time and again,' the police chief said at a press conference. "It was a gruesome and cold-blooded murder.' Yousaf, hailing from the remote town of Chitral near the Afghan border, had more than 800,000 followers on the popular social media app TikTok. She had another half a million followers on Instagram. Pakistan, a Muslim majority nation with a population of more than 240 million, has a history of violence against women, and murders for the rejection of marriage proposals have cropped up in the past. A US-Pakistani man beheaded his girlfriend in Islamabad in 2021 after she rejected his marriage proposal, in a crime that drew a global spotlight on the crisis in the country.

Wealthy homeowners accused of exploiting loophole to dodge 300pc tax raid
Wealthy homeowners accused of exploiting loophole to dodge 300pc tax raid

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Wealthy homeowners accused of exploiting loophole to dodge 300pc tax raid

A Labour council has launched a crackdown on wealthy homeowners after accusing them of using a loophole to evade a 300pc tax raid on empty properties. Westminster council as much as quadrupled council tax in April in a bid to stop residents leaving houses unoccupied. It also rolled out double taxes for second home owners. But the move has been met with a 'significant increase' in the number of people using loopholes to avoid paying the higher taxes, according to the local authority. It is planning a crackdown by using the Government's anti-fraud database to reveal whether or not residents are falsely claiming key exemptions. Adam Hug, the council's leader, said: 'We have found a significant increase in owners trying to evade the additional costs by reporting the property as either not empty, not a second home, or, most commonly, claiming a single-person discount. 'It is challenging for officers to evidence that the property is indeed being used as a second home, especially if that person's primary residence is outside the borough. For both these issues, we are meeting with the Government's National Fraud Initiative.' The National Fraud Initiative is an electronic database designed to share information for use by private and public sector bodies that can identify potentially fraudulent claims, payments and inconsistencies. The council estimates that there are 34,000 homes in Westminster that are not being used as a primary residence, representing a quarter of its housing stock. This includes some 4,000 registered second homes and 1,300 long-term empty properties, as well as short-term lets used by tourists and private hospital patients. The borough has some of the highest house prices in the country, with properties selling for an average £1.5m last year, according to property website Rightmove. Speaking at a conference held last month by the Empty Homes Network, a pressure group for policy to tackle vacant properties, Mr Hug said Westminster was 'highly attractive to overseas investors' who are 'extremely wealthy' and 'significantly more challenging' to contact. From April, it imposed a 100pc council tax premium on homes that have been empty for up to five years, 200pc for up to 10 years and 300pc for more than a decade. Meanwhile, second home owners are liable for a 100pc council tax premium. Westminster is not the first council to have seen a double council tax raid on second home owners backfire. Analysis reported by The Telegraph shows local authorities will lose £334m to the policy because of a raft of exemptions available to residents. Other boroughs in the capital to have implemented double council tax for second home owners include Hackney, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea. Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, has even suggested that London second home owners should pay 'much more' than the 100pc premium. Westminster council has previously called for greater powers to take control of empty properties after just six months of being vacant to tackle homelessness in the borough. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store