Tommy Robinson

Britain on the Brink

THE BRINK.

What is this brink that we are on ?

Political disruption? Violence? Revolution?

I didn’t know much about Tommy before the Triggernometry interview, I thought he was just a far-right racist who was obsessed with Islam and Muslims.

After watching the interview a couple of times, I wasn’t so sure that he was actually racist.

During that interview he said that some of the best lads he knew growing up were Muslims. He also condemned violence and abuse towards Muslims, saying that if you abuse a Muslim woman walking down the street then you are a coward, and if you smash up a mosque then you are a moron.

Prior to that interview I don’t think I’d ever heard him say anything good about Muslims at all.

I did come away from the interview thinking that he was a bit too obsessed with Muslims and immigration. And I think that people call him racist for this obsession because it’s the closest word we have for what people are trying to say about him. But actually racist doesn’t apply to Tommy as far as I can tell.

Tommy doesn’t appear to believe that the white race is superior to any other race.

During the Triggernometry interview, Tommy insinuated that his problem wasn’t with all Muslims, but was with Islamism, although he seems to flip-flop a little bit on this.

During a surprise call to LBC presenter Maajid Nawaz back in 2017, Tommy and Maajid go back and forth on this issue. Initially Tommy said to Maajid that “he knows that there is a difference between Islamism and Muslims”, but after the Westminster attack Tommy tweeted that “for 1400 years we have been attacked by Muslims”.

During that call on LBC Maajid then forces Tommy to clarify his position, and Tommy confirms that of course “it’s not all Muslims”, and that what Tommy is really concerned about is Islamic extremism and Islamism.

So this is something that Tommy has been guilty of in the past, in not articulating the difference between normal British Muslims who don’t seek to impose Sharia law, and Islamists that do seek to impose Sharia law.

To understand Tommy’s obsession with Islamism, you have to understand his lived experience. The experience of growing up in Luton in the 1980s, an extremely poor town, rife with crime and violence, and undeniably, a place where radical Islam thrived and was even protected by the local authorities. You can’t dispute his upbringing and you can’t dispute the fact that multiple terrorist plots came out of Luton such as:

• The “Fertiliser Bomb” Plot (Operation CREVICE, discovered 2004)

• The “Toy Car Bomb” Plot (2011-2012)

• Mohiussunnath Chowdhury’s Plotting (Convicted 2020)

• 7/7 London Bombings (2005): The four suicide bombers who carried out the deadly attacks on the London transport system met at Luton railway station on the morning of July 7, 2005, before travelling to London. While the plot was planned elsewhere, Luton was the final assembly and departure point.

His lived experience is a powerful one, and you can see how he become obsessed with Islamism, because it posed a serious threat to him in his early formative years of development which then became a significant part of his identity.

Tommy Robinson raises important questions around Islamism, British Culture, and Islam.

First lets define Islamism.

Islamism is a political ideology that believes that Islam should play a central role in political and social life, while Islam is a religion practiced by nearly two billion people worldwide. Islamism is a distinct and modern phenomenon that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is not synonymous with the religion of Islam itself.

Islamism is a political movement, not a form of religious piety. It seeks to establish a state and society based on its specific interpretation of Islamic law.

Islamists believe that Islam is a comprehensive system that provides guidance for all aspects of life, including governance, law, and social order. They reject the separation of religion and state.

Many Islamist ideologies reject Western principles such as liberal democracy, secularism, and individual freedoms, which they see as being in conflict with their understanding of Islamic values.

It’s important to differentiate between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a faith, while Islamism is a political project that uses and draws upon Islamic symbols and traditions to achieve its political objectives.

Tommy Robinson was born in 1982 in Luton, his Mum was an Irish immigrant who herself was one of 8 children. He came from a poor background and was brought up in one of the poorest and roughest towns in the UK.

He says that he experienced racism from a young age, mostly from Pakistani Muslims, and also said that Luton was a town divided not by race, but by religion.

At his school he describes there being a Muslim playground at the front, and a non-Muslim playground at the back.

He remembers 13-year-old girls meeting Pakistani Muslim men after school and going to give them blowjobs and recalls thinking at the time that these girls were just “a bunch of stupid slags”. He then later realised that they were in fact children who were being taken advantage of and groomed by older men. He said that his own cousin was groomed by these men, hooked on heroin, and gang raped.

He recalls at that time a murder of a man named Mark Sharp, who after getting in a road rage incident with a group of men, was then followed and beaten to death by a group of Muslim lads.

In the case of Mark Sharp, two men were later convicted of his murder and sentenced to life in prison at Luton Crown Court, but Tommy maintains that the punishment was not severe enough, stating that the other men who participated only got a few years in prison.

The case has been referenced by Tommy Robinson as a particularly brutal murder that left a deep impression on the community and on him personally.

In 2011 Tommy went on the Jeremy Paxman show and said this:

“Do you know anyone that is hooked on heroin sold to them by Muslim gangs, you probably don’t I do, do you know any beautiful girls that you went to school with that are now wearing a burka that don’t see their families, you probably don’t I do, do you know anyone that has been murdered by a Muslim gang? you don’t I do. Do you know any 15-year-old girls that you grew up with that have been raped and pimped, you probably don’t I do. So, I don’t expect you to understand these issues.”

“They’re not happening in the Sikh community or the Jewish community; they’re happening within the Islamic community.” Tommy believes that these issues are specific to the Muslim community.

Tommy said that “in every town in the UK, white British girls are getting raped by Muslims.”

Tommy is obviously referring to the grooming gang scandal which Elon Musk publicly amplified on his social media platform X.

The Grooming Gang Scandal

The grooming gang scandal refers to a series of child sexual exploitation cases that have come to light across the United Kingdom, particularly since the early 2010s. These cases are characterised by groups of men who groom and sexually abuse vulnerable children, often over long periods of time.

The most well-known case is the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal.

An independent report in 2014 found that at least 1,400 children were victims of sexual exploitation in the town between 1997 and 2013. The report highlighted significant institutional failures by the police and local council to address the issue. Subsequent police investigations, like Operation Stovewood, have identified over 1,510 victims in the Rotherham area alone.

Similar scandals have been uncovered in other UK towns and cities, including Rochdale, Telford, Oxford, and Huddersfield. The pattern of abuse in these cases often involves:

• Targeting vulnerable children, some as young as 9 years old, including those in foster care or with troubled family backgrounds.

• Grooming victims with gifts, alcohol, and drugs to gain their trust and isolate them from their families and friends.

• Group-based offending, where multiple perpetrators are involved in the abuse.

A significant and often contentious aspect of the scandal is the ethnicity of the perpetrators. Multiple reports and investigations have confirmed that a disproportionately high number of men convicted in these cases were of British Pakistani heritage. For example, the 2014 Rotherham report found the perpetrators were “overwhelmingly men of Pakistani heritage.”

While this is a documented fact for these specific cases, it’s important to note that child sexual abuse is not confined to any one ethnic group.

Broader data in the UK shows that the majority of perpetrators of all forms of child sexual abuse are white.

The ethnicity of perpetrators in group-based offenses mirrors the demographics of the overall population: 85% of suspects in group-based offences are white, while 7% are Asian.

This highlights that child sexual abuse is a widespread societal issue, not one confined to any specific ethnic or cultural group. The most common forms of abuse are perpetrated by someone the child knows and trusts, most often within a family environment.

While media and public attention on “grooming gangs” have focused on specific cases with a disproportionate number of British-Pakistani perpetrators, these cases represent a small fraction of overall child sexual abuse offences.

There is an interesting debate to be had about people coming from overseas, from cultures which are inherently misogynistic, and whether they bring those cultures with them. The difficulty is that only recently, there was convictions of a grooming gang in Glasgow, which was entirely white Scottish people.

They took kids to a house that a child nick-named “the beastie house” where they also sold drugs, and raped them, and so what’s the cultural explanation for why they did it?

With the grooming gang scandal, we have to say that culture obviously influenced some of these people, especially in how they got away with it, in how they formed networks that were based around ethnicity, but this is not a unique evil to the British Pakistani community, or to Islam.

There is plenty of misogyny which is inherent in extreme forms of Islam, but we should try and treat people as individuals. The vast majority of British Muslims would have nothing to do with that sort of thing and find it completely disgusting just like the rest of us.

So, to what extent can we draw wider lessons from the ethnicity of these men?

Then there was the fact that these men were often working in the minicab industry, or running shisha bars or takeaways and were operating in the night time economy. So it’s useful to see it a bit like school shootings, which is that it’s a particular type of crime, that comes over a particular set of social circumstances, and race is a part of that, class is a part of that, misogyny is a part of that, as is the night time economy.

A particular kind of crime that arises from a particular set of social circumstances.

Part of Tommy’s fury around the grooming gang scandal, is this idea that no one wanted to talk about it and that it was covered up over concerns of racism or islamophobia.

The scandal was initially broken by Andrew Norfolk back in 2012, and the times ran a series of front page covers on it.

Julie Bindel also tried to write about it in the 2000s but she said she was turned down by a paper. Julie and Andrew were both accused of being Islamophobic for pointing out the racial dimensions in the case.

So there is something legitimate in the idea that the story was suppressed because of a concern over racism and islamophobia.

And then 10 years later a billionaire from South Africa comes along with his social media battering ram, hears about the grooming gangs for the first time and assumes that he has broken the case, and starts knocking at the gates.

The charitable account of Elon’s involvement in this case is this:

“I don’t care who write a few articles in the times about this 10 years ago, this is diagnostic of everything that ails left-wing society. This should have been talked about 100 times more and I’m going to use my megaphone to talk about it right now. And that fact that I was late to the party doesn’t matter, the fact that courageous people wrote about this before I knew about it, doesn’t matter, because it never should have required courage, it should have just required moral sanity.”

One of the reasons perhaps that liberals are so tense about the grooming gang scandal, is because they feel like they are being asked to subscribe to the view that Islam has no place in Europe, and that is the shadow argument that is just out of sight, and maybe people would feel better if that was just out in the open. But that is lurking in the background unacknowledged.

Terrorism

After Tommy raises the issue of the grooming gangs, he then goes on to say that terrorism is a problem specific to the Muslim community.

I asked AI if it is true to say that most of the terrorism in the UK is Islamic and it came back with this:

It’s accurate to say that in recent years, Islamist terrorism has been the most significant and prevalent threat in the UK by volume, though it’s important to understand this in a broader context.

Here are some key points and statistics from official sources like MI5 and the Home Office:

UK counter-terrorism authorities categorize the threat into several ideologies. These are primarily:

• Islamist terrorism

• Extreme right-wing terrorism

• Northern Ireland-related terrorism

• Left-wing, anarchist, or single-issue terrorism

According to MI5, Islamist terrorism accounts for a significant majority of its counter-terrorism casework. For example, a 2023 report indicated that 75% of MI5’s caseload was focused on monitoring Islamist threats, while 80% of the Counter Terrorism Police network’s live investigations were Islamist.

• Since the early 2000s, most major terrorist attacks on UK mainland soil have been linked to Islamist extremism, including the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 and the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017.

• However, it’s crucial to look at the longer-term history of terrorism in the UK. Historically, the most widespread and deadly form of terrorism was related to the Northern Ireland conflict (The Troubles). The vast majority of the over 3,000 terrorism-related deaths in the UK since 1970 were a result of this conflict.

• Growing Threats: While Islamist terrorism remains the primary threat, authorities have also noted a sharp increase in activity related to extreme right-wing terrorism since around 2017. The number of arrests, referrals, and plots related to this ideology have risen, and it is considered a significant and growing concern.

In summary, while the overall number of historical terrorism-related deaths is dominated by the Troubles, in terms of recent and ongoing activity, the current threat picture in the UK is heavily skewed towards Islamist terrorism, with extreme right-wing terrorism being the second most significant and rising threat.

So, at least for now, Tommy is right in his assessment that modern day terrorism is a problem dominated by Islamism.

I find terrorism a weird one, because when it happens, it’s terrifying and it’s brutal and horrible and it rightfully makes people angry and sad and depressed. But I’ve always had the view, that statistically it’s insignificant.

For example, in the last 10 years, there were 42 terrorist related fatalities in the UK.

But every year there are 1600 deaths on the road, which is about 4 people a day. This is a real problem and something one day self-driving cars will solve.

There are also about 600 murders every year.

There are 5,000 drug related deaths every year. 13 a day.

And there are 7,000 suicides a year. 19 people a day.

Is terrorism something we should be worried about? Or at least, is it something we should be this worried about? What’s an appropriate hierarchy of worries?

Why do we care about and talk about terrorism when the number of deaths are so low in comparison to other unnecessary ways of dying?

Because it’s such a powerful story of good and evil? An evil terrorist, consumed by evil thoughts, murdering good innocent people, sometimes children. And there is the us and them narrative which strikes every human being in a place somewhere deep and primal and ancient. A unknown alien, lurking on the edge of the forest. Who is that?

Terrorism is an issue, but it’s one that MI5 seem to have under control. In the meantime we could divert our attention to other unnecessary ways of dying, like 7,000 suicides a year, and 5,000 drug related deaths, and 1600 road deaths.

Imagine if 7,000 people a year were killed because of terrorism, the country would have a violent revolution wouldn’t it. But because suicide happens in the dark, we just don’t see or hear about it, so we don’t care about it. Or at least we don’t care about it enough.

It’s not as powerful a story as a scary Muslim terrorist that shoots up a festival and massacres 40 people. But maybe the more interesting story is that there is a suicide bomber in the crowd of your mind, and you should be aware of him.

7,000 people a year is a genuinely terrifying amount of self-murder.

And 720,000 is the global amount every year.

That’s about 2,000 people every single day, 75% of those in low- and middle-income countries.

80 people, every hour of every day, hurling themselves into the abyss.

After making the claim that Terrorism is a problem to the Islamic community, Tommy then goes on to talk about the girl getting sent home for wearing a Union Jack dress, in which a school was forced to apologise after it sent a 12-year-old pupil home for wearing a Union Jack dress at a class about diversity.

Courtney Wright wore the Spice Girls-style dress to Bilton School in Rugby, Warwickshire , after students were encouraged to wear “traditional cultural dress” to celebrate the “rich diversity of our community”.

But the Year 7 straight A student was removed from her class on Friday and told to wait in reception until her father Stuart Field, 47, collected her.

Mr Field told MailOnline: “It’s ironic they were having a cultural diversity day but then decided to single out a group of people. Others were allowed in burkas, niqabs or traditional Nigerian clothing.”

“Somebody at the school has politicised a Union Jack dress even though that was clearly not Courtney’s intent. She wanted to celebrate being British, she couldn’t understand what was wrong with that.”

Tommy believes that the police protect Muslims free speech but not white British people. And he says that people call him a racist as a way to shut down important debate.

Tommy criticises the Quran and it’s teachings and attributes violence and malevolence to the book.

But is the Quran inherently violent, or more violent than the other religious books?

This question is a subject of significant debate. Some verses, when read in isolation, can be interpreted as encouraging violence. However, a majority of scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, argue that these verses must be understood within their historical and full context, particularly regarding self-defence and resisting oppression.

The Quran and Violence

The Quran contains a mix of verses related to conflict. Some passages are seen as permitting fighting in self-defence, for instance, when Muslims are being persecuted or aggressed upon. Other verses call for peace, forgiveness, and mercy. Critics point to what are known as the “sword verses,” which command fighting against “pagans” and “unbelievers.” However, modern scholars contend that these verses were directed at specific groups that had broken treaties with early Muslims, and are not a blanket commands for violence against all non-Muslims

Comparing the Quran and the Bible for violence is also complex.

Some studies have used text analysis to compare the content of both books. One such study found that the Old Testament contains more than twice as many mentions of “killing and destruction” as the Quran. The New Testament also has slightly more references to violence than the Quran.

The nature of violence in the two texts is often different. Many of the violent passages in the Bible are historical narratives describing events, such as wars and massacres, that occurred in the distant past. In contrast, critics of the Quran argue that some of its violent verses are prescriptive, meaning they are direct commands for followers to act on. However, this is also a point of major scholarly disagreement, as many interpreters insist that the Quranic verses on violence are not universal commands for all time.

Ultimately, both the Quran and the Bible contain passages that can be used to justify violence, and both contain messages of peace and forgiveness. The way these texts are interpreted and applied by followers is what determines the outcome.

Tommy relieves that Islamophobia laws prevent people from openly criticising religious books.

Konstantin then says during the interview:

“But what I genuinely don’t understand is where we go from here, because what your saying is Islamic doctrine, is divisive, and hateful towards non Muslims, and it’s about domination, and its incompatible with western freedom and democracy. But it cant be just a Muslim thing though, because Uzbekistan where I grew up doesn’t have this problem, they don’t have grooming gangs or extremists.”

Francis also points that out, the fact that some powerful Muslim countries are starting to show signs of changing values.

For example in Saudi Arabia:

• Under MBS’s “Vision 2030,” Saudi Arabia has seen a dramatic shift in social norms. The country has lifted the ban on women driving, stripped the religious police of much of their authority, and allowed cinemas and public concerts. There are new laws to combat domestic violence and criminalise discrimination against women. These social changes are part of a broader plan to modernise the economy, create jobs, and open the country to tourism.

And in the United Arab Emirates:

• The UAE has a more liberal reputation than its neighbours. However, it has also recently introduced significant legal reforms. It has decriminalised cohabitation for unmarried couples, removed punishments for alcohol consumption, and eased divorce and custody laws for foreign residents.

• The UAE promotes a message of tolerance and has introduced visa programs to attract skilled workers and long-term residents.

And in Oman:

• Oman has also been quietly introducing reforms, particularly under its “Vision 2040” plan. These changes are primarily economic, focusing on attracting foreign investment and reforming the labour market. The country has also made some legal changes aimed at improving social protections for workers.

And in Morocco:

• Morocco has been undergoing a series of reforms to its family code, or moudawana. These changes have significantly improved women’s rights in areas like marriage, divorce, and child custody. The king has explicitly pushed for further reforms to grant women their “legal and legitimate rights.”

The extent and nature of these reforms vary widely, and they often come with a complex mix of social liberalisation and limited political freedom. While leaders like MBS are praised for social change, they are also criticized for human rights issues and a lack of political reform.

We shouldn’t forget that Saudi Arabia beheaded 338 people in the year of 2024, mostly for drug related charges, so there’s definitely still some work to do.

Konstantin argues that Muslim countries are a lot better at dealing with Islamic extremism than we are, and part of that surely is our sensitivity around policing or punishing bad ideas to do with religion.

Tommy then says : “There was a worry about me because there is an element of violence sometimes, but that’s just me defending myself. If you listen to my message, after Lee Rigby’s attack, I stood with 10,000 EDL supporters in Newcastle, and in my speech I said, there’s 600 Muslims serving in the British armed forces, they are doing a hell of a lot more for this country than we are. If you abuse a Muslim woman walking down the street, you are a coward, if you smash up a mosque, you’re a fucking moron. So, my message has always been this.”

What Tommy is saying here, and maybe what he needs to emphasise more often, is that the problem is not with Muslims, it’s with Muslims who are not aligned with British values. It would do a lot of good if he reminded his supporters of those British Muslims in the army and the good that they are doing for the country. There obviously are racists and bigots who follow Tommy, and they should regularly receive the message that the problem is not with Muslims.

I think what Tommy really wants is for Muslims and immigrants to subscribe to British ideas and contribute to the countries’ prosperity. Perhaps the vast majority of them already do.

Tommy goes on to say though that there is a lot of anger building up and it has been building for years.

In 2024 an illegal asylum seeker from Morocco stabbed a 70 year old man to death to protest against Israel and Britain support for Israel.

Tommy says that there have been 8 Muslim migrants in hotels who have raped women, there have been 25 sexual assaults against kids from migrants in hotels, this week there was a 12-year-old raped by 2 afghanis.

But an investigation into offences committed by those housed in asylum hotels has found that hundreds have been charged with crimes this year. Of the 32,000 people currently living in asylum hotels, 339 appeared before magistrates in the first six months of 2025 for crimes such as GBH, robbery and rape.

According to statistics, around 1.37 million people appear before magistrates each year, with the data suggesting that asylum seekers were around half as likely to appear than the general population.

An investigation carried out by The Sun, believes that the number of asylum hotel residents appearing before the courts could be higher due to the Home Office’s refusal to publish the location of around half of the 210 believed to be operating. Of the cases monitored in the investigation, 29 related to sexual offences, consisting of seven alleged rapes, one proven incident of indecent exposure and another of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child.

The revelations from the Mail on Sunday come as over 23,000 small boat migrants have crossed the Channel so far this year.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “This shocking Mail investigation lays bare the risk posed by these illegal immigrants to the British public.

“We just need to deport all illegal immigrants immediately upon arrival, with no judicial process, either to Rwanda or elsewhere.”

As of now, 11,800 people have arrived by small boat this year in the UK. This figure reflects the ongoing issue of illegal immigration via small boats, which remains a significant concern for the UK government.

Towards the end of the Tommy Robinson interview, Tommy explains how the Sikh community in Essex were having some trouble with some local white lads who were abusing them. Tommy said that he went down to the area and had a chat with the local lads and told them that “they are the best immigrants that this country has ever had”.

On October 15, 2021, David Amess, a British politician and Member of Parliament for Southend West, was fatally stabbed during a constituency surgery at a church hall in Leigh-on-Sea. He died from multiple stab wounds to the chest.

His killer, Ali Harbi Ali, a British citizen and Islamic State sympathizer, was arrested at the scene. In April 2022, Ali was convicted of murder and the preparation of terrorist acts. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order.

The murder of Sir David Amess was described as a terrorist act motivated by Islamic extremism. Ali had researched a list of MPs who voted for airstrikes in Syria and planned the attack for two years

Francis explains that he knew David Ames briefly before his murder by an Islamic terrorist, and that the response to his murder left him feeling hopeless. Tommy says that he can see that Francis is getting emotional because he knew David, and that same emotion is what drives Tommy, because he knows people that these issues have affected.

This is something which I think we should understand about Tommy Robinson, he’s only human, and he grew up in a rough environment, in a town riddled with crime, and poverty, and Islamic extremism. And this experience of Islamism at its worst, shaped him and his sense of identity. We know that peoples sense of identity is strongly shaped by the experiences they had going through puberty, and so it makes sense that this is why Tommy is the way he is.

A lot of this is a natural emotional fear response to a lived experience, something that most privileged people like myself have never had to deal with.

My experience with British Muslims has always been a positive one. And a very diverse one.

They appeared in my life in many forms, one guy we went to school with was very intelligent, a grade A student, always up for a debate about Islam and Atheism, but a very friendly and open guy who only rarely showed signs of intolerance during debate. There was some intolerance towards the gay community and depictions of Allah, but he was 15 years old at the time and I would be eager to know what he thinks today.

Another guy I knew was someone I worked with at Starbucks who was from Algeria, 6Ft 2, always a massive smile on his face, he would give me a hug every time I saw him. And actually, many years later I saw him in Sainsburys and he came up to me and gave me a big hug and asked what I was up to.

A woman at my old job, a mother to a young daughter, hard worker, great in her role and a wonderful person that everyone enjoyed being around.

There were more Muslims that I worked with, one of them a wickedly smart entrepreneur who actually helped de-radicalise me from the far left and warned me of the dangers of believing in sets of ideas rigidly and choosing one side over another. Pretty sure he’s a millionaire right now. His brother was entrepreneurial too but in other less legal areas, he was a good person and always helped me out whenever I needed, and we had many enjoyable debates about life and religion.

So, my lived experience of Muslims has been profoundly positive, and this has obviously shaped the way I see Islam.

I’ve seen them across the spectrum, from quite strict conservatist Muslims, to very relaxed law-breaking Muslims and everything in between. And what my experience told me was that just like everyone else, they are human, and they exist along many different spectrums just like we all do.

There was nothing in my lived experience of Muslims that even hinted that they might not be compatible with western values. But the difference between me and Tommy is that I grew up in an affluent area.

Tommy’s experience of Muslims was in Luton, a very poor area, especially at the time that he grew up in the 80s. And so I believe his experience was specific to Luton, and specific to Pakistani Muslims living in poor areas, and therefore not generalisable to the wider Muslim community.

So, to summarise Tommy’s position.

Tommy Robinson’s argument, in its most simple form, seems to be that Muslims in the UK are failing to integrate into the country and that they don’t share our values and beliefs.

He also argues that illegal Muslim immigrants are coming over on boats from France, living in hotels at the taxpayers’ expense, raping young girls, and that they represent a potential terrorist threat.

His concerns are mostly:

• Protecting children, especially vulnerable women and girls in society.

• Protecting our borders, stopping the illegal migration.

• Protecting British culture and identity from too much foreign influence.

• Protecting against Islamism.

• Protecting against terrorism.

• Protecting freedom of speech.

These seem to be Tommy’s main points on the issue of Islam.

Let’s go into illegal immigration first.

The first one and the easiest in my admittedly naïve opinion, would be stopping the boats coming over from France.

But according to a 2025 government report, a substantial number of people who ultimately become undocumented or seek asylum in the UK do not arrive via small boats from France.

A significant portion of asylum seekers—37% in the year ending June 2025—had previously entered the UK legally on a visa (such as a study, work, or visitor visa) and overstayed or had their leave to remain cancelled. Other routes include stowing away on lorries or ferries.

• The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants points out that there is no definitive figure for the total number of undocumented people in the UK. Many of these individuals may have been in the UK for years and are not recent arrivals. Their status may have lapsed due to a variety of reasons, including administrative errors, financial hardship, or failed asylum claims. The most significant region of origin for this wider undocumented population is Asia.

So while the number of people crossing the Channel from France is a major component of recent irregular migration, it does not represent the majority of all undocumented migrants in the UK. Many people enter through other means, including legal routes, before becoming undocumented.

So that’s a hard problem to solve, but perhaps Kier Starmer’s digital ID might help solve it.

I think it wouldn’t be too hard to harshly police the English Channel, to turn away boats, to send them back to France, to try and arrest and deport the human traffickers and the migrants to Rwanda. A few weeks of this and people would stop making that journey, once news reaches them that they will get deported to Rwanda, or put in prison, or simply sent back to France. People would be much less willing to part with any cash if it didn’t guarantee their arrival in the UK.

But that might only account for a third of the total illegal migration to the country, how do you stop the other two thirds that come here legally on a flight and just overstay their visa and destroy all of their documents. How do you find these people once they are in society, and once you find them, is it ok to deport them to Rwanda regardless of where they came from originally?

To enact this mass deportation of illegal immigrants, you would surely have to have an organisation like ICE in the UK. Maybe this is what the British people want, and if that’s what the democracy votes for then so be it. It would be a case of profiling people based on what they look like and the language they speak and the kinds of jobs they are working in. Asking for their documents, arresting them, investigating, deporting.

It would be a lot of intense and difficult work to do, it would require a lot of money and training. I could see a situation where it could be done, but we would have to be careful that we are as compassionate and kind to the people that we deport as possible. We’re not America, so there is less risk of gun violence, but there would be mistakes made, and abuses of power and people deported that never should have been. But on the balance of things, this might be what the British people want and sign up for, and so the government is obliged to carry out what its people vote for.

Personally, I would be quite comfortable deporting undocumented single males to Rwanda. And very uncomfortable deporting women, children, old people, and whole families, regardless of their legality. Then again if you made that a policy then the single men might try and abuse the system by pretending that they are part of a family, or paying women to act as their partners. Although maybe as a rule you could set it so that no family gets deported as long as they have at least one child. But single men and women can get deported? I don’t know. All seems a bit messy.

Tommy’s second point worth addressing. This is around kids, protecting kids from grooming, rape, gang rape, paedophiles. Essentially just protecting children.

This is something I would like for us as a society to take much more seriously by empowering the government and giving them much more information about our children. This is what I would like to see happen:

Every child in the UK up until a certain age, has to wear a kind of smart device, like a smart ring or watch. This device can detect things like their heart rate and can alert the government to any potential signs of abuse. I’m guessing that most children when experiencing abuse are showing physiological signs consistent with some kind of extreme experience. Signs that might alert authorities.

Let’s say a child is being tortured by their parent, and their heart rate rises, and other physiological signs are obvious, and this information is then sent to the police. This could activate a microphone on the smart device, which allows an officer to listen to what is happening. Which would enable the police to make a judgement about whether to investigate and perform a welfare check on the child.

I first thought about this in the case of Sara Sharif. A 10 year old little girl who in 2023 was tortured to death at the hands of her father, stepmother and uncle. Her body was found with human bite marks, burns from an iron, broken bones and head injuries which caused severe brain damage.

This happened a 20-minute drive away from my childhood home where I grew up. The proximity of this tragic event to the place I grew up makes it more vivid in my mind. Stories like this are utterly heart-breaking and it makes me think, what could we have done to protect Sara from such evil people?

I think that if Sara was wearing such a device, an alarm would have alerted the police, and they could have listened in and intervened, and saved Sara from that hopeless situation. That brutal death that that poor innocent 10-year-old little girl experienced at the hands of three sadistic adults who tortured her to death.

A ten-year-old innocent little girl, tortured to death by 3 adults.

It’s a sentence that makes me so angry, and if I could torture those 3 adults that did that to her to death then I would.

It’s hard to imagine the torture of a child, or the rape of a child, but I think we owe the children that. We have to imagine being that child, experiencing that abuse, the hopelessness of it, the unfairness, the fear, the pure evil.

Imagine Sara feeling confused and frightened, wishing someone would save her.

If we can imagine it and feel it, then we can have the appropriate emotional response that might result in some actual change for the benefit of children who are destined to be abused and tortured in the future. Because that is the disgusting reality of humanity, is that while we’re here on this planet, children will be raped, and abused, and tortured to death by evil people.

So we have a duty to those kids, to protect them, and we can use the government, and technology, and AI, to hunt down people who do this. And we can increase the punishment for paedophiles and child abusers. And we can get a little bit more medieval with our punishments, and we can pay online vigilantes to hunt them down and help the police to empower them with police intelligence and reward the vigilantes with money and awards of recognition from the government. If you take down a paedophile, and save children from abuse, you are a hero, and society should treat you as such.

So what’s the solution to Tommy’s concern about children? My belief is better government who are more concerned with the welfare of all kids and involved in their lives. The fundamental aim is to protect them against abuse, but also to help them in life, to act as on ongoing therapist, to make their lives better.

If attaching a smart device to every child sound too much like a Black Mirror episode, then just giving children phones at a very young age which they have to have on their person at all times and that could be restricted to the most basic of functions like taking pictures and telling the time and helping them with their homework etc. Doing that would be a worthwhile thing for the government to do. Perhaps they are obliged to check in with someone from the government every couple of weeks.

My view, is that the government in the UK should be tracking all children at all times, and made aware of anything that could indicate abuse, things like:

Elevated Heart Rate.

Heart Rate Variability

Sudden immobility

Abnormal falls

Sudden, violent movements

Severely disrupted sleep

Confinement

Changes in body temperature

Lack of activity

Isolation

Freedom of speech is another of Tommy’s concerns.

This is an interesting one, and it’s complicated.

Are words violence? Not really, sometimes, not exactly.

Should words that encourage violence be tolerated? Probably not, although I could see exceptions for this rule, I’m quite content to see violence against paedophiles, or someone like Adolf Hitler.

Should people be arrested for transphobic or Islamophobic tweets? Probably not.

The case of Lucy Connolly was an interesting one.

Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor was jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire.

She said this in a tweet after the Southport murders “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it”

Should you go to prison for a tweet like that? I’m not sure. She’s obviously a racist, and frightened, and responded to the violence with anger.

But 30 months in prison is a lot, when instead she could have just had her account deleted and police come to her house and give her a final warning.

Some education about inciting violence and a slap on the wrists might have been enough.

Here’s was AI thinks about the situation:

Legal experts and politicians stressed that inciting racial hatred is a serious criminal offence. They warned against downplaying the danger of such rhetoric, particularly in a tense national climate.

At the same time, critics of the sentence pointed to what they saw as inconsistencies in the justice system.

Some argued that Connolly’s punishment for a tweet was harsher than sentences handed out for physical assaults or participation in riots.

The debate has exposed wider concerns about sentencing balance and how courts handle online speech.

The controversy has extended beyond Britain. US Vice President JD Vance cited Connolly’s imprisonment as an example of declining free speech in Europe.

Nigel Farage also raised her case before the US House Judiciary Committee in September 2025, presenting it as evidence of a justice system suppressing political dissent.

Graham Linehan, the co-creator of the television sitcoms Father Ted and The IT Crowd, has been involved in recent legal and public controversies stemming from his social media posts.

On September 1, 2025, Linehan was arrested at Heathrow Airport upon his arrival from Arizona by five armed police officers. He was arrested on suspicion of inciting violence in relation to three posts he made on the social media platform X in April 2025. In one of the posts, he wrote, “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.” He also posted a picture of a trans-rights protest with the caption “a photo you can smell,” and another post stating, “I hate them. Misogynists and homophobes. F*** em.”

After being questioned by police, Linehan was taken to a hospital due to concerns about his blood pressure and was later released on bail pending further investigation. Following his arrest, Linehan said he intends to sue the Metropolitan Police for wrongful arrest and breach of his human rights. The Met Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, stated that while the decision to arrest Linehan was made within existing legislation, he understood the concerns and said a more stringent process for triaging such cases would be implemented. The arrest sparked a debate about free speech in the UK, with figures like J.K. Rowling and Nigel Farage condemning the arrest.

This seems like a clear case where an arrest is ridiculous. The tweet was obviously comedic.

The freedom of speech debate lacks so much nuance and humanity.

Should you legally be allowed to criticise Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism? Of course you should, and you should do so without the fear of professional repercussion or physical violence. But on a human level we can recognise that these ideas require sensitivity and are very much part of peoples identities and so we should be gentle with them.

They are sacred to these people, and we should be kind enough to treat them with respect and care, and in my opinion, we should try not to offend people, or hurt them, or attack something close to someone’s heart. We can compassionately criticise ideas without trying to offend someone, and I believe we should try to do this.

I remember watching a documentary with Bill Maher that he did about religion called “religulous”, some of it was really funny, and some of it was insightful, but some of it as fair as I can remember had the attitude that religious people were kind of stupid.

Now to be fair I haven’t seen it in years so I might be wrong, but this idea definitely exists in todays society and especially on social media.

This attitude towards other groups, woke left wing people are so stupid, or right wing conservatists are so hateful and racist, or religious people are so intolerant. The ways in which we label people make constructive dialogue more difficult, and it gets in the way. Rather than labelling someone like Tommy Robinson a racist, it’s much more constructive just to have a conversation with him and learn about his lived experience and push back on some of his ideas for sure, but don’t get into name calling, don’t get aggressive or fearful, try and steel man his position, try and see the world through his eyes. We should do that with everyone.

We should be able to live in a world where someone like Tommy Robinson can successfully amplify the voice of the unheard British people and their concerns over illegal immigration. Whilst also emphasising that it is not an attack on the British Muslims, or legal migrants, and that racism in all forms is utterly stupid and something we Brits proudly oppose. And that the vast majority of British Muslims are good people that make the United Kingdom a better place to be.

The far left should be able to empathise with peoples concerns on the far right. The left should recognise that being concerned about immigration doesn’t make you a racist. And the right should recognise that being concerned with racism, the welfare of immigrants and the rights of genuine asylum seekers doesn’t make you a woke idiot.

Both sides have good arguments. And there is a middle ground to be found.

Essentially, we all need to take a few deep breaths, and have civilised open conversations, free from name calling, and pointless labels like woke and racist.

Social media makes these kinds of conversations hard to have, the algorithms push us into camps, takes away nuance, and incentivise people to be nasty to one another.

And it’s a shame because I think when you actually meet people in real life and have a real conversation. Our shared humanity reveals itself and ideas exchange and interact and society moves a few inches closer towards a place slightly better than yesterday.

Social media destroys those human moments and turns us into little angry robots trying to slam dunk on one another using a few catchphrases.

Another one of Tommy’s talking points is this idea of us needing to protect British culture.

So how do we protect British culture? And what is it exactly that we want to be protecting? What is it about being British that makes you proud?

For me a few things come to mind.

A good sense of humour, politeness, kindness, an orderly que, love of football and a good cup of tea. A gentle moan about the weather. Our language, our accents. These are things worth protecting, and some of these things protect themselves and evolve all on their own. The English language and accent is constantly evolving and changing and none of us do it consciously, it happens on its own somehow.

Culture is so hard to define, so I’m going to ask AI to do it for me.

So I asked AI this “What is culture? What is British culture? Is culture hard to define ? What would you say British culture is ?”

And here’s the response:

Yes, culture is hard to define. It’s a concept that is incredibly complex, multi-faceted, and constantly evolving. There isn’t a single, universally accepted definition, which is why you’ll find different fields of study—like anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies—each having their own way of looking at it.

Some of the reasons why culture is so difficult to define include:

• It’s both an uncountable and a countable noun: You can talk about “culture” in a general sense, or you can talk about “a culture” or “different cultures” as specific, distinct entities.

• It’s holistic and interconnected: Culture isn’t just one thing. It’s a “complex whole” that includes everything from language, beliefs, and values to social customs, art, technology, and food. All these elements are intertwined and influence one another.

• It’s learned, not innate: Culture is not something we are born with. It’s transmitted from one generation to the next through social learning, both consciously and unconsciously.

• It’s dynamic and always changing: Cultures are not static. They change over time in response to new circumstances, such as technological advancements, migration, or interactions with other cultures.

What is Culture?

Despite the difficulty in defining it, a common understanding of “culture” is that it encompasses the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group. It’s the shared patterns of behaviour, beliefs, and values that guide a group’s actions and decisions and distinguish one group from another.

What is British Culture?

British culture is a rich and complex blend, influenced by the history of its four constituent nations—England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland—as well as its interactions with Europe and the legacy of the British Empire. It’s a culture that is both deeply traditional and incredibly modern, having been shaped by waves of global immigration.

Some key characteristics and examples often associated with British culture include:

• Tea and Pub Culture: The love of tea is more than a stereotype; it’s a significant social ritual. Similarly, the pub is a central part of community life, serving not just as a place to drink, but as a hub for socializing, playing games, and watching sports.

• Politeness and Etiquette: There’s a strong emphasis on good manners, politeness, and a certain degree of social reserve. This can be seen in customs like “queuing” (waiting in line) and the tendency to apologize, even for things that aren’t one’s fault.

• Humour: British humour is often characterized by its dryness, sarcasm, irony, and self-deprecation. Comedy is a highly valued art form, from historical figures like Charlie Chaplin to modern television and stand-up comedians.

• Diversity and Multiculturalism: The UK has a long history of immigration, which has profoundly shaped its culture. This is especially evident in cities like London, where diverse communities, foods (like the national dish of Chicken Tikka Masala), and festivals coexist.

• The Royal Family and Tradition: The monarchy and other ancient traditions, such as the Changing of the Guard, are central to British identity. They represent a connection to the past and a sense of continuity.

• Literature and the Arts: The UK has a rich literary tradition, from Shakespeare to contemporary authors. It has also made major contributions to music, cinema, and television, with a style that often combines realism with wit and strong storytelling.

• Sport: Many of the world’s most popular sports, including football (soccer), rugby, and cricket, originated in their modern form in the UK. They are an integral part of British life.

• The Weather: The weather is a constant topic of conversation and a well-known cultural quirk.

Im not sure how Tommy wants to go about protecting these things that we associate with British culture, maybe for him its as simple as cracking down on illegal immigration and being more strict with who we let in and out of the country.

Culture is something constantly evolving and changing for better or worse.

I can see a future Britain where we both crack down on illegal immigration, and also celebrate diversity and create an inclusive society. It should be seen as a huge compliment that people from all over the world want to come to live in our country with us and sit next to us on the tube and work along side us every day despite the underwhelming climate.

If culture is constantly changing, then we should have aspirations for how we want our culture to change, and we can dream of a British culture that is better than the one we have now.

A place where people all across the political spectrum feel heard, a place where people are fairly represented, a place of kindness and cooperation and innovation and inclusivity and equality.

Trust, cooperation, community, love, understanding, togetherness, humour, politeness. Injecting more of this into British culture can only be a good thing, and perhaps it starts with tackling the problem of immigration, a lot of people at least seem to think that, I’m not convinced, but I’m genuinely not sure. Part of me thinks it would be a good idea just to measure the effects of strict, controlled immigration. It could have a really negative effect on the economy, then we might not be so worried about immigrants if it turns out that they are making everyone’s lives better.

Fiqh al-Aqalliyat (Arabic: فقه الأقليات) translates to “jurisprudence of minorities.”

It’s a modern field of Islamic legal thought that aims to address the specific ethical and religious issues faced by Muslim minorities living in non-Muslim majority countries, particularly in the West. This concept developed in the 1990s as a way to provide a framework for Muslims to integrate into their societies while upholding their faith.

Origins and Purpose

The term “Fiqh al-Aqalliyat” was coined by Iraqi scholar Taha Jabir al-Alwani, and the concept was significantly developed by him and Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. It was created to help Muslims navigate the challenges of being a minority, challenges such as:

• Political Participation: Addressing issues like whether it is permissible for Muslims to vote in non-Islamic elections or hold political office.

• Daily Life: Providing guidance on matters like halal food, appropriate dress, and prayer times in places where these things may not be easily accommodated.

• Social Integration: Offering a “middle way” that allows Muslims to be good citizens of their country while remaining faithful to their religious obligations. The goal is “integration without assimilation.”

The concept of Fiqh al-Aqalliyat has faced criticism from various groups. Some traditionalist scholars argue that it is an unwarranted innovation that undermines classical Islamic jurisprudence. Others, particularly from more literalist viewpoints, believe that Muslims should maintain a strict separation from non-Muslim society and not compromise on religious rulings, even when living as a minority. Nevertheless, it continues to be a significant and evolving area of debate and scholarship within the Muslim world.

The founders of this jurisprudence argue that the classical division of the world into Dar al-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (abode of war) is no longer relevant to the modern world, where many non-Muslim states are tolerant and offer religious freedom. They also emphasise Maqasid al-Sharia, which focuses on the higher objectives of Islamic law, such as protecting life, religion, intellect, and property to justify certain relaxations of rules that would otherwise apply to Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries. For example, it might provide legal rulings that make it easier for a Muslim to perform a religious obligation without causing legal or social issues.

Fiqh al-Aqalliyat is not a separate or new school of Islamic law, but rather an application of existing legal principles to the unique circumstances of minorities. It often draws on Ijtihad, which is the process of independent reasoning and judgment in Islamic law, to find solutions to modern problems.

---

How It Promotes a More “Liberal” Approach

While Fiqh al-Aqalliyat isn’t a form of “liberal Islam” in the Western political sense, it shares some key principles that lead to more flexible or liberal interpretations of religious law.

• Reinterpreting Islamic Law: It doesn’t create new laws, but instead applies established principles like Maqasid al-Sharia (the higher objectives of Islamic law) and Yusr (ease and facilitation) to modern problems. This allows scholars to issue rulings that are more compassionate and practical for minorities. For instance, it may permit Muslims to take out interest-based mortgages to buy a home, arguing that stable housing is a necessity (darura) that outweighs the prohibition of usury (riba) in this context.

• Rejecting Outdated Concepts: This jurisprudence moves away from the classical distinction of the world into Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the abode of war). Instead, it views Western countries as neutral or even welcoming to Muslims, creating a new legal context that justifies cooperation and civic engagement.

---

Fiqh al-Aqalliyat and Integration into UK Society

This legal framework provides concrete guidance that can help Muslims in the UK navigate cultural and legal complexities.

• Political Engagement: It encourages Muslims to participate in the democratic process by voting, running for office, and engaging in civil society. This helps them contribute to the nation’s well-being and ensures their community’s interests are represented.

• Civic Loyalty: Fiqh al-Aqalliyat emphasizes that being a good Muslim doesn’t conflict with being a loyal British citizen. It promotes the idea of Muslims as a permanent part of British society, with a duty to obey the law of the land, as long as it doesn’t compel them to violate a core religious principle. This helps to overcome a sense of alienation and encourages active participation in public life.

• Social Relations: It provides a basis for positive interactions with non-Muslims. Rulings may permit Muslims to celebrate national holidays, attend social gatherings, and build bridges with people of other faiths. This is key for fostering social cohesion and countering a sense of isolation.

• Practical Life: For British Muslims, it offers solutions to everyday issues that might otherwise cause friction. For example, it might provide rulings on how to pray or observe religious holidays while working a standard British job, or how to navigate financial services that do not comply with classical Islamic finance. By providing these flexible rulings, it makes it easier for Muslims to live a balanced life, where their faith is not a barrier to professional or social success.

Ultimately, Islam in the west, and in the UK, is something that isn’t going anywhere despite what many people online might like.

The same with Atheism, Christianmity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Stoicism.

These Isms. Are stories and ideas that we tell one another to give our lives meaning and direction.

It’s perfectly reasonable to want to conserve the ideas of a particular nation, and it’s not racist to be concerned about immigration or bad ideas coming into a society.

But the conservatist perspective can be a bit dull sometimes.

How should we judge the success of a nation? Or the value of a culture?

If in 25 years time, Britain was a non-white majority nation, made up of a diverse array of ideas and beleifs, would that be a bad thing?

If the people living in the UK were happy and lived harmoniously with one another, how could it be bad.

Is whiteness something worth preserving? I would argue no.

In the same way that I don’t think any race is worth preserving.

I think it would be much easier for us all if we were all one race, it would make talking about ideas a lot easier.

I’ve heard people make the argument that they want their kids to be the same race as them because they want to feel a stronger connection to them.

But would you rather have children that were happy and healthy and were mixed race? Or children who were depressed and unhealthy but white?

Your genes would live on in that mixed race baby, they would be just as much a part of you as if it were a white baby. You would see genetic traits in them regardless of their skin colour. The bond would be just as strong.

Diversity can be a strength, but we have to do some work to get to know other people and their cultures. There is no point living in a nation full of diversity if we all stay in our specific communities defined by race or religion, and we never venture out and mingle with one another.

At the same time, we can’t allow ourselves to be pushed around. We can’t accept Islamism, or Christian fundamentalism. We mustn’t be easily influenced by our foreign adversaries that seek to undermine our societies like China and Russia. We have to be intolerant towards intolerance.

The UK can be somewhere aspirational, a melting pot of humanity in the best way. Somewhere without prejudice and violence. Somewhere open and accepting.

But how do we bring these different communities together, when perhaps we naturally segregate?

Food, Stories, Music and Dance come to mind first.

One week a church invites people from a mosque over for some food.

The next week the mosque invites the church over.

There could be fund raising at these events and volunteering aimed at helping people in need in our societies.

We can share stories, share food with one another, share music with one another. Foster friendships.

In a society that feels this tense and fractured, I think that some sort of return to spirituality could be the collective therapy that we all need.

In the Kingdom of Great Britain, it used to be a legal requirement to attend Church of England services at least twice a year until 1791.

Beyond legal requirements, strong social and cultural pressure encouraged regular attendance. In many communities, especially in the US and Europe up through the mid-20th century, church was a primary venue for social life and community gathering. Not attending could lead to social ostracism or being seen as an outsider.

Why was religious ceremony such an important part of everyone lives? And why exactly did we stop doing it?

I heard a quote the other day, something along the lines of, “as a general rule, you should do what others have always done, unless you have a really good reason not to”.

Human beings have always believed, have always participated in group ceremonies, almost on pure instinct.

Did the rise of the British love of football match the time that we divorced ourselves from Christianity?

Why do we love football, isn’t that a form of religion? Isn’t it spiritual in some way?

A group of people gather and sing songs and participate in stories together.

I’m not saying we should become devout Christians or Muslims, but that we are lacking something.

That something could be something like a spiritual day every week or every other week.

Where every Friday night, a church around the UK tells a story, such as an old story in the Quran or the story of the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 and the philosophical implications of such an endeavour. Or Harry Potter one week and Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations another. Kane and Abel one week and Evolution the next.

After story time, there is food. Maybe a few pop-up style vans show up every week and some of the money is then donated to local causes.

After food music and dance.

A spiritual day of the week, open to all, to bring us back in touch with our shared humanity, to encourage genuine diversity and an intertwining of cultures.

To make Britain beautiful again.

MEBA (Make England Beautiful Again).

Amen. Ma’a as-salamah. Namaste.