The word ‘extreme’ seems to fit the Home Office like a glove, doesn’t it? We learn, from leaked documents, that it is planning to redefine the word itself, and bring in new laws so extreme that they can only be planning to cause terror in the minds of people who disagree with the government’s policies, especially those of mass immigration and multiculturalism and their inevitable consequences. No doubt opposing Net Zero will also soon be classed as extremism – it nearly is already. So, as the Home Office is using extremist methods to cause terror, we, the people who pay for it, have a right to regard the Home Office as a terrorist organisation and do everything we can to shut it down.
Shut it down you might ask? It’s an essential component of government you might say. Well, if it is, it’s a component we can do without. Just look at what the Home Office (HO) is supposed to do. Its website tells us that it is responsible for immigration policy, crime, counter-terrorism and police. It used to be responsible for prisons and the courts until fairly recently, so it seems reasonable to lump those in for the sake of this article.
The website indicates that the HO is responsible for solving problems caused by illegal drug use, shaping alcohol policy, keeping the United Kingdom safe from the threat of terrorism, reducing and preventing crime, and ensuring people feel safe in their homes and communities, as well as for securing the UK border and controlling immigration, considering applications to enter and stay in the UK and supporting accountable policing by empowering the public, freeing the police to fight crime.
Now, gentle, fair-minded reader, look at that list again. Rate how you think the HO has performed in each. Is there any reasonable conclusion other than that the Home Office’s record on all of them is extreme, extremely poor? I think not. In fact, a reasonable person might reasonably conclude that, by its actions, its purpose is to make all the aforementioned worse.
Look at its claimed priorities; cutting, crime and the harm it causes, including organised crime, to manage civil emergencies, protect vulnerable people and communities, reduce terrorism, control migration, provide world-class public services and contribute to prosperity by maximising the benefits of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.
Again, I ask you, is it unreasonable to say that the HO’s performance has been extreme, extremely bad. Crime is high and rising and the government itself is an example of organised crime. Civil emergencies? Like the flooding we see regularly, or the covid idiocy? Protect vulnerable people? Like young white girls in Rochdale, Rotherham and Oldham? And who is being protected by filling hotels with unvetted single male illegal aliens near schools, and doing nothing but hint at racism when locals complain? Reduce terrorism? How, exactly? Most perceive it to be a greater threat than ever, and that the HO is doing little about it – except to terrorise white working-class patriots who make comments on Facebook bureaucrats don’t like. World class public services? What world would that be, the Third World, the fantasy world?
And maximising the benefits of leaving the EU? Yeah, right. Pull the other one. As I write, the European affairs minister (why do we need one?) is working on a ‘youth mobility scheme’ that would draw us closer to the EU, and I can think of no initiative by this or the last government to make Brexit work.
We would be better off scraping the Home Office and replacing it with a Home Guard of volunteers. They couldn’t do worse. The Home Office spends around £30-35 billion of taxpayer’s money, including £5.55 billion on ‘Asylum Support, Resettlement and Accommodation’ in 2024. Judging it by it’s stated objectives, this is extreme failure by any measure.
So, back to reality; what are the Home Office's real priorities. Well, we know from that leaked Home Office report that they are curtailing free speech and intimidating patriotic opponents. The HO has recommended that the police should record more non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), recommending that the previous authoritarian government’s pathetically weak attempt to limit these abominations be overturned.
The government and the Home Office want the police to record more NCHIs, for very loosely described Islamophobia and, of course, for far-Right extremism, summed up as any opposition to the woke globalist agenda. Even “claims of ‘two-tier’ policing” are a “Right-wing extremist narrative” that, to the HO’s horror, is “leaking into mainstream debates”.
To the HO the main problem about the Muslim rape gang scandal, which they refer to as an “alleged” problem; is that they are exploited by the ‘far-Right to promote anti-Muslim sentiment as well as anti-government and anti-political correctness narratives.” Judging by the attempts to cover up this horror, the threat of a ‘far-Right' response is of much more concern than the bestial rape of vulnerable children by racist gangs of mainly Pakistani Muslims. The Home Office’s real priorities and policies are, therefore, extreme. Degenerate and debased. Extremely so.
If you say that the State’s response to Muslim rape gangs has been wrong and irrefutably demonstrates two-tier policing and justice, you are, according to the HO, a far-Right extremist deserving of police attention. The truth of the matter is, in the HO’s view, irrelevant. You must not be allowed to say such things. The Home Office, needless to say, arrogantly shruggs off the “two-tier” claims, saying: “The police carry out their duties without fear nor favour, and we support them in their vital work to keep the public safe.” Hah!
If these HO’s plans are not extremist what is? They plan to tell us what we can and cannot say. They have no right to do this. They might have the power to try, but they are acting unconstitutionally and therefore illegally in doing so. They have no right, legal or moral, and certainly no democratic legitimacy. Reasonably therefore, the Home Office should be classed as a far-Left terrorist organisation.
In June 2023, Suella Braverman, Home Secretary at the time, ordered the HO to stop recording NCHIs, which do not meet the (very low) criminal threshold but are logged by police regardless, just because someone was offended. The extremists in the Home Office ignored her and carried on regardless. They now seek to make this crime against the people government policy, and to pursue it more rigorously.
All this was ordered by public parasite Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, daughter of a former trade union general secretary, Oxford PPE and Brexit betrayer who has never had anything like what most would regard as a proper job, having worked under degenerates like Bill Clinton and Harriet Harman.
NCHIs were introduced after the much-hyped murder of Stephen Lawrence, used as an excuse to reduce free speech, spread the multicultural virus and used since to record trivial incidents and intimidate opposition. More than 13,000 incidents were logged the past year, including against schoolchildren, vicars and doctors.
Cooper’s proposal to expand the use of NCHIs for Islamophobia, allegedly necessary of rising abuse against Muslims (abuse as perceived by Muslims that is) comes with no hint that the actions of Islamists might have something to do with dislike and fear of Islam. On the contrary, the Islamists see – no doubt correctly – that they have been given the green light to spread their poison unchecked, and no doubt we will see more teachers hounded from their jobs and forced into hiding by Islamist death threats, all unimpeded by the Home Office.
The HO refuses to acknowledge that NCHIs are seen by the general public as waste of police time and a vehicle for malicious complaints and, not least, incompatible with free speech, or that categorising a significant part of the public as far-Right is clearly extremist.
Cooper’s intentions are sinister in the extreme, requiring that ‘extremism’ should not be based on “ideologies of concern’ (such as Islamism) but on “behaviours” that cause harm including a belief in ‘conspiracy theories’, the definition of ‘harm’ and ‘conspiracy theories’ being entirely in the hands of the State and the Home Office.
Widening the definition of extremism in this way means significantly diminishing the perceived threat of Islamism. The intention is obviously to intimidate opponents and placate Islamist extremist, and goes even further than Kneel Starmer’s comment after the charade of the Southport terrorist trial, that ‘terrorism’ should be defined as mainly the result of mad individuals, and not connected to an ideology, conveniently taking the focus away from Islamism, an idea no doubt congenial to his electoral support. That Islamism was responsible for at least 94% of all terrorist deaths in Britain since 2000 and comprised 80 per cent of police counter-terror work – despite the unnecessary emphasise on almost non-existent far-Right terrorism (like putting up posters saying White Lives Matter, making comments on-line or shouting at police dogs) counts for nothing. Extremely dishonest, or what?
Some of the definitions of extremism used by the HO are extremely extreme, and an extreme threat to free speech. One idea, originally part of the Online Safety Bill, is making a new offence of “harmful communications” likely to cause “psychological harm”. Think of that. Psychological harm. It’s a blank cheque for dictatorship. You don’ need a crystal ball to see them deciding that Clive Matelas’s article yesterday could cause psychological harm, with me and him ending up inside, criminalised for harmfully communicating the truth.
The very concept of such malignant extremism coming from the British Home Office causes me psychological harm. But then, as a white far-Right thug, I don’t count.
But I doubt very much that the Koran, which advocates violence to non-Muslims, will be considered a harmful publication, or that any publication attacking white people will be either. No, the HO’s intention is clear: move the focus from ideologically motivated Islamist terror to those who oppose Establishment dogma.
The HO is, it seems, very keen on helping Muslims, handing out many millions in grants to mosques under its “Protective Security for Mosques Scheme, which provides protective security measures such as security personnel services, CCTV, intruder alarms and secure perimeter fencing to mosques and associated Muslim faith community centres in the UK. Protective security measures are also available to Muslim faith schools.”
I can’t help feeling that most of us would be happier, extremely happier, if more money was spent protecting young girls, often in State ‘care’ from predatory Muslims.