@AMDWaters - Anne Marie Waters

@AMDWaters - Anne Marie Waters


Director of Sharia Watch UK

I will not back down, I will not cower, I will not apologise..
Monday, September 18, 2017 7:42 AM

The tally is now at 5 terror attacks within 6 months in the UK. Across Europe, it’s even higher. Still, as you can guess, the politicians are singing the same tune. “Will not divide us”, “carry on as usual”, “nothing to do with” etc.

London has come under attack again, as it will again and again. The Islamic attackers have set aside trucks and knives for the moment, and returned to bombs on the tube. 29 people were injured on the District Line at Parsons Green last week when a timed device failed to inflict its carnage. Due to sheer good luck, scores weren’t killed. Who knows how the dice will fall next time, and the time after that?

In France, there was a double event in one day. A knife-wielding man plunged at a soldier in Paris, but again just by luck, nobody was killed.#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" target="_blank">[1] This of course reminds us of a similar attack just weeks ago outside Buckingham Palace in London. Here, a man attacked police with a sword, having first attempted to hit them with a car.#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" target="_blank">[2] Back in France, on the same day as the latest London and Paris attacks, two women were critically injured in a hammer attack in Lyon – by a man shouting “allahu akbar”.

We are at a critical juncture now. There is no more time or room for platitudes. People are dying and will continue to die until tough action is taken.

I’m frequently told that my tough response to Islamic terror will make things worse, but how much worse can it be? How can it be worse than a Europe that cowers in fear and all but apologises to those who attack us? What ‘worse’ do my critics have in mind? Perhaps open warfare on the streets (that is, more open warfare) is what they fear. But this is what we’re going to get in any case. Unless we have leaders who fight back on behalf of the people, then the people may do it themselves. There is trouble ahead, and either we fight back now and come out the other side with our society intact, or there will be no other side. We will submit to Islam and our society will be gone for good.

The only peaceful way to fight back now is with new politics and new politicians, and if UKIP will allow me to lead, that is what I will provide.

It’s difficult for me to write about other candidates as that is not the campaigning I want (I want to talk about the issues, not the people, but on this occasion, the issue is the people). Many of my fellow candidates have recently found a sudden interest in Islam, but it isn’t real. I know what knowledge of Islam looks like, and I don’t see it on the UKIP leadership candidate panel; no matter what other fine attributes they have (and they do). This is not a serious issue for them, and I know in my heart that if any were to win, Islam would not be tackled – it simply won’t happen.

Furthermore, we need clear policies on the other key issues at home: NHS, housing, police, jobs, education, immigration…. I have offered all of these from the beginning, and I will continue to. I care a great deal about many things, and my passion is clear. I hope UKIP members will allow me to turn that passion in to leadership.

But Islam is now key – it will both interest the public and win their votes. ‘Same old, same old’, including from UKIP candidates, will not do. “Not all Muslims” will not do, blaming the problems on Wahhabism will not do, blaming a perversion of scripture or a tiny minority of extremists will not do. We have an enormous problem here, and that problem is in the Koran.

Across the Muslim world, vast majorities support the barbarism of sharia and there is simply no concept of Western-style freedom, even in the most ‘moderate’ of countries. The British people need to know this, so they can then decide what to do about it. Living with the comfortable lie of ‘tiny minority of extremists’ will not do.

I have been heavily criticized not because what I say isn’t true, but because of those I have worked with. There is certain company I won’t keep – I won’t stand with anti-Semites, or racists, or misogynists, or homophobes. I’ve stuck to this throughout (and been criticized for that as well). But the company I’m condemned for keeping usually amounts to Tommy Robinson, a man who is widely admired across the country. Only those who are completely out of touch and ensconced in the bubble (this very much includes some in UKIP) don’t seem to realize this.

Tommy Robinson, like me, comes from a working class background and he has been a voice for the working class against mass Muslim immigration for years. I admire him for it and I will never regret or apologise for a moment I have spent in his company.

This is a key time for UKIP as a party and the UK as a nation. My passion to save this country from irreversible and negative change will not dampen, but I worry that smear tactics, lies, and bandwagon-jumping may derail those of us who know that change is needed now, not in 10 or 20 years.

If I become UKIP leader, I will not back down, I will not cower, I will not apologise, I will support the British public in their call for an end to immigration from Muslim societies. I and others understand that Muslim immigration means Islam, and it is Islam that we do not want. Islam, by any literal reading, is a religion of totalitarianism and tyranny. Individual Muslims certainly can, but Islam itself is unlikely to adapt because its own scriptures won’t allow it.

“Reform” is showing no signs of success (now or in the past), and why should this occur in Europe or the West at all? How many Westerners will be killed or raped as we generously open up our societies for Muslims to reform? To carry out inter-Islam wars on our soil? No.

This must be understood and can only be understood when we have leaders who know Islam and can talk about it, knowing every trick that the journalists will pull.

The time is now, the election is now, the UKIP leadership is now. If I can, I will take this fight forward in a way that no other politician will do. If not, we wait… very probably until it really is too late.

#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" target="_blank">[1] http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/854456/Paris-terror-attack-French-soldier-stabbed

#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" target="_blank">[2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/27/buckingham-palace-attack-second-man-held

Response from Defamation Solicitors
Monday, September 18, 2017 7:36 AM

Recently, I sought help to fund a consultation with defamation solicitors to discuss the legal position regarding newspapers referring to people as “far-right”, “fascist” or “racist” simply because we speak negatively about Islam.  Those of us who do so are frequently subject to smears from the press, which portrays us bigots and liars.  

See the Gofundme post here

As promised, I met with a defamation solicitor in September and I post their full written response below.  I want to sincerely thank all of those who have supported me in this and other endeavours.  Thank you.  

I will continue to challenge dishonest labelling in the media and continue to speak out for truth. 

Solicitor’s response in full:

Dear Anne-Marie

I write further to our consultation today.  As agreed, I will very briefly summarise: –

There are essentially three things you complain about: 1) the suggestions that you are a neo-fascist/fascist/white racist right/anti-Muslim bigot, 2) the apparent suggestion in one Times article that you have sought to hide the fact that you were born in Ireland, and 3) the repeated/gratuitous references to your sexuality.

As a general/overarching point, I advised you that these complaints raise quite distinct legal and factual issues, which sadly can’t simply be bundled together.  Similarly, and perhaps more significantly, I noted that the complaints concern an array of different publishers, and dealing with all of them may simply be infeasible.

  1. suggestions that you are a neo-fascist/fascist/white racist right/anti-Muslim bigot

Firstly, it is important to remember that these four terms all have different meanings, even though they may conjure up similar images.  I have not seen any explicit/direct newspaper references to you being a fascist, or neo-fascist.  Please point these out to me if there are any.  Assuming there are none, we

would be relying on an indirect, or inference meaning, which necessarily tends to be more difficult.  The word fascist is not actually that easy to define – people disagree on it.  I would tend to agree with you that fascist or neo-fascist refers to someone who believes in a totalitarian/dictatorial system, but it might be said that fascist also means someone who believes in racial supremacy (as fascist Italy/Nazi Germany did).  I have seen you directly described as a part of the ‘white racist right’ and an ‘anti-Muslim bigot’.  These have arguably quite different meanings – literally someone who is white, on the right, and racist, and someone who is intolerant of Muslims, respectively.

In general/broad terms, if you were to sue any major news publication/journalist in defamation over these descriptions of you, then I think they would likely defend them, both on the grounds that they are true (accurate) or substantially true, and on the basis of honest opinion, and, finally on the grounds of publication in the public interest.  The truth defence might ultimately fail, but my instinct is that the honest opinion defence would likely succeed.   Furthermore, I think it unlikely that such proceedings would settle early, and I think there is a very good chance that they would result in significant adverse publicity for you (that the paper(s) might, effectively, go to war with you).  You would need significant funding, and would be exposed to a huge costs risk.  In short, my instinct is against any such action, but if you want more specific advice, then you would need to draw the specific words of a given article(s) to my attention.

  1. The apparent suggestion in one Times article that you have sought to hide the fact that you were born in Ireland

I think the headline of the article in question is arguably defamatory in that the words ‘hides her roots’ could be taken to mean dishonesty, and I can certainly see why you are upset with this.  If sued upon, I think the Times would try to argue that the word ‘hides’ actually means something different, or somewhat less, than dishonesty.  Furthermore, I think they would argue that any reader would be able to tell from the balance of the article that there was no such suggestion. Alternatively, they could simply say that it was true, or again, honest opinion.  For these reasons, and for the same reasons given above vis-à-vis costs etc. I would not recommend taking action.  Based on what you told me, I do think the headline is inaccurate (which is different from defamatory), but there is an exemption in the Data Protection Act (s.32) for journalistic material in the public interest, and since you are currently running for the leadership of a major political party, I think this defence would probably protect them in any DPA claim.

  1. the repeated/gratuitous references to your sexuality

The most relevant case is Trimingham, which we discussed.  There is, naturally, nothing wrong with describing someone as a lesbian per se.  It is not a pejorative term.  It could be a misuse of someone’s private information if their sexuality was a secret, or especially closely guarded, but otherwise there is unlikely to be any cause for complaint.  Repeated, gratuitous use of the term, could amount to harassment.  However, I think in order to have a viable claim, we would need to have several, if not several dozen, articles by the same publisher in which they did this over and over again.  I have not seen evidence of such a campaign.

Way forward

For the reasons very briefly set out above, my instinct is that threatening/bringing legal proceedings would not be in your best interests.  However, if you do want to take some sort of action, particularly in respect of item 2, above, then a way forward might be a complaint to IPSO on grounds of inaccuracy.  A complaint to IPSO is unlikely to blow up in your face in quite the same way that legal threats might, and certainly would not prove financially ruinous.  The idea would be to present you as someone who was not complaining about adverse press per se, and was certainly not interested in money etc., but who, on matters of principle, wanted to point out where the press had crossed the line/where the journalism wasn’t up to scratch etc.  It might be a way to air your grievances about some of the reporting of you generally.  Note that, as we discussed, the Guardian is not a member of IPSO.


As discussed, any work that we undertake, other than initial consultations, is charged in accordance with our terms of business (attached) by reference to our hourly rates, which are as follows: –

                Partners                               £300 plus VAT

                Solicitors                              £175-£250 plus VAT

                Trainees/paralegals        £135 plus VAT

The costs of us assisting you with a complaint to IPSO would naturally depend upon the scope of the complaint, and whether we just helped you with the initial drafting, or continued to offer you advice and assistance thereafter.  If we were just complaining about item 2, and simply helped you draft the initial complaint, then costs might be between £1,000 and £1,500 plus VAT.

Please let me know if you have any queries or if you would like to proceed, either with the ISPO complaint or otherwise.  Finally, note that any IPSO complaint must be made within 4 months of publication, and any defamation claim must be brought within 12 months of publication.

Good luck for September 28th.

Post Manchester, There Needs to be Leadership For Britain
Thursday, May 25, 2017 1:19 PM

When things go wrong, that’s when leadership is both tested and defined. Only weeks after innocent people were murdered in Westminster, we have again in Britain have had our way of life assaulted by Islamic killers. The aim of Islamic killers is clear, regardless of how it is sanitised by our politicians; Islam won’t tolerate freedom and we are attacked for being free.

It is written in every other page of the Koran, the persecution and punishment of the unbeliever. Some say these verses apply only to defence, but rarely do they describe (or even know) what it is that Islam defends itself from. It defends itself from disobedience to its rule. To clarify, our freedom is deemed an attack on Islam, and killing us for our defiance is deemed an act of defence.

The increasing terror attacks in the West, as well as the criminal acts such as child marriage or FGM, are the inevitable result of globalisation. When you shift huge populations to live in countries where their values and way of life will clash with the natives, enormous problems will result. When they have, it is globalisation that has been defended, because most of our politicians are dutifully on board.

The Islamic terror attacks are being presented to us as a battle of Good vs Evil. We will not however name who is good and who is evil, or why. We will not call it what it really is, a battle between freedom and a totalitarian supremacist religion. Instead, we have created a fantasy world where we simply pretend that divisions are created not by the existence of different and incompatible ideologies, but by those who point the incompatibility or difference. We are all “one people” is the idea, and the murder and mayhem is brought about by a few bad eggs motivated by nothing in particular.

What is taking place right now is that an expansionist, political, totalitarian and supremacist faith, commanded to world domination, has met with the global destruction of borders. The result of this is obvious, large Muslim populations now live across the Western world, and with them has come Islam – a religion that won’t tolerate free expression, religious or philosophical freedom, and certainly not female freedom. As such, in the West it is now normal for people to whisper, keep their views to themselves, say nothing, or speak only positively about the Islamic master. Thousands upon thousands of girls have been raped by Muslims. Book-burnings in the street have been carried out by Muslims. Marches against free speech and demands for blasphemy punishments are now part of life in this age-old home of freedom.

Fear of Islam so dominates politics that our leaders are terrified to put a foot wrong. Their fear is almost visible. The lines they deliver are all the same – meaningless and evasive. No politician will name the driving force behind these killers, instead they indulge in the pantomime our complicit media dutifully places on the airwaves. All of it is devoted to one thing – sanitising Islam and keeping the borders open.

The standard public discourse is that the Manchester slaughter was an attack by bad people on good people, and not an attack by Muslims on non-Muslims. This is of course in tune with the open border ‘we are all alike’ utopian fantasy that our leaders are desperate to sell.

One example that stands out is the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who called it an “attack on young people everywhere”. It was not an attack on young people everywhere, it was an attack on free British youngsters enjoying the music and festivity of our beautiful Western culture. Donald Trump called the killer a “loser”. A loser? No, he’s not a loser President Trump, he is a jihadi, he is performing jihad. Is there nobody who will tell it like it is? Nobody who won’t indulge in this disguise of jihad?

When things go wrong, true leadership shows, and the British people have seen little of it. Instead they are being fed the same platitudes that keep the borders open and the people blind to the terrible realities that accompany the Islamic religion. A leader will face the truth, be honest with those they lead, and offer them the courage it takes to truly confront the challenges of this era-defining issue.

If I were the leader of UKIP, that is what I would offer. The people need an alternative to the platitudes. Those who are going to fight the influence of Islam to preserve our freedoms, will only do so by reviving a healthy dose of British patriotism and nationalism. We need to be pro-Britain in order to oppose that which threatens Britain. A leader must clarify what kind of Britain we seek to build, and affirm that we will defend that Britain against all threats. Above all, a leader should tell the truth. The British people deserve nothing less. People must be told the truth – especially on such fundamental issues – because only when armed with reality can they tell their leader which direction they want to go in. When voters mark their ballot, they deserve to do so on the basis of facts, and not what is convenient for the politician.

We will build borders, we will deport those who seek to harm us, we will deport rapists and jihadis and we’ll do it quickly. We’ll get rid of the Human Rights Act, and the ECHR, and pay no heed to a UN that puts the savagery of Saudi Arabia on a human rights board (who can take guidance from such a hypocritical body with zero principles?)

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, if the Saudis disapprove of our views on Islam, that’s unfortunate, but the British won’t be told what we can and cannot say in our country. The Saudis will just have to exercise some tolerance, won’t they?

I believe that unless tackled with tough measures, attacks in Britain will continue and escalate.  Our politicians are wholly committed to the global project, across political parties. To take this on, to truly face this issue and to tell the truth, it will mean taking on the entire established internationalist order. It will mean defying and standing up to mainstream politics, mainstream media, unelected international bodies, and truly defending the people. This requires leadership, it requires guts, it requires the very opposite of ‘more of the same’. This issue needs radical thought, radical politics – it needs exactly the kind of party that UKIP ought to be.


Anne Marie Waters


Twitter: @AMDWaters

FOI Request to West Midlands Police
Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:36 AM

Freedom of Information Request sent to West Midlands Police, February 28th 2016 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Having read some of the tweets posted by West Midlands Police (@WMPolice) recently, I would be grateful if you could respond to the following questions as required under the Freedom of Information Act.

In a tweet posted by WMP on February 26th, the following is stated:

“Since 2015 its been mandatory for midwives in England and Wales to report ‘known’ FGM cases to police (for under 18s)”

Please answer the following:

1) How many reports of FGM has WMP received from midwives since 2015?

2) What exactly is the procedure if and when such reports are made?  Please explain this in detail.  How do WMP follow up on these?  Who is responsible for communicating this information to midwives in the West Midlands?  Could you please supply a copy of what information midwives receive in this regard and from whom?

3) Regarding the procedure referred to in question 2, who decides (has decided) upon this procedure?  Is this Government or WMP policy?

4) How many prosecutions for the crime of FGM have such reports resulted in?

5) If there have been no prosecutions as a result of these reports, can you explain in detail what the difficulties are in securing charges and/or convictions?

Please send replies to this email address.

Thank you and best wishes,

Anne Marie Waters


(Replies will be posted here in due course)

Feminism is the New Misogyny – the feminist betrayal of women
Sunday, February 5, 2017 9:48 AM

A lot has been written about the absurd “Women’s March” that took place in Washington recently. Feminists from across the world bravely came together to protest against a man who has done nothing at all to women’s rights. They did so in “solidarity” with a religion that openly practices female slavery and gets away with it. The organiser of the “Women’s March” is a Saudi apologist who praises the very sharia law that ensures women in countries like Saudi Arabia are kept as property. Even so, Islamist Linda Sarsour led a group of gullible, privileged, clueless feminists though the US capital. Every bearded jihadi on the planet must have been laughing at that one, while the woman who suffers his oppression was told that Western feminists not only don’t care about her, but are actually marching in his favour.

The stupid women’s march aside, something else that caught my eye in the weeks since it took place has confirmed to me that modern feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s rights. In fact, it threatens them. Feminism is now the enemy of women.

Feminists have decided not only to support the world’s most misogynistic religion, they also offer unwavering support to male-female transsexuals, once again at the expense of actual women (no, not “cis” women).

Firstly, my attention was drawn to an article by someone called Marie Solis.#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" target="_blank">[1] Solis objects rather strenuously to the “pussy hats” worn by those protesting against the Presidency of Donald Trump. She objects to this because recognising the vagina as part of the female, excludes transsexuals. Transsexuals don’t have a vagina is the ‘thinking’, so vaginas are incorrect. According to some of today’s feminists, vaginas are offensive. This is what she wrote: “While clever, pussy hats set the tone for a march that would focus acutely on genitalia at the expense of the transgender community. Signs like “Pussy power,” “Viva la Vulva” and “Pussy grabs back” all sent a clear and oppressive message to trans women, especially: having a vagina is essential to womanhood”. These people have clearly lost all connection with objective reality.

A second article I read was an objection to this insanity, and alerted me to even greater insanity. Charles Rae#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" target="_blank">[2] wrote a piece entitled ‘Women are being told their bodies are hate speech’ and in it referred to tweets she’d found referencing the Women’s March. One such tweet asked “do y’all silly cis white women not get how problematic your vagina signs are???”. So the bodies of actual women now represent something problematic – is this feminism?

Even worse, ‘lesbians don’t have penises’ or ‘women don’t have penises’ was deemed “transphobic”, and a reference to FGM (female genital mutilation) was labelled “cissexist”. My favourite one though is this: Planned Parenthood#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" target="_blank">[3] presents itself as a feminist organisation “founded on the revolutionary idea that women should have the information and care they need to live strong, healthy lives and fulfill their dreams — no ceilings, no limits”. Nice words, but I was stunned by a tweet the group sent regarding the so-called tampon tax. In it, Planned Parenthood referred to women as “menstruators”. Menstruators! Just imagine the feminist meltdown if Donald Trump referred to women as “menstruators”. Furthermore, what happened to all those years of work real feminists did to inform the world that a woman is a human being and not a walking uterus? But to accommodate transsexuals, the feminists have decided that all of that was meaningless, and we can in fact be referred to as “menstruators” after all.

It gets even worse.

Rae also points us to a “safe sex guide” issued by a group known as the Human Rights Campaign. In this one, we learn about the “front hole” of a woman. This, they say, is the “word to talk about internal genitals, sometimes referred to as a vagina”. In other words, actual women have now been designated “front holes”. Meanwhile, transsexuals are granted the word vagina for themselves. Vagina is now the “word to talk about the genitals of trans women who have had bottom surgery”.

Barack Obama, the President who cared so much about women that he wanted Americans to experience the cultural enrichment of mass immigration from the most woman-hating societies on earth, set about opening up girls’ bathrooms to anyone who said they were female.#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" target="_blank">[4] I personally know American women who objected to this, but the feminists don’t care. The opinions of women have nothing to do with feminism. That’s so last century.

Here in Britain, the British Medical Association (i.e. not some looney left fringe group) issued guidance#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" target="_blank">[5] requesting that pregnant women no longer be referred to as “expectant mothers” but “pregnant people”. The word “mother” may be offensive to transsexuals you see. Whether an actual expectant mother is offended by being referred to as a “pregnant person” is of no significance whatsoever. Who cares if actual women are offended? Certainly not feminists. The guidance booklet also states “there are some intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant”.

I have been back and forward on this issue. I’m a lesbian and I have known a few transsexuals in my time, and I’ve liked them. In fact, my guess is that it isn’t transsexuals themselves making these demands, but ridiculous ‘feminists’ on their behalf.

I have sympathy for people who genuinely believe they live in the wrong body, but my sympathy starts to wane when I am labelled a “menstruator” with a “front hole”. My sympathy also wanes when actual women’s concerns about sharing private spaces with men are dismissed, and women’s views ignored. I have almost no sympathy left however when I and everyone else is asked to alter objective realities in the public space to accommodate someone else’s desire to change their sex.

The importance of objective truth, and clear definition of language, is beyond measure. Without clear, defined, and objective language, society is chaos. The law is built on objective language for example, without it, there is no law enforcement possible. Without objectivity, there is no solid ground to stand on, there is no truth and no lie, everything is what we want it to be. It is entirely destructive (likely why it is so popular on the Left).

Some things change and so eventually some definitions change.   Some things however do not change, we merely pretend they do, and we alter objective reality to accommodate this pretence. Here is some objective reality – men do not become pregnant, women do. Objective reality number two – men do not have vaginas, women do. That the British Medical Association talks about “pregnant men” is frankly frightening, and indicative of how far from reality and truth we have drifted.

The just treatment of women is far more important than ‘feminism’. A society where men hold a violent hand of authority over women is a dark one, where children grow up witnessing the constant humiliation of their mothers. This is not healthy, and it is not the direction we should be heading in. (It is not a coincidence either that the most unjust, brutal, dysfunctional, and often poverty-stricken countries in the world – where child-rape and mutilation are the norm – are the ones in which women have no say).

Feminists today have decided to defer to misogynists at a time when women’s rights need immediate defence. If it isn’t Muslim immigration threatening us, we have Western misogynists who take every opportunity to blame all of the world’s problems on us (how original), and to top it off, we have a ‘feminism’ movement that has decided that bringing Islamic rape culture to the West is more important than protecting women from it. They’ve decided too to insult our bodies, demean our genitals, and hand over female private spaces to any man who wants access. As a lifelong feminist, my disgust for this behaviour, and this betrayal of women, has made even me despise the very word.

This is occurring because when real feminists in the West achieved their goal of equal rights, they went away and got on with enjoying them. What was left behind was a vacuum that would be filled by inept whining children with no idea of the importance of what they were dealing with. All schooled in Social Justice Warriorism 101 – ‘if it ain’t white, it must be alright’ – they rode on the coattails of feminists while simultaneously destroying their legacy.

I take no pleasure in writing any of this, but it has to be said. Third-wave feminism is a poison that has elevated all other considerations over and above those of actual women. They are the new misogynists, and an enemy to me and any woman (or man) who wants to live in a free, safe, and just society.

#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" target="_blank">[1] https://mic.com/articles/166273/how-the-women-s-march-s-genital-based-feminism-isolated-the-transgender-community#.ttbVSB5ZH

#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" target="_blank">[2] http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2017/01/womens-march-hate-speech/

#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" target="_blank">[3] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are

#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" target="_blank">[4] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/texas-judge-block-obama-transgender-bathroom-order/

#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" target="_blank">[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/dont-call-pregnant-women-expectant-mothers-might-offend-transgender/

Police in Barrow in Furness Ignored Possible Grooming Gang Complaint
Tuesday, December 13, 2016 4:11 PM

In August, two young friends from Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, were walking through the town when a group of men pulled up alongside them and ordered them to “get in the car”. I recently spoke to one of the girls, 15 year old Ellie Reynolds, who despite having reported the incident to police, had had no contact from them when I met her on December 5th. She also told me she is almost certain that the same has happened to other girls in the town since then.

It wasn’t only one car either. Phone-calls were made and more arrived. Ellie took photographs of some of these cars, but the police, when I interviewed her, had still not looked at them. Part of the description of the men provided by Ellie: “like Turks”.

The details of the story are these.

On the 8th of August, Ellie and a 13 year old friend were walking through Barrow-in-Furness, close to their home. A silver car pulled up alongside them and the men inside shouted at them to get in. When they refused, one of them said Ellie’s name and told her he “had her details anyway”. She had never seen these men before and had no idea who they were, nor had her friend. Understandably very shaken by this, she suggested to me that its possible that girls are being sought out on social media sites. She and her friends are avid Facebookers so yes, it’s possible.

Both girls’ families reported the incident to police on the day it happened. I did not speak to the 13 year old girl, but Ellie had still not heard from them in December, despite chasing several times. Police told the Reynolds family that they had called to the house to find nobody home, but no note was left and there was no attempt to contact them either before or after this supposed visit.

Theresa McMeekin is a friend of the family and said that she too had phoned the police saying she had copies of the photos and asking if they wanted to see them. She said they told her that as she wasn’t directly connected to the case, she could not report it. On hearing this, the Reynolds’ contacted police again and were told they would be visited – they weren’t.

McMeekin posted details about it on her Facebook page, only to find out later that the post hadn’t been made public. Ellie also wrote about it on Facebook to warn her friends. She soon found herself attacked for “racism”. She told me “it was like I was the one in the wrong for reporting it”.

Theresa McMeekin has a young daughter soon starting secondary school, and police were kind enough to advise her that she should warn her daughter of “stranger danger generally” without mentioning any ethnicity. They are on the ball on some matters then.

When a local journalist contacted Barrow police to follow up on Ellie’s complaint, he was told “The victim did not wish to pursue the complaint further”. Ellie Reynolds said this is completely untrue. She was still waiting for them to contact her.

The Police and Crime Commissioner for the area is Conservative Peter McCall. He was sent an email on September 23rd with a detailed description of both the incident involving the girls, and the lack of police response. Theresa McMeekin stated in the email that she represented worried parents in the area, but she didn’t hear back until she chased him on Twitter on October 31st. At that point, he replied “Once we have the police response, they come to me so that I see them with the facts/issues so that I can give you a more informed answer. I have just checked and we are expecting the response from the constabulary imminently. I do appreciate that this does seem slow but you will understand that they get many questions from the public all of which take police time to answer and some are very complex. I am keen to have honest and open dialogue with the public and very much welcome your engagement. As soon as I have the response to your particular concerns we will write and if that doesn’t answer your questions I’d be very pleased to chat.”

I wrote to Chief Constable Jeremy Graham on December 9th and asked him about the above. (You can read the reply on the link provided). I have learned since that the Reynolds family has finally had that contact from police that they’d been promised for so long.

What do we learn from all of this? Firstly, that there is a very real probability that the grooming gang crimes are expanding in to new areas and towns in the north of England. Secondly, as with Rotherham and elsewhere, there is simply no adequate police action. Nothing has changed since the Jay Report.

To top it off, basic bread-and-butter policing, such as providing descriptions, is subject to concerns that the description might be of someone from a minority group. It is incredibly dangerous for a society if facts about crimes are kept quiet for fear of being thought ‘controversial’ or ‘unhelpful’.

The only answer to this is common sense and impartial policing, but just as importantly, a real and robust way for members of the public to hold police to account. This horror has gone on for too long.

Letter to Cumbria Police Re Potential ‘Grooming Gang’ complaint
Monday, December 12, 2016 5:28 PM

Email to Chief Constable Jeremy Graham, Barrow in Furness police, December 9th 2016


Dear Mr Graham,

I am a freelance writer, researcher and campaigner and I am currently looking in to reports of the sexual harassment of girls by so-called “Asian” gangs across the United Kingdom. It was in this capacity that I have recently spoken to Ellie Reynolds (15), a resident of Barrow in Furness. I met Ms Reynolds, along with her mother, on the 5th of December 2016 at their home in Barrow in Furness.

Ms Reynolds informed me that on the evening of August 8th 2016, she and a 13 year old friend were walking on Hindpool Road, Barrow in Furness, when they were approached by a car containing a group of men. The men repeatedly told the two girls to “get in the car”. Both girls refused to do so, but Ms Reynolds was alarmed when they then told her “we’ve got your details anyway” and that they appeared to know her name. She is unsure how this could be, as she had never seen the men before.

As the girls walked on, the first car was joined by others – taking the total to four – and some of these men began taking photos of the girls. The parents of both girls later phoned the police to report the incident. Ellie had taken two photographs of some of the cars and offered to show these to the police. Ms Reynolds described the men as looking “like Turks”.  She also informed me that she knows of other young girls who have had similar experiences in the town since this incident took place.

As of December 5th 2016, no contact has been made by the police to Ellie Reynolds or her parents. There was one apparent contact when police claim to have called to her house, but the Reynolds family dispute this. As of December 5th 2016, no police officer has seen the relevant photographs or, according to the Reynolds family, taken any interest in doing so.

Furthermore, Theresa McMeekin, a friend of the Reynolds family, informs me that a task force had been established to deal with harassment from men in cars in the town. Ms McMeekin phoned the task forced to inform them that she had photographs of the cars involved in the incident involving Ms Reynolds (the Reynolds family had sent the photos to Ms McMeekin) but police allegedly told Ms McMeekin that she could not report this as she herself was not directly involved in the incident. The Reynolds family once again phoned police at that point, but to date, have not yet received a visit from police.

Ms McMeekin informs me that local a journalist, when he attempted to investigate the matter further, told her that police had explained to him that Ms Reynolds no longer wished to pursue the matter; when in fact Ms Reynolds had been waiting for contact from police.

I intend to publish this story on or around Monday 12th December and would appreciate your response to the following questions:

1) Is the task force mentioned above still in existence and is information from the public sought? If so, why was Ms McMeekin’s information refused?

2) Why have police not yet seen the photos taken by Ms Reynolds and why have the Reynolds family not yet been spoken to directly by police?

3) Why was a local journalist told that Ms Reynolds no longer intended to pursue the matter by police, when this was not the case?

4) Do police in Barrow in Furness intend to pursue this matter?

I would appreciate your reply to these questions as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Anne Marie Waters




1) Is the task force mentioned above still in existence and is information from the public sought? If so, why was Ms McMeekin’s information refused? The local paper referred to a “Task Force” it was actually a group of officers from different departments coming together to look at the issue. We can’t comment on our discussions with individuals related to the incidents.

2) Why have police not yet seen the photos taken by Ms Reynolds and why have the Reynolds family not yet been spoken to directly by police? The incident has been dealt with by the local police in Barrow and if anyone involved has further information they are invited to contact the local CID and speak to DI Helen Ellis or one of her team. If it is an incident that has just occurred please call 101 or in an emergency call 999. 

 3) Why was a local journalist told that Ms Reynolds no longer intended to pursue the matter by police, when this was not the case? As above we are not at liberty to discuss individuals suffice to say we have a full record of dealing with the incidents.

 4) Do police in Barrow in Furness intend to pursue this matter? All incidents have been investigated and should further incidents occur or information come to light it will of course be further investigated. Each incident is scrutinised and investigative opportunities explored.

There is no suggestion in the last few months that any reports made to the local police are linked and parents and members of the community should be vigilante for any behaviour out of the ordinary or anyone seen to be approaching children. It would be totally wrong to think that this behaviour is confined to any particular groups of people as the reports to the police feature a cross section of descriptions of people of different ages and appearances some on foot some in vehicles.

If you are worried or see anything out of the ordinary please contact Cumbria Police on 101 or in an emergency call 999.

BBC – Tell the Truth About Sharia Law
Saturday, November 12, 2016 2:52 PM

Please sign the petition to demand that the BBC provide full and honest coverage of sharia law in the UK.



BBC Complaints

PO Box 1922

Darlington, DL3 0UR


Dear Sir/Madam,

Two inquiries in to the use of sharia law in the UK are currently on-going; one such inquiry was ordered by Prime Minister Theresa May when she was Home Secretary, the other a Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry. Given this, the BBC has had cause to cover the issue of sharia law in recent weeks.

BBC coverage of this topic has been both unbalanced and incomplete, with vital information excluded.

Please address the following points.

On the Sunday Morning Live programme of November 6th 2016 (BBC1), sharia councils in the United Kingdom were discussed. At no point during the programme were the following facts mentioned:

Sharia councils in the UK are overwhelmingly run and overseen by men with a history of expressing jihadist and deeply misogynistic notions. For example, Suhaib Hasan – a senior figure at the Islamic Sharia Council – is on record as calling for “The chopping the hands of the thieves, the flogging of the adulterers, the flogging of the drunkards, then jihad against the non-Muslim”. Furthermore, Haitham al-Haddad, another senior ‘judge’ at the same organization, has stated clearly: “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife”.  He also advocates “lashing” and “stoning” as punishment for adultery.#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" target="_blank">[1] Why, on full discussion of sharia law in the UK, are these highly relevant facts not included?

Programmes did not mention the fact that a woman has no unilateral right to divorce under sharia law (even in cases of domestic violence) and are obliged either to seek the permission of a husband or a group of clerics, a woman’s testimony is worth less than a man’s, and fathers have exclusive rights over children.

Campaigners who seek the abolition of these councils were not present in any debate. All voices on the Sunday Morning Live programme for example were in favour of continually allowing sharia councils to operate.

Also on Sunday Morning Live, a guest announced that sharia law is “absolutely” compatible with UK laws, and this was left unchallenged. Given the ruling of the ECHR below, this is evidently untrue. Sharia law is not compatible with UK laws or norms, but at no point is the public informed of this by the BBC.

The Victoria Derbyshire programme, broadcast on November 1st, did not mention the above facts either. Furthermore, only voices of Muslim or ethnic minority women were included. During the programme, Shaista Gohir, the chair of Muslim Women’s Network UK, implied that some of those who object to sharia from a secular or Islam-critical perspective, were doing so “using women’s rights as a guise”.#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" target="_blank">[2] Gohir therefore implied that such critics are merely pretending to be concerned about women’s rights. This was not challenged, and no speaker who approaches this from a secular or Islam-critical perspective was present to refute it, or to offer their side of the argument. Muslims alone should not decide whether or not Britain can or should incorporate sharia law in to our legal system.

Of even greater significance however is the complete exclusion, from all coverage, of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" target="_blank">[3] in 2003. This ruling declared that sharia family law, the area of law being practiced in the UK, is “wholly incompatible” with human rights, due to its treatment of women. The ECHR’s annual review of 2003 included the following paragraph [emphasis added]:

The Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

Given the potential implications, both legally and ethically, of the above ruling, we contend that no coverage of the issue can be complete without its inclusion. Why did the BBC fail to inform the viewer of this ruling, despite it being brought to your attention by Sharia Watch prior to the debates?

As a publicly-funded broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to fully inform the public of the facts surrounding any issue. Moreover, it has a duty to include the voices of all communities and perspectives in the UK. This includes the duty to include those who approach the issue from a secular or Islam-critical perspective. Given that sharia law is derived from Islamic scripture, it is right and proper that Islam-critical voices be included. All people in Britain have the right to express a view on the inclusion of archaic and misogynistic pseudo courts in the British legal system.

We demand that the BBC explain why it has excluded vital information from the sharia debate and why its presenters left many dubious assertions unchallenged.

Does the BBC agree that all people, regardless of religion (or none) or ethnic background, have a right to participate in discussions surrounding sharia law, and will the BBC inform viewers of the vital ECHR ruling referred to above in all future discussions?

As licence-fee payers, we insist that the BBC give coverage to all voices critical of sharia law, and in particular, that it informs viewers of all relevant information surrounding the issue.

We look forward to your reply and your assurances that future coverage of this issue will include all perspectives and facts, so that the viewer is fully informed.

Yours faithfully,

Anne Marie Waters


Sharia Watch UK


#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" target="_blank">[1] http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/content/special-report-sharia-law

#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" target="_blank">[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37830589

#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" target="_blank">[3] http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2003_ENG.pdf

Dangerous Words 250 Conference, Stockholm
Tuesday, November 1, 2016 11:15 PM

Islam Kills Free Speech
Tuesday, November 1, 2016 11:14 PM

Keep Referring To Them As ‘Honour Killings’ Because ‘Murder’ Obscures The Motive
Monday, August 8, 2016 5:00 PM

We live in an era of petitions.  This is perhaps because old-school democracy is now so strictly controlled (i.e. over) that petitions give us a chance to feel as if we still have a voice.  I have been sent a new petition and I understand entirely why people would expect me to support it – I do not.  I respectfully disagree, quite profoundly. This particular change.org petition calls upon the BBC to stop “using the euphemistic ‘honour killings’ to describe murder”. To my mind, it’s about the only thing the BBC does right, particularly regarding anything related to the Religion of Peace. I would think that there are rather greater problems with the BBC than its accurate use of the term “honour killing”.  That it consistently refers to pro-democracy activists as “far-right” is one I’d prefer to see challenged. The petition states the following; To use the term ‘honour killing’ when describing the murder of a family member – overwhelmingly females – due to the perpretrators’ believe [sic] that they have brought ‘shame’ on a family normalises murder for cultural reasons and sets it apart from other killings when there should be no distinction. Murder is murder, whether it be for cultural excuses
Tories PC Chickens Come Home To Roost As Zac Goldsmith Is Now Their Own Tommy Robinson
Monday, May 9, 2016 6:14 PM

The election of Labour’s Sadiq Khan to the office of Mayor of London should come as no surprise. Labour selected well. It’s the perfect time for it – Khan is a Muslim and so Labour can do what it does best: play the champions of “tolerance” and “equality”, all the while cloaking real intolerance and inequality and protecting it from public scrutiny. To listen to the BBC, one would think that Khan had been subjected to a terrible “racist” smear campaign orchestrated by his Conservative opponent Zac Goldsmith. But of course it was Goldsmith who had been subjected to a smear campaign, by a Labour Party using one of the great weapons of modern British politics – the word “racist”. The smearing of Goldsmith, both during the campaign and since, demonstrates so perfectly this: reality is irrelevant, it is speaking of reality that causes problems.     Goldsmith became a terrible “racist” when he questioned his opponent’s apparent friendships with some rather nasty characters. He was right to. It was entirely valid. Goldsmith wrote in the Daily Mail that Khan, and others in the higher echelons of the Labour Party, had “repeatedly legitimised those with extremist views”. He’s right, they have. We all know that the Labour leader
Feminists Need To Know — Islam Kills Women
Saturday, April 9, 2016 10:51 AM

I used to be a feminist, but I gave it up so I could speak out for women’s rights. Even before the “intersectional”, “how many genders are there?” lunacy took over, feminism was filled to bursting with types who think men are misogynists who all secretly want to rape us (this despite the fact that men are among the greatest supporters of women’s rights) and a happily married mother is some kind of traitor. The kind of people, in other words, who nobody in their right mind could possibly get along with. While I will always speak out for women to maintain our just civil rights, I do want Sharia Watch to spend significantly more time on freedom of speech (we will run an autumn campaign ‘Islam Kills Free Speech’) and the impact of Islam on children, but before I do, I intend to spend the summer doing something very important – informing the ludicrous feminists of today of something they desperately need to know: Islam Kills Women. Islam Kills Women is a joint effort between Sharia Watch UK and Examine-Islam.org  It aims to do one thing and one thing only, show the world just why it is that women
Establishment Fantasists Brand PEGIDA ‘Far Right’ And Calls Left Wing Thugs ‘Anti Fascists’, The Reality Is Much Different
Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:00 AM

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany and de facto EU boss, said in her New Year message at the outset of 2015 that Pegida had “hate in their hearts”. It’s an interesting comment from a woman who sees her own people attacked in the street but doesn’t think it important enough to control her borders. German women tell her they’re frightened, but she appears rather unmoved. Pegida, meaning Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West, began in Dresden in 2014. The group seeks to halt the mass migration of Muslims to the Western world, as it fears the growing influence of Islam. Its initial march through Dresden in October 2014 drew only a small number of people. They persevered however and continue to hold Monday night walks through the city, sometimes attracting 10,000s of supporters. Just a few days after Merkel’s condemnation of Pegida, the iconic cathedral that dominates the city of Cologne switched off its lights in protest at their presence there. The dean of the cathedral suggested those walking with Pegida should “think about who they march alongside”. He cannot have known that one year later, events in his city would prove Pegida right, and perhaps it was he who should be thinking – about what mass immigration
Dear So-Called Feminists – Your Open Borders Bullsh*t Will Ensure Thousands Of More Rapes And Sexual Assaults
Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:13 AM

I have no intention of launching an attack on Laurie Penny for her New Statesman article. What good would it do? All I want from her, and feminists who share her views, is that they read I write below and try to absorb it. This is important. It is a direct message to all feminists who support the massive and unprecedented immigration that Europe is experiencing now, and has experienced for the last couple of decades. It is not enough to dismiss us all as “racists and bigots”, this may make you feel more comfortable but it simply isn’t true. It isn’t bigotry or racism to observe and acknowledge reality, and there are some harsh realities that I wish you would take on board. I’m aware that as dyed-in-the-wool left-wingers, these realities will not sit well with you but they are real nonetheless. Harsh reality number one – we are not “all equal”. Leftists are absolutely wedded to the notion that we are all alike, that we all share the same values, and we all want harmony and justice. We don’t. Like it or not, there are a lot of people out there who want violence and misogyny, who want
Geert Wilders Visit Down Under: A Success And A Warning To Australia
Thursday, October 29, 2015 6:00 PM

I was wholeheartedly honoured to attend and speak at the launch of the Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) in Perth last week. What a fantastic week for a fantastic party. The launch included a keynote speech from Dutch MP Geert Wilders, which ensured the nationwide and international media coverage that the party deserves. Australia desperately needs the ALA. These are decent people who want to pass on the Australia they know and love to their children. I had thought prior to my arrival that the Aussies are not quite in the fix we Europeans find ourselves, and while this still remains true, Australia is heading, very rapidly, down the same road as the rest of us – political correctness, left-wing bullying and lies, leaders who refuse to listen to those with concerns about Islamic immigration, and a mainstream media entirely complicit and approving of all of the above. Some of the coverage of the ALA launch is worth surveying. As is the case here in Europe, mainstream journalism in Australia has decided that the new party is the problem, and not what it wants to oppose. The usual labels of “far-right” are thrown around, and most of the Australian press seems to believe that their country is a shining example of multicultural
Labour to UKIP Defector: Corbyn Is An Enemy Of Women, Jews, And Free Speech… Abandon Ship!
Monday, September 14, 2015 2:16 PM

If I were still a member of the Labour Party, I would’ve voted for Liz Kendall. Actually, scrap that, I would’ve left. If I had not already encountered my last straw, the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn would have pushed me over the edge. Towards the end of my time as a Labour activist, I could see the loopy left taking over the asylum, and I knew it was way past time for my departure.  The massive migration in to Europe from Islamic societies threatens, I believe, three major matters in our Western democracies; it threatens women, it threatens Jews, and it severely threatens our freedom of speech. Unsurprisingly, the first thing Corbyn did when elected by a massive landslide, was to prattle on about how we need to bring more “refugees” to Britain. He has thereby given Labour’s go-ahead to import masses of men who threaten Jews, threaten women, and threaten free speech. This is entirely in tune with Labour’s “values”, and it’s about to get a hell of a lot worse. If you need evidence, here it is: WOMEN The Labour Party, and the left in general, has a serious problem with women. When I was a Labour member,
Anne Marie Waters: BBC Made Me Look As ‘Radical’ As an Islamist Hate Preacher, For Opposing Violent Islamism
Thursday, September 3, 2015 2:33 PM

What happens when people are confronted with sheer evil? Well, some acknowledge it and attempt to oppose it, others refuse to admit it exists and attack those who continually remind them that it does. An effective tactic is to pretend that those who oppose evil are in fact evil themselves (“racist”, “bigot” etc). This tactic was utilised again yesterday when I was featured in a BBC programme which purported that I, who sought to show some cartoons in support of free expression the world over, am the equivalent of a jihadist who wants to cut up little girls’ genitals, wants those who leave Islam to be murdered, and calls for a global battle against democracy and freedom.  We’re the same, equally “radical”. Moral relativism has reduced us to such depths that opposites are now equals and right and wrong no longer exist. The BBC’s Victoria Live programme showcased myself and one Haitham al-Haddad as “two people not deemed potentially violent but considered by some as very offensive”. Caitrin Nye, the journalist who produced the report, attempted to downplay Haddad’s views in her introduction of him. She said he has stated that “God hates homosexuals, that leaving Islam is punishable by death
‘Frightened’ Britain Cancels Mohammed Cartoon Exhibit
Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:14 AM

It’s an odd feeling sitting down to write this, it’s a mixture of relief and foreboding. The Mohammed Cartoon exhibit that I and others had planned for September in London has been cancelled, and the fact that this has brought relief should offer some clues as to why. Over the last few weeks, I have had several conversations with both Scotland Yard and counter-terror detectives. My conclusion? That the risk of running this exhibition is simply too high. When setting out to do something like this, one has to be prepared for the possibility of threats, or even violence, but it’s easy to underestimate the impact such things will have on the people around you. There’s a very real possibility that people could be hurt or killed – before, during, and after the event. This, together with the fact that our venue had indicated it wanted to pull out citing security and insurance concerns, and given the fear that people were feeling generally, the only responsible thing to do was to pull back and try to learn some lessons. I have not learned lessons as much as I have had my suspicions confirmed. There are two major messages to take on board from this episode: 1) Britain is a
Hard Left Campaigners LIED About Islam vs West ‘Civil War’ Claim
Tuesday, July 28, 2015 5:25 PM

When people become newly involved in political campaigning, particularly any kind involving Islam, they often do so with apprehension. Many are afraid of violence, or of being labelled a “racist” and therefore ostracised, and they invariably fear losing their jobs. This fear is partly caused by deceitful, and particularly nasty attacks from people and groups on the extreme left. The left’s attacks on its opponents can be venomous. It’s important to note that I said attacks on its opponents there, because rarely do leftists trouble themselves with political discussion of issues actually raised, nor does it often concern itself about whether or not the ammunition it will use for its attack contain any truth. So today I was left with the rather tedious job of picking apart a little bundle of lies produced by the hate-spreading, extreme-left organisation that so ironically calls itself “Hope Not Hate”. The lies began early, as did Hope Not Hate’s directions as to what we are and are not allowed to say about Islam. The report is built on one acutely egregious lie – that I, and others, are using a Muhammad Cartoon Exhibition deliberately to whip up violence and incite “civil war”. This is all
Mr Cameron, Grow a Backbone and Put the People of this Country First
Tuesday, July 21, 2015 3:16 PM

Here we go again. David Cameron yesterday laid out his Government’s plan to tackle an existential threat to our country. Many people were impressed – but for me, that is demonstrative of how weak our leaders have been thus far. Before I offer my alternative plan, let’s take a look at where Cameron falls short. While acknowledging the ludicrous “nothing to do with Islam” fallacy as just that, Cameron does so merely as a method of facilitating discussion as to what represents “true Islam”. He does this while insisting of course that ISIS, and its fellow violent thugs, do not represent it. But who is to say? And if the barbaric version of Islam isn’t a valid one, why is it so widespread – including among nation-states we call our allies? Cameron repeatedly states that it is Muslims who overwhelmingly suffer at the hands of ISIS, and this is true – but he doesn’t seem to understand that ISIS do not see the Muslims they murder as true Muslims, they see them as infidels who do not follow Islam correctly. That “Muslims are the majority of victims” is not, I’m afraid, the full story. He points repeatedly to the “far-Right”.