Part 5: A fish rots from its head.
In this ancient proverb, the ‘fish’ is a metaphor for leadership; corruption and incompetence stemming from the top.
While it’s easy to imagine that the motive driving the Islamisation of Britain is grassroots jihad, the slow, insidious Islamisation of Britain could not have occurred without the penetration of key institutions such as the Home Office and NHS. It’s difficult to see how this could have occurred unless blind eyes had been turned at the top.
* * *
Even before 2014 it was becoming clear from media reports that the great majority of convicted individuals had Muslim-sounding names, but the Jay report said what many had been afraid to state publicly, that the majority of the perpetrators in Rotherham were of Pakistani heritage. As a result, news media began to replace ‘Asian’ with ‘Pakistani’ in their reports.
Perhaps sensing its politically explosive potential, in July 2018 the then Conservative Home Secretary Sajid Javid ordered an investigation into the ethnic ‘characteristics’ of grooming gangs, and why members of sexual grooming gangs are disproportionately from a Pakistani background. He said the controversial move was intended to prevent cases like those suffered in Rotherham, Telford and Newcastle.
Mr Javid, whose parents had immigrated from Pakistan in the 1960s, said that the government “attaches the highest priority to tackling child sexual exploitation”. His commitment followed after Sarah Champion was criticised for claiming the UK “has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls”. Javid said that understanding more about gang networks would “support a more targeted response by the police and other agencies”, adding “If there is a need for further research, we will take it forward.”
Having undertaken to release the report in 2018, the Home Office sat on its hands, claiming that publication was not in the ‘public interest’, even after The Independent made a Freedom of Information Request. Eventually, the government agreed to publish the report after a petition had been signed by over 130,000 people.
The Home Office report on ‘Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation: Characteristics of Offending’ was eventually published on 15 December 2020. Point 17 of its ‘key findings’ contains the following (emphasis added):-
- ‘Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.’
- ‘Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.’
- ‘This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.’ (p.8)
All of which demonstrate that the Home Office avoided answering the key question of whether some ethnic groups are more likely to belong to grooming gangs than others. And a closer look shows the following:
- The statement that offenders are ‘most commonly’ white is meaningless. The UK population is 86% White; 7.5% Asian; 3.3% Black, 2.2% Mixed/Multiple, so the majority of offenders would be expected to be white. The inquiry should have focused on the question of how many white British men per 100,000 white British men are convicted for child grooming, and how many British Muslim men per 100,000 British Muslim men are convicted for child grooming. This would show whether or not some ethnic groups are over-represented relative to the demographics of national populations.
- On page 26, point 76a, the Home Office report mentions a 2011 study by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), which found that ‘Where data was available 30% of offenders were White, while 28% were Asian’
- The claim that some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders is so intellectually infantile that it has to be a deliberate understatement. While 86% of the population is White, only 30% of offenders are white; and although only 7.5% of the population is Asian, 28% of offenders are Asian. By the data they use, Asians are massively over-represented.
- Asia is a continent, so ‘Asian’ includes Hindus and Sikhs from India and Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh, not to mention Vietnamese, Japanese, and Koreans. The report mentions a Somali grooming gang in Bristol, implying that we can’t just blame Asians, because some offenders are African. This misses the point that Somalis are overwhelmingly Muslim. So it would have been more appropriate to ask if Muslims, rather than Asians, are over-represented in grooming gangs. It’s just the Home Office’s way of avoiding the question of whether some Muslims behave in ways that are incompatible with British values.
So maybe we can understand the Home Office’s reluctance to publish the results of its ‘investigation’; independent scrutiny would have exposed its infantile methodology and its deeper motive of keeping Islam away from scrutiny.
The Home Office’s devious way of diverting attention
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has ordered officials to publish data crime statistics showing the nationalities and crimes of those awaiting deportation.
Reaction was predictable – the Right welcomed it, as it would confirm what they had been saying all along – that mass migration leads to an increase in crime.
On the Left, David Ryan said on LBC that it would feed hatred.
But there could be another, more subtle motive. Though the majority of rape gang perpetrators are Muslim, they are British, many of them second generation. These individuals would thus be concealed within the tiny UK part in the chart below (taken from ‘Labour to Publish Crime Data by Nationality’), thus protecting them from scrutiny.
The National Health Service
As the largest employer in the UK, it is not surprising that the NHS has been targeted for penetration by activist groups such as Stonewall, which has succeeded in diverting the NHS from health care to an agent for promoting transgender.
And according to GB News, the NHS has also been penetrated by Islamists. Within the NSS is a group called the NHS Muslim Network, with the ostensible role of “supporting Muslim colleagues, allies and friends in the NHS”.
The Network is run by NHS staff who, on top of their regular duties, are given a minimum of two days a month for their Islamic work. And over and above their taxpayer-funded NSS salaries, the Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed that the network has received at least £2,655 in public money.
But perhaps of greatest concern, GB News reports that the network has issued a ‘Guide for New Muslims’, which tells NHS staff that converting to Islam will be the “best decision you ever make” and reassures readers if family members and friends “initially [do] not have a positive reaction”.
And for those who don’t convert, a poster circulated to NHS staff encouraged by top management to fast for Ramadan, to display ‘allyship’ with Muslim colleagues.
So, all the indications are that the NHS is a significant part of a Trojan Horse in the Islamification of the UK. As if that is not enough, national leaders have failed to distance themselves, to the extent that they stand accused of complicity.
Which brings us back to the Prime Minister.
Until recently, his willful blindness to Islamic takeover had to be inferred, but on March 4, 2025, it became explicit when the Prime Minister hosted an iftar (a fast-breaking evening meal during Ramadan) for parliamentary Muslims, in Westminster Hall.
Starmer used the occasion as a platform to condemn what he called “the worst year ever recorded for hate crimes against Muslims”, for which he blamed “far-right rhetoric and disinformation for fuelling the division”. He also said that Palestinians must be allowed to rebuild, and that a two-state solution “the only path to lasting peace”.
By colonising the brains of Starmer and his government, Islam has reached the top echelons of political power. Only one layer of the establishment remains: the Monarchy.
Et tu, Charles?
In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Caesar is assassinated by a group of senators, one of whom was his friend, Brutus. Just before he died, he recognised Brutus, saying “et tu, Brute?”, meaning ‘even you, Brutus?’.
Since Shakespeare’s time, the phrase has famously come to symbolise betrayal of loyalty and friendship.
It is in this context that Charles, as Prince of Wales, and now King, has shown far more interest in the alien religion of Islam than the native Christianity, of which he is nominally the Defender of the Anglican Church.
So some people have begun to wonder whether Charles is a Quisling, or just a ‘useful idiot’. The following might have some bearing on the question:
On February 26, 2025, King Charles III and Queen Camilla helped pack dates for a charity donation ahead of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan at Darjeeling Express, a popular restaurant.
Nothing remarkable about that – just another example of Charles’s interest in the Middle East, something he has shown for decades.
But on Sunday March 2, over 360 Muslim guests gathered in St Georges Hall, Windsor Castle for the feast celebrating the end of Ramadan.
Those Christians who took ‘Defender of the faith’ to mean ‘Defender of THE faith’ were outraged. Muslims, on the other hand, greeted it with approbation.
But maybe the Christians should have seen it coming. For a long time Charles has shown an interest in other faiths, especially Islam; so much so that the traditional Coronation oath to maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law and
solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that [he is] a faithful Protestant, was modified by the additional pledge to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely, to reflect his interest in other faiths.
However, what really riled Christians was the fact that in his Easter message, Charles omitted any mention of Ash Wednesday or Lent, both of special significance for Christians.
Ruffled feathers aside, Windsor Castle episode is but the latest sign that Charles has become more interested in Islam than Christianity. In fact, some go so far as saying that he may have become a closet Muslim. There is no hard evidence for this, but the following are of interest:
- According to Middle East Eye, in 1996, the grand mufti of Cyprus, accused the then Prince Charles of secretly being a Muslim:
Did you know that Prince Charles has converted to Islam. Yes, yes. He is a Muslim. I can’t say more. But it happened in Turkey. Oh, yes, he converted all right,” the late Nazim Al-Haqqani said.
When you get home check on how often he travels to Turkey. You’ll find that your future king is a Muslim.” Of course, Buckingham Palace said it was nonsense.
- 3 years earlier, in a speech at the Oxford centre for Islamic Studies, he said:
Our judgement of Islam has been grossly distorted by taking the extremes to be the norm. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a serious mistake. It is like judging the quality of life in Britain by the existence of murder and rape, child abuse and drug addiction. The extremes exist, and they must be dealt with. But when used as a basis to judge a society, they lead to distortion and unfairness.
For example, people in this country frequently argue that Sharia law of the Islamic world is cruel, barbaric and unjust. Our newspapers, above all, love to peddle those unthinking prejudices. The truth is, of course, different and always more complex. My own understanding is that extremes are rarely practised. The guiding principle and spirit of Islamic law, taken straight from the Qur’ân, should be those of equity and compassion.
On Western materialism
Charles has been a patron of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies since 1993, and in a 2010 speech there, he said:
From what I know of [Islam’s] core teachings and commentaries, the important principle we must keep in mind is that there are limits to the abundance of nature. These are not arbitrary limits, they are the limits imposed by God and, as such, if my understanding of the Quran is correct, Muslims are commanded not to transgress them.
He later described Islam as possessing
one of the greatest treasuries of accumulated wisdom and spiritual knowledge available to humanity, a tradition he said was obscured by a drive towards “western materialism”.
One is entitled wonder how this self-publicised environmentalist, who has no time for western materialism with his proud ownership of an Aston Martin DB 6. Particularly so in view of his latest purchase of a £160,000 Lotus Eletre to his multi-million-pound car collection. Lotus describes the Eletre as an “all-electric hyper-SUV with racecar DNA”. Perhaps he thinks that his choice of an electric car will bolster what he hopes is the public’s view of him as an environmentalist.
Learning Arabic
At a reception in the Qatari capital of Doha on his tour of the Middle East in 2013, it was revealed that he had been taking lessons in Arabic in order to help him read the Qur’ân. A royal aide said that “he is enormously interested in the region.”
I have an English translation of the Qur’ân, so one might ask why he needed to learn Arabic?
On Dec 3, 2024, at a state banquet for the Emir of Qatar and his wife, in Buckingham palace, he began his speech with:
Your Highnesses,
ASSALAMU-ALAYKUM [Peace be upon you] and later, he said:
This evening I am delighted to mark the renewal of our enduring friendship:
HAYYAKUM – MARRATAN UKHRA – FEE AL-MEMLIKA AL-MUTAHHIDA, BALADKOM ATH-THANI. [welcome back to the United Kingdom, your second home]
Free speech
One of the pillars of Western civilisation (one might say THE pillar) was brought into head-on collision with Islamic totalitarianism when, on January 7, 2015, Islamic gunmen attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French, left-wing, satirical weekly newspaper, killing 12 people and wounding 11 others. The magazine is strongly anti-religious, regularly featuring attacks on Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam, and had published a cartoon of Mohammad, which is forbidden in Islam.
The Charlie Hebdo outrage forced France to confront the fact that there was a faction in French society with values so hostile to those of the rest of rest of society that they would never become integrated.
So what did Prince Charles have to say?
In a visit to Al-Azhar University in Cairo in 2006, Charles criticised the publication of Danish cartoons a year earlier which mocked the Prophet Muhammad (emphasis added):
The true mark of a civilised society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers. The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others.
While freedom of expression might not be sacred in the religious sense, it is most certainly precious to the non-Muslim majority, and these values are threatened by Islamists, illustrated by the posters below.
If Charles was aware of such explicit threats to deeply cherished Western values, he chose to prioritise the feelings of Muslims.
Such selective morality is what we might expect of a convert to Islam, rather than the Defender of the Anglican faith which, it should be remembered, originated in the 16th century as a break from Catholic totalitarianism.
Charles’ seeming willingness to subordinate free speech to Islam became even clearer when, in 2014, he was reported to have refused to support Salman Rushdie who, it may be recalled, had been subject to a fatwa by the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini.
Rushdie’s ‘crime’ had been his 1989 book, The Satanic Verses, which many Muslims have denounced as blasphemous.
Khomeini said on Tehran Radio:
I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them [Rushdie and his publishers] without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth.
According to author Martin Amis, who had been at a dinner party with Charles, Charles said he would not offer support “if someone insults someone else’s deepest convictions.
Could Charles have been aware that Rushdie’s Norwegian publisher had been shot, his Italian translator had been stabbed, and his Japanese editor had been murdered?
All because Muslim feelings had been hurt.
As if that isn’t enough, in 2022 Rushdie was repeatedly stabbed and seriously wounded at a public appearance in New York.
The assailant was Hadi Matar, an American of Lebanese parentage. At his trial he admitted that he had only read “a couple pages” of The Satanic Verses.
Massacres of Christians
To be fair, Charles can’t be accused of being completely one-eyed on Islam. In 2013, he was ‘deeply troubled’ by the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. Perhaps significantly, Charles did not identify the perpetrators as the extremist group, the Islamic State (IS), which has carried out the systematic mass murder of Christian minorities in Syria, Iraq Libya, Egypt, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria and Mozambiqe, as reported in detail by Wikipedia.
Islamic State take their mandate to kill Christians straight from the Quran. Just 3 examples of over a hundred verses which are explicit commands to kill ‘unbelievers’:
Surah 3:151 (chapter 3, verse 151): “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (all non-Muslims) …”
Surah 2:191: “And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Muslims).”
Surah 9:5: “Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …”
Apologists argue that such verses are taken out of context. In the case of 2:191 for example, reading it in its context (2:190-195) it says opposite to what is implied by the verse in isolation.
Charles doesn’t deal with such complicating factors. In any case, the IS terrorists don’t concern themselves with constraints implied by ‘context’.
* * *
What to expect if the Islamists succeed?
No doubt it will be argued that posters such as those displayed above do not represent Islam. But as I have shown, Islam contains a wide spectrum of belief, ranging from the relatively peaceful ‘Mecca’ Muslims to the violent ‘Medina’ Jihadists. Though the latter are a small minority, they are by far the most vocal, as the slogans displayed at London demonstrations have shown.
But if you think that nobody is going to be beheaded in England for ‘insulting Islam’, you could be wrong, as it has recently happened across the channel in a suburb of Paris. On October 16, 2020, Samuel Paty, a 47-year-old geography and history teacher at a school in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, was beheaded by an 18-year-old Chechen Islamic extremist shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ (god is great).
His crime? In a lesson on freedom of thought and speech, he showed some of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of Muhammad to his pupils. Though he reportedly told pupils they could leave the classroom if they thought they might be offended, it wasn’t enough to protect him from 7th century barbarism.
End of Part 5. Part 6 will be published on DTNZ this Sunday.
See also:
- Part 1: Powell vindicated
- Part 2: The UK Labour leadership – enablers of child rape, trafficking, torture and pimping
- Part 3: Islam is the problem
- Part 4: Radical Islam is already inside the gates
- Part 6: What is to be done?
This is the fifth installment of a six-part series by Martin Hanson examining the legacy and consequences of Enoch Powell’s infamous 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech. Far from fading into history, Hanson argues that Powell’s warnings about mass immigration and political denial have proven disturbingly prophetic. In this opening part, he revisits the speech in its full historical context, explores the immediate and long-term reactions it provoked, and draws a direct line to one of the most harrowing and underreported scandals in modern British history—the widespread, organized sexual exploitation of young girls by grooming gangs, and the institutional failures that allowed it to continue unchecked.
