Author: NDS.2020

In my experience as once a perpetrator now ally, the debate around the term Islamophobia has grown increasingly complex. Many argue that we need a clearer, fairer definition, one that protects the thousands of peaceful Muslims who live harmoniously among us, while not inadvertently offering cover to extremist ideologies that seek to harm or divide society.

The UK is home to millions of Muslims who contribute richly to our communities. They are our neighbours, colleagues, and friends, people who share the same hopes, dreams, and challenges as everyone else. These individuals deserve to live free from prejudice, discrimination, and fear. No one should face hostility simply because of their faith or background has at times been used so broadly that legitimate criticism of extremist behaviour or ideology is unfairly labelled as hatred towards Islam itself. This creates a dangerous situation: it risks silencing open discussion about security, radicalisation, and human rights, while doing little to support the many ordinary Muslims who simply want to practise their faith peacefully.

A redefined understanding of Islamophobia should make this distinction clear. It must unequivocally condemn anti-Muslim hatred, verbal abuse, discrimination, and violence, while also safeguarding freedom of expression and honest debate about extremism. The goal should be balance: to ensure that compassion and reason coexist, and that neither prejudice nor fanaticism finds room to grow.

Protecting peaceful Muslims means standing up for them when they face hate crimes or discrimination. But it also means confronting those who distort their religion for violent or political ends. Only by doing both can we build a society that is truly fair, cohesive, and secure for everyone.

If we are to redefine Islamophobia, let it be in a way that strengthens understanding, promotes dialogue, and unites communities, rather than allowing extremism, of any kind, to thrive under its shadow.

@newdaystarts

Birmingham, a city famed for its diversity and multicultural heritage, is once again at the centre of a storm. The decision to ban Israeli football fans from attending an Aston Villa match has sparked outrage, but the controversy runs far deeper than a single sporting event.

Footage has emerged showing MP Ayoub Khan being warmly praised at Lozells Central Mosque by preacher Asrar Rashid, who urged his followers to show “no mercy” to Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters. Rashid’s incendiary words, coming just hours after Khan publicly backed the ban, are deeply troubling. While some argue that his remarks were misinterpreted, the repeated rhetoric, condemning Israelis, referencing IDF soldiers, and framing violence in a religious context, cannot be ignored.

This incident highlights a wider problem: certain parts of the UK Muslim community continue to harbour antisemitic sentiment. Anti-Israel rhetoric sometimes slides seamlessly into outright antisemitism, creating a hostile environment for Jewish citizens. It is vital to recognise and confront this, even as we defend the rights and freedoms of all faith communities.

Yet, videos like Rashid’s also carry another danger. By amplifying extreme rhetoric from one mosque or one preacher, the mainstream media and social media platforms risk feeding Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred. When people outside Birmingham see clips urging “no mercy” to Jewish fans, it is easy to conflate extremists with the entire Muslim community, which is both inaccurate and profoundly unfair.

The Birmingham MP’s involvement only exacerbates the tension. Political leaders have a duty to protect communities and uphold the law. Endorsing a ban on Israeli fans while engaging with figures who promote hate sends a message of appeasement to extremists and fear to ordinary citizens. This is not leadership; it is abdication.

The real victims here are ordinary people: Jewish families who want to support their team, local residents caught in the crossfire of political posturing, and the vast majority of Muslims in Birmingham who abhor hate speech and violence. Football should unite communities, not serve as a stage for sectarianism.

Birmingham deserves a leadership that defends the rights of all citizens, confronts antisemitism where it exists, and condemns extremism without fuelling prejudice against Muslims. Videos like these should spark vigilance and accountability, not Islamophobia, not division, not fear. The city, and indeed the country, cannot afford otherwise.

@newdaystarts

I’ve never been a fan of labels and have spoken out against them for years. “Far right,” “radical left,” “woke,” “snowflake,” “fascist,” “Marxist” the list goes on. It seems we’ve built a political culture where sticking a tag on someone matters more than actually understanding what they’re saying.

What really makes me laugh (or despair, depending on the day) is how quickly people who object to being labelled themselves are the first to slap a label on someone else. Those who insist, “I’m not far right!” will, in the same breath, sneer about “the radical left,” or “the woke brigade.” It cuts both ways, or not at all.

This constant cycle of finger-pointing and name-calling isn’t debate. It’s a distraction. It lets people avoid having to justify their ideas, or even engage with anyone who challenges them. Why listen, when you can dismiss? Why think, when you can shout?

What’s worse, it’s fuelled by the very politicians and media figures who thrive on outrage. Talk shows need conflict; parties need enemies. So, the easiest route is to make disagreement sound like extremism. If you question immigration policy, you’re “far right.” If you talk about inequality, you’re “hard left.” If you ask for fairness, you’re “woke.”

This isn’t politics, it’s playground stuff dressed up as principle.

The truth is, most people aren’t ideologues. They’re not sitting around plotting cultural revolutions or national takeovers. They just want decent lives, a fair shot, and a bit of respect. But that doesn’t sell papers, and it doesn’t trend online. Division does.

So, maybe the next time someone throws a label your way, the best answer isn’t to throw one back, it’s to ask what they actually mean. Because once we stop talking in headlines and start talking like human beings again, we might find we’re not as divided as we’ve been told we are.

Until then, expect more shouting, more smugness, and more meaningless labels, from people who still can’t see that they’re doing exactly what they claim to hate.

@Newdaystarts

Yet another terror attack has struck the UK, this time against a synagogue in Manchester. It comes at a moment when England has rarely felt more divided. Political arguments, cultural battles, and economic pressures have left us fractured and this latest violence threatens to split us further.

Already, the attack has fuelled fires on all sides. Some are using it to point fingers, to deepen divides, to pit communities against one another. But we must be clear: the Jewish people in that Manchester synagogue are not responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, just as ordinary Muslims attending their local mosque are not responsible for the crimes of a deranged jihadist. Collective blame is poison. And it’s exactly what those who commit these attacks want us to fall into.

Manchester knows this pain. We remember the Arena bombing. We remember the grief, the anger, and the attempts to drive wedges between communities. But Manchester also remembers something else: how people came together. How the city stood shoulder to shoulder, refusing to be cowed, refusing to let hatred define it.

The individuals who carry out these attacks want us to turn on one another. They want Jews to feel unsafe in their synagogues. They want ordinary Muslims to be blamed for crimes they had no part in. They want Britain to eat itself alive with mistrust and hate.

We cannot give them that victory.

My thoughts and prayers are with all those affected in Manchester. But thoughts and prayers must also be joined with defiance, with a refusal to allow this attack to become another brick in the wall of division.

We must grieve, yes. We must demand justice, yes. But we must also remember that unity is our strongest weapon. If we stand together, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, secular, all communities, then hatred cannot win.

Those seeking to divide us will fail if we refuse to play their dangerous game. Division is their fuel. Unity is our shield.

Manchester has shown before that it can meet terror with resilience and compassion. Now is the time to show it again.

We cannot allow hatred to rule. Not in Manchester. Not in Britain. Not now. Not ever.

@newdaystarts

Patriotism is too often twisted into something ugly. Politicians, commentators, and agitators on both extremes of the spectrum are guilty of this. They try to weaponise love of country, turning it into a tool for division rather than a source of unity.

But real patriotism is not about fear. It is not about setting neighbour against neighbour or looking for enemies within. It is about pride, pride in who we are, pride in where we come from, and pride in the communities we build together.

Those on the far right wrap themselves in the flag to push exclusion. Those on the far left sneer at patriotism altogether, dismissing it as nothing more than nationalism in disguise. Both sides are wrong, and both sides are guilty of dividing us.

Patriotism is not about hate. It is not about hierarchy. It is about belonging. And anyone who tries to tell us otherwise is selling division, not unity.

Britain’s strength has always come from its people. From different backgrounds, different beliefs, and different walks of life, we come together as one. That’s the point of patriotism: not to splinter into tribes, but to recognise that we share something bigger than ourselves.

When we allow extremists, whether it be left-wing or far right—to hijack that, we all lose. We end up suspicious, defensive, and fractured. But when we reclaim patriotism as a positive force, we create pride, confidence, and unity.

It’s time to stop letting the loudest, angriest voices define what it means to love your country. Patriotism is not theirs to own or distort. It belongs to everyone who cares about Britain, who wants it to be fairer, stronger, and more united.

Reject those who peddle division, wherever they sit on the spectrum. Because we are all better than that.

Patriotism should bring us together—not tear us apart.

The Prime Minister is expected to trot out a familiar line on Friday: the St George’s Cross and the Union Flag are “for all of us”, symbols of unity. It sounds noble enough, but let’s be brutally honest. If politicians truly believed that, they wouldn’t have spent years allowing the flag to be smeared, distorted and deliberately tied to extremism.

Every time the ‘far right’ unfurls the national flag, the press falls over itself to declare it tainted. “Look!” they scream. “The flag has become a symbol of hate!” But that’s a lie by omission. The flag hasn’t changed meaning, the commentary around it has.

Let’s be really clear: people on the far right don’t believe they’re wielding a hate symbol. They believe they’re being patriotic. Agree with them or not, that is how they see it. But rather than acknowledging that, politicians and journalists twist the narrative. They pretend the fabric itself is dangerous, a shorthand for extremism.

Why? Because it’s easier to smear the symbol than to deal with the grievances of the people flying it.

A flag cannot hate. It cannot exclude. It cannot divide. It is politicians, the media and the left who load it with those meanings, because they want to make patriotism itself suspicious. If the Union Flag can be permanently associated with the “far right”, then anyone who dares fly it can be dismissed as a bigot. Job done. Debate over.

And it’s working, Ordinary people now hesitate to fly their own national flag for fear of being judged. St George’s Day passes in a whisper while other national days are loudly celebrated. Children grow up learning that showing pride in Britain is “dodgy”, unless it’s dressed up for a royal wedding or a football match.

That’s not accidental. it’s engineered. Politicians want the flag as a backdrop for photo ops, not as a rallying point for real communities. The media wants the flag as a prop for sensational headlines, not as a living emblem of belonging.

So here’s the real uncomfortable question: who gets to decide what the flag represents? The answer should be obvious, the people of Britain. But right now, the narrative is dictated by elites who are terrified of genuine patriotism, because patriotism demands they actually defend the country’s people, not just its symbols.

If we allow politicians and the media to keep smearing the flag, they will succeed in making patriotism itself a dirty word. And once that’s gone, so is any sense of shared belonging.

The Prime Minister can lecture all he likes about “unity”, but unless we call out this deliberate poisoning of national pride, the flag will remain a weapon used against us instead of a banner carried by all of us.

It’s time to take it back. Not for the far right. Not for the government. But for the people who actually live under it.

@newdaystarts

For years, figures like Nigel Farage, Reform UK and UKIP have sung the same tune: our problems are caused by outsiders. Immigration, Brussels, refugees—it’s always someone else to blame. But the uncomfortable truth is far closer to home.

The system has been rigged against ordinary people for decades. Wages have stagnated while living costs soar. Homes are harder to afford than ever. Schools are crumbling. The NHS is stretched to breaking point. Meanwhile, wealth and power have been hoarded at the very top, out of reach for the millions who keep this country running.

Britain’s Not Broken—Its Leadership Is

This is not a nation short of talent or hard work. Britain is full of graft, creativity, and resilience. What’s missing is leadership that believes in all of us. Politicians have been far too happy to pit neighbour against neighbour, stoking division and resentment, rather than tackling the real sources of inequality and injustice.

The real fight has never been between working-class communities in Burnley, Barking or Birmingham. It has always been between those starved of what they need. fair pay, safe streets, warm homes, decent healthcare—and those who profit from keeping things exactly as they are.

When politicians point the finger at “outsiders”, they are distracting us from the fact that they themselves have overseen this decline. They want us arguing over scraps instead of asking the obvious question: why, in one of the richest countries in the world, are so many of us left struggling?

Fair pay. Warm homes. Safe streets. Strong schools. A functioning NHS. These are not luxuries or utopian dreams. They are the basic standards every citizen should expect. That they now feel out of reach is a political choice, not an inevitability.

The challenge is simple: do we keep rewarding those who tear us apart with lies and scapegoats, or do we demand leaders who bring us together? Britain deserves better than endless culture wars and blame games. We deserve leaders with the courage to build a fairer, more united country, where the real enemy isn’t our neighbour, but a broken system that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

@newdaystarts

When “Unite the Kingdom”, Tommy Robinson’s massive rally on 13 September 2025, resulted in 25 arrests, the press nearly collapsed in outrage: “far-right thugs”, “extremists running wild”, “dangerous mobs”. But when the Notting Hill Carnival sees hundreds of arrests every year, violence, weapons incidents, even assaults on police, it is almost always portrayed as a “celebration of culture and community”. The difference in tone is glaring. Here are real examples.

Real Headlines, Real Spin

Unite the Kingdom Rally

• Sky News headline: “Up to 150,000 people join march organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson” alongside mention of 25 arrests. The story emphasises far-right, anti-immigration, violent disorder. Sky News+2Al Jazeera+2
• Reuters: “Scuffles with police as 100,000 anti-immigration protesters march in London” emphasises “anti-immigration protesters” and “violent clashes”. Reuters+2ABC+2
• The Guardian: “Far-right London rally sees record crowds and violent clashes with police.” The framing here is strong: far-right rally “violent clashes”, “assaults on officers”, etc. The Guardian+1
• The Independent: reports “police say officers assaulted during mass London march organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson”. Again, the adjectives far-right, assault, violence dominate. euronews+1

Notting Hill Carnival

• Evening Standard: “Notting Hill Carnival 2025: One million revellers party in west London as police make face-scanning arrests”. This headline puts the emphasis first on “one million revellers party”, “celebration”, “carnival”, and culture. The arrests are portrayed as part of proactive policing rather than moral panic. The Standard
• Coverage of the Carnival often uses words like celebration, community, culture, music, joy, with crime or arrests mentioned in subordinate clauses, or as expected “downsides” of big events. (I couldn’t find a headline in any major newspaper’s which leads with “Carnival thugs” or “violent mobs at Carnival” which is telling in itself.)

Why the Difference Matters

Here’s how the framing diverges:

Feature	Tommy Robinson Rally	Notting Hill Carnival
Language	Far-right, thugs, extremists, nationalists, assault, violent disorder	Celebration, culture, joy, community, party, colourful
What arrests mean	Proof of dangerous ideology; evidence that the whole event is illegitimate	Seen as disturbances or regrettable incidents in otherwise festive atmosphere
Who is culpable	The protestors are criticised heavily; the media largely treats the event as a threat	The media frames issues as policing challenges, or isolated bad apples, not as intrinsic to the community

This isn’t journalism, it’s narrative management. The media decides which story is dangerous and which is benign. When one event is painted as a threat and the other as a celebration. even when both have arrests and some violence, it reveals bias, intentional or not.

It suggests that some voices, especially those associated with certain communities or political ideologies, are presumed dangerous, while others are presumed innocent. That in itself is a form of signalling: you are other, we trust you less, we will treat your gathering as menacing by default.

If we want honesty, we need consistent standards. If violence is to be condemned at one event, it must be condemned at all. If arrests are headline news for one crowd, they should be for any crowd. If “culture” is celebrated in one situation, “culture” must be allowed to speak in others without being drowned out by accusations.

Pretending there’s no bias helps no one, And that is one of the surest ways to entrench division rather than heal it.

@newdaystarts

The Unite the Kingdom rally in London shocked many with its sheer size. Commentators rushed to say it was “all about Tommy Robinson” or “the far right on the march”. But that’s a cop-out. The thousands who turned up didn’t appear out of thin air. They are the product of years of politicians and the mainstream media sneering, finger-pointing, and branding anyone who dares to question the status quo as “racist” or “far right”.

Manufactured Division

Let’s be blunt. The establishment has created this problem. Whenever ordinary people raise concerns about immigration, cultural change, or fairness, they are not met with debate. They are met with contempt. Politicians throw around words like “bigot” to shut the conversation down. Journalists churn out smug think-pieces about “the rise of extremism” while refusing to ask why so many people feel ignored in the first place.

This is what happens when leaders stop listening and start lecturing. When national broadcasters repeat the same tired narratives about “migrant crises” or “community tensions”, they aren’t informing, they’re framing the public as the problem. Then, when the frustration boils over into mass demonstrations, those same outlets act shocked. Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Who’s Really Driving Radicalisation?

We’re constantly told that rallies like Unite the Kingdom prove the far right is radicalising people. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: it isn’t Tommy Robinson who radicalises first, it’s the political class and the MSM. By silencing debate, labelling dissent, and demeaning those with genuine concerns, they funnel people straight into the arms of whoever will listen.

The cycle is obvious:

• Step one: Demonise people who ask difficult questions.
• Step two: Shut down every avenue for open debate.
• Step three: Feign outrage when those same people gather in huge numbers under banners you don’t approve of.

This is radicalisation by negligence, and it sits squarely at the feet of Westminster and the media.

Violence Is Never Justified

Yes, the violence at the rally was unacceptable. The Metropolitan Police confirmed 26 officers were injured, and that cannot be brushed aside. Violence discredits the very grievances that drove people to protest in the first place. But violence doesn’t appear in a vacuum. It grows out of years of pent-up frustration, ignored concerns, and an establishment that treats half the country like lepers for speaking their minds.

Time to Own the Mess

The Unite the Kingdom rally wasn’t a fluke. It was a warning shot. Politicians and the MSM can keep dismissing it as a far-right spectacle if they like, but the truth is simpler and more dangerous: they built it. Every time they silence debate, every time they weaponise labels, every time they play divide-and-rule politics, they drive more people into anger and alienation.

If Britain wants peace, it won’t come from censorship, condemnation, or denial. It will come from actually listening, engaging, and treating people like citizens rather than problems to be managed. Until that happens, don’t act surprised when the streets fill up again.

@newdaystarts

Democracy is built on debate, disagreement, and the free exchange of ideas. It requires passion, argument, and, above all, respect for one another’s right to be heard. Yet, time and again, we are reminded that even in societies that pride themselves on openness, those who step forward into public life risk not only criticism but violence and, tragically, sometimes their lives.

The murders of Jo Cox in 2016 and Sir David Amess in 2021 remain stark reminders here in the UK that public service can come with a terrible cost. Both were committed parliamentarians, motivated by a desire to make their communities better, yet both were targeted in moments that should have been the most ordinary, a constituency surgery, a meeting with the people they represented.

Across the world, the picture is no different. In the United States, figures such as Minnesota’s Melissa Hortman have faced threats simply for carrying out their democratic duties. And only yesterday, an attack on Charlie Kirk underlined again that political violence is not limited to one ideology, one nation, or one moment in time.

What unites all these incidents is the brutal attempt to silence voices through fear. But democracy cannot function when intimidation takes the place of dialogue. Violence is never the answer.

Disagreement is natural in politics, essential, even. But disagreement must never become dehumanisation. When we reduce those with different views to enemies rather than opponents, we create the conditions in which violence festers. If democracy is to survive and thrive, we must relearn the art of arguing without hatred, of criticising without cruelty, of holding strong convictions without wishing harm on those who disagree.

Nobody should be killed for participating in democracy. Nobody should be attacked for speaking, campaigning, or representing others. Whatever our politics, we must stand together on this: the ballot box, not the blade or the bullet, is the only legitimate path for change.

Only by rejecting violence, not only in action but also in language, in rhetoric, in the way we treat one another online and off, can we ensure that democracy endures as the safeguard of freedom it was always meant to be.

@Newdaystarts