Author: NDS.2020

In 1968, Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech cast a long, toxic shadow over British political discourse. His claim that Britons would become “strangers in their own country” was rooted in a fear of immigration that veiled racial anxiety as cultural concern. Fifty-seven years later, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has echoed similar language, warning that we “risk becoming an island of strangers.”

The comparison is as uncomfortable as it is revealing. While Starmer’s words lack Powell’s incendiary tone and historical baggage, the resonance is unmistakable. Both frame the nation in terms of alienation—a fracturing of communal identity—and both raise the question: who, exactly, is being made a stranger, and by whom?

In Powell’s time, it was clear: non-white immigrants were the perceived outsiders, and the speech served as a clarion call to nativism. His rhetoric helped define the outer edge of acceptable public discourse on race and migration for a generation. For Starmer, the terrain is subtler, but no less fraught. His remark comes at a time when Britain is grappling with cultural fragmentation, economic disparity, and a chronic crisis of political trust. The “strangers” he refers to may not be immigrants alone—they may be the economically dispossessed, the digitally isolated, the politically disillusioned.

Still, language matters. When national leaders frame the present in terms of strangers and estrangement, they risk validating the idea that belonging is a fragile, exclusionary privilege—rather than a shared, evolving identity. In doing so, they echo a historical reflex that sees social change not as an opportunity for enrichment, but as a threat to cohesion.

But who makes a stranger? Is it the migrant who moves to contribute to a new society? The young Briton priced out of their hometown? The minority Briton asked again and again, “Where are you really from?” Strangership, we must recognise, is often imposed—not chosen. The danger lies not in our growing diversity, but in the politics of division that treat cultural difference as a zero-sum game.

If Starmer wishes to lead a truly inclusive Britain, he must move beyond cautious nods to national unease and instead articulate a hopeful, generous vision of belonging. One that doesn’t merely mourn a perceived loss of identity, but builds a future around shared values—fairness, dignity, opportunity—for all who call this country home.

Otherwise, we risk more than becoming an island of strangers. We risk becoming a nation afraid of its own reflection.

@newdaystarts

There is a persistent, and frankly damaging, mindset that continues to afflict certain journalists and self-styled “anti-racism experts”. It is the quiet but unmistakable presumption of intellectual superiority: the belief that they are, by default, more enlightened than the rest of us.

This assumption is not only arrogant, but deeply counterproductive. It fosters a sense of detachment from the very communities and conversations they purport to champion. Rather than building bridges, it erects walls. It alienates those who are engaged in this work not for professional advancement, but out of genuine interest, lived experience, or moral commitment.

While some are busy polishing their credentials and cultivating their personal brands, others, often unpaid, unrecognised, and excluded from the institutional spotlight are pushing the discourse forward. These are the individuals who identify emerging patterns, challenge comfortable assumptions, and take intellectual risks without the cushion of a salary or an academic title. More often than not, they are years ahead in thought, unconstrained by professional orthodoxy or performative posturing.

It is ironic that those most invested in the appearance of progressiveness are often the least willing to be challenged. The work of dismantling systemic inequality demands humility, not hierarchy. It requires listening more than lecturing, especially to those who are doing the hard thinking, unencumbered by the need to be seen as “the expert”.

The future of this work does not belong to those who believe they have already arrived. It belongs to those who remain open, curious, and willing to evolve. Perhaps it is time the so-called experts stopped looking down from their pedestals, and started looking around.

@newdaystarts

When will mainstream media, major newspapers, and influential organisations take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves a difficult question: what role have we played in radicalising individuals?

It’s a question that demands urgent attention—not just in the wake of each violent act or surge of online extremism, but as part of a continuous cultural self-examination. More than a decade ago, I was involved in the English Defence League (EDL), and even then, I noticed a troubling contradiction that still lingers today. People who express views—often drawn directly from reputable media sources—are frequently met with hostility, dismissed outright as racists, or branded far-right. But if those same opinions appear in a polished opinion piece or are voiced by a columnist with the right credentials, they are considered part of “respectable debate”.

This double standard is not just frustrating—it’s dangerous.

Mainstream media has long operated under a powerful paradox. On one hand, they serve as gatekeepers of legitimate discourse. On the other, they amplify divisive narratives—about immigration, crime, identity, and religion—often in ways that blur the line between reporting and provocation. Tabloid headlines stoke fear. Think tanks with ideological agendas are quoted as neutral experts. Dog-whistles are sanitised and published under the guise of concern for “integration” or “security”.

And yet, when readers absorb this language, respond to it emotionally, and express it—sometimes clumsily, sometimes passionately—they’re told they’ve crossed a line. But who drew that line in the first place? And why is it that people repeating media-sanctioned talking points are excluded from civil discourse?

This dissonance can breed resentment and alienation. For some—especially those already on the fringes—it creates a fertile ground for radicalisation. They begin to distrust institutions that appear hypocritical or elitist. They turn to alternative platforms that claim to say “what the mainstream won’t”. These platforms often exploit genuine grievances but distort them into dangerous ideologies.

Of course, individuals are responsible for their actions. But institutions—especially those with the power to shape public perception—must also take responsibility for the broader consequences of their messaging.

1. Northumberland Teenager Charged with Terrorism Offences – February 27, 2025

A 15-year-old male from Northumberland appeared in court charged with engaging in conduct in preparation for committing acts of terrorism and membership of a proscribed organisation. Reporting suggests that the individual was a member of The Base, a predominantly US-based white supremacist group.
https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/latest-news/

2. Gateshead Man Sentenced for Inciting Racial Hatred – March 10, 2025

A 48-year-old man from Gateshead was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, after posting a series of racist messages on social media. The case was handled by Counter Terrorism Policing North East.
https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/latest-news/

3. Leeds Man Charged with Possessing and Disseminating Terrorist Material – March 10, 2025

A 21-year-old man from Leeds was charged with eight offences following an investigation by Counter Terrorism Policing North East. The charges relate to the possession and dissemination of terrorist material.
https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/latest-news/

4. Sentencing of Mohammad Farooq – March 21, 2025

Mohammad Farooq was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 37 years for planning to bomb St James’s Hospital in Leeds and targeting an RAF base. While the sentencing occurred in March, it was reported in April.

5. Hashem Abedi’s Prison Attack – April 12, 2025

Hashem Abedi, convicted for aiding the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, attacked three prison officers at HMP Frankland in County Durham. While working in the prison kitchen, he threw boiling oil and stabbed the officers with improvised weapons, causing severe injuries. This led to heightened security measures and his subsequent transfer to Belmarsh Prison.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/34883274/southport-monster-attack-prison-guard/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/12/manchester-arena-bomb-plotter-attacks-three-prison-officers

6. Foiled Iranian-Linked Terror Plot – April 2025

In late April, British counterterrorism officers arrested five Iranian nationals across Swindon, London, Stockport, Rochdale, and Manchester. The suspects were allegedly planning an imminent terrorist attack, possibly targeting the Israeli Embassy in London. Authorities believe the plot was just hours away from execution and may have connections to the Iranian regime. This operation is considered one of the most significant counterterrorism actions in recent years.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/34805535/iran-terror-suspect-regime-uk-attack/
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14743954/iranian-terror-attack-hours-away-imminent/

7. Prison Violence at HMP Frankland – Late April 2025

Following Abedi’s attack, further violence erupted at HMP Frankland. Inmates, reportedly mostly Muslims, used weights to assault others in the prison gym. Additionally, gangster John Henry Sayers had his throat slashed by a group of inmates, believed to be a demonstration of dominance within the prison.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/15130631/violence-hmp-frankland-manchester-terrorist-hashem-abedi/

8. Crossbow Attack in Leeds – April 29, 2025

In Leeds, a man armed with a crossbow injured two women at a pub before taking his own life. He had released a manifesto expressing misogynistic views and hatred towards feminism. Authorities are treating this as a possible right-wing terrorist incident.
Counter-terror cops probe crossbow carnage in Leeds: Two women are rushed to hospital along with male suspect, 38, who suffered ‘self-inflicted injury’ in terrifying rampage | Daily Mail Online
Leeds crossbow attacker’s chilling ‘manifesto’ as he ‘targeted students on pub crawl’ – The Mirror

These incidents highlight ongoing concerns about various forms of extremism in the UK.

Newdaystarts – Solutions, Not Scaremongering,

The Middle East has long been a region of strategic, economic, and cultural significance, with its history intertwined with that of many other nations, including Britain. The impact of Middle Eastern conflicts on British soil is not a new phenomenon, as historical events have shown that foreign policy decisions and international alliances can have domestic repercussions.

The recent developments in the Middle East have raised concerns about the potential for these conflicts to influence communities and politics within Britain. The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah and the subsequent tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated the situation, leading to speculations about the possibility of a wider war. Such events can resonate within British society, where there are diverse communities with connections to the region.

The domestic impact of these conflicts can manifest in various ways, from public demonstrations to political debates, and even affect community relations. The Labour Party, like any major political entity, reflects the diversity of opinions and backgrounds found in society. As such, it is not immune to the divisions that may arise from differing views on foreign policy and allegiance.

Polling data suggests that public opinion in Britain is divided, with some supporting Israel, others Palestine, and many undecided or sympathetic to both sides. This division is indicative of the broader challenge facing Britain: balancing its foreign policy objectives with the need to maintain social cohesion at home.

Historically, Britain’s involvement in the Middle East, such as during the Suez Crisis, has had significant domestic and international consequences, affecting political, economic, and diplomatic relations. The legacy of colonial rule and the promises made during the First World War continue to influence the geopolitics of the region and Britain’s role within it.

The current situation requires a careful and considered approach from British policymakers and community leaders. It is essential to foster dialogue and understanding among the diverse groups within British society to prevent external conflicts from exacerbating internal divisions. The challenge lies in supporting international allies and upholding human rights while ensuring that the streets of Britain remain a place of unity rather than conflict.

The historical tapestry of the Middle East and Britain is rich with events that have had profound impacts on both regions. Here are some examples:

1. **The Great Iraqi Revolution of 1920**: Following World War I, the British faced a major uprising in Iraq, then known as Mesopotamia. The revolt was fuelled by the Iraqi people’s demand for independence and their opposition to British colonial rule, which was perceived as exploitative of Iraq’s economic resources.

2. **The British Mandate in Palestine**: The end of World War I saw the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of British control over Palestine. This period was marked by significant tension and conflict, culminating in the establishment of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has had ripple effects in Britain through political debates and public opinion.

3. **The Suez Crisis of 1956**: A pivotal event in the 20th century, the Suez Crisis saw Britain, France, and Israel attempt to seize control of the Suez Canal from Egypt. The crisis significantly damaged Britain’s international standing and highlighted the decline of British imperial power.

4. **The British Role in the First World War**: Britain’s involvement in the Middle East during WWI, particularly the conflicting promises made to Arab nationalists and the Zionist movement, sowed the seeds for future conflicts in the region. The repercussions of these actions are still felt in the Middle East and continue to influence Britain’s foreign policy and community relations.

5. **Economic Repercussions**: Middle Eastern conflicts have also had economic impacts on Britain. For instance, the oil crisis of 1973, triggered by an embargo by Arab oil producers, led to severe economic challenges in Britain and other Western countries.

These historical events underscore the intricate and often tumultuous relationship between the Middle East and Britain. They serve as a reminder of the lasting consequences that foreign entanglements can have on domestic politics, economics, and societal harmony. Understanding this shared history is crucial for navigating the complexities of contemporary Middle Eastern affairs and their potential impact on Britain today.

@newdaystarts

In recent years, the rise of hatred and violence among young people has become a pressing concern for communities worldwide. The question of how to hold young people accountable for such actions is complex and requires a nuanced, multifaceted approach.

Firstly, it’s essential to understand the root causes of hatred and violence. Factors such as social exclusion, lack of education, and exposure to radical ideologies can play significant roles in shaping a young person’s outlook and actions. Addressing these underlying issues is crucial in preventing the escalation of negative behaviours.

Education plays a pivotal role in this context. Schools and educational institutions must foster environments that promote understanding, tolerance, and critical thinking. Programs that encourage dialogue and empathy among students can help dismantle prejudices and prevent the spread of hate-filled ideologies.

Community involvement is also vital. Local organizations and youth groups can provide safe spaces for young people to express themselves and engage in positive activities. These groups can offer support, mentorship, and guidance, helping to steer individuals away from paths that lead to hatred and violence.

The legal system has a role to play as well. It must balance the need for accountability with the potential for rehabilitation. Young offenders should face consequences that reflect the seriousness of their actions while also receiving the support necessary to reform and reintegrate into society.

Digital literacy is another critical area. With the internet being a primary source of information for many young people, teaching them to critically evaluate online content can reduce the impact of harmful propaganda. Efforts by organizations like Ofcom to protect people from online hate and terrorism are steps in the right direction.

Moreover, reports like “Holding Our Own” advocate for non-policing solutions to serious youth violence, emphasizing the need for investment in youth services and community-based solutions. Such approaches aim to create environments where young people can thrive without resorting to violence.

The Role of Parents in Preventing Youth Hatred and Violence

The escalation of hatred and violence among youth is a growing concern that has prompted many to question the role of parents in preventing these destructive behaviours. Parents, as primary caregivers and role models, have a unique and powerful influence on their children’s development and are well-positioned to contribute to the prevention of hatred and violence.

One of the key ways parents can contribute is through open communication. Engaging in regular, meaningful conversations with their children allows parents to understand their thoughts, feelings, and experiences. This dialogue creates a foundation for discussing difficult topics, such as violence and hatred, and for instilling values of empathy, respect, and tolerance.

Education at home is equally important. Parents can educate their children about the consequences of violence and the importance of embracing diversity. By exposing them to different cultures and perspectives, parents can help their children develop a more inclusive worldview.

Modelling positive behaviour is another critical aspect. Children often emulate the behaviour of their parents. By demonstrating kindness, conflict resolution, and non-violent communication, parents can directly influence their children to adopt similar behaviours.

Involvement in their children’s lives, including knowing their friends, monitoring their online activity, and being aware of their emotional well-being, enables parents to identify early signs of radicalization or involvement in violence. This proactive approach allows for timely intervention and guidance.

Supporting educational and community programs that promote non-violence and provide positive outlets for youth is also essential. Parents can encourage their children to participate in sports, arts, and other activities that foster teamwork, discipline, and self-esteem.

Furthermore, parents can benefit from peer support networks, which provide a platform to share experiences and strategies for dealing with challenging behaviours. These networks can offer emotional support and practical advice, enhancing parents’ ability to guide their children effectively.

@newdaystarts

11 Sept 202448 hours after three girls were killed in Southport, Far-right activity went up 87% on Telegram, according to new figures give to ITV Tonight’s programme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyRMmaiT4vs

ITV Tonight

Thursday 12th Sept 8.30pm – Paul Brand looks at the breakdown in law and order on our streets in the summer of 2024 and the consequences of the worst far-right violence in recent memory.

https://www.itv.com/watch/tonight/1a2803/1a2803a9409

@newdaystarts

The phenomenon of youth radicalisation has garnered significant attention in recent years, particularly as instances of violent extremism have impacted societies globally. The process of radicalisation, wherein individuals adopt extreme political, social, or religious ideologies, often leading to a willingness to perform acts of violence, is complex and multifaceted. Among the various factors that contribute to this process, the role of echo chambers and “tribes” or in-group dynamics has been a subject of intense study and debate.

Echo chambers refer to environments, especially prevalent on social media platforms, where individuals are exposed primarily to opinions and information that reinforce their existing beliefs. This lack of exposure to diverse viewpoints can lead to the intensification of ideas, potentially contributing to radicalization. Studies have shown that extremist groups utilize echo chambers on social media to radicalisation and recruit young people, exploiting the ability of these platforms to disseminate propaganda and foster insular communities.

The concept of “tribes” in this context relates to the human tendency to form and adhere to social groups that share similar interests, beliefs, or identities. This tribalism can create a strong sense of belonging and identity, which can be positive but also has the potential to be exploited by radical groups. The dynamics within these tribes can encourage conformity and discourage critical thinking, making members more susceptible to radical ideologies.

Research has highlighted that echo chambers and tribalism can intersect, creating a potent environment for radicalisation. For instance, individuals may initially join online communities or social media groups based on shared interests or identities. Over time, these groups can become echo chambers, amplifying specific narratives and excluding dissenting voices. The group’s tribal nature reinforces the echo chamber effect, as members seek to maintain their belonging by aligning with the group’s dominant ideology.

Furthermore, the impact of echo chambers and tribalism is not limited to online spaces. Offline interactions and real-world social networks also play a crucial role in the radicalisation process. The interplay between online and offline experiences can deepen an individual’s commitment to radical ideologies, as they find reinforcement and validation in both spheres.

Addressing the challenges posed by echo chambers and tribalism requires a multifaceted approach. Efforts to promote media literacy, critical thinking, and exposure to diverse perspectives are essential in combating the formation of echo chambers. Additionally, fostering inclusive and open communities, both online and offline, can help counteract the negative aspects of tribalism.

@newdaystarts

The phrase known as the “14 Words” is a slogan that has been widely adopted by white supremacist groups. It states, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” This slogan was coined by David Lane, a member of the US white supremacist terrorist group The Order, and reflects a core belief in white nationalism: the notion that the white race is at risk of extinction and must be preserved.

The “14 Words” encapsulate a worldview that is exclusionary and promotes racial segregation and supremacy. It is often used to rally individuals around the idea of a racially pure nation and has been linked to various acts of violence and terrorism. The number “88” is also associated with this phrase, which is a numerical code for “Heil Hitler,” as ‘H’ is the eighth letter of the alphabet.

Challenging this ideology requires a multifaceted approach. Education is a critical tool in combating the spread of white supremacist beliefs. By raising awareness of the history and implications of such ideologies, individuals can be better equipped to recognize and reject these harmful views. Additionally, promoting diversity and inclusion in communities and institutions can help counteract the divisive nature of white supremacist rhetoric.

It’s also important to support policies and initiatives that address systemic racism and inequality. This can involve advocating for fair housing, employment opportunities, and criminal justice reform. Engaging in dialogues that foster understanding and respect among different racial and ethnic groups is another way to challenge the narrative of white supremacy.

On a personal level, individuals can resist internalized white supremacy by understanding its root causes, recognizing its impact on society, and committing to purposeful action against it. This includes supporting diverse voices and businesses, calling out racist behaviour when witnessed, and actively participating in anti-racist movements.

Below is a selection of a few of the hundreds of memes on online that are pushing the ’14 words’

In more recent years, societies worldwide have faced a number of challenges that have tested the resilience of communities and institutions. Among these, the Covid-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns, as well as concerns around immigration especially, those arriving by boat have been particularly significant. These issues have not only affected the day-to-day lives of individuals but have also had a broader implication for societal stability, as we have seen recently around the UK.

The Covid-19 pandemic brought about unprecedented public health measures, including lockdowns, which were aimed at controlling the spread of the virus. While necessary for public health, these measures have had a very profound impact on social and economic life. Various research has indicated that policies such as workplace and school closures, which induced intense grievances online and reduced the opportunity of engaging in collective mobilization.

The lockdowns were also a subject of debate regarding their effectiveness. A systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of lockdowns on COVID-19 deaths based on available empirical evidence. The findings suggest that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by a modest percentage. This led to discussions about the balance between the benefits of lockdowns and their social, cultural, and economic costs.

Immigration, on the other hand, has been a topic of significant political and social discourse. The relationship between immigration and economic inequality is very complex, with politics and policies playing a central role in moderating this relationship. While most studies document minor direct economic effects of immigration on native employment and wages, immigration can have significant indirect or downstream economic effects through political channels. Political reactions to immigration likely have more of an impact on inequality than immigration’s direct economic consequences, affecting the distribution of work, wages, and wealth.

In times like these, such as during the Covid lockdowns or amid debates on immigration, there is a big risk of radicalisation. Extremists can and will exploit these crises by distributing disinformation online and manipulating genuine concerns. Misinformation and propaganda do play a role in supporting radicalisation, with individuals who have self-uncertainty, low cognitive flexibility, perceived grievances, and low social integration being more vulnerable to radicalisation via extremist misinformation. The online environment, while not the sole cause of radicalisation, can facilitate this process by enabling communication, networking, and ideology-seeking actions from not just in the UK but worldwide.

The spread of disinformation during time of crises can further incite hatred, justify violence, and divide communities, again as we have seen recently. It is crucial for societies to address these challenges by trying to foster resilience, promoting accurate information, and supporting those communities affected. This involves a multi-faceted approach that includes public health measures, economic support, and policies that consider the social and political dimensions of these issues.

@newdaystarts