Breaking The UK

April 3, 2008

The UK’s descent into the Islamist hellhole is happening region by region.

Like all immigrants, Muslims in the UK form clusters. Some clusters are temporary and over a generation or so the immigrants adopt Brit values and enter the workforce.

Other clusters become malignant centers of Islamism, and the West Midlands is one such.

After a TV documentary exposed Muslim preachers advocating mass murder, brutalization of women, and child abuse, West Midlands cops tried (and failed) to have the TV program makers prosecuted and farcically claimed the recordings of the hate speakers had been “taken out of context”.

Now its suburban London’s turn:

The horrific final hours of a Kurdish woman murdered on the instructions of her father and uncle because she had brought “shame” on her family were revealed to a court yesterday.

A series of secret prison recordings showed that Banaz Mahmod’s killers had laughed as they raped and tortured her, before Mohamad Hama, a hired thug, stamped on her neck while strangling her with a ligature to “force out her soul”.

For two hours Miss Mahmod, 20, endured the ritualistic “honour killing” at the hands of a gang hired by her father, Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and uncle Ari Mahmod, 50.

The men, who had fled to Britain from Iraq more than ten years ago, were enraged with Miss Mahmod because she had begun a relationship with someone of whom they did not approve…

The local cops had hung the woman out to dry:

Banaz Mahmod, 20, was “let down” by officers in the Metropolitan and West Midlands forces who in the weeks and months before she died failed to take threats against her seriously, even though she feared for her life and supplied them with a list of five people she suspected would harm her…

Today the Independent Police Complaints Commission criticised “delays in investigations, poor supervision, a lack of understanding and insensitivity” in the handling of her case.

Two Metropolitan Police officers – a constable and an inspector – will now face disciplinary action and the IPCC recommended that six detectives – four from the Metropolitan Police and three from West Midlands Police – should receive written warnings.

Written warnings – that’ll larn ’em!

The essential function of the state is to protect life and property, and cops are the first line of defense.

But some cops in Outer London and the entire West Midlands police force help Islamists prey on the rest of the community.

This pattern will break the UK into a mosaic of Sharia zones.

And that breaks the UK.


The Light Goes Out

February 2, 2008

An English court has retrospectively – and in secrecy – legitimized the latest state kidnap of a new born baby.

A teenage mother fled court in tears yesterday after being told that her baby son, who was taken illegally by social workers a few hours after he was born, would be put back into care for a second time…

The 18-year-old was separated from the boy, known only as G, two hours after she gave birth.

He was returned to her after a judge at the High Court ruled that his removal had been “unlawful”.

However, in another twist in the case, a second judge issued an interim order yesterday to put the baby back in foster care.

District Judge Richard Inglis said that there could be “frequent” contact between mother and son, but ruled that a decision about G’s future would have to wait until later in the year.

Of course Inglis has made the “decision about G’s future” by stopping his mother breast feeding him and hence bonding with him.

She shares more DNA with this kid than anyone else in the world, so is this best placed to raise him, but now Inglis and his pals have blocked that, the swine.

Vulnerable English women facing this fate have three escape routes.

A. Have an abortion.

That avoids the physical and mental pain and stress of carrying and bearing a baby for the English state.

B. Give birth outside of England

The rest of the world does not countenance this barbarism.

C. Convert to Islam

English officialdom wouldn’t dare take a Muslim baby. Islam tends to oppress women, but at least it lets them keep their kids.

A Small Light Flickers In England’s Dark Heart

February 1, 2008

Previous posts have documented the English practice of taking new born babies from vulnerable mothers for forced adoption. Yesterday, one young mother fought back and won – if only briefly.

Yesterday, a judge ordered that the baby boy, born at 2am that morning and removed from his 18-year-old mother at 4am, should be returned to her immediately…

The judge, Mr Justice Munby, said that social workers had “on the face of it” broken the law by insisting the mother and child be separated without first obtaining a court order.

Officials in the case, who are employed by Nottingham City Council, “should have known better” than to go ahead without following proper procedures…

Although it is not unusual for social services to remove newborn babies from their mothers if they suspect the child is in danger, it is very rare for a solicitor to intervene in this way on her behalf and with such speed.

Campaigners also say courts often side with social workers, but in this case the judge took the unusual step of saying he had seen nothing to suggest the mother posed a risk to the child.

“What appears to have happened is the local authority has stolen someone’s baby and a judge has ordered them to give it back. Many family court lawyers simply roll over when cases like this come in. Here a feisty lawyer weighed in on behalf of his client,” said John Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley and a campaigner on the issue of newborns being taken into care.

But the perps are fighting back (my ellipsis):

Nottingham City Council childrens services have (subsequently) applied for an ‘interim care order’ which would mean the baby…being placed with foster parents. The case is currently being heard by the magistrates court in the city.

Hopefully, now there are decent English people involved – the feisty lawyer and the MP – this young woman will get to keep her baby.

If not, at least we now know the identities of some of the people responsible for this evil practice.

And to avoid Nottingham.

The Dark Heart Heart Of England (Part 6)

September 6, 2007

Among the nations of the world, only the normally civilized English practice forced adoption. That’s probably the result of 60 years of socialism combined with the English reluctance to complain. Such submission doesn’t auger well for English culture’s ability to survive Islam.

As with slavery in the 18th and 19th Centuries, many Brits are fighting forced adoption. The London Times and Daily Mail have highlighted it, and the Telegraph is running a campaign against it. The Sky News and Channel 4 TV stations have covered it, and even the BBC has reported it. About 200 (of 600+) Members of Parliament have questioned it.

Then there are citizens groups – Fassit (supported by MP John Hemming), Ian Josephs, and Fathers4Justice.

The citizens’ groups mostly focus on helping women keep their kids (top tip: NEVER EVER contact Brit social services), the media on highlighting specific horrors, and the MPs on law reform.

But infestations of psychopaths are very difficult to remove, and the reforms proposed address symptoms rather than causes. To fix this problem the English would need to:

Abolish family courts and replace them with Criminal Courts – so accused women would have to be convicted of a crime to lose their kids, and enjoy the same protections as accused murderers.

Allow adopted kids to sue social security and adoption agencies for damage they suffer.

Restrict adoptions to the extended family of the woman unless all candidates are themselves found guilty of a current offenses preventing this.

Make adoptions reversible if the mother is cleared on appeal.

Such radical changes need reformers to play attack nor defense, and the only group doing so is Fathers4Justice – for example with a Judgebusters list of the worst perps.

But none of this is likely to make any difference – Blair’s government recently refused to make the tiny change of allowing the media to report on these cases.

And the Brit state protects its own. A doctor who 20 years ago alleged mass anal abuse of kids and “proved” this by subjecting them to that practice nightly is still employed by the Brit NHS (Gillingham, Kent – give it a miss). And the fraudster Meadow who sent many innocents to jail retired with honor.

These monsters can flourish in England because of the uniquely English aversion to “making a fuss”- described here.

English treated badly in a restaurant will complain to each other, not to the waiter or manager. That makes for a quiet life but lousy food.

The added factor is the deep institutionalization of the English, who survived WW2 by militarizing their society. Until the early 1950s, most purchases were rationed – well after rationing ceased in Germany.

Then they elected several socialist governments and these embedded collectivist institutions in the heart of the nation – notably the NHS – so deeply that even Mrs T could not touch them.

This state “safety net” encourages dependence and discourages initiative, in particular in the weak.

These two factors interact poisonously to enable the abuse we’ve described here, and plenty of others that would not survive outside England.

These include the collection of the world’s largest DNA database, the conviction of almost a third of Brit drivers each year for speeding offenses using speed cameras, the omnipresent CCTV cameras, and the hordes of illegals flowing into the island.

And these systemic weaknesses explain why militant Islam flourishes in England.

On our return, we’ll suggest how the English might survive.

The Dark Heart Of England (Part 5)

September 2, 2007

This was supposed to be 3 parts, but the deeper we dig, the worse it gets – turns out social services employees taking the babies of English women interfere with defense witnesses.

That’s against the law in a murder case, so the entire Family Court system must indeed be infested with despots and psychopaths.

The story concerns the previously mentioned 22-year-old neuroscientist turned charity worker:

Dr Rex Haigh, who had written a character reference for Fran Lyon, a 22-year-old charity worker, said that a social worker was “clearly trying to undermine” his support for Miss Lyon, who is five months pregnant.

A social worker contacted Dr Haigh last week, two days after The Sunday Telegraph highlighted Miss Lyon’s case.

Social services have recommended that Miss Lyon’s baby should be taken into care for fear her mother will “emotionally abuse” her – despite the support of Dr Haigh and another consultant psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, who said there was “no evidence” she would harm her child…

Dr Haigh says that he received a message on Tuesday asking him to contact Pamela Burke, a social worker, about Miss Lyon. He rang back and spoke to Paula Wright, another social worker, who said she was also working on the case. The psychiatrist, who was “a little worried” by the approach, made notes of the conversation.

Dr Haigh, who has known Miss Lyon for several years through her work, says Miss Wright accused Miss Lyon of giving hospital staff incorrect details about her health.

“Rather than to support Fran, as I had made clear that I wanted to do in my character reference, the conversation was asking me whether I knew these things about Fran – clearly trying to undermine my support for her by making me disbelieve her,” he says in the email. “I was asked, I think on three occasions: ‘what do you think about that?’, and another statement I wrote down that was said to me was, ‘You know her at the moment but the information she’s giving might not be the truth’.”

Social workers from Northumberland county council also tried to contact Dr Newrith last week.

We’ve shown how English courts treat accused murderers with kid gloves and brutalize pregnant women, and here’s how the law treats you if you interfere with a witness in a murder case (my emphasis):

A Crown Court may deal with a contempt “in the face of court” when the contempt is committed…

  • beyond the courtroom and the court’s precincts, when it is reported to the judge and it relates to proceedings whether in progress or pending (for example, improper approaches to witnesses or jurors)…
  • Sometimes the contempt may be sufficiently serious to justify proceedings for a criminal offence (for example perverting the course of justice or witness interference); however the court may prefer to deal with the conduct as part of its inherent jurisdiction to administer justice in a speedy and orderly manner.


Not so here:

Northumberland county council said it was unaware of Dr Haigh’s allegations but would launch an investigation if it received a complaint.

So the Northumberland county council managers are confident they’re safe from the law.

That confirms the system is indeed infested with despots and psychopaths.

The Dark Heart Of England (Part 4)

September 1, 2007

A brief diversion into morality and natural law. Future generations will view the uniquely English practice of forced adoption with the repugnance we now feel for slavery – both violate the same religious, ethical, and natural laws.


Christianity is the religion of slaves. It teaches us to protect the poor and weak, and the Virgin and Child are its second icon after the cross. So Christians abhor slavery and exalt motherhood.

Islam is quite the opposite – it’s a warrior religion, treats women as second rate breeding machines, and is built on slavery.

Yet our modern world with all of its miracles was built by Christian peoples, while the followers of Islam languished in poverty and ignorance. So obviously preventing slavery, helping the weak and respecting motherhood work, while the alternative does not.

Incidentally, even the Southern plantation owners allowed their slave women to keep their kids until 5 years old, proving themselves morally superior to the 21st Century English state.

Natural Law

Nature is, of course, red in tooth and claw. But mammals show mother love – here’s an example from the great Patrick O’Brian. He’s writing about an incident that befell a ship in Lord Nelson’s fleet on the island of Spitzbergen, after some sailors killed a walrus and used its blubber to cook it (p 176, Norton, my formating):

Then…three white bears were seen coming over the ice, a she-bear and her cubs. The blubber was still burning, but the she-bear plucked out some pieces that were not alight and that had some flesh upon them; they ate voraciously, and some of the seamen threw lumps from the carcass they still had toward her. She fetched them one by one, carried them back to the cubs and divided them.

As she was fetching away the last piece, the men shot the cubs dead and wounded her severely as she ran. She crawled as far as the cubs, still carrying the piece, tore it apart and laid some before each; and when they could not eat she laid her paws first upon one, then upon the other and tried to raise them up.

When she found she could not stir them, she went off; and when she had got at some distance she looked back and moaned; and since that did not induce them to come away, she returned, and smelling round them began to lick their wounds. She went off a second time as before, and having crawled a few paces, looked again behind her, and for some time stood there moaning.

But her cubs still not rising to follow her, she returned to them again, and with signs of inexpressible fondness went round one, and round the other, pawing them and moaning. Finding at least that they were cold and lifeless, she lifted her head towards the men and growled; and several firing together they killed her too.

Vulnerable women are treated by the English state the same as the she-bear. Taking a woman’s kids away is, to her, no different than killing them. And leaving her to grieve for the rest of her life is akin to killing her.

The Dark Heart Of England (Part 3)

August 29, 2007

This looks at the perps in the uniquely English practice of forced adoption.

England has a secret legal process that seizes newborns from their mothers for adoption. The law gives the mothers none of the protections it grants murderers, and grievously harms mothers and kids since behavioral genetics says kids are best raised by kin.

Here we identify the perpetrators and their level of complicity, starting with a ruling by the Brit equivalent of the Supreme Court (my emphasis to highlight the passive case):

The mother has a long history of problems with alcohol, although she has also had periods of stability and sobriety. When not abusing alcohol she is able to look after her children properly and to establish good relationships with them. Unfortunately, because of her problems, they have all suffered periods of separation from her, including periods in care.

The older three were all the subject of care orders when Nina was born.

Because of the mother’s history and abuse of alcohol during the pregnancy, Nina was placed in foster care when she left hospital soon after the birth.

Note the only harm noted by the judges is the kids being separated from their mother, and she’s accused only of “problems with alcohol”, which is not an offense. It’s also subjective – remember the old saw that an alcoholic is someone who drinks more than their doctor.

Of course these kids didn’t “suffer” care orders, the following people hurt them, in descending order of complicity

Social services employees.

Consultants who testified against the woman, maybe regarding her “alcohol abuse”.

The Judge and his support team in the secret Family Court

The pols who have passed the laws creating this system and the government workers that keep it ticking.

Next case (my ellipsis and emphasis):

Social services’ recommendation that the baby should be taken from…a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.

Hexham children’s services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen’s Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.

Under the plan, a doctor will hand the newborn to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. Social services’ request for an emergency protection order – these are usually granted – will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.

Note, the mother’s crime is again subjective, and in this case junk science.

So add to the list of perps the maternity unit medical staff who take the baby when it’s born.

Then we must add the adoption agencies that advertise these purloined kids for profit.

And finally add those couples who fail to ensure that the kid they adopt has not been taken against its mother’s will.

So how many unique perps?

In 1995, about 800 babies were taken each year, and its seems plausible these were really at risk from their parents (psychopaths can be parents too). During Blair’s rule, an extra about 1,500 babies have been taken each year, and it’s reasonable to ascribe this to his incentivizing adoption.

The now-suppressed YouTube recording identified 4 social services perps. The court itself will have about 5 people who are complicit. Add three at the maternity unit and 1 expert witness, and we get a total of 13. Then add 2 adoption agency staff, 2 adopters who didn’t check the provenance of the baby, and management overhead of 50% to get a total of 25 per baby.

Over the 1500 babies that’s 37,500 perps. But many will be repeat offenders, so allow a factor of 4 overlap, yielding a perp core of 9,375. To which we can add a few hundred pols and central government workers who fly top-cover for this system.

So all this evil is likely the work of just 10,000 individuals!

Since that no other nation (possibly excepting Portugal) takes babies unless their is clear evidence of physical abuse by the parents, what enables these 10,000 English monsters to operate?


This occurs when people operate without check because they have good jobs for life. My guess is about 40% of people in this position become despots.

Despotism probably afflicts many Family Court judges.


Mrs G says that no-one who has born a child would take another woman’s kid, and thinks the primary perps must be men, supported by childless women.


Remember 3% of the population enjoy hurting people, and they’ll gravitate to jobs where they can do that without check

My guess is the bulk of the social service employees perps are psychopaths. They’re quite poorly paid, so don’t qualify for despotism, and many are women (three of the four in the YouTube tape were female, and the male was a classic psychopath).

We conclude the main characteristic of these 10,000 or so is psychopathy, tainted with a bit of male despotism. The Brit population contains about 1.8 million psychopaths, so there are plenty to fill the available slots.

But that doesn’t explain why the English are unique in allowing this – after all, every society has the same 3%.

And it’s not a small evil – Italians, French and folks in all the other nations we’ve lived in would explode with violence if anything remotely similar was attempted in their countries. Somehow their sane 97% keeps the evil 3% under control.

So we have to look for weaknesses in the English character, and that’s the subject of the next post.

For those depressed by reading this far, take heart!

In our final posts we’ll explain how abused English mothers can use asymmetric warfare to keep their kids.