The alleged incident sparked protests outside Nuneaton Town Hall on August 9. Screengrab youtube
An Afghan national has pleaded guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton.
Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, appeared at Warwick Crown Court on Friday, changing his plea from not guilty to guilty on one count of raping a child under the age of 13 on July 22.
Mulakhil, of no fixed address, had previously denied abducting a child, three counts of rape of a child under the age of 13, and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13 at a hearing in August.
He appeared alongside co-defendant Mohammad Kabir, also aged 23.
Kabir, also of no fixed address, denied attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl.
Kabir spoke only to confirm his name, while Mulakhil also entered his guilty plea when presented on one charge of rape. Both were aided by interpreters.
Warwickshire Police previously confirmed the defendants are Afghan nationals.
Mulakhil and Kabir are expected to face a trial on January 26.
The alleged incident sparked huge protests outside Nuneaton Town Hall on August 9.
St George’s flags and Union Jack could be seen being held aloft by anti-immigration protestors, who chanted “Stop the boats” and “We want our country back”.
They were met by Stand Up to Racism counter-protesters, who held placards and banners reading “Stop the far-right”.
Judge Kristina Montgomery KC told the defendants: “You will both be produced before the court on December 12.
“On that occasion, there will be further directions made and the complainant witness in the case will be in attendance to be cross-examined.
“You should both reflect carefully on your position before that takes place.
Raising British flags in Britain is not an act of patriotic civil disobedience but rather one of “intimidation”, a top Police and Crime Commissioner has argued.
PCC for Merseyside Emily Spurrell, who also serves as the chairwoman of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC), denounced Britons for the “Raise the Colours” campaign, which sprang up over the summer across the country in defiance of the mass migration agenda imposed anti-democratically on the UK.
Addressing the national conference of PCCs, Labour commissioner Spurrell said per the Daily Mail: “Flags are an expression of our identity and proudly fly outside our police buildings. But when they are used to provoke fear or assert dominance, they become tools of division… that is not free expression, that is intimidation.”
The former Labour Party councillor continued: “These actions are sowing fear, fuelling division and leaving – our neighbours, our colleagues and our friends – feeling unsafe in their homes and afraid to walk down the street.
‘These actions do not reflect the values of our country – compassion, fairness and respect are the values that bind us together.”
The act of hanging a Union Jack or St George’s flag to display opposition to the open borders policies of Westminster coincided with a national protest movement over the summer against the use of hotels to house supposed asylum seekers at taxpayers’ expense, which erupted following the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl in Epping by an illegal hotel migrant from Ethiopia.
While Prime Minister Starmer and members of his cabinet were reticent to criticise the explicitly patriotic flag raising movement, often claiming that they fly flags on their properties, other members of Starmer’s leftist Labour Party were less charitable.
Member of Parliament for Norwich South Clive Lewis claimed that the “far-right” was behind the flag-raising campaign and suggested that those who put up an England flag in England are “extremists”.
Meanwhile, leftist-controlled local council governments have waged a counter-effort to take the flags down. According to FoI requests sent out to 380 councils in Britain, local governments spent at least £70,000 ($92,000) in recent months to take down flags raised in recent months, however, the figure is likely much higher given that many forces likely allocated previously approved resources to the tearing down of flags.
Many councils dubiously cited safety concerns of the unauthorised flags, however, Labour Party councillor Alex Paterson, let the mask slip by saying that the move in Medway was to make residents “feel” safe from the “far-right agitators” who raised the flags.
Alice Weidel warns that the EU’s “chat surveillance” plan would be an unprecedented totalitarian project
The recent statements by Alice Weidel, co-chair of AfD in Germany, have reignited the debate surrounding the proposed EU-wide “chat control” initiative. Weidel described the project as “absolutely totalitarian,” arguing that it represents the effective abolition of digital privacy and a direct threat to fundamental freedoms.
According to her explanation, the regulation would allow an anonymous authority to automatically monitor all messages, images, and videos sent from citizens’ devices, including those protected by end-to-end encryption. For Weidel, this would be equivalent to “every letter being opened and photographed” before reaching its container, but on a far more invasive scale thanks to modern technology. “Not even the Stasi could have dreamed of such power,” she warned.
The German leader also challenged the official claim that the measure aims to combat child sexual abuse, calling it a “cheap pretext.” She noted that organizations such as the German Child Protection Association also reject the proposal, arguing that scanning private communications without prior suspicion constitutes a profound violation of individual rights.
Weidel concluded that, if approved, the regulation would turn all citizens into potential suspects and relegate to historical essential principles such as data protection, freedom of expression, and personal privacy.
New Zealand has announced that it will be banning puberty blockers for young people pending the results of a major clinical trial in the United Kingdom, which is expected in 2031.
The ban will take effect on December 19, though youth suffering from gender dysphoria who are already taking the drugs will be permitted to continue.
The puberty-blocking drugs – technically known as gonadotropin-release hormone analogues – will remain available for medical conditions such as prostate cancer and endometriosis.
“We are putting in place stronger safeguards so families can have confidence that any treatment is clinically sound and in the best interests of the young person or child,” Health Minister Simeon Brown stated in a press release.
“The Ministry of Health’s evidence brief found that there is a lack of high-quality evidence that demonstrates the benefits or risks of the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for the treatment of gender dysphoria or incongruence. While this uncertainty persists, the Government is taking a precautionary approach,” he continued.
“These changes will ensure a more consistent and carefully monitored approach,” Brown concluded. “This mirrors steps taken in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, where additional safeguards have recently been implemented to ensure decisions are made in line with the best available evidence.”
The UK banned puberty blockers for minors after the results of a comprehensive study of the available evidence commissioned by the National Health Service and conducted by Dr. Hilary Cass. The Cass Report found that there is “weak evidence regarding impact on gender dysphoria, mental, or psychosocial health” and added that the “effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.”
Puberty blockers have been proven to impact brain development, reduce the density of bones, and stunt growth. They risk barring the user from reaching peak IQ, inhibit sexual function, thicken the blood, raise risk of heart attack by up to five times, create a higher risk of diabetes, blood clots, and cancer, and can result in genital atrophy.
Transgender activists responded by claiming that the move would endanger gender dysphoric children, with the so-called Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa claiming, unironically, that the decision was “ideologically driven.” In fact, the decision was based on best evidence; the position of transgender activists is “ideologically driven” by the assumption that children are regularly born in the wrong bodies and that “gender-affirming care” can correct that.
Green Party MP Ricardo Menéndez March told RNZ that the government was “buying into imported culture wars” and stated that the “government should focus on addressing the core issues that our health system faces … rather than waging culture wars on [so-called] trans people.” The health ministry confirmed that 113 people were using puberty blockers in 2023.
Charlotte Paul, a public health expert and Otago University Emeritus professor, supports the new restrictions, stating that when it comes to the potential harms of puberty blockers, there are “substantial uncertainties,” even about “who should be treated, and why.” She stated: “It’s not just the uncertainty about the balance of benefits and risks. It’s that we don’t know enough about the population that we’re treating and that we could be harming a lot of kids.”
“New Zealand First was the only party that campaigned around the country about stopping the use of puberty blockers in children and we never stopped fighting to make this happen,” stated NZ First leader and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters on X.
The news comes on the same day the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a 400-page, peer-reviewed report on “gender transitions” for children, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries. The study highlighted the risks of bone density loss, infertility, and surgical complications, and emphasized that evidence of beneficial outcomes was of “very low quality.”
Pauline Whalley (Right) is a ‘very quiet and reserved’ person | GB NEWS
A sexual assault victim has spoken to GB News about her ongoing fear after her attacker received a suspended sentence and remains free in her community.
Pauline Whalley, 59, who works as a cleaner, was violently attacked by a Syrian national while going about her duties in Liverpool, Merseyside.
The assault took place in broad daylight, around 11am, as she entered the ladies’ toilets.
CCTV footage shows the attacker following her before violently grabbing her, causing serious injuries to her face and head.
Speaking alongside Ms Whalley, her supporter Laura Walsh said: “He followed Pauline down to the toilets. When she politely told him it was an all-female space and he couldn’t enter, he violently grabbed her arms, threw her to the floor, and began hitting her head on the hard floor.
“The grip was so tight that her skin was pierced by his fingernails, leaving marks that were still visible weeks later.
“He also attempted to sexually assault Pauline, grabbing her and trying to remove her clothes.
“By her own admission, Pauline is a quiet and reserved person and had never screamed in her life before but somehow, on that day, she found her voice. Her scream alerted a member of the public, which stopped the attack.
“It’s our belief that he was intending to fully rape her but fled when he was interrupted.”
Ali Akturan, 19, appeared at Liverpool Crown Court on October 27, where he pleaded guilty to sexual assault. He was sentenced to 14 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, and 120 rehabilitation days.
He was also given a restraining order banning him from entering Calderstones Park or contacting Pauline.
Ms Whalley spoke to GB News present Martin Daubney and said she was “very disappointed” with the “lenient” sentence.
She told the People’s Channel: “I’m extremely disappointed with the lenient sentence. He should have received a punishment appropriate for such a serious attack.
“The court acknowledged the seriousness, yet he received just 120 weeks’ rehabilitation.”
Martin said: “And as part of the restraining order, he can’t come near your home but how are you supposed to know if he does, since you don’t know what he looks like?”
Ms Whalley responded: “Exactly. I have no idea. He could come near today and I wouldn’t know. It’s terrifying.”
Martin pointed out: “You didn’t even see a photograph of him in court, so you don’t know who he is. He could be anywhere, even near you again.
Ms Whalley stated: “Yes. I’ve requested a photograph of him from the police because I’m very frightened.”
The attack took place on September 24 last year, when Ms Whalley was working at Mansion House, home of reading charity the Reader Organisation.
Sentencing Akturan, recorder Tim Harrington said: “What you did was very serious. The victim was simply going about her business as a cleaner when you sexually assaulted her, pushing her to the ground and grabbing her vagina over her clothing.
“People who behave like that can normally expect to go to prison. In your case, I have to take into account your age at the time and the fact that you have never been in any trouble before.
“I am also satisfied that you may have a mild learning disability. It may be that you have features of autistic spectrum disorder.
“I am satisfied that you can engage with probation. If you do not, you will be brought back to court and will be sent into custody.”
Ms Whalley told GB News of her disappointment as she said the assault had left her living “in constant fear” and she has applied for an “undue lenient sentence”.
The CPS told GB News: “Sentencing is not generally a matter a for the CPS to comment as wwe do not impose sentences.
“That is for the Independent Judiciary. Also matters of the unduly lenient sentence’s is for the Attorney General’s office.”
A bus driver was suspended for four days by the public transport company, according to media reports on Wednesday.
The man was filmed by a passer-by praying at the side of the road. In the images captured (photo), we see a De Lijn bus at a bus stop with its driver praying next to it. The man later admitted to the facts.
It’s old news by now that the BBC defamed Donald Trump by misleadingly editing his January 6, 2021, speech to convey the impression that Trump was demanding that his supporters act violently at the Capitol. To give that impression, the BBC had to cut out almost one hour of his speech and seamlessly graft together two entirely unrelated statements.
When Trump threatened to sue, two of the BBC’s executives reluctantly resigned. Eventually, the BBC, after hemming and hawing a bit, offered a sort of apology, conceding that, well, yes, that’s exactly what it had done, and promising never again to broadcast the offending footage…but insisting that this bit of jiggery-pokery was just a mistake, with no malevolence involved:
On Monday, BBC chair Samir Shah accepted an “error of judgement” had been made on the documentary and that the edited speech gave the impression of a “direct call for action” – and said the BBC would like to apologise for it.
That’s one step better than the classic non-apology apology (“I’m really sorry…you’re mad at me”), but not much.
The one thing that the BBC has refused to do is to cough up money for having edited footage in such a way that it made it appear that Donald Trump was trying to foment seditious violence. In a news appearance, Lord Tony Hall, who once was the BBC’s general director, claimed that it was totally unfair to make the BBC pay for its sins because that would just harm the British public, which is forced to pay a tax funding the BBC for the privilege of owning a TV:
HALL: No, no, should not happen. And, I think, I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know about Floridian state law, but my view is that this should be, if necessary, you’ve got to get their advice on how you keep this going forward. But I can’t see any, well, I would never, I don’t think we should agree to any money being paid to Donald Trump. You know, you’re talking about license fee payers’ money, you’re talking about public money. It would not be appropriate.
INTERVIEWER: Why is it when things go wrong at the BBC that the handling of mistakes always seems so bad? I mean, you’re no stranger to scandal, you’re involved when the Panorama with the late Princess of Wales and Martin Bashir went on. Why is it that the handling of mistakes is often so slow and so bad?
HALL: I think the slowness response to a lot of these crises is right. I think the BBC also needs to find out ways of talking about what it does, positively does, for the public and people realizing just what a lot of things the BBC does do, despite the scandals and despite some of the headlines.
Look, the BBC is a basic part of how we define ourselves in this country, and I think the issue there is how we continue to, of course, respond to the issues that come up, and the BBC is a very open organization in that respect. How you deal with that quickly, how you deal with that properly, without any defensiveness, that’s really important.
But I also think it’s really important that we get across the positive things that the BBC is doing for this country and the positive things that it’s doing for viewers and listeners and licence fee payors.
If I read that correctly, what Hall is saying is that the BBC cannot be punished because the organization just passes those costs on to a public that is forced to fund it. And you know what? He’s right. The problem is that he thinks that’s a good thing.
Hall’s response also provides the answer to the interviewer’s next question, which essentially asks why the BBC keeps doing bad things (and the Panorama interview scandal is a big deal in Britain). The answer is that, as Hall made clear, the people working for the BBC suffer no consequences. Yes, maybe the occasional head rolls, but for the most part, no matter what the BBC does, it’s always business as usual. It’s untouchable because, as with all bureaucracies, the taxpayers, who cannot take their money and go away, end up paying the price.
The same is true in America, of course. When our institutions grievously violate people’s trust and rights in ways that justify legal consequences, the individual bureaucrats walk away. Even if a few get fired, if what they did appealed to leftist sensibilities, they end up having cush paid gigs at news outlets or get massive book deals (which always have the smell of money laundering about them). The only ones who suffer are the trapped taxpayers.
Thankfully, especially now that the Public Broadcasting System has been cut free from government funding, at least our media outlets are still private institutions. So, when they defame Trump or other conservatives, they must cough up their own money, something that encourages their shareholders to go elsewhere.
A 90-year-old man in a Borås nursing home has been charged with inciting hatred after allegedly telling staff that all Muslims should leave Sweden, comments witnesses say he made after drinking a couple of shots of schnapps with his lunch.
The incident took place in August in the home’s cafeteria, where the man routinely has two shots of schnapps during meals to help with pain relief. According to witness accounts provided to police as cited by Samnytt, he grew irritated with the staff — many of whom are Muslim — and muttered that he was “fucking tired of this place” and that “these Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to stay.”
He then allegedly directed the remarks at a Syrian staff member wearing a headscarf, telling her that all Muslims must leave the country and that she “shouldn’t stay here.”
According to Sveriges Radio, staff reported that the atmosphere in the lunchroom became tense after the remarks and that they ultimately contacted the authorities. The case is now proceeding to court.
Three colleagues, two of them also Muslim, told investigators they heard the comments clearly. The woman targeted told police she became distressed, cried, developed a headache, and had to go home because she was unable to continue working. She later said the incident felt deeply violating and has since expressed her intention to seek compensation.
During questioning, the 90-year-old said staff later told him he had been loud and behaved inappropriately, for which he apologized, but he insisted he has no memory of making any remarks about anyone’s religion.
“I’m just blank about this incident,” he told police, saying he could neither admit nor deny the accusation, according to Swedish media reports.
Police investigated the case as a suspected crime against democracy, reviewing his internet and social media activity for any relevant material, but found nothing. The man has no criminal history.
Prosecutors argue that around 30 people were present in the dining room when the comments were made, meaning the statements were spread broadly enough to meet the legal threshold for incitement.
They are also seeking a conviction for molestation as an alternative charge.
A new study from the Pew Research Center analyzing survey data from the University of Michigan revealed a conclusion that has many stunned: Twelfth-grade girls are less likely to say they want to get married than 12th-grade boys.
I say “many” because I was not surprised in the least — and those who are shocked are clearly unaware of the extent to which ubiquitous violent and degrading internet pornography has transformed the dating landscape for teens today.
“The drop in the share of 12th graders who say they want to get married reflects shifting views among girls,” the study states. “Boys are more likely than girls to say they want to get married someday (74% vs. 61%), but this wasn’t always the case. In 1993, a larger share of girls (83%) than boys (76%) said they wanted to get married.”
In conclusion, “The share of boys saying this is virtually unchanged over the 30-year period. But the share among girls dropped by 22 percentage points.”
As Dr. Brad Wilcox, author of the groundbreaking 2023 book Get Married, noted, this is a serious problem for many reasons. “This is ‘disastrous’ because, scientifically speaking, married women are doing much better than unmarried women,” he wrote. “Married mothers have 10 times the assets in midlife, are half as lonely, and nearly twice as likely to be ‘very happy’ compared to single, childless women.”
The immediate response on social media by pundits and “influencers” was, of course, to blame the trend on feminism, following the pattern of shoehorning the new data into their Very Online project of restoring “patriarchy” and “repealing the 19th Amendment,” with more than a little blood-curdling misogyny tossed in for good measure. None noted that perhaps girls, growing up in a pornified culture in which the question “What is a Woman?” has been answered by Pornhub,” are increasingly afraid of marriage.
Erika Bachiochi touched on this recently in an insightful essay titled “More Young Women Will Pursue Family Life If Good Men Step Up.” Bachiochi affirms many of the complaints about both young men and young women and notes, “What I believe we are experiencing in real time is the post-Christian degeneration of the sexes.” Bachiochi also notes something that I have observed and heard countless times in high schools, on campuses, and in churches:
I do not think enough of us appreciate just how frightening porn itself is to young women, or how frightening to women the men are who have been malformed by it. Or frankly, how frightening is the rhetoric of those extremely online right-wing male provocateurs who too often talk as though the proper relation between the sexes is one of domination and submission instead of reciprocity, collaboration, and care.
As I wrote earlier, she is precisely right. Bachiochi notes the horrifying phenomenon of girls attempting to literally escape their femininity by identifying as “trans” or “non-binary” because of what they see in porn. I wrote about this trend for The European Conservative last year; I received so many personal stories in response I wrote a follow-up essay. Girls and women see pornography, too. They see the roles girls are expected to play in our porn-shaped culture. And many have decided that if their femininity makes them a target, they would rather check out of the game entirely.
Wilcox, who works as a counselor, noted that pornography is obviously a major factor in this new study. “Porn is definitely part of story here,” he wrote. “First three students who came to office hours today said they’re writing their paper on effects of porn/’cheap sex’ on young men today. Students: Porn diminishes young men’s interest in real relationships and their appeal in eyes of young women.”
As I have said many times in this space already: Nothing is going to get better until we deal with the problem of online pornographyat every level. Individually, as households, as churches, and as a society, we must deal with the fact that a generation is being socialized into the porn industry’s view of sex and sexuality via weapons-grade, addictive content. Many, many young women, some in tears, have told me that they fear they will never find a spouse because pornography use is normative. They want to get married. They just don’t want Pornhub’s version of intimacy.
They have the right to expect so much more. We should listen to them.
The lethal injection room at San Quentin State Prison, California, U.S. CACorrections (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
With the exception of roughly 50% of U.S. states, the death penalty has long since been repealed across the Western world. Ever-determined to retain the ultimate punishment, even Uncle Sam appears to be losing his appetite for the practice. Western liberals make a point of congratulating themselves on this demonstration of ‘civility’ and commitment to ‘human rights.’ Here, for instance, is the European Union’s self-satisfied statement on the matter:
It is indeed a hallmark achievement of this Organization, that the whole area of the Council of Europe is free of the death penalty. The EU anld all its Member States share this pride. And we share the deep conviction that the death penalty is incompatible with human rights, violates human dignity, does not deter crime and it is an inhuman, degrading and irreversible punishment. It constitutes a violation of the human rights we collectively committed ourselves to uphold.
However, in a Western world increasingly susceptible to barbarian forces—forces a tad less ‘civility’ might help guard against—such smugness is arguably misplaced.
Following a spate of particularly heinous, high-profile murders, the question of capital punishment is daring to raise its head once again. Stateside, this was provoked by the brutal stabbing of Iryna Zarutska at the hands of career criminal Decarlos Brown Jr. There have also been widespread demands for capital punishment in the case of Charlie Kirk shooter Tyler Robinson; President Trump himself has called for both to face the death penalty. Across the pond, meanwhile (where the option has not been on the statute books since 1965), there have been similar calls in the case of Lucy Letby—the nurse convicted of murdering neonatal babies—and Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer who pleaded guilty to the maniacal slaughter of three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
I have written previously in favour of a reintroduction of the death penalty in Britain, and before you accuse me of being an unmitigated blowhard, let me say from the outset that I am genuinely sympathetic to both sides of the argument; it is a deeply problematic issue. While, as an atheist, I am not persuaded by religious opposition, I am absolutely on board with the imperative to eradicate bias, human error, and bad faith actors from the proceedings.
Nonetheless, for the most egregious crimes—particularly the murder of children—I maintain that purely on moral grounds, those who deny victims their fundamental right to life should immediately forfeit their own. By robbing victims—and their families—of birthdays, milestones, future generations, and memories, imprisoning survivors in lifelong grief, they have destroyed multiple lives. Society must exact a price for that.
In order to ward off the spectre of human error, I would advocate the following caveats for capital punishment:
That it could only be used in extremis, for the absolute worst crimes.
That it could only be used in cases of absolute certainty.
That the judge (and possibly the victims’ families) would need to request it.
In light of this, Lucy Letby would not meet the threshold for the death penalty, notwithstanding the enormous amount of circumstantial evidence against her and the truly appalling nature of the alleged crimes. However, in the case of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who decided to decapitate Lee Rigby in broad daylight, I would advocate death. For Dahbia Benkired, who confessed to the torturous and sadistic murder and dismemberment of 12-year-old Lola Daviet, I see no reason why Lola’s family should subsidise her existence in perpetuity. And as for Axel Rudakubana, who had the gall to gloat about the murders of Bebe, Elsie, and Alice when caught in flagrante, I would not hesitate, regardless of whether he committed the murders nine days shy of his 18th birthday.
It has long been the case that a majority of the British people support the reintroduction of the death penalty for extreme cases. Such support, however, does not extend to the Palace of Westminster, where it is estimated that 80-90% of MPs oppose it. Former Reform UK MP (now independent) Rupert Lowe raised the issue at Prime Minister’s Question Time last week, where he called for a legally binding referendum:
For the most evil criminals, domestic and foreign, we must reintroduce the death penalty.
I just asked the Prime Minister to consult the country in a legally binding referendum. MPs tried to shout me down, but the British people are with me.
That his question was met with jeers and disbelief is hardly a surprise. Westminster MPs are regularly opposed to the expressed wishes of their constituents and tend to sneer whenever the public ‘vote the wrong way’. This was markedly the case during Brexit, with 52% of the electorate voting Leave compared to just 24% of Parliament. The disconnect extends to mass immigration, with 62% of MPs (but only 31% of the public) believing Britain should allow as much immigration as the economy needs. The divide is stark also when it comes to voting reform: around 60% of the public are desirous to move to proportional representation, while MPs largely support first-past-the-post.
In terms of the death penalty, I do have some sympathy with MPs uncomfortable with the issue. When I spoke to Ann Widdecombe (former Shadow Home Secretary) a few years ago with particular reference to Letby’s case, she intimated that political opposition to capital punishment came down to ‘personal responsibility’—i.e., that MPs were loath to be held responsible for a potential miscarriage of justice. The problem with such an argument is that MPs are markedly less squeamish about pulling the rope when the innocent are at the other end of it. Just this year, MPs voted to decriminalise abortion up to birth—something supported by less than 1% of the public. And indeed, such lust for blood extends to the assisted dying bill, which was also passed this year. In other words, the State has no issue switching off life support for baby and granny but somehow has an attack of conscience when it comes to the Axel Rudakubanas of this world.
Capital punishment may be an ‘inhuman,’ ‘degrading,’ and ‘irreversible’ punishment, but it’s thanks to our MPs that the British public are overly familiar with such practices of late. Having unleashed hell upon the electorate via the state-sponsored influx of migrant criminals—some of whom mete out the death penalty on a daily basis—it is a bit rich for our politicians to refuse to take responsibility or to grant justice to those affected. As it was in the case of Brexit, it may once again be time for Parliament’s arm to be twisted into giving the people a referendum—a referendum in which they can almost certainly be trusted to ‘vote the wrong way.’ Keep pushing, Mr. Lowe!
