Tommy Robinson: Britain sacrificed its children out of fear of being called ‘Islamophobic’



Widespread child exploitation has been going on for years in the U.K., and British activist Tommy Robinson has been at the forefront of sounding the alarm — though authorities still turned a blind eye.

Robinson points to notorious cases in cities like Rotherham, arguing that fears of being labeled racist or Islamophobic prevented officials from confronting abuse committed by grooming gangs.

“My hometown, Luton, is a labor stronghold,” Robinson tells Freitas. “Always has been. But let me tell you in 2013 in my town, because I’ve got three children, so I was trying to work out the future for my town, future for my country,” Robinson tells BlazeTV's Nick Freitas.

And when Robinson looked at the “projected growth forecast” for “demographical change in Luton by 2030” on the government’s own website, he found that the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities are projected to increase by 70% to 77%.


“White and black by 1.2[%] to 1.4[%],” he tells Freitas.

“So what do the Labour Party, your Democrat Party, know?” he asks. “They know that white and black are irrelevant. The future lays with these Pakistani and Bangladeshes.”

“We don’t want to upset them, right?” he asks.

And in another city, Rotherham, Robinson explains there’s only a 3.7% Muslim population.

“There’s none there. Now in that 3.7[%] Muslim population, we had 1,400 children raped,” he says.

“Now the police officer in charge during all these rapes who covered it up, what’s his job now? Well, he’s in charge of counterterrorism,” he continues.

“Now Muslim men make up 3% of the British population. They’re responsible for 90% of the convictions of groups of men who rape kids. Thirty percent of the men convicted of raping children in gangs are called Muhammad,” he adds.

And as the Muslim population in America grows, Robinson warns, “You’ve got to talk about this, and you have to understand this. You have a choice with immigration, America.”

“Making the Argument with Nick Freitas” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.

Start watching Nick Freitas NOW at blazetv.com and use the promo code NICK40 for $40 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.

The Foreign Invasion In The UK Will Ruin Your English Countryside Vacation

The 1,000-year-old village of Piddington just voted to leave the U.K. after Labour announced plans to house 1,250 single adult male asylum seekers next to the children's playground.

NANNY STATE: UK's pointless teen social media ban a fitting legacy for hapless, hated Keir Starmer



The 2024 U.K. general election surprised a lot of people, not least the Labour Party itself.

Sir Keir Starmer did not so much come to power with a mandate from the electorate as benefit from Britain's absurd first-past-the-post voting system. Labour secured a massive 174-seat majority on just 33.7% of the vote.

Apparently, a 16-year-old is wise enough to choose the next government, but a 15-and-a-half-year-old is too fragile to look at a meme on X without state intervention.

This "loveless landslide," as it has been called, happened because everyone was fed up with the Conservatives pretending to be conservative while presiding over record immigration and historically high taxes, while the emerging Reform Party split the vote on the right.

Look back in anger

Brits tend to vote tactically. Voting in this country is about getting rid of someone you hate or voting for someone you hate a bit less to prevent someone you hate a lot more from gaining power.

When he stood on the steps of Downing Street almost two years ago, Starmer declared that the country had voted for "change." And change the country he did. To paraphrase Churchill, never in the field of politics have so few done so much to make life worse for so many. The prime minister and his Cabinet of credentialed ideological clones immediately set about dismantling the British state. We went from 14 years of chaotic Conservative rule to managed decline overseen by a man so dull he had to beg his shadow to follow him.

Admittedly, he did unite the country — against him.

Within the space of two years, Starmer’s blend of technocratic managerialism and authoritarian overreach had alienated and enraged just about everyone. He was so unpopular that he was even hated by people who didn’t know he existed; people heard the name or saw his face and seemed ready to spontaneously combust with rage.

Ultimately, he did the right thing and resigned on June 22. Ironically, it was only during his resignation speech that he actually showed some genuine human emotion. When his successor, generally considered to be Andy Burnham, takes up the role — the seventh PM in a decade — the revolving door of people fighting for the front seat of a clown car continues.

Unsubscribe

Starmer's final, desperate attempt to manufacture a legacy before leaving Number 10 was his sweeping social media ban for under-16s. Not content with alienating a generation of working-class voters, he apparently wanted to ensure that the youngest demographic would grow up hating Labour as well.

Just two years ago, Starmer resisted calls to ban children from having smartphones and using social media. So the about-face is nothing new to a man who has changed his mind on dozens of government policies. The former prime minister has made so many U-turns that the clown car is doing donuts at the circus.

According to statements he made during his Downing Street press conference, Starmer took a more draconian approach after meeting with bereaved parents and after evaluating evidence from Australia, which became the first Western country to ban children from social media in December 2025. From early next year, the age limit will be raised from 13 to 16 on platforms including Snapchat, Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.

Naturally, children were positively overwhelmed with joy by the news that the state was going to become their new moral guardian. When the BBC visited a school to gauge the reaction of under-16s to being kicked off "the socials," they spoke to a few who agreed with the ban, but they also met a teenager named Isabella. After she revealed that her weekend screen time was nine hours, the reporter asked what she would do with all that sudden time.

In classic British fashion, she deadpanned straight to camera: "Stare at a wall."

It was a wonderfully sarcastic, meme-ready response that instantly went viral.

RELATED: Britain is paying the price for years of woke ideology

JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP/Getty Images

'Sheer hypocrisy'

If Andy Burnham becomes prime minister and proceeds to enforce this ban, he will inherit a generation of young people whose first political memory is of a government that exists largely to take things away.

The sheer hypocrisy of the policy is staggering. This is, after all, the exact same Keir Starmer who championed lowering the voting age to 16, solemnly declaring that young people were mature enough to help decide the future of the United Kingdom. Apparently, a 16-year-old is wise enough to choose the next government, but a 15-and-a-half-year-old is too fragile to look at a meme on X without state intervention.

No thought has been put into this ban. The legislation excludes WhatsApp and Signal — so the state’s big-brained solution to online safety prevents a teenager from posting a photo of his friends on a public feed, yet happily lets him participate in group chats with hundreds of peers, swapping the exact same content totally off the regulatory radar.

Besides, kids are not as stupid as we think; they are light-years ahead of tech regulation. Recently a study commissioned by online safety charity the Molly Rose Foundation exposed the reality of these policies. The study — the first to examine teen social media use under a blanket ban — found that 61% of Australian 12- to 15-year-olds who previously had accounts still maintained access to at least one platform.

Don’t get me wrong: Social media is a sewer, overrun with self-righteous liberals and narcissistic attention-seekers posting slop, but it’s an easy target for policymakers. Not everything is the fault of social media. This is a moral panic, a headline-grabbing stunt parading as child protection. Social media platforms, like video games before them and horror movies before that, have simply become the latest scapegoat for wider social problems.

I sympathize deeply with the frustration and anguish felt both by teachers and grieving parents, but child-rearing should not be outsourced to the state any more than the government should declare a national bedtime. It’s a parent’s responsibility to bring up children, not the state’s. If Labour thinks Parliament can legislate a tech-savvy generation into staring at a wall, lawmakers are about to find out exactly how tactical the next electorate can be.

At This Point, It Will Take A Political Revolution To Save Britain

Despite voters consistently expressing concerns about cultural replacement, Britain's leaders dismiss grassroots opposition as bigotry.

U.K.’s Ruling Labour Party Aided And Abetted Pakistani Rape Gangs

Rupert Lowe's independent rape-gang inquiry names names, and the most damning ones belong to the Labour Party that opened Britain's borders.

'History will not remember him kindly': Brits celebrate as Keir Starmer resigns — but replacement could be worse



Liberal politician Keir Starmer announced his resignation on Monday — just hours after President Donald Trump let the cat out of the bag and faulted the British prime minister for failing "badly on two very important subjects — IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY."

Critics celebrated his downfall, fellow travelers romanticized his time in office, and Starmer's putative replacement, Andy Burnham, called for an "orderly and responsible" transition.

'I couldn’t have predicted how quickly he would reveal himself as the most incompetent Prime Minister this country has ever had.'

Starmer, a deeply unpopular leader whose job disapproval rating has hovered around 76%, characterized his nearly two years in office as a success, stating, "We changed our party, ripping out the poison of anti-Semitism, restoring trust on the economy, defense, and national security, and becoming a party that once again stood proudly with, not against, our national flag."

After suggesting that he had taken steps to "change Britain for the better" — "to build a fairer country with dignity and respect, where everyone is seen, everyone is valued" — and reiterating London's support for Ukraine, Starmer noted that his party has made clear he is not the individual "best placed to lead us into the next general election."

"I accept that answer with good grace," said Starmer, the U.K.'s sixth prime minister since July 2016. "Every decision I’ve taken has been about putting the country I love first. That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour Party. I have spoken to His Majesty the King this morning to inform him of my decision. I will ask the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to set out a timetable with nominations opening on the 9th of July."

A Labour leadership election would ensure that Starmer is replaced before the British Parliament returns in September. Starmer said he would remain in office until he is replaced.

RELATED: 'Beyond evil': Nightmarish report reveals full scale of mass Islamic rapes of '250,000' white British girls

Labor politician Andy Burnham. Gary Roberts/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images.

The Labour Party has been roiled in recent months by a civil war.

Ninety-six of Starmer's 402 Labour members of parliament demanded the prime minister's resignation last month after the party suffered significant losses — a net-loss of 1,229 seats out of a total of roughly 5,000 — in local elections, while Reform UK saw tremendous gains.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood reportedly urged Starmer in early May to establish a timetable for his departure.

The infighting did not go unnoticed by opponents in parliament.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, for instance, stated late last year that "the PM has shown he is in office but not in power."

'Digital ID was to be foisted upon people regardless of their wishes.'

Starmer's ultimate decision to throw in the towel — just days after he and his party were blasted in the 219-page "Rape Gang Inquiry Report" — was welcomed by Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe, who stated, "He has been a truly disgraceful Prime Minister. I do not believe him to be a good man or a patriot. He has deliberately and rapidly accelerated the destruction of our Britain, of our home. History will not remember him kindly, nor should it."

"I sat in Parliament, looking him in the eye, listening to him attempting to justify his decision to block a national inquiry into the mass rape of young British girls," continued Lowe. "I will never forgive him. For that, and so much else."

Labour politicians voted against a national inquiry into grooming gangs in January 2025. Starmer's spokesman stated at the time, "We will be guided by the victims and what we’ve heard from the victims is that they don’t want to see another national inquiry."

RELATED: African suspected of trying to cut white Briton's head off identified — while police fret about online critics

Isabel Infantes/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage wrote, "The Prime Minister is finished. I have to give Starmer some credit: even I couldn’t have predicted how quickly he would reveal himself as the most incompetent Prime Minister this country has ever had the misfortune of having."

Farage, who has demanded a prompt general election "at the soonest possible date," countered Starmer's success narrative with a list of some of the Labour government's apparent misdeeds over the past two years:

The party started by trying to steal from pensioners, while simultaneously refusing to take action against welfare cheats. Rachel Reeves raided your pay packet to throw money towards public sector fat cats. Promises to “smash the gangs” were hollow, as illegal migration through the Channel hit record highs. Digital ID was to be foisted upon people regardless of their wishes. Hardened criminals were released from prisons back onto your streets. The Chagos Islands were nearly handed over at a cost to the taxpayer, and farmers were hit by a death tax.

The Free Speech Union also welcomed Starmer's exit, noting, "He has led the most authoritarian government in more than a generation, unleashing an unprecedented assault on free speech. Indeed, he seems determined to make social media censorship his legacy."

The FSU, like Farage, pointed out, however, that the Labour Party's likely replacement may be just as bad as, if not worse than, Starmer.

Starmer's most likely successor is Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor who handily won a special election on Thursday, thereby securing a seat in parliament and a viable pathway to the head of the Labour Party.

A radical leftist who welcomes mass migration, Burnham is also an Islamophile who:

  • opposed the U.K.'s counter-extremism program as "toxic" for supposedly discriminating against Muslims, whom he said feel "unfairly targeted";
  • rushed to downplay the religious nature of the May 2017 Islamic terror attack at the Manchester Arena that left 22 people dead and 1,017 injured, noting that "the person who did it in no more represents the Muslim community than the person who killed Jo Cox represents the white Christian community"; and
  • supported the adoption of a definition of "Islamophobia" that claims it is "rooted in racism."

Other candidates are, according to conservative politician David Frost, variations on a theme:

All the likely candidates, just like Starmer, are creatures of the same political class. All have devoted their lives to Labour politics and none appears to have any meaningful non-political hinterland or wider interests beyond pop music and football. They all support Burnham-style state‑led regionalism, they all see the state as capable of resolving all society’s ills, and they are all in their different ways steeped in corporatism and the trade unions. All are pro-EU and want to reverse Brexit. And of course all are hostile to "populism."

Burnham thanked Starmer on Monday for his "leadership and dedication during such a challenging period" and emphasized the need for the transition process to be "conducted in an orderly and responsible way."

"People want to see progress on economic growth, cost of living, public services, housing and opportunities for the next generation," wrote Burnham. "Political change should never distract from the responsibility to improve people's lives."

Liberals at home and abroad did their apparent best to paint Starmer's short stint in office in rosy colors.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, for instance, said Starmer "can be proud of the contribution he has made to the country he loves."

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, claimed that "it can take many leaders years to grow into the statesman [Starmer] became in just two years," adding that Starmer had helped make European and Ukrainian security stronger.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan claimed that Starmer "is a man of great integrity" who has "made a huge contribution to the Labour party and our country."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Britain is paying the price for years of woke ideology



When 18-year-old student Henry Nowak was fatally stabbed by Vickrum Digwa, a British Sikh, a horrific local crime quickly escalated to international headlines due to a catastrophic law enforcement failure.

Spurred by Digwa’s false accusation of racism, responding officers immediately handcuffed the mortally wounded teenager, even as he told them nine times that he could not breathe and four times that he had been stabbed. That Nowak was arrested and treated as a criminal while taking his final breaths has shocked and appalled the United Kingdom.

British institutions have traded the safety of their citizens for wokeness.

Bodycam footage of his harrowing final minutes also caught the attention of the U.S. government. The State Department warned on X that “ideological conditioning and two-tiered policing are glaring symptoms of civilizational decline that must be rejected across the West.”

Two-tier policing refers to the public perception that British law enforcement operates under a double standard — treating suspects, victims, and protesters differently based on race, religion, or political ideology.

The roots of this bias lie in the policies established by the College of Policing (the official national body that sets training standards) and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which coordinates operational policy across all 44 U.K. police forces. These two bodies introduced the highly controversial and censorious “Non-Crime Hate Incidents,” which legally requires British officers to log and investigate citizens for lawful speech if anyone perceives it as motivated by hostility — even when no actual crime has been committed.

In May 2022, in the aftermath of the global George Floyd protests, the College of Policing and the NPCC launched the Race Action Plan, explicitly designed to embed anti-racist training across the entire justice system. The plan’s 2025 update codified an even more racialized doctrine.

Official guidance now states that a commitment to racial equity “does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind.’” By abandoning equality before the law, the policy instructs British police to treat individuals differently based on their race in an attempt to engineer equal outcomes. With law enforcement having absorbed this radical ideology, officers have become selective enforcers of justice, failing to intervene for fear of being labeled racist.

This is not a fringe theory. A new survey by the research group More in Common found that one-third of Britons now believe police actively favor ethnic minorities over white people. The chronic mishandling of the Nowak case provides further evidence of a system that despises the majority of its own citizens.

RELATED: America is done buying bogus racial alibis

Bill Oxford/Getty Images

Governed by an anti-racism doctrine, British institutions have traded the safety of their citizens for wokeness. The fatal cost of this ideological capture was laid bare in 2023 when Valdo Calocane slaughtered three people in Nottingham. He should not have been free.

Psychiatric professionals had repeatedly refused to section the psychotically violent Calocane, citing concerns about the “disproportionate overrepresentation of young black males in detention.” Captive to the progressive view that any statistical disparity constitutes systemic racism, authorities left a violent, psychotic man on the streets rather than risk accusations of racism.

Tragically, this stigma also contributed to the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in 2017 following a concert by Ariana Grande. Kyle Lawler, an on-duty security guard, witnessed the bomber, Salman Abedi, acting suspiciously with a heavy backpack. But Lawler failed to intervene or raise the alarm for fear of being branded a racist. Abedi detonated the device minutes later, killing 22 people — predominantly children and teenagers — and injuring over 1,000.

The Nowak case illustrates the same dynamic. Public criticism from Washington, combined with mounting protests on British streets, prompted pushback from Downing Street. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior Labour politicians vehemently rejected the two-tier accusation, stating categorically that they did not recognize the State Department’s characterization of the British justice system, a sentiment echoed by Justice Secretary David Lammy.

Starmer condemned the U.S. critiques, and even accused Elon Musk of overstepping diplomatic boundaries and attempting to stoke division on U.K. streets.

But in 2020, Starmer had no such reservations about commenting on American internal affairs following the death of George Floyd. He publicly urged then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson to address systemic racism directly with Donald Trump, openly criticized Trump’s response to Floyd’s death, and famously took a knee in a highly publicized display of solidarity with Black Lives Matter.

Labour’s attempt at containment was exposed when Vice President JD Vance took to X. Echoing his powerful Munich Security Conference speech, Vance argued:

Henry Nowak died the same way a civilization dies: abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit. ... He would still be alive today, and he would be if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.

Vance’s warning came days after a Sudanese asylum seeker was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder following a savage knife attack in Belfast, Northern Ireland — reported by the Telegraph as an attempted beheading. The victim, a man in his 40s, remains in serious condition after suffering significant injuries to his eyes, face, and back. Police stated the suspect is believed to have entered the U.K. by traveling from Dublin into Northern Ireland, where he had been granted leave to remain under a five-year visa.

The refusal to stem illegal immigration is a direct result of the policies of both main political parties. During the last six years of Conservative government, 128,000 undocumented migrants entered the country via the English Channel. Since Labour took power in July 2024, more than 70,000 illegal migrants have crossed into the U.K. on small boats.

Among those Britain is importing are individuals who despise the West and seek to harm its citizens. In the final week of January 2026, a Sudanese illegal migrant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the brutal murder of Rhiannon Skye Whyte, a hotel worker whom he stabbed 23 times at a railway station. Less than a fortnight later, an Iranian migrant pleaded guilty to sexual assault. In March, an Afghan asylum seeker received a 15-year sentence for the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old girl in a park.

For decades, uncontrolled immigration has been imposed upon the British public under the guise of multiculturalism, driven by successive governments in thrall to the liberal notion that diversity is a strength. This result has been social upheaval, rapid demographic change, and a society fractured into segregated cultural enclaves.

Expanding hate speech laws has effectively criminalized questions and complaints, leaving a nation paralyzed by fear and fueled by anger. JD Vance is correct to call this the politics of self-hatred.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Labour Politician Who Aims To Oust Starmer Wins Key UK By-Election

"Anger toward Starmer has continued to mount"

UK Censors ‘Misinformation’ About Migrant Crime That Turned Out To Be 100% True

British politicians keep calling social media posts 'disinformation,' while issuing false statements of their own and hoping nobody notices.

Former UK prime minister tells Glenn Beck: Margaret Thatcher would be ‘horrified’ by Britain today



Today, the United Kingdom (under Starmer’s Labour Party) is often described by conservatives as “prison island,” where free-speech crackdowns, unchecked mass immigration, economic stagnation, and political turmoil create a crushing dystopia.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss tells Glenn Beck that Margaret Thatcher — the conservative prime minister who held office from 1979 to 1990 and was one of the most influential figures in modern British history — would be “horrified” by what the U.K. has become.

“We are now on the verge of a debt crisis. If you remember, she was brought in to solve the debt crisis in the '70s, and we're now back to where we were in 1979 when she got into office,” says Truss.

“But she'd also be horrified by what's happened on immigration, by the way that we have given all these powers on human rights to these unelected international bodies,” she adds.

Glenn wonders who will rise up to defeat the communist takeover of the U.K. “We got Trump. ... Who is on the horizon that you see ... in Europe who has the skill to be able to stand the heat?” he asks.

Truss says it’s difficult to say because the environment Thatcher was in is completely different than the environment conservative politicians are in today.

“In Britain, there's obviously Kemi Badenoch, there's Nigel Farage. Are they tough enough to take on what is an even deeper state than Mrs. Thatcher faced?” she asks, noting that Thatcher “did not face the unaccountable Bank of England” or the “fake Supreme Court” created by former PM Tony Blair.

“[Thatcher] didn't face all this. So it's even worse now,” says Truss, “and the bureaucrats have become radicalized. They're transgender activists, they're environmental activists. So dealing with that is huge.”

What the U.K. needs, she says, is an “anti-system leader” like Donald Trump to recapture the nation from “the elites who've been running [it] into the ground.”

But even a strong leader won’t be enough to reverse course.

“You also need a movement of people,” says Truss, noting that Britain hasn’t experienced the widespread anti-socialist movement the United States has seen, which has allowed the Labour Party to push a radical agenda.

“As soon as Labour got in, it's like ‘let's just close the door on all that. We've got the money now, we can go back to being socialist. In fact, we can introduce more and more progressive ideology into our state,’ and that's what's happened,” she explains.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.