I saw an interesting document, one that I’d missed in the past, put up on Gab recently by Peter McLoughlin the author of ‘Easy Meat’, the definitive tome on Britain’s Islamic Rape Gang problems. The document, a press release from the Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime (MOPAC), released on 24^th April 2017, announced the setting up of an ‘online hate crime’ hub.

The ‘online hate crime hub’, an Orwellian sounding group created by the Mayor of Greater London, Sadiq ‘Saracen’ Khan, is in my opinion a complete waste of money. It’s my firm belief that with London’s current high rate of real crimes, the Detective Inspector and four more junior officers involved in this scheme could be better deployed elsewhere. This parasitical police entity is part of ‘Saracen’ Khan’s plot to have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy on ‘online hate crime’, or in reality, the Mayor’s desire to police Londoner’s opinions. However, I doubt very much that this ‘hate crime hub’ will do anything about the hate-filled Muslims who too often threaten death to their opponents and currently seem to be being allowed to do this with impunity and not just in the Metropolitan Police area.

What should worry people is not just the existence of this censorious ‘online hate crime hub’ but also the groups and individuals which will be assisting it. The press release said that the hub will encompass ‘community groups’, left leaning ‘hate crime academics’, and activist civil servants in organisations such as the Crown Prosecution Service. Reading the list of those who are expected to be involved in this wasteful and useless endeavour, does not fill me with any confidence that any of them will protect my right, or the right of others, to express opinions on a variety of matters.

In fact the true censorious nature of this ‘online hate crime hub’ is revealed by the involvement of two groups who have contributed to the ‘hub’ and which are quoted in the press release. The first is the Tell Mama organisation, an entity with a long record for playing fast and loose with the truth by talking up the issue of ‘Islamophobia’ and doing it on public money and one which has often been at the forefront of calls for censorship online. The other group is the Community Security Trust which provides guards and security advice for Jewish synagogues and schools. This group has, in my eyes, long since stopped working for those who they are set up to defend, such as Jewish families like mine for instance. They seem more interested in playing politics and self wounding of their own hard won good reputation by linking with groups like Tell Mama. This loss of a formerly good reputation by the CST in my eyes, meant that at a recent Jewish communal event that I was overseeing, I refused to employ the services of the CST to do the guarding of it. I made this decision primarily because I feel I can no longer trust them, owing to their involvement with Tell Mama and also my view that the CST organisation has become remote from us ‘Jews in the pews’. To provide what is today sadly necessary security for a Jewish event, instead I engaged the services of an independent guard with the right ‘fighting background’ to do the job, such is my low opinion of the CST these days.

The press release said:

Whilst between two and five per cent of hate crimes reported to the Met are online, community organisations suggest the number of offences may be much higher. Jewish organisation, Community Security Trust, cites 20 per cent, suggesting these incidents are significantly under-reported* and Tell MAMA, which measures Islamaphobic hate nationally, estimates that over 70 per cent of the reports it receives are about online hate. A key aim of the Online Hate Crime Hub is to build a stronger evidence base and better understanding of the scope, nature and scale of online hate, in order to tackle it.

What the press release and the groups mentioned in this paragraph are talking about are not crimes, in the real sense and meaning of the word, they are merely opinions that some people may dislike or see as offensive and distasteful. In my view, subjective things such as whether a person finds something offensive or distasteful should not constitute a crime. A crime is an incident where real damage occurs to either a person or property and not because a person may be merely disturbed by what they have seen or read. I see a shed-load of stuff online every day that offends or disturbs me, but I know that these things are very rarely what a reasonable person would consider a crime and are nothing but words and images.

Something that should concern us about the above quoted paragraph is the vagueness of the figures that have been given to justify this ‘online hate crime hub’. The figure produced by the CST claims that 20% of offences against Jews are online. Note that there is very little detail given here. It is unclear from this bald 20% figure whether these ‘offences’ are genuine and credible threats to commit damage or harm, are threatening statements from Islamists or are just the usual impotent tin foil hat anti-Semitic nutcases who wibble online about ‘Zionist plots’. Are the CST talking about credible real crimes such as a specific threat to kill, or just opinions that they or those making reports to them do not like? They do not state this or give examples, thus in my view the CST’s statement in this press release should not be relied upon as a guide to reality.

The claims made by Tell Mama about ‘online hate crime’ are even more outrageous and vague than the claims made by the CST. As you can see Tell Mama are claiming that 70% of the reports going to them are about ‘online hate crime’. As anyone who has observed this organisation will know, Tell Mama has, despite management changes in recent years, had a long and undistinguished reputation for allegedly inflating ‘hate crime’ figures and calling for censorship of social media. Although, as in the case of CST, Tell Mama give no indication as to what these ‘online hate crime’ reports consist of, it is most likely, based on what Tell Mama have referred to in the past as an ‘online hate crime’, to be people saying unpleasant, but sometimes true, things about Islam and the behaviour of some Muslims. Because of Tell Mama’s past reputation for being less than 100% honest, which includes incidents such as classifying negative comments about Islam as ‘attacks’ following the Islamic murder of Lee Rigby and leaving a proven fake ‘hijab pulling’ story on their website for a year, this 70% figure should be taken with a bucket rather than a pinch of salt.

What should annoy people, especially those who pay taxes, is that in February 2018 Tell Mama was granted £1.9 million of public money (on top of other funds they’ve screwed out of the taxpayer) to fund their ‘anti Islamophobia’ work by Sajid Javid’s Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government. From what we can see from this press release, the taxpayers are, in effect, paying Tell Mama to make guesses as to the levels of what they call ‘online hate crime’ and to act as arbiters in deciding what is and is not an ‘online hate crime’. We have no way of knowing whether these reports made to Tell Mama constitute genuine and credible threats of violence, something many would agree could constitute a real crime, or whether (more likely in my view) they are just reports by thin skinned Muslim individuals who have been triggered by someone saying ‘I don’t like Islam very much and here’s why…’ on some social media platform. Of more concern, we have no idea whether these ‘reports’ that have come in to Tell Mama have been orchestrated by nefarious groups eager to stir up Muslims into a grievance culture for their own political or religious ends. There are plenty of Muslim individuals and Islamic groups out there who are favourable to the idea of censorship of anti-Islam thought and who may be feeding these reports to Tell Mama, knowing that this group will shroud-wave with them to the police and other public sector entities.

Finally what got my goat somewhat was one of the footnotes to this press release. This footnote which is referenced by the asterix in the quoted paragraph above read:

* Figures provided by Tell MAMA and the Community Security Trust as part of anecdotal evidence supplied to MOPAC.

What! Does the Mayor’s police committee mean to tell me that Tell Mama and the CST were not even producing proper evidence but are merely producing estimates, guesses and hearsay? It certainly looks like it doesn’t it? Both these groups are in receipt of considerable amounts of public money, and we should ask ourselves whether we should be spending this money in order to promote hearsay or guesswork of the sort that has apparently been entertained by the Mayor’s policing office. The CST gets approximately £13 million a year, which is a lot of money, much of this money as I can ascertain seems to be spent on real stuff such as physical security for Jewish schools and synagogues. Although I have a personal disagreement with CST and the way that it is run, I concede that this is stuff that is unfortunately needed in Britain today mostly, it needs to be said, because of the presence of large numbers of Islamic Jew haters on our islands. As a taxpayer I’d rather this money did not have to be spent, but the only way to remove the threat of Islamic Jew hatred in the UK would be to remove Islam from the UK. The £1.9 million given to Tell Mama or ‘Islamophobia’ work when all they can bring to the table is ‘anecdotal’ evidence is for me the much greater and more obvious waste of public funds. Their ‘70%’ figure for ‘online hate crimes’ is liable to be shonky in the extreme for the reasons that I gave earlier.

I have no real issue or bone of contention with the government compensating synagogues or even churches for the extra security that they require because of the presence of the ultraviolent ‘religion of peace’ on our shores. However I do have an issue with organisations with a record for less than 100% accuracy, such as Tell Mama, and who also appear to take a favourable view towards censorship, being funded to bring nothing more than gossip and hearsay to the table. Both the CST and Tell Mama could have plucked these 20% and 70% figures from their respective rectums for all we know and many of these ‘online hate crimes’ may be nothing of the sort and may merely be opinions that some people may object to.

I do object however to the waste of resources that this sort of thing represents. Money given to the CST to secure synagogues may be being spunked on possibly worthless reports which contain little more than subjective assertions about ‘online hate crime’. This money may have been better spent on say a CCTV system or training for volunteer guards at rural synagogues or extra security for synagogues in areas that are now surrounded by areas that are to all intents and purposes, dominated by Islam. None of CST’s grant money should have been spent on promoting guesses, hearsay and subjective opinion as solid evidence of anything, let alone stuff that could get people arrested and even imprisoned for expressing an opinion. As for the £1.9 million that has been recently granted to Tell Mama, we should be disgusted that this money will be used, as we see in this press release, to promote possibly fake or malevolent ‘hate speech’ reports and to use said reports to continue to call for yet more censorship of the debate about Islam in Britain. The money that the government extorts from us in taxation is going to the very groups like Tell Mama who want us to ‘shut up and don’t mention the Islam’ and who continue to agitate for more aggressive censorship in a land which has already lost many of the free speech rights for which our ancestors fought. There should be no more money expended on groups that do nothing more than peddle gossip, hearsay and subjective personal opinion, who want dissenting voices silenced and who laughably refer to this sort of stuff as ‘crimes’. Enough is indeed enough, not only have they have these groups had too much of our money and resources already. This story also shows just why there is an urgent need to repeal the ‘hate speech’ laws that do so much to impoverish British society and which are all too easily exploited by mountebanks, frauds and those with agendas who wish to falsely claim that an opinion is the same thing as a physical action.