Are ‘Troubles’ bubbling under the surface in the North of Ireland?

North of Ireland Map

While UK mainstream media understandably focuses on issues related to Brexit, anti-Semitism rows in the Labour Party, knife crime in London, issues related to US president Trump and even the recent heatwave (which more recently has only been in the southeast of England), in 2018 there have been a number of disturbing incidents occurring in six UK counties. Those are the six counties that make up the north of Ireland. It is disconcerting how these incidents tend to get very little mainstream media coverage on the British side of the Irish Sea.

ira flagloyalists

A brief overview of some of the recent incidents  includes:

  1. Raymond Johnson murdered when he was shot at his home in west Belfast in front of his children in February 2018, allegedly by dissident republicans;
  2. A 60% rise in punishment beatings/shootings in the North by dissident republicans and loyalist groups where 101 punishment beatings/shootings took place in 2017 alone;
  3. Three suspected dissident republicans arrested for bomb making in Strabane, County Tyrone in April 2018;
  4. Attempted murder of Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) officers in December 2017;
  5. Petrol bombing of PSNI officers in Derry, April 2018;
  6. Explosive devices being thrown at former Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams home in Andersontown, west Belfast in July 2018 (admittedly because Adams such a high profile figure this did get reported in Britain). This could have been committed by either loyalist or dissident republicans who see Sinn Fein and PIRA having sold out to the cause with the Good Friday Agreement;
  7. Large scale disorder in the Bogside district of Derry in July 2018 (during the period of the Orange Order’s 12th July marches).

ronan-kerrMI5 bombing belfast

The current terrorist threat in the north of Ireland is severe, but not from Islamist or far-right terrorist activity, but from dissident republican and loyalist groups, with that threat from Irish related terrorist activity being moderate in Britain. This activity is not recent, 2009 saw the then Real IRA shoot and murder British soldiers at Massereene Barracks in County Antrim, the murder of PSNI officer Ronan Kerr in Omagh 2011, car bomb outside MI5 offices in Belfast, mortar bombing of Strand PSNI station Derry, murder of prison officer David Black, and this is not an exhaustive list of terrorist activity that has occurred in the North since 2009.

orange-bonfire

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) yet there is a danger of dissident republican and loyalist groups increasing use of violence destroying all the good work that has happened since the GFA. When incidents have occurred it is heartening that people have come out and protested against the violence under ‘not in my name, as seen when Ronan Kerr was murdered and more recently after the disorder in Derry. It will need political leadership as well as communities wanting real change. In April I was canvassing for the SDLP candidate Daniel McCrossan during the West Tyrone byelection and it was interesting to canvass certain parts of the constituency where old views, beliefs and the sectarian divide are so strong it appears progress post GFA is struggling to happen in parts of the North. When canvassing I saw fresh IRA graffiti and being told in no uncertain terms that I was not welcome in certain areas because its ‘Sinn Fein’ country. On the other side of the divide it is becoming more disconcerting when Irish tricolours and images of politicians from Sinn Fein, SDLP and other non-Unionist parties are placed on the large bonfires built for the 11th July. This could be construed as condoning loyalist violence and hatred of nationalist and republicans or anyone at all who is not from the protestant community or unionist politics, but this is claimed by some as part of the protestant heritage and culture!

IRA unfinished revolution derrystormontLoyalist mural Derry west bank

It is time for the DUP and Sinn Fein to compromise and come to some agreement in order to have the NI Assembly up and running at Stormont. In doing so it will allow a new, younger generation of Northern Irish politician like Daniel McCrossan and others to work on improving the infrastructure of the country, improving housing, education and health care, encourage business investment thereby enhancing employment prospects and importantly focus on getting the border issue between the North and the Irish Republic post Brexit sorted to the benefit of both countries (and ultimately the whole of the UK). This is what is wanted in the North, not bickering over the names of parks or continually remembering and honouring Irish terrorists by attending events held in their honour. All this does is keep the North in the politics and culture of the past, including the recent past. To help bring about change it is imperative there is a serious period of reconciliation between the two communities so the North can move on and progress to the benefit of all. If this does not happen then the divide will continually exist in the North with the maintenance of bitterness and hatred with a minority. which is such a contrast to the Irish Republic. As such it would not take much to ignite sectarian violence on a larger scale than what we are witnessing today, but as stated above it is not on the scale as seen during the Troubles, but the increase is gradual.

The Irish tricolour flag and blue sky.

There is an irony in the Irish tricolour flag as the green represents the ancient Gaels, orange to represent the northern followers of William of Orange, and white to symbolise a peace between them. let’s hope this happens with all sooner rather than later.

My terrorism book cover

I cover the situation in the North of Ireland in my book ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy’ published in March 2018 by Routledge

 

Tommy Robinson is Innocent and Not a Nazi

 

tommy robinson 1

In my blog ‘Tommy Robinson is Innocent?’, posted 22nd July 2018, I discussed issues related to freedom of expression and suggested that Tommy Robinson is not committing hate crime. I based this premise on the fact Robinson does not vilify or blame Islam per se or all Muslims for various crimes and terrorist activity. I suggested that provided he remains within the legal parameters of freedom of expression, he be allowed to continue with his social media profile as well as maintain his website.

tommy robinson 2

Even though many find Robinson’s views and commentary offensive, anything that is offensive, provided it does not glorify or promote violence, can come within what is permitted under freedom of expression. Antifa groups should also come under scrutiny for what they promote, in what they say and in how they conduct themselves at public assemblies. Yesterday (1st August 2018) they gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London chanting that Robinson is ‘Nazi scum’. I disagree with that as Robinson never has nor does advocate national socialism, he is expressing comments on some Muslims and some aspects of Islam that many will find offensive, heretical and provocative. This does not make Robinson an Nazi!

national action at Liverpool

However, I agree it is the neo-Nazis are the main problem in relation to the far-right and they both glorify and provoke violence against non-whites, Slavs, Gypsies, Jews, gay and lesbian people and the state. Already the UK has seen one MP, Jo Cox assassinated by Mair a man influenced by the national socialist narrative in 2016 and an plan to kill another UK MP, Rosie Cooper and the police officer investigating him by National Action member, Jack Renshaw who pleaded guilty to this charge in June 2018. This is addition to many assaults on those the neo-Nazi’s see as targets due to their difference and damage to property.

System Resistance Network

Resistance System Network is the latest UK neo-Nazi group to morph out of the proscribed far-right terroirs group, National Action, where Alex Davies, the founder of National Action, clearly has his fingerprints and DNA all over the group’s activities.

Royal Court of Justice

Yesterday the UK’s Court of Appeal released Robinson on bail from prison where Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett ruled that Robinson’s article 6 ECHR right to a fair trial was violated and that his case is to be reheard. Where Robinson overstepped the mark was the cases he was alleged to be reporting had reporting restrictions placed upon them, and breaching that restriction can be held as contempt of court.

Let due process take its course and apply the rule of law (Lord Burnett applied the rule of law in finding the court that sentenced Robinson had erred in law), which is what differentiates a tolerant liberal democracy from a totalitarian state. I reiterate once more, restricting freedom of expression because it is offensive, heretical, unwelcome, irritating or provocative is a move to towards a totalitarian state and we should uphold the decisions in the UK’s High Court in Redmond Bate and the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v UK.

My terrorism book cover

I cover many of these issues in my book ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy‘ that was published in March 2018 by Routledge.

Koley and Elsheikh, Islamic State’s Beatles duo: Should they receive the death penalty or life imprisonment?

Koley and Elsheikh

Alaxanda Koely and El Shafee Elsheikh, referred to as Islamic State’s ‘Beatles duo’ may be facing trial for murder in the US. Koley and Elsheikh worked alongside another UK citizen, Emwazi (aka Jihadi John who was killed in a drone strike in Syria in 2015) with Islamic State in Syria where they guarded, tortured and killed hostages the group held. This included the killing of US citizens James Foley and Stephen Sotloff and the UK aid worker, Alan Henning that received high profile media reporting due to the gruesome videos the cell recorded of their beheading by Emwazi.

Javid

Koley and Elsheikh were captured early 2018 in Syria by one of the freedom fighter groups and handed over to US authorities in the area. The question to determine is where they will be tried for the murders they were Invovled in. On the 23rd July 2018 the UK Home Secretary, Sajid Javid has written to his US counterpart suggesting prosecution of the two men in the US would be the best course of action, adding, controversially, the UK would not insist against the death penalty for these two men.

ECHR logo

Why it is controversial is because since 1965 the UK abolished the death penalty for murder and in 1998 when the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was enshrined into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, the death penalty for treason, piracy and arson of the Queen’s dock yards (basically the Royal Navy’s dockyards) was also abolished. As such extradition of persons from the UK to the US will only be on the basis those extradited will not receive the death penalty. We saw this with the extradition of the Islamist preacher Abu Hamza, a decision supported by the European Court of Human Rights who held the extradition did not violate Hamza’s right to a fair trial (article 6 ECHR) and because he would not receive the death penalty so preserving his right to live (article 2 ECHR).

The difference with the extradition of Koley and Elsheikh is that under section 2 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, they were stripped of their British citizenship under a temporary exclusion order from the UK. It is this legal issue that has led to Javid informing the US that there are ‘strong reasons for not requiring a death penalty in this specific case.’

The UK Labour Party’s shadow attorney general and former head of the group Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti to see this move as a ‘grave human rights abuse’. is this really the case? This is potentially a one-off extradition and as many have posted on social media sites there is little or no sympathy for Koley and Elsheikh as they had no regard for the human rights of those they tortured and killed. This is an understandable response. Rather than claiming a grave human rights abuse will occur, it is preferable to request that neither men receive the death penalty as it will take away the potential for Islamists to  claim that Koley and Elsheikh are martyrs, should they receive the death penalty. This will remove any potential propaganda Islamist groups will use as they distort the truth. If found guilty in a court of law it is better they receive life sentences being left to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Perhaps Javid could consider this as an option should Koley and Elsheikh be tried in the US.

My terrorism book cover

The law in this area can be found in my book ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy‘ published by Routledge this year.

David Anderson QC Report into Manchester Bombing and other Terrorist Incidents 2017: What have we learnt?

david anderson 1

On Tuesday 5th December the UK’s Home Secretary, Amber Rudd gave details from the report into the terrorist incidents the UK have suffered in 2017 conducted by the UK’s former independent reviewer for terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. The report examined if the UK’s Security Service (MI5) and counter-terrorism police could have done more to prevent the attacks from happening and if any blame could laid at their door.
In essence David Anderson found no great culpability on the actions by either MI5 or the police. He did find the following:

westminster atatck 1

Khalid Masood (Westminster Bridge attack March 2017) – he was an MI5 subject of interest between Feb to Oct 2012and between 2012 – 2016 he was linked intermittently to Al Muhajiroun (a Salafist jihadist group linked to international terrorism that is proscribed in the UK). There was no intelligence indicating that he was planning an attack;

manchester arena attackabedi

Salmen Abedi (Manchester Arena bombing May 2017) – he had a criminal record limited to theft related offences. He became a subject of interest for one day in Oct 2015 due to contacts he had with an Islamic state figure in Libya. In May Abedi was identified a person who needed further consideration with a meeting to consider him planned for the 3st May, nine days after the bombing. When Abedi returned to the UK from a trip to Libya on the 18th May he had not been flagged so no port stop under Schedule 7 Terrorism Act 2000 was carried out on his return. This is led to David Anderson saying that with hindsight the intelligence MI5 had on Abedi could, ‘…have been highly relevant to the planned attack’ but at the time it was received the intelligence was not fully appreciated by MI5 with David Anderson adding that if the ‘cards had fallen differently’ the attack could have been avoided;

BRITAIN-ATTACKSKhareem Butt

Khuram Butt (London Bridge and Borough Market attack, June 2017) – he was known and was a principal subject in an MI5 investigation, Operation Hawthorn. He was known to be active in recruiting people to Islamic State (IS) and planning trips to IS’ self-proclaimed caliphate that existed in Syria. In mid-2015 intelligence was received that Butt aspired to carry out an attack in the UK but following risk assessments carried out, by Sept 2015 Butt was considered to have a strong intent but a weak capability to carry out the attack;

Finsbury Park attackDarren-Osborne4

Darren Osbourne (Finsbury Park attack July 2017) – there was no intelligence held by either MI5 or the police that he was going to commit the attack.

Could more have been done?

Certainly in relation Abedi, if there were a handful of investigations ongoing in the UK then maybe there could be a greater degree of culpability on the part of MI5 and the police but this is not the case, something that David Anderson recognised. Currently in the UK there are approximately 500 ongoing investigations into 3,000 individuals, with 20,000 individuals in the intelligence system graded of serious concern. This is not counting individuals who are on a system but who have been assessed as a low threat. These figures alone reveal the enormity of the task facing the UK’s security services and police in preventing terrorist attacks from happening. As there is only limited resources in both staffing levels and equipment priority has to be given to what the analysis of the vast intelligence/information received that reveals where the greatest risk lies.
Following the 2005 London attack the key lesson learned was that intelligence must be shared between the security services and the police and the UK has developed a model of intelligence analysis with the introduction of bodies like the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) where the intelligence is forwarded onto the relevant agency with the greatest capability for dealing with specific issues. It is model that has served the UK well in recent years as between 2005 and 2017 the only other main attack we witnessed was the killing of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013 and is model other states have wanted to emulate.
Of course some will say why has the UK sustained five major attacks (the attack in Parsons Green in September 2017 does not appear to have been part of the remit in David Anderson’s investigation)? The Manchester bombing was the most sophisticated attack that involved more individuals that just Abedi. One could arguably say the same for Parsons Green in relation to the bomb that fortunately failed to detonate fully on the Tube train, but lack of knowledge and inexperience existed in that attack. The other three were low level attacks carried out by driving vehicles into people and stabbing victims with knives. These are relatively easy to prepare and carry out, something we have tragically witnessed in other European states. Since March 2017 the UK’s security services and police have prevented nine attacks from taking place, twenty-two since the killing of Lee Rigby. At the time Amber Rudd was informing the UK Parliament on the findings in the Anderson report news also broke related to terrorism arrests. Two men, Rahman from London and Imran from Birmingham were appearing in court on the 6th Dec for allegedly plotting to kill the UK Prime Minister, both men were arrested on the 29th November 2017. Rashid from Lancashire (northwest England) who was arrested on the 22nd November 2017 was charged with offences of preparing acts of terrorism, will be appearing at Westminster Magistrates Court in London today.
Preventing terrorist attacks is a difficult task, but in the current climate it is virtually impossible to prevent all attacks from occurring. One should focus on what the UK security services and the police have achieved. Lessons will be learnt and it maybe that intelligence form other police sources could be shared such as neighbourhood officers who may have that vital piece of intelligence on individuals who may have been downgraded as a low priority that would make those countering terrorism look at them again.

I discuss this in more details in my interview with BBC Radio Wales (1 hour 10 minutes 33 seconds in) and on BBC North West Tonight (TV)

President Trump’s Response to New York Terror Attack Reveals Naivety, Inaccuracy and Contradiction

donald trumpSaipov

At a US Cabinet meeting press conference following the New York terror attack, answering journalists’ question, US President Donald Trump gave answers that, if not resulting in further disbelief, to those getting used to Trump’s style of responses will at least raise an eyebrow.

Trump Tweet

One issue was President Trump’s tweet on the 2nd November 2017 that the terrorist Saipov should get the death penalty. Firstly the issue is still sub judice and due process still has to take its course as it is currently alleged that Saipov has committed these offences, he has not pleaded or been found guiltily of murdering the eight victims. Also it will be difficult for Saipov to receive the death penalty as New York state no longer have the death penalty. This is an important extradition issue especially with European countries as it allows for easier extradition as seen with the example of Abu Hamza from the UK.

GTMO

Apart from showing his lack of knowledge of NY state law, President Trump also showed his lack of legal knowledge and understanding of why prisoners have been detained at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). When asked, President Trump replied that he would consider sending Saipov to GTMO. Legally this may be difficult as GTMO detetnion centre was created to detain suspected Islamists linked to Al Qaeda who were arrested in Afghanistan. In essence, GTMO was created as a military detention centre so prisoners could be detained under US military law. If GTMO detainees were transported to the US then US criminal law would apply, something President GW Bush wanted to avoid when establishing the camp. Amnesty International has considered GTMO as a major breach of human rights. President Obama promised to close GTMO. Although he did not achieve this during his presidency, GTMO detainees were reduced from 245 to 41. The issue President Trump has overlooked regarding Saipov is he killed and injured the victims on US soil and as such he will face trial for murder and attempt murder under US criminal law where no doubt terrorism will be a sentencing factor. As such, if Saipov pleads or is found guilty it is likely he will receive a long prison sentence.

US-America-Diversity-Visa-Lottery-2017

President Trump also said the Diversity Immigrant Visa Programme that was introduced via a Bill passed in 1990 with the Immigration Act (also referred to as the diversity lottery programme) as ineffective. The programme is run by the US State Department where individuals who are determined to have a low enough level of immigration requirements to the US can apply. Under the Act countries that have more than 50,000 of their citizens immigrate to the US in the previous five years are ineligible. This could explain why Saipov was allowed to enter the US in 2010 from Uzbekistan. To be successful, individual applicants must have at least a high school education or equivalent and two years of experience working a job that requires at least two years of training or experience within five years of the application. The programme has not been without its political detractors. President Trump wants to end this programme and replace it with a merit based immigration programme as he wants to keep the US safe, something he does not see the current programme doing, He made it clear, ‘…we do not want lotteries’. Adding to this he was clear that also does not want chain immigration where someone entering the US on the current programme can bring in members of their family. On a final question President Trump said members of Saipov’s family could also be a threat to US security.

There s no doubting that to date President Trump’s tenure in the post has been different to his predecessors. He is quick to offer his opinion, especially via the 140 character limiting Twitter. While many may see his as a refreshing change, he does speak first without considering the consequences his comments have both in the US and aboard.

I am no apologist for any group and I understand and agree with the issues he raised regarding the Diversity Immigration Visa Programme. As with other states like Canada and Australia for example, a merit based immigration system is more effective in relation to vetting procedures and is preferable to a lottery based system as that in the Diversity Programme. It is understandable why states would want potential immigrants to be educated to a high standard with skills and knowledge that would enhance their state alongside an ability to speak the main language of that state.

This particular press conference once more provided groups like Islamic Sate with further ammunition to feed its propaganda machine that is influencing individuals as well as having the potential to alienate certain communities that make up the US population, along with states outside the US. For me President Trump could clothe his open, forthright opinions in more acceptable political/diplomatic style of rhetoric. Regarding the possible sentencing, he could have said that he has faith in the due process of the US criminal justice system to deal appropriately with Saipov. In relation to the Diversity Immigration Visa Programme, he could have said that it will be reviewed, adding it is important that a merit system be encouraged. Regarding Saipov’s family being a threat, the answer should have been that presently there is nothing to suggest that. One cannot and should not judge a whole family based on the actions of one of its members.

prevent logo

One problem the US appears to have in dealing with individuals influenced by extremist narrative who end up carrying out terrorist attacks is the inability of the federal government to introduce a Prevent strategy that is uniform across the 50 states like that in the UK or the federal state of Australia. One of the difficulties in achieving this is the historical and political issues where the 50 states resent increasing  interference from a Washington DC based federal government. These issues have been present for many years in the US where one could argue it was one of the issues behind the 1860’s civil war. Another example was a century later in the 1960’s with southern states and the civil rights movement exemplified by Alabama governor George Wallace’s stance by trying to prohibit a black student from enrolling at Alabama State University in 1963 resulting in the Kennedy administration to take action against Governor Wallace. If the US could reach an agreement to develop and introduce a Prevent strategy it would help those who are vulnerable to being drawn towards terrorism, especially through the influence of extremists’ narrative. I accept that the UK’s Prevent strategy has some flaws, but overall it is a successful policy that has helped many individuals at a pre-criminal stage. Perhaps the US should consider introducing such a strategy as it is far more effective than simply having nothing concrete in place. Rather than making wide sweeping statements regarding certain faiths, communities and complaining of narratives that influence people to commit acts of terror, in addition to investigating terrorism action having a Prevent strategy in place would assist some individuals before hey become too imbued with an ideology that leads the to carry out terrorist acts.

 

 

Should Persons Possessing Items Like the Anarchist’s Cookbook be Prosecuted in a Criminal Court?

Joshua walker

On his return to the UK after fighting with Kurdish forces against Islamic State, Joshua Walker was detained at Gatwick Airport and after being found to be in possession of the Anarchist’s Cookbook Walker was prosecuted for section 58 Terrorism Act 2000, even though a person can purchase the item form Amazon. On Thursday 26th October 2017 the jury at Birmingham Crown Court took three hours to deliberate on their verdict, where they found Walker to be not guilty of the offence. Section 58 has raised a degree of controversy.

anarchists cookbook

 
Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 provides investigators with a wide power. It is wide because a person merely has to collect or make a record of information that is likely to be useful to a person involved in terrorist activity. What has to be ascertained is the type of article section 58 is referring to. The question is if it includes what would be considered innocuous items such as a train timetable or a map of a city centre with certain locations highlighted or items downloaded from the internet for personal interest. It is worth noting that under section 58 investigators do not require reasonable suspicion the article is for a purpose connected to terrorist activity. In effect, under section 58 the burden of proof is not placed on the prosecution but on potential defendants who have to prove they had a reasonable excuse for their possession of the article.
As a result there have been a number of legal challenges as to what amounts to an article for the purposes of section 58. In R v K (2008) the Court of Appeal held that section 58 was never intended to criminalise the possession of theological or propagandist material adding that:
‘A document or record will only fall within section 58 if it is of the kind that is likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. A document that simply encourages the commission of acts of terrorism does not fall within section 58’.
In R v G, R v J (2009) the House of Lords examined section 58 and, building on the K judgement, the House held that for a conviction under section 58 it is a requirement that the defendant not only possessed the document that may be of use to a terrorist, but they must also be aware of the nature of the information contained therein. The House stressed that this did not mean the prosecution had to show that the defendant knew all the details contained in the document, only that the defendant knew of the nature of the material it contained. The Court held for a person to be convicted under section 58 the prosecution must prove the defendant:
1. Had control of the record which contained information that was likely to provide practical assistance to a terrorist;
2. Knew that he had the record; and
3. Knew the kind of information which it contained.

J challenged this decision and the case went to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) where the case was Jobe v UK (2011) J claimed that section 58 violated article 7 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) where there can be no punishment without law. The premise of J’s claim was that section 58 was so vague it was not law and if the court agreed with this argument, his article 10 ECHR rights (freedom of expression) was also violated because section 58 would not be deemed to be an act prescribed by law. The ECtHR held there was no violation of article 7 and stated the House of Lords decision was fully and clearly reasoned. Key to the ECtHR reaching this decision was the guidance the House of Lords gave in their decision regarding the three points cited above that have to be proved for a conviction under section 58 to stand. Likewise the ECtHR found there to be no violation of article 10 saying it was justified under the legitimate aims of the interests of national security and that it did not criminalise in a blanket manner the collection or possession of material likely to be useful to a terrorist.

radio scotland logo

I cover this and other statutory preventative measures in the UK, US, Australia and Canada in my forthcoming book ‘Terrorism: Law and Policy’ that will be published by Routledge in March 2018. For a more in-depth analysis of Walker’s case you can listen to my interview with BBC Radio Scotland from Friday 27th October 2017 that is 55 minutes 28 seconds in.

13% Increase in Recorded Crime in England & Wales is not Due to, ‘…spread of radical Islamic Terror’

english police 1996

The recorded crime statistics for England & Wales released on the 19th October 2017 showed an overall increase of 13%. This included a 19% increase in sexual offences and a 26% in knife/violent crime, as well as an increase in reported harassment/stalking crime. In separate data there has been a 31% in recorded hate crime.

Part of this increase is explained by improved reporting procedures by the police and for offences like sexual offences, harassment (and race hate) victims are showing confidence in the police and feel comfortable in reporting it.. Out of these crime statistics the worry is the increase in knife/violent offence (where over half have been attributed to the London area).

donald trump

US president, Donald Trump’s irresponsible and ill-informed tweet that the increase in recorded crime is due to the ‘spread of Radical Islamic terror’ is incorrect and way of the mark. It is time that Donald Trump kept his nose out of UK affairs and looked into his own country and the US murder and violent crime statistics involving firearms, like the recent shooting in Las Vegas where there is no connection to Islamist terror group action or radicalisation.

LBC logo

I will be discussing this with Andrew Pierce on LBC Radio around 8.45 pm (BST) this evening.