As many of us expected the person who carried out the terrorist attack on London Bridge yesterday is a follower of Islam. Not only that but he was a convicted terrorist who had served six years and was released from prison in December 2018. The terrorist Islamic savage, named by the police as 28 year old Usman Khan, was released early from an eight year sentence for terrorism activity and was also associated with Anjem Choudhury’s al-Muhajiroun organisation.

Usman Khan was supposed to be being electronically monitored but that did not stop this savage Muslim from carrying out this terrible attack that has left two members of the public dead just one year after being released from gaol. If this savage had been kept inside for the full eight years instead of the six years that he served then this awful attack would never have occurred. It is difficult in the circumstances of this attack and this attacker, not to come to the conclusion that Britain faces not one but two groups of enemies within. The first are the radical Muslims who want to kill non Muslims for their bloodthirsty deity ‘Allah’ and the second is the Left dominated justice system that released this savage in order to kill innocent people.

Usman Khan the convicted Islamic terrorist who was freed to kill.

I have to take this opportunity to heap mountains of praise on those members of the public who bravely tackled this savage and to the police who killed him. The police in this instance had no alternative but to kill this savage as there was no way of them knowing whether the explosive belt he was said to be wearing was real of fake. It needs to be remembered that the use of fake suicide belts in order to intimidate people is a known technique used by these savage Islamic attackers.

The attack appears to have started in Fishmongers Hall which was, ironically, hosting a social justice type event put on by The Learning Partnership (screenshots below). The use of this venue for this event explains the image that Sargon of Akkad has published of one civilian using a Nawal whale tusk and another using a fire extinguisher to fight against the murderous Islamic savage. It is likely that both the Narwal tusk and the fire extinquisher may have come from Fishmongers Hall. The members of the public showed considerable presence of mind in grabbing these makeshift weapons against this savage. It is likely that many more people would have been murdered by this savage had not the members of the public not intervened in the manner that they did.

A Narwal with its tusk

This incident does raise questions as to the effectiveness of the security at Fishmongers Hall and the security arrangements put in place by the Learning Partnership organisation. I would have expected that City Livery companies such as Fishmongers would have had high security as they probably know that they are potential targets for attackers like this. I’ve known people who have attended events at other Livery Companies such as Goldsmiths Hall and I’ve been told that the security at these Livery Companies is more than adequate. My worry is that being a social justice organisation The Learning Partnership may have assumed that decent levels of security may not have been required for their event. It may even be the case that this savage was an alumni of The Learning Partnership and may have encountered the group either whilst he was imprisoned or at some other point. I dare say that as more comes out about this attack we will find out more about both the nature of the event and the degrees of security that were employed. There have been press reports that Khan was recruited by The Learning Partnership as a lecturer and was paraded as somewhat of a success story for ‘rehabilitiation’. It is a tragic irony that one of the innocent people killed was a Cambridge graduate from the Learning Partnership. This man was killed by a person whom he and his colleagues must have naively thought had reformed away from terrorism and jihad and become a normal law abiding citizen, how sadly wrong this victim and those like him have been shown to be.

The aftermath of the attack brought forth the usual crocodile tears from the usual suspects along with calls from Islamic groups to ‘not jump to conclusions’. Greater London Mayor Sadiq Khan trotted out the usual platititudes about ‘our diversity’ and not letting the terrorists divide us (bit too late for that methinks) although to his credit he did praise the actions of those members of the public who fought back against the murderous Muslim terrorist. Khan also gave a delusional interview on BBC Breakfast where he blamed everyone else apart from the terrorist scumbag himself or the motivation behind this savage murderer. However this terrorist would not be able to kill had he not been released from prison. Prime Minister Boris Johnson uttered similar ‘don’t get divided’ guff but did at least promise that terrorists such as these would be hunted down.

We also saw diversionary activity from the likes of the Tell Mama the ‘Islamophobia’ monitors who seem to increasingly seem themselves as self appointed censors when it comes to criticism of Islam. They engaged in activity that said don’t look there look over there instead. Their director Ms Iman Atta, put out a statement that basically told people to not speculate about this case and whether or not it was an Islamic incident and also played the ‘Muslims are victims’ card. Her statement also said that people should report any adverse comment about Islam to the police. You can read a screenshot of her statement below.

What will wind up many is that TM must have known or at least suspected,via their extensive police and criminal justice system contacts, that the London Bridge attack was the result of Islamic terrorism yet they still not only played the ‘Muslims are potential victims of a backlash’ (a backlash that never really seems to arrive) but told the public not to speculate on motives for this terrorism. Yet again TM looks like an unworthy recipient of the £1.9M of UK taxpayers money that they were granted in 2017.

This tragic attack by a radicalised Muslim took an even more bizarre turn when press reports revealed that one of those who tackled the Islamic savage was himself a known and dangerous criminal. A murderer on day release being prepared for life in the outside world was one of those who waded in to the fray and tried to stop Khan from killing people. This man who had been sentenced to a life term for cutting the throat of a young woman with learning difficulties, whilst not exactly the sort of person who should be lauded as a hero, did on this occasion do something to stop this savage from killing more people.

The aftermath of the attack also brought forth a large slice of the dark and edgy humour that Britain has at times become known for. Some of this humour involved fake tweets purporting to be from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn decrying the police killing of Khan. Other humorous posts on social media platforms wondered whether Corbyn will lay a wreath for the dead London Bridge terrorist as he did for one of the Munich Islamic terrorists. There were also those who made jokes about Islamic voter fraud and postal vote fraud by wondering whether or not Khan had sent in his one hundred postal votes for the Labour party yet? One wag said when news emerged that Khan had been killed by the police ‘well there goes a whole bunch of postal votes for Labour’.

There are aspects of this attack that are different from other similar attacks that have taken place on British soil. Some of these aspects I hope will have implications that hopefully will elicit some change in the way that these terrorist savages are dealt with. Unlike other similar terror attacks the motive and the identity of the terrorist has come out to the public very very quickly. Also being publicised quickly are the circumstances surrounding Khan and how the criminal justice system handled him. There will be many, myself included, who are and will be angry that there seemed to be no proper oversight of this savage and he was released early without any reference to the probation or offender management services. Khan seems to have been released routinely three quarters of the way into his original eight year sentence. Now such behaviour by the prison service may be acceptable for non violent criminals but this policy should never have been applied to those convicted of Islamic terrorism. It should have especially not applied to Khan who was originally convicted of plotting with other Muslim extremists to attack high profile targets such as the London Stock Exchange. The prison service should have been more realistic about the low prospect of reform for those like Khan who are motivated by theocratic fascist ideologies such as Islam and kept him locked up and safely away from the general public.

It is also to be hoped that this tragic series of murders by a ‘Briton’ of Pakistani/Bangladeshi extraction will open up a public debate about whether or not the Statelessness Conventions which prevents Britain from removing the citizenship and exiling people like Khan, is still fit for purpose in the 21st century. Many will believe that there is no real justice and great risk in allowing those whose families have not been part of Britain and British society for that many generations to remain a part of our nation. Unfortunately removing the citizenship and exiling people like Khan to a Moslem country in which he may be more happy, is not permitted under the UN Statelessness Convention. Whilst I recognise that that reason why the Statelessness Convention came into being was to prevent a repeat of the situation in the past where the Nazis arbitarily removed the citizensihp of Jewish Germans thereby rendering them stateless and vulnerale, we are dealing with a completely different situation now from what it was when this convention was agreed. I believe that it is reasonale and just for those who declare war on our society, as many Islamic terrorists have done, to be forcibly stripped of a citizenship that they do not deserve. These Islamists are not a vulnerable minority as were the Jews of pre war and wartime Germany, but an enemy within and should be treated as such.

Khan’s attack on London Bridge and in Fishmongers Hall should mark a turning point when we as a nation, both the public and the state, cease to treat Islamist terrorism as a criminal justice matter and instead treat it as an enemy that has declared war on us and our nation. We all need to be honest and admit that Islamism in all its forms is just as much an enemy today as Fascism and Communism have been in the past and deal with this problem accordingly.

Links and screenshots

The Learning Partnership

Link to the Fishmonger’s Hall event that the savage Khan attended

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/learning-together-alumni-event-tickets-71773160455#

The ‘social justice’ group The Learning Partnership

https://www.ccgsj.crim.cam.ac.uk/LT/What

Screenshots of The Learning Partnership site and event details