The case of the British Muslim from the North of England who was killed following a hostage taking incident in Texas, USA is taking a very interesting turn. This particular turn is opening up to public view the links between the Labour Party and some pretty questionable British Muslims.
According to the journalist Jay Beecher who runs the Vote Watch blog that monitors bad behaviour by politicians and in particular the problem of Jew hatred in the Labour Party has uncovered some information that the Labour Party will find wholly unwelcome. Apparently, according to Mr Beecher, the Muslim Briton who carried out the hostage taking in a Synagogue, Malik Faisal Akram, was an active Labour Party campaigner who is related to a Labour councillor who sits on Blackburn Council.
Mr Beecher appears to have done a considerable amount of admirable digging into the background of the jihadist Akram and has discovered that he was allowed into the Labour Party despite having previously made statements favourable to the 2001 9/11 attacks. On the Vote Watch site Mr Beecher said that Akram had a criminal record and that the family of Akram, who have extensive links to the Labour Party in Blackburn, describing Akram as “religious but peaceful and tolerant”
Vote Watch added that as soon as it became apparent that Akram had been involved in the Texas outrage Blackburn Council immediately issued an instruction that no councillors were to talk to the media about what had happened. Vote Watch said that a Pakistan media outlet had confirmed Akram’s involvement with the Labour Party and said: “As soon as the news emerged of Faisal’s involvement in the hostage-taking, the local Blackburn council issued a request to all local councillors not to speak to media.”
“Malik Akram and members of his family actively participate in local politics and one of their close relatives Mohammed Irfan is a Labour party councillor. According to the locals who spoke to this correspondent, Malik Akram and his family got along with others.”
Vote Watch said that the Pakistani media outlet also said that Akram had been involved in pro-Palestinian anti-Israel demonstrations and had also been campaigned for the release of suspected Islamic extremists from the US run prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Other media outlets have dug up yet more information about this questionable quran follower that point in the direction of Akram being a long term extremist. The Sun newspaper has discovered that Akram had previously been banned from Blackburn Magistrates Court because he was turning up and harassing court staff. On one occasion the Sun said that Akram told a member of the court staff that he wished that they had been on one of the planes that were downed by Islamic terrorists on 9/11
The Sun said of the incidents at the Court:
(Akram) was barred from entering Blackburn Magistrates’ Court for repeatedly threatening and abusing the court staff. Deputy justice clerk Peter Wells slammed Akram as a “menace” at the time.
Akram was reportedly known to regularly cause trouble inside the court – even when he wasn’t due to appear before the bench.
After issuing a warning to him, Lancashire magistrates’ committee decided to slap him with a ban for raving about 9/11 just hours after the terror attack that claimed nearly 3,000 lives.
A letter from the court, published by the Lancashire Telegraph, said: “Once again you were threatening and abusive towards court staff.
“In a clear reference to the the terrorist attack on New York the previous day you said on more than one occasion to one of my court ushers ‘you should have been on the ******* plane’.
Akram was obviously a dangerous extremist and with a long history of voicing that extremism. Therefore I find it astonishing that he was able to gain entry to the USA in order to carry out his attack at the Synagogue. Of course it is possible that the US border authorities screwed up over this but it is equally likely that Akram might not have been flagged up on British law enforcement records. Again I find that prospect extremely worrying especially after the ban from entering Blackburn Magistrates Court was imposed for the 9/11 rant.
Whilst it is obvious that the police and the boys and girls from Thames House have some questions to answer as to why Akram slipped through the net, questions which we may or rather may not get answers to, there is another entity that needs to be subjected to harsh questioning about Akram. That entity is the Labour Party. They allowed Akram to join the party despite the documented 9/11 rant at the court staff. They allowed him into the party despite his campaigning for imprisoned Islamic terror suspects and his involvement in anti-Israel demonstrations. This man, because of his record both of his adherence to extreme causes and his criminal record, should have been kept out of the Labour Party. He should never have been allowed to join and become a high profile campaigner for the party.
There are a whole load of questions about Akram’s relationship with Labour that I would like answered. First of all was Akram allowed to associate with the party because there is a local Islamic culture of Jew hatred that was indulged by the party in order to get Muslim votes? Were Akram’s familial relationship to others active in Labour Party activities a factor in why he was allowed to join and remain in the Labour Party?
Mr Beecher at Vote Watch has run a number of stories about Blackburn council and Blackburn Labour Party that paint a very grim picture of how politics is done in Blackburn.
Vote Watch said:
Labour-run Blackburn Council has been the focus of many VoteWatch investigations over the past 12 months, due to an abnormal number of political scandals involving its Labour councillors and activists.
These scandals have included antisemitism, bullying, intimidation, and an investigation carried out by the local police force into allegations of fraud.
It certainly seems as if Blackburn Council was the ideal place for a Jew hating Muslim nutjob who ultimately went full jihad at a Synagogue, to hide in plain sight. I must admit that for Labour to tolerate and politically use a character like Akram is a whole lot higher on the scale of seriousness than the matter of civil servants having parties during lockdown.
Labour are a mess. They cannot be trusted with government. Even though Boris Johnson’s government has been, vaccine rollout excepted, a shameful, eco-extremist, authoritarian jelly like pseudo-socialist abortion, at least they have not tolerated someone like Akram in their ranks. It took the Labour Party to do that. Maybe the Akram incident is an indication of what Labour’s next General Election slogan is going to be: If you want a mentally unbalanced terrorist and their family for your neighbours then vote Labour.
If there is any political justice in this world then Labour deserve to be politically damaged by what has been allegedly going on in Blackburn Council and Blackburn Labour Party. This case raises a final question from me and it is this: How many other local Labour Party’s and Labour run councils are tolerating their own versions of Malik Faisal Akram?
Having visited the website of Blackburn Council I spotted that at least half of the Labour councillors jail from a South Asian Muslim background. So it must be expected that Islamist have their foot in the door to this council. I doubt if any of them are ex Muslims otherwise they couldn’t have been given the chance to run for the council elections. Blackburn itself is pretty segregated with the North of the town being where most Muslims live while Southern Blackburn is overwhelmingly non muslim. As for the white Labour left, they will work with any group who they seem as having at least some anti Western views, hence Corbyn calling Hamas and Hezbollah ‘our friends’. If Britain is not more careful about controlling immigration at present rates within a generation of two Briitain could go the same way as Lebanon or Yugoslavia did. Multiculturalism is the emperor with no clothes and I hope this will be realized by the public before it is too late to avert significant future bloodshed on our streets. I think sadly that France and Sweden are already last the point of no return in this regard but in the UK we are still able to fix this with robust urgently needed measures to diffuse this ticking time bomb.
Yes, but immigration is apparently necessary in developed countries that have declining native birth rates and who also want to pursue the structure of competitive economic growth. Or just to keep it all going and make up for shortfalls in some employment areas. I’m not sure if we can have it both ways, either tolerate the cultural changes that come through immigration, or have a stagnant economy with a lot of people on Welfare?
There is nothing at all wrong with limited migration of skilled people who are likely to contribute to the UK especially if those people come from compatible cultures. The people from the Windrush Generation for example came here and worked their bollocks off. Unfortunately the likes of the Texas bearded savage is not from a compatible culture but a hostile one and one that is too often than not on the welfare. Some immigration is a good thing but we should not be tolerating the sort of ‘cultural change’ that the likes of this particular savage and his family have brought. As for Muslims I say educated and integrated Muslims who are loyal to the UK then why not but backward intolerant peasants like the person in question then I say no thanks.