Some Islamists cannot be saved

We need to get real about the limits of ‘deradicalisation’.

Frank Furedi

Topics Politics UK World

Once again an act of terror has been committed on Britain’s streets by a convicted terrorist who had served only half of his sentence. Twenty-year-old Sudesh Amman, who was released from prison just under two weeks ago, must have laughed at the naivety of the British justice system, which made it so easy for him to go on his violent rampage in Streatham on Sunday. He was imprisoned in 2018 for ‘Islamist-related terrorism offences’.

But, of course, we already knew that our practices for monitoring convicted terrorists were hopelessly ineffective. In November, Usman Khan, who had recently been released from prison on licence, killed two people near London Bridge. At the time, he was also participating in ‘deradicalisation’ schemes. Like many other resourceful jihadists, Khan knew how to game the system.

It is now widely recognised that convicted terrorists rarely become deradicalised in prison. If anything, people serving time are far more likely to be drawn towards the outlook of hardcore jihadist inmates than adopt a tolerant democratic worldview. It is also clear that the official deradicalisation programmes are ineffective. These people have zealously embraced a jihadist worldview. A few counselling sessions is clearly not enough to make them change their minds.

The way we deal with convicted terrorists must be overhauled. As a first step, it is essential that the various deradicalisation programmes we have are put on hold. As criminologist Dr Simon Cottee of the University of Kent explains, ‘the problem with deradicalisation is that we don’t know if it works. We don’t even know if it makes sense to reform or “reprogramme” jihadis.’ He adds that ‘these programmes frequently empower a coterie of extremism entrepreneurs with questionable expertise’.

Policymakers clearly do not understand the challenge they face when it comes to Islamist terrorism. They are wedded to the widely held idea that would-be terrorists are ‘vulnerable’ people who have been ‘groomed’ by charismatic jihadists. This is a big part of the problem.

After the terrorist attack in Woolwich in 2013, the then home secretary, Theresa May, said that thousands of people were ‘at risk’ of radicalisation. From this perspective, radicalisation is like a mysterious, infectious pathogen that infects groups of dissatisfied and alienated people.

This completely ignores the political, intellectual and social influences that motivate young people to embrace jihadist sentiments and support violent acts of terrorism. It presents radicalisation as almost entirely psychological, as cases of good boys and girls going rogue, resembling 1950s tales of American prisoners of war being brainwashed into becoming communists by the Chinese.

We treat terrorism almost like a child-protection issue. The authorities warn that impressionable young people are being targeted online, on campuses and at social venues by cynical operators. Back in November 2007, it was reported that the UK government’s Research, Information and Communications Unit was drawing up ‘counter-narratives’ to the anti-Western messages on jihadist websites. These jihadists sites, it said, are ‘designed to influence vulnerable and impressionable audiences’. It is a symptom of the political disorientation of those within the security establishment that they use the language of child protection to discuss the process through which young people decide to kill their fellow citizens.

So long as young, homegrown terrorists are regarded as vulnerable and psychologically disoriented people, we will not be able to contain the threat that they represent. It is far more accurate to perceive the Sudesh Ammans of this world as individuals who have made a choice and decided to declare war on their own community. Frequently, such individuals have taken the initiative to familiarise themselves with jihadist websites and literature. They are not so much the passive objects of radicalisation as they are individuals who have chosen a new identity and way of life. And once this identity becomes integral to their persona, they become ever more estranged from the society into which they were born. They cease to be young people looking for a cause and willingly become enemies of society.

In one sense, the difficulty successive governments have had in dealing with homegrown terrorism is understandable. It is difficult to accept that many young Muslims have chosen to reject British society. It is even more difficult to acknowledge that some have crossed the line into supporting violence. But it is time for a degree of maturity and realism to prevail. We need to accept that some people have irreconcilable differences with our way of life. We also need to understand that some of these people will do whatever they can to terrorise us, and that they cannot be saved, cured or deradicalised. We need to be at least as resolute in defending our way of life as they are in their attempts to destroy it. These people need to be deactivated, not deradicalised.

Frank Furedi’s How Fear Works: the Culture of Fear in the 21st Century is published by Bloomsbury Press.

Picture by: Metropolitan Police.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Rick O’Shay

10th February 2020 at 2:26 pm

The only way to protect ourselves from these superstitious idiots is to stop ALL immigration of Muslims and to repatriate those already here. The nonsense constantly spouted by our silly politicians (“Islam is the religion of peace”—Theresa May) is risible and they should be held responsible for any deaths caused by these enemies they encourage to live among us.
To those who would say this is extreme, my response is that you too should be held responsible for all deaths and injuries caused by them, and you should be jailed.

Aunty Podes

8th February 2020 at 4:19 am

What strikes me as hihjly ludicrous is that it never seems to occur to any of these eager suicidal jihadis that extremely few, if any, of their imams seem in any rush to claim their share of the stock of virgins they maintain await the martyrs. Are the imams perhaps all homo-sexual or is it that they lack the dedication or courage?

Rick O’Shay

10th February 2020 at 2:30 pm

Jihadis who blow themselves up wouldn’t be any use to the virgins awaiting them as they would be flying mince (As Billy Connolly said!)

Jonathan Yonge

7th February 2020 at 6:33 pm

Always worth reading Furedi, he is clear and concise:

‘So long as young, homegrown terrorists are regarded as vulnerable and psychologically disoriented people, we will not be able to contain the threat that they represent.’

At its heart is the ‘bien pensant’/BBC worldview that plebs are stupid and therefore blameless.

Matt Ryan

6th February 2020 at 3:25 pm

First thing we need to address is sentencing. Any early release or only serving half a sentence needs to be removed as an option. A sentence should be the time you serve.
Next, any trouble in prison should lead to automatic extensions to the sentence.
Finally, we can then get around to making sure the terrorists aren’t released without being assessed for the risk to the public.

Michael Lynch

6th February 2020 at 10:14 am

Perhaps the armed Police unit that tail these types should just shoot them on sight as soon as they step out of prison; it’ll certainly save lives and a lot of time, trouble and money.

Jonathan Yonge

7th February 2020 at 6:35 pm

Difficult to argue with you:
If they had 20 armed undercover trailing this guy they must have thought that he would try to kill.

I would like the probation officer to explain to the victims why this should be refuted.

jessica christon

8th February 2020 at 3:12 pm

1) “Because that’s not who we are, as a society.”

2) “Because if we do that, we’re as bad as they are.”

3) “Because that’s what Isis would want.”

4) “Because that isn’t what Jo Cox would want”

… and so on.

ReneeW Timberlake

6th February 2020 at 8:08 am

★  I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart…… Read more

Roger Jago

6th February 2020 at 2:32 am

Since they have such a radically different outlook on life – and particularly the importance of afterlife – there should be no suggestion of ‘racism’ in banning further entry following the need for a sworn, signed statement to drop belief in specific stated clauses in the Koran. Unless something more realistic, and less philosophical discussion, is soon reached on the statement “We need to accept that some people have irreconcilable differences with our way of life” then we may find vigilantism to be an even bigger problem for our society.

Michael Gilday

5th February 2020 at 10:04 pm

Any remedy to prevent radicalisation must be the initiative of the community to which they belong and the wider Muslim community in the UK. Much of the problem lies with the policy of allowing recruitment of clerics to server in local mosques. Many of whom are preaching radical interpretations of the Quran. This is not necessarily a problem across the whole Muslim beliefs, but more specific to certain Sunni groups. Although there are issues with Iran and its theocratic state, all the Iranian I know personally embrace western culture as Shia seem far more tolerant and less extreme than certain Sunni Muslims I know.
I was saddened when three lads who I had seen grow up decided to join ISIS. All three of them are now dead and their families obviously devastated by their action and subsequent deaths. I spoke with one of them only maybe ten days before they disappeared, he was in his first year of UNI. His parting words to me, were “You have to prepare for the afterlife.” I believe his motivation and belief was if he was killed, he would be a martyr and his family would have an automatic place in heaven. This was a warped sense of self-sacrifice. There was nothing in our conversation that would have indicated he was to leave the UK and join ISIS only a few days later.
The other two one at college and the other in 6th form, I saw from time to time. Mohammed the 6th former would participate at a stand in the town centre promoting the Quran at weekends. Six months earlier when he was visiting family in Kurdistan, I chatted with him on Facebook. He was jocular as usual, and I was surprised a couple of months later how he seemed to have changed. I mentioned this to a leading member of the Muslim community that I wondered if he was being radicalised. My friend dismissed this and thought I was seeing things which were not there. So, after the three of them left he realised he was seriously wrong. The impression I get it the influence of a particular cleric on these young adults was perhaps the cause. I know this cleric was confronted by Mohammed’s father who I believe punched him in the process.
Government need to consider the merits of allowing Muslim Clerics coming from abroad bringing in and preaching their radical interpretations of Islam. Madrasah are also a potential problem if no controls are in place, but this again needs to be influenced by the local communities. Rashid the lad I spoke with just prior to his disappearance once enthusiastically told me the Quran was amazing as it prophesied helicopters amongst other things. So, one can only wonder what is taught or what is interpreted beggar’s belief.
Terrorism events looking at the past seem to last maybe twenty or more years. So, I expect there will be many more before things settle down. The Government does not have a clue how to tackle this problem. I doubt anyone can find a simple solution, except to give a more balanced approach through the education system and much more engagement with Muslim communities. These lads died; they were not violent by nature simply misguided. They destroyed their passports so had no intention on returning to the UK and certainly two of them suffered near the end of their lives. I suspect their ideals and beliefs were challenged near the end of their lives and they must have been scared. But there are others who appear even more determined to inflict suffering on others who do not follow Islam. Obviously, these are perhaps the more dangerous if this is possible. The one thing that is apparent is that once radicalised no reasoning will direct them away from their objective and prison will be the only deterrent to keep our streets free of these violent individuals. I personally believe they should be incarcerated indefinitely until some proven solution is discovered and that could be a very long time.

jessica christon

5th February 2020 at 8:14 pm


That’s a laugh. Few – if any – western countries have the stomach to do anything that would deal effectively with the jihadi problem as it stands now. It will have to get far worse first. At the very least the police should be more proactive; in Israel Amman would have been taken out before got to do anything.

Mark Houghton

5th February 2020 at 7:00 pm

I wonder if the politicians might take it a bit more seriously if one of their number was hacked to bits by a jihadi lunatic recently released?

Jerry Owen

5th February 2020 at 8:41 pm

It might help in more ways than one!


5th February 2020 at 6:22 pm

For my part I never understood why the UK government wanted to stop young Muslims from going to join IS. It seemed to be that if some people really wished to live in a society in which you could be beheaded for apostasy (and more or less arbitrarily on the say so of some random cleric) then they should be given an assisted passage. One inviolable condition would have to be that they were never, under any circumstances whatsoever, be allowed to return here or even travel to any other country that maintained decent, civilised, standards. But I admit there would be difficulties.

At what age should people be allowed to opt for an assisted passage? What happens to their children if they have any? Where is such a perfect Islamic state to be situated? And – wherever it is – what about the locals? I don’t want my corner of England to be handed over to a bunch of people who want to be free slaughter everybody they can’t agree with on some minor issue, and I can quite understand the people of Syria and Iraq holding the same view.

So I acknowledge that I really don’t know the answer. But surely Usman Khan and Sudesh Amman would have been much happier to have had their heads chopped off by somebody who found fault with the way they prayed, than shot by a British policeman? It would be so much more humane.

J Chilton

5th February 2020 at 6:13 pm

Fanatics of the Religion of Peace can’t be reasoned with. Either lock them up or deport them. There is no third way.

William Murphy

6th February 2020 at 9:01 am

As other people on this thread have noted, Frank uses the word “deactivated”. Now, what could that mean? The line from “Apocalypse Now” sprigs to mind: “Terminate with extreme prejudice”. By means legal or unofficial, by a Licensed to Kill guy or vigilantes?

Jerry Owen

5th February 2020 at 4:32 pm

And therein lies the stupidity of liberalism and multiculturalism mixed together. The stupidly weak liberal self flagellating idea that you can persuade by nicety that their views are a bit naughty… as in whenever there is an atrocity the liberals NEVER have any idea what caused it when 99% of the public do.
Multiculturalism’s definition is that no one culture has precedent over another, that means our indigenous culture built up over a thousand years has no automatic rights or superiority over another less advanced interloping culture.
If you support multiculturalism as Spiked surely does you then by definition have to accept the worst traits indeed all traits of any given culture, for not to do so negates your belief in all cultures being equal.
You can’t practice multiculturalism and try to change a culture at the same time, it’s a contradiction that the liberals struggle with, that is why they ignore the vile excesses of Islam.
I like the idea of them being ‘deactivated’ but it probably isn’t meant in the manner I would like it to be.

Eric Praline

5th February 2020 at 4:17 pm

Is deactivated a euphemism for something?

Jim Lawrie

5th February 2020 at 9:25 pm

Maybe it means send them to Israel where there is more experience of dealing with their sort.

K Tojo

5th February 2020 at 4:13 pm

Amusing article by Furedi – amusing because of it’s apparent blindspot. Throughout the piece the term “deradicalisation” could be replaced with “rehabilitation”, “convicted terrorists” with “convicted criminals” and “Islamist terrorism” with “violent crime”. In each case much is claimed for the methods used to reform the prisoner but the results still leave the law abiding public in danger.

Take this example from Furedi’s piece:
“These people have zealously embraced a jihadist worldview. A few counselling sessions is clearly not enough to make them change their minds”.

I offer the following translation does it sound too far fetched?
“These people have enthusiastically embraced a life of crime. A few counselling sessions is clearly not enough to make them change their minds”.

Many experts claim they know how to rehabilitate a criminal but criminals, like jihadis, know how to game the system to ensure early release. No true rehabilition required. Anyway, crime pays well. Prison time, if you manage to get in at all, is just an occupational hazard.

Eric Praline

5th February 2020 at 4:20 pm

Yes, but clearly it is possible for criminals to be rehabilitated and commitment to crime is not generally of the same sort as commitment to religious faith. What we don’t seem to have is any figures on how many Islamists are successfully rehabilitated or if we can even know this.

Jim Lawrie

5th February 2020 at 6:05 pm

Islamists believe it is right, fitting and commendable to lie to infidels.

The Killgrave

6th February 2020 at 4:15 am

It’s astonishing that you even needed to tell him that.

Paul Duffin

6th February 2020 at 8:59 am

You can never know. At least not until they die after committing no more offences.

Philip Humphrey

5th February 2020 at 3:30 pm

The problem is I see it is you’re effectively trying to convert a person from one religion to another. That religion or cause is the whole way that they see the world, and they’ve chosen it because it makes sense to them. What makes the problem even harder is that the paradigm or “religion” you are trying to convert them to doesn’t make sense to them, that’s probably why they left it in the first place. I am a Roman Catholic convert, I was originally an atheist. If someone tried to “deradicalize” me back to atheism, I doubt it would work. I cannot see any reason to believe it would stand a better chance on a jihadi. The former communist states who tried to impose atheism amply demonstrated the point, as soon as they fell religion was back with a vengeance in those countries, it had never gone away.

Jim Lawrie

5th February 2020 at 3:59 pm

Christianity from early times made clear that martyrdom and its rewards were bestowed upon an individual The Almighty. Engineering it oneself is suicide and eternal damnation.

Eric Praline

5th February 2020 at 4:15 pm

That’s an unusual direction of travel.

Daniel Webb

5th February 2020 at 3:02 pm

Well we need to find a solution to a situation that appears to be heading in only one direction presently. A fundamental obstacle appears to be a lack of understanding of the depth of the situation. Not the numbers radicalised but the pathway to radicalisation – more specifically Islamic radicalistion. Arguably – if one doesnt posess a full understanding of how The Koran conveys the word of Allah then we cant recognise where we ‘deactivate’ the ‘programming’.
I do not beleive that pure reasoning is enough. Perhaps as prevention but not neccessarily as cure. i see this as potentially a large areas for empirical research.

eli Bastenbury

5th February 2020 at 3:18 pm

‘Arguably – if one doesnt posess a full understanding of how The Koran conveys the word of Allah then we cant recognise where we ‘deactivate’ the ‘programming’.

The trouble is however, that Jihad/Sharia etc are plausible interpretations of the Quran and Hadith, not the only ones, but plausible. Al-Azhar, Egypt’s oldest degree-granting university and is renowned as “Islam’s most prestigious university’ could not bring themselves to say that the group formaly operating in Syria/Iraq was un-islamic. It might therefore be impossible to use the Quran/Hadith to point to ‘true’ Islam, and the solution ultimately rests with individuals.

Daniel Webb

5th February 2020 at 4:02 pm

Fair comment Eli. I have long noted the reticence within the Muslim community to denounce the more radical elements within but beleive it is because criticism is perceived as blasphemous. I also think that many within the Muslim community may simply feel afraid to speak out. I cannot blame them for that because I am aware that devout Muslims have been condemned by more radical elements for not being ‘Muslim – enough’.
I wonder how many Muslims do feel stuck between a rock and a hard place – Judged on the one hand by society at large for the crimes of the more radical but silenced through fear of and by those very radicals perhaps?

William Murphy

6th February 2020 at 9:08 am

As Theodore Dalrymple noted, no matter hard line a follower of Islam you might be, there is always someone with a harder line than you and ready to denounce you as a compromiser with infidels. I suspect that most of the guys at Al Azhar University and mainstream mosques secretly enjoy the comfy life and have limited enthusiasm for waging permanent war. But how can they denounce ISIS, etc without denouncing key passages in the Koran? Dalrymple’s entralling 2004 essay is still worth reading.

steven brook

5th February 2020 at 2:54 pm

Radicalised? These individuals have a deep and accurate understanding of their religion and sadly they have made a choice to follow that religion literally. Obviously that causes problems because inconveniently it’s not a religion of peace. Buddhism and Christianity are religions of peace, obviously that doesn’t stop their followers doing some vile things down the years. But when your spiritual guide/cult leader was a sinister warlord who had no problems with killing and slaving what do you expect?
Interesting factoid, the gentleman in question had one descriptive characteristic seemingly. He was unusually pale everyone seemed to comment upon it.

Eric Praline

5th February 2020 at 4:17 pm

Christianity a religion of peace? Give me a break.

Ven Oods

5th February 2020 at 4:53 pm

Oh, come on. That Torquemada was a single bad penny. And all the European JΕws killed by Crusaders on their way to PalΕstine were probably asking for it. And the Inquisition was just an early form of quiz game that got out of hand.

steven brook

5th February 2020 at 4:53 pm

Give me an example of where Jesus or the Buddha promotes or excuses violence. As I said the followers of all religions do some truly vile things, being human, they are driven by greed, intolerance and a lust for power. The distinction I would draw is that the religion of peace is nothing of the sort and its followers are only following the clear guidance of its founder.
For goodness sake don’t ask to question ” what would M do” because it doesn’t bear thinking about.

Cedar Grove

7th February 2020 at 7:58 pm

Why the scepticism? The issue here is not the behaviour of followers, but the foundational texts.

Are you so lazy and irrational as to believe
– multiculturalism means all ideologies and cultural practices are equal
– therefore that means all religions are the same?

If not, you must surely see that when Christians and Buddhists are violent, they are not abiding by the core principles of their religions. When jihadis are violent, they are instantiating them.

There’s a significant difference between “Fight until the whole world is for Allah”, with specific, detailed instructions about how to oppress and murder different kinds of infidels, and “Turn the other cheek, forgive your enemies.”

The issue is rendered slightly confusing, perhaps, because both Christians and Muslims adopted the Old Testament as a source for prophet figures and behavioural rules. However, what made Christians deviate from Judaism is that Christ repudiated the law of Moses, replacing “an eye for an eye” with an ethic of mercy. Islam didn’t: when it came along 650 years later, it rejected Christian meekness in favour of conquest, perpetuating slavery etc.

Muslims, and Muslim countries, in contrast to Christian-derived Western cultures, are still working with the justice system of 2500 years ago. So yes, there is a difference between ideologies, and as Christianity argues for kindness & neighbourliness even towards people not of their persuasion, I’d say that’s ethnically superior to the kind of primitive tribal loyalties which make Muslims automatically deny there’s any problem with their communities.

How many times have we read, of some appalling murderer, “He was a good boy, a good Muslim”?

Eric Praline

5th February 2020 at 5:29 pm

Well most muslims don’t go around murdering people. Not that long ago we weren’t even bothering about Islamic terrorism.

Re all religions, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I doubt you’d give the same latitude to communism.

Jerry Owen

5th February 2020 at 6:29 pm

‘Most Muslims don’t go around murdering anyone… Strawman point.

Eric Praline

5th February 2020 at 7:07 pm

@Jerry Owen – it’s not a strawman, StevenBrook is arguing that Islam is more murderous than other religions.

Ed Turnbull

6th February 2020 at 9:50 am

@Eric Praline, Steven Brook’s contention is correct: islam *is* more murderous than other faiths, demonstrably so. I’ll repeat the challenge other have put before you: find me one passage in the Gospels that command Christians to subjugate or kill unbelievers. I can find in excess of a hundred verses in the Koran that command precisely that, and there are many more injunctions to violent jihad in the hadiths. And the historical record is replete with examples of atrocities committed *in the name of islam*, going back over fourteen centuries.

Though jihadis are vile excuses for human beings they are, in fact, *very good muslims* in that they’re being faithful to the tenets of their belief system. It disappoints me that far too few prominent public figures are willing to point out the awfulness of islam as a belief system. I suspect their reticence is due to fear: a very real fear of a murderous attack if they speak out (it happened to Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh don’t forget), perhaps a fear of being denounced as ‘racist’ (islam isn’t a race, of course, but why let reality get in the way of virtue-signalling…), or a fear that those sweet petro-dollars and arms sales will suddenly evaporate. Or, perhaps, a combination of all of the above plus others.

I find myself in agreement with Frank Furedi that jihadis should be ‘deactivated’, though he and I may, perhaps, disagree on how that is to be achieved.

Cedar Grove

7th February 2020 at 8:12 pm

As I said in my earlier response to you, this is not a matter of what Muslim or Christian individuals do, nor of the political or nationalist activities their countries have engaged in. We are discussing religion in the context of de-radicalisation.

If we are trying to persuade a Christian to abjure violence, all we have to say is “Do what Christ did” and refer them to the Sermon on the Mount. If we say to a Muslim, “Do as Mohammed did”, we have Da’esh.

Every single one of their atrocities – from the rape and enslavement of Yezidi women; the slaughter of Kurdish and Yezidi men; the burning of the caged pilot; the beheadings; the crucifixions; the murder of Shi’as; the violent oppression of Muslim women – was carefully justified in their publications with reference to the Qur’an and incidents in the life of Mohammed.

Al-Azhar refused to say Da’esh was un-Islamic. The scholarly authorities said Da’esh weren’t authorised to declare a caliphate, but admitted that everything they did had textual authority.

The Spanish Inquisition, in contrast, is emphatically not authorised with reference to the principles of the pacifist Christ, who did not require anyone to follow, believe respect, or even refrain from killing him. That proceeded from worldly motives and the inclination of various Popes.

Cedar Grove

7th February 2020 at 8:14 pm

Eric, my posts above & below are in response to yours.

Cedar Grove

7th February 2020 at 8:23 pm

Who’s the “we” in your comment? Many of us have been concerned with Islamic terrorism since the PLO linked up with European leftist and minority nationalist groups in the 1960s.

The Red Brigade, the Baader-Meinhof group, the Basque separatists and the IRA are no longer clamorous. Precisely because even with Western alliances Arab nationalism didn’t get off the ground, Islamists are even stronger than they were half a century ago.

Your comments indicate a lack of reading about the politics of the Middle East and a lack of awareness about non-Western cultures. You are a danger to democracy, because there’s so much you don’t seem to understand.

Saudi Arabia started spreading Wahhabism in the 1980s. Look at how that country was run before Moh’d bin Salman started making Western liberal-appeasing noises. Do you really want to see that in the West?

Cedar Grove

7th February 2020 at 8:32 pm

My device auto-corrected “ethically” which is what I wrote, to “ethnically “, which wasn’t what I was saying.

Jim Lawrie

5th February 2020 at 2:45 pm

Is there a difference between “deactivated” and sterilise/lobotomise?


5th February 2020 at 2:17 pm

These people need to be deactivated.
Are you saying these people need to be destroyed?
I would prefer them to live. Would it be better perhaps to persuade them to go elsewhere like Russia? It might be colder from their former home in the Middle East but there are plenty of land there for them to buy and continue practicing their belief without disturbances.

Jim Lawrie

5th February 2020 at 2:46 pm

What an arrogant post.

Eric Praline

5th February 2020 at 4:24 pm

Not sure they’d be content pottering about on their allotments. And the Russians might have something to say about it.


5th February 2020 at 5:02 pm

I think PM meant send them to the Goolag.

Dominic Straiton

5th February 2020 at 2:06 pm

Jack Merritt and his father im sure would tell us that gay conversion therapy was impossible.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.