𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

The hypocrisy of some on the Left really does know no bounds. In fact, if the writers of The Thick Of It pitched this story as a script, it would probably be rejected for being too far-fetched. The Oxford branch of Stand Up To Racism has launched a petition opposing the Home Office’s plans to house 1,250 asylum seekers at a former Ministry of Defence site near the picturesque Oxfordshire town of Bicester.

Why? Well, apparently because living on an old MoD site would be “dehumanising” for the asylum seekers. Fair enough, everyone deserves to be treated with dignity. Their second argument, however, is where things become truly fascinating. They claim the camp could become a target for intimidation and protests by the “far-Right” in the same way asylum hotels such as the one in Epping have been.

Now, forgive me if I’m missing something, but if people are genuinely fleeing war, persecution or oppression, I suspect their biggest priority is reaching somewhere safe. A secure camp in rural Oxfordshire doesn’t exactly sound like the worst place to begin rebuilding your life. But here’s the question nobody there seems willing to answer. If Bicester is unsuitable, where exactly should these 1,250 people go instead? The petition doesn’t appear to offer an alternative. Not one.

Some cynics might conclude that this is a classic case of people enthusiastically supporting asylum seekers… just as long as somebody else accommodates them. Personally, I’m far too charitable to jump to such conclusions. Instead, I’d like to make what I think is a genuinely constructive suggestion. Bicester is a beautiful town filled with lovely homes occupied by compassionate, socially conscious people who clearly care deeply about those seeking sanctuary. So why not open those homes?

If every supporter of the petition welcomed just one or two asylum seekers, the problem would disappear overnight. No camps needed. No complaints about institutional accommodation. No concerns about isolating vulnerable people. The new arrivals would live among local families, become part of the community and enjoy the very neighbourliness campaigners so often champion. Everybody wins.

After all, it’s easy to proclaim “Refugees Welcome” from behind a placard. It’s rather more meaningful to put the kettle on, make up the spare room and welcome someone through your own front door. Perhaps they’ll do exactly that. And if they don’t? Well, I certainly won’t accuse them of wanting asylum seekers housed anywhere but their own leafy corner of Oxfordshire. I’ll leave that conclusion to you, dear reader.

The story of teenage neo-Nazi Alfie Coleman should send a chill down every parent’s spine. This wasn’t some keyboard warrior mouthing off online. He had a kill list, idolised Adolf Hitler, tried to buy weapons and ammunition, and allegedly wanted to carry out a mass shooting to spark a race war. Thank goodness MI5 caught him before innocent people paid with their lives.

Coleman targeted former colleagues and Tesco customers he branded “race traitors” simply because they had partners from different ethnic backgrounds.

Imagine carrying that much hatred around at just 19 years old. It’s utterly baffling. But one detail stood out above all the others to me – Coleman had reportedly been groomed online from the age of 14. Counter-terrorism officers have repeatedly warned that extremists are increasingly radicalising children through social media and online forums.

That’s why I welcome Labour’s decision to ban under-16s from accessing major social media platforms. No law is a silver bullet, and we can’t say for certain it would have changed Coleman’s path, but making it harder for extremists to reach vulnerable children is surely a step in the right direction.

Parents, though, cannot outsource their responsibilities to the Government. We need to know what our children are watching, who they’re talking to and which online rabbit holes they’re disappearing down. The internet can be a wonderful place, but left unchecked it can also become a recruitment ground for hatred. Protecting children starts at home.

Nigel Farage is making a mockery of public office. This vanity by-election will cost taxpayers around £350,000, all so he can tell us he’s taking on the establishment. Pull the other one, mate. Farage is the establishment.

He’s the son of a stockbroker, was privately educated at Dulwich College, followed his father into the City, has spent decades in politics, received multi-million-pound donations and happily promoted crypto and gold bullion. That’s not sticking two fingers to the system – that is the system.

And now he could spend the next few weeks squaring up to Count Binface. So this great crusade against Westminster may end up being little more than an argument with a bloke in a bin. If Farage genuinely believes politicians should seek a fresh mandate whenever circumstances change, then every MP who defected to Reform should have triggered a by-election too. Funny how principles become optional when they’re inconvenient, Nige. Political theatre is all well and good, but us taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to buy the tickets to the circus.