France’s Invasion Guide: Surviving A Nuclear Attack

France is set to issue a survival manual to homes nationwide, warning citizens how to respond to an invasion or any other ‘imminent threat’.

The surprising move comes as tensions grow in Europe and fears rise over Russia’s confrontational tactics.

The new 20-page booklet, reportedly packed with 63 measures, will inform the French on how to defend themselves and their families in the event of armed conflict, natural catastrophes, industrial accidents or even a nuclear leak.

It will include information on constructing a ‘survival kit’ with essentials including six litres of water, canned food, batteries, a torch and basic medical supplies such as paracetamol and bandages.

Importantly, it will guide what to do in the event of an impending assault, including how to participate in local defensive initiatives by joining firefighting or reserve forces.

Citizens will also be told to ‘lock their doors’ in the event of a nuclear incident  –  advice that has already drawn ridicule from commentators.

The French government maintains that the pamphlet is not a direct reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, despite its concerning content.

President Emmanuel Macron has previously warned that Europe must be equipped to face the ‘Russian threat’ and adapt to the possibility that America could scale back its military aid.

Earlier this week, Macron announced that French fighter jets equipped with new-generation hypersonic nuclear missiles will be sent to the German border as part of his bid to renew France’s airborne nuclear deterrent.

Officials from the General Secretariat for Defence and National Security (SGDSN), which oversaw the booklet’s creation, claim the purpose of the survival guide is just to support France’s strength in the face of ‘all types of crises’.

The decision to draft the booklet reportedly dates back to 2022, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, as part of a national strategy to improve public preparedness. 

But the timing of its release – expected before summer if approved by Prime Minister François Bayrou – has raised eyebrows.

French newspaper Le Figaro noted that the kit’s rollout ‘could easily suggest that the state is reacting to the unstable international situation’.

Macron has recently called for Europe to rearm in the face of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and America’s uncertain commitment to upholding European security under Donald Trump.

He initiated a doubling of the French defence budget over his two terms and recently set an even higher target, saying the country should increase defence spending to 3-3.5 percent of economic output from the current 2 percent. 

France’s public investment bank Bpifrance will launch a €450 million (£377 million) fund dedicated to funding defence projects as part of the country’s efforts to ramp up military spending, finance minister Eric Lombard said on Thursday.

‘French citizens will be able, by tranches of €500 (£419), to invest their money in the long term,’ Lombard told TF1.

According to the finance and defence ministries, French defence industries would require more than five billion euros in extra equity capital over the next years.

Macron has also offered to extend the safety of France’s nuclear weapons, the so-called nuclear umbrella, to other European countries.

During a visit to Luxeuil-Saint-Sauveur airbase in northeast France on Tuesday, he told aircrews their base will soon receive a squadron of Rafale F5s – the latest evolution of France’s premier fighter jet that is expected to enter service in 2030.

The jets will be equipped with the ASN4G – a nuclear hypersonic cruise missile currently under development that will reportedly fly at more than 5,000 mph with double the range of France’s current air-launched nuclear weapons.

Macron said the government had earmarked more than €1.5 billion to transform Luxeuil – a renowned World War One airbase just 80km from Germany – into one of the nation’s most cutting-edge military facilities.

Rafale F5s equipped with the next-gen nuclear hypersonic missiles would be equipped for deployment at the base by 2035, he said to a crowd of Air Force pilots and officers outside their hangars.

‘We haven’t waited for 2022 or the turning point we’re seeing right now to discover that the world we live in is ever more dangerous, ever more uncertain and that it implies to innovate, to bulk up and to become more autonomous,’ he said Tuesday.

‘I will announce in the coming weeks new investments to go further than what was done over the past seven years,’ he added.

Macron also said that the government would order additional Rafale warplanes from French aerospace manufacturer Dassault Aviation to replace ageing Mirage fighter jets – some of which were sent to Ukraine.

Earlier this month, it was said that Poland would soon send out a handbook for its citizens on how to survive forthcoming crises after it warned its male population would have to go through military training amid growing tensions with Russia.

This year, the nation, which shares borders with Russia and Ukraine, will distribute the pamphlets to households.

The pamphlets will advise them on ‘how to deal with various hazardous situations,’ a deputy director for the interior ministry’s civil protection unit, Robert Klonowski, told the PAP news agency.

Civilians will be given wartime information on how to cope with ‘a power outage lasting several days or several hours,’ he said, adding that the information would also serve for reacting to natural disasters.

The brochure will be issued in Polish and Ukrainian for the 900,000 Ukrainian refugees in the country.

‘We are also planning a special version, or at least part of this guide, addressed to children,’ Klonowski added.

Poland is one of Kyiv’s staunchest allies in the European Union and hosts a logistics hub through which NATO and EU member states have been sending military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.

It has been warily eyeing Russia and has been ramping up its defences, as Vladimir Putin’s aggression rages on.

Poland has been making overtures towards a war footing in recent weeks, with the country’s prime minister Donald Tusk revealing that his government is working out a strategy to militarily train all men in the event of a war. 

Sweden, Norway and Finland have already taken similar measures amid growing geopolitical instability. 

Last year, Sweden sent out five million copies of a chilling 32-page booklet titled If Crisis or War Comes, advising citizens to stock up on food and water and be ready for an armed attack.

‘An insecure world requires preparedness. The military threat to Sweden has increased and we must prepare for the worst – an armed attack,’ its introduction states.

Norway’s directorate for civil protection distributed a similar guide last year, warning its citizens: ‘We live in an increasingly turbulent world.’

The Norwegian booklet urges citizens to keep stock of medicine, a supply of cash, and at least a week’s worth of non-perishable food items including ‘crispbreads, canned pulses and beans, canned sandwich spreads, energy bars, dried fruit, chocolate, honey, biscuits and nuts’.

Finland has also launched a government website describing how to prepare for various ‘longer-term crises’ including ‘military conflict’.

Germany made a similar announcement in November, saying it was creating a list of bunkers that would be able to offer residents emergency refuge in the case of conflict.

The Interior Ministry announced underground train stations, car parks, state buildings and private properties could all be harnessed for protection.

The French survival guide has already provoked mockery despite all the preparations made by other European nations.

French comedian Matthieu Noël scoffed at the idea of telling people to ‘stock up’ and ‘lock their doors’ if a nuclear bomb hits.

‘Putin could drop a nuclear bomb on Paris, Ebola could strike the Cantal – we’ll be ready,’ he joked on France Inter. 

‘While you’re at it, why not advise against snorkelling during a tsunami?’

The UK, meanwhile, has shown no signs of following suit. 

The British government last issued similar guidance during the Cold War with the notorious Protect and Survive booklet, which urged citizens to paint their windows white and build a ‘fallout room’ in the event of nuclear war.

 A 2004 campaign following the Madrid bombings offered updated guidance, but there’s been little activity since.

Is this all fear-mongering rhetoric – are we going to war? Or is this just politics and nothing else? Perhaps we simply need protecting from our own governments.

Sorry, but when the poo does hit the fan, it will be everybody for themselves as demonstrated by the UK toilet roll shortage during COVID. Can you even imagine what it would be like if there was a real war?

DWP To Cut PIP And Other Welfare Payments

Many nationwide will be alarmed by the Labour government’s announcement that it would be slashing billions of pounds from the nation’s welfare bill.

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall will speak in the House of Commons and is expected to confirm a huge package of cuts to welfare. This is despite growing unrest from Labour MPs on the matter.

Downing Street has said there is a “moral and an economic case” for an overhaul and that the changes set to be set out by Ms Kendall will put the welfare system “back on a more sustainable path”.

Some reports have suggested that as much as £5 billion could be cut from welfare payments, including modifications to the Personal Independence Payment, which is the primary benefit for disabled people.

Ms Kendall aimed to reassure MPs on Monday that the reforms would ensure “trust and fairness” in the social security system and make sure benefits are available “for people who need it now, and for years to come”.

The government has revealed a string of changes to the welfare system, claiming that these adjustments will assist people in finding work.

Responses to the different measures have been mixed; while some have been welcomed, others have been criticised as “draconian cuts that will push more disabled individuals into poverty.”

It is “rather crass” to present welfare reforms as a way of saving money, Labour former minister Dawn Butler told the Commons, as she urged the Government to tax millionaires instead.

Ms Butler said the employment service has “always needed reform”, adding: “How we go about it, and the way we go about it, is fundamental and important, and I don’t think it should be linked to saving money, because that’s rather crass, and it’s caused lots of anxiety for my constituents in Brent East and elsewhere.

“The patriotic millionaires have said that just a 2 percent on assets over £10 million will bring in £22 billion a year. That’s a better way to bring money in to help fill the black hole that we found ourselves in.”

Ms Butler continued: “Does the minister agree with me that aspiration, compassion, care, fairness will be the hallmark of this Labour Government?”

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall replied: “Aspiration, compassion, care, fairness is absolutely a hallmark of this Government. That is why we are bringing forward these reforms.

“And as I said earlier to the House, I don’t start from a spreadsheet, I start from my belief that everybody has a value and a contribution to make in whatever way and that we want people to fulfil their potential.”

The Liberal Democrats said they support getting more people into work, but their work and pensions spokesman said he feared the effects of the reforms.

Steve Darling (Torbay) said the “significant blocker” in getting people into work was the state of the health and social care system. Health Secretary Wes Streeting was sitting on the Government benches several places down from Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall.

Mr Darling said: “The devil is in the detail of these proposals, and I do fear what we will find as we turn over rocks over the next few days, particularly for those who are most vulnerable.

“The minister has described the system as a broken system, and so therefore I would like to ask the minister how is (she) driving significant change through this. I fear this is tinkering around the edges where we need to see real culture change within the DWP.”

Ms Kendall said £26 billion was being invested into the NHS, £172 million into the disabled facilities grant, and £3.7 billion into social care.

She added: “We do need a decisive cultural shift in the DWP.”

She continued: “Our pathways to work employment support programme genuinely is that, because for some people getting out of the house is an achievement, for others going along to a community thing, maybe doing voluntary action, getting skills, that is what we mean.”

Helen Whately, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary responded to Ms Kendall, saying: “This is a now or never chance to seize the moment, a now or never for millions of people who will otherwise be signed off for what could end up being a lifetime on benefits, but this announcement today leaves me with more questions than answers.

“How many people will this help back into work? By when? Surely we haven’t been waiting eight months just for another green paper? Where is the fit note reform, crucial to stem the flow of people onto benefits? Where is the action on people being signed off sick for the everyday ups and downs of life?

“Why is she only planning to save £5 billion when the bill is forecast to rise to over £100 billion?

“Fundamentally, this is too little, too late. The fact is £5 billion just doesn’t cut it. With a bill so big, going up so fast, she needed to be tougher. She should be saying no more hard-working taxpayers funding the family next door not to work. No more free top-of-the-range cars for people who don’t need them.”

Cuts to benefits will cause “pain and difficulty” to the most vulnerable, a Labour MP has said.

Clive Lewis (Norwich South) asked Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall whether her department understood the impact the reforms would have.

Mr Lewis said: “When she made the decision to go down this route, did they understand the pain and difficulty that this will cause millions of people, millions of our constituents who are using food banks, who are using social supermarkets, people who are on the brink.

“This £5 billion cut is going to impact them more than I think her department is giving credit for, and I would like her department to be able to look my constituents in the eye when I go back to them to tell them that this is going to work for them. Because as things stand, my constituents, my friends, my family are very angry about this and they do not think this is the kind of action that a Labour government takes.”

We might be able to save some money if we tighten down on the £8 billion we spend each year on illegal immigration. The absurdity of net zero and all the other money our government is wasting may be avoided if we cut down on handing our money away to foreign nations.

Sadly they pick on the natives first, way before anyone who enters this country illegally.

Starmer took the Labour Party to court in 2003, demanding payments for illegal immigrants. Because of his victory, Starmer and Labour will not take any action to lower the number of illegal migrants, their lodging expenses, or their perks.

While the UK is in debt, all foreign financing should be discontinued.

It’s disgusting that Labour is wasting billions of our pounds on people who shouldn’t be here and that their only solution is to use our most vulnerable members of society to fund their immigration army, and it seems that economically idle migrants come before our pensioners and disabled.

Our government send billions to Ukraine, to Africa and India. Billions on boat people – Starmer and Reeves are communists and pork pie merchants and the people of the UK should rise up because this is getting worse day by day.

And they say pensioners are a drain on society, at least they paid in. So now I’ve decided I’m going to live to be 100 just to enrage this government.

Our authorities ought to prohibit these boats from coming in and then deport the ones who do manage to get in. Without a doubt, they should cease assisting the millions of non-native English speakers who will never find employment.

And our Labour government believe that they can keep blaming the Tories for all this chaos, and we will do the same – we won’t!

I wish they would quit repeating the rhetoric that blames the previous government for everything that isn’t great because it gets very old. It only demonstrates their lack of creativity.

To negate the books they should cut goodies for those who arrive on our shores, uninvited and not wanted. They arrive, and they are given everything they require. Items that if we wanted them would have to work for, like furnishings, garments, mobile phones and driving lessons et cetera, while we British work longer and pay more tax.

Eight billion a year for illegals over 5 years, that’s 40 billion saved, but then I guess every penny counts when you’re spending £4300,000,000 on asylum seekers, hotels and legal costs.

They get everything we don’t. Cleaners make their bed and clean their room. Three hundred pounds for a voucher for a bike. Doctors visit their hotel, you name it, they get it. There is no hope for this country and it doesn’t pay to be British.

Mother-Of-Two, 22, Who Lied To The Department For Work And Pensions For Years

A mum broke down in tears in court after lying about her two children living with her to claim more than £16,000 illegally. Kayley Evans, 22, was 18 when she first embarked on the erroneous claim, a court heard.

Prosecutor Nabiha Ahmed said Evans received Universal Credit on the basis she was single, unemployed, and had two children living with her. She specifically notified the DWP to add the second child to her claim.

“In fact, the first child was placed into care a few weeks after being born and the second was placed into care immediately. Neither child has ever lived with Miss Evans,” she said.

Evans broke down in tears at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court which heard neither of her children had ever lived at her address because they had been taken into care, Birmingham Live reports.

Ms Ahmed said Evans ‘understood’ this would impact on her benefits claim. She confirmed the overpayment of Universal Credit was more than £16,000 and that Evans had no previous convictions.

She pleaded guilty to a charge of dishonestly making a false statement to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to obtain a benefit, advantage or payment. The court heard Evans had not been assessed for a mental health treatment requirement.

But Alexandra Youster, defending, said she preferred to be sentenced on the day rather than the case be adjourned, providing she would not be sent to prison.

She said: “I’m not sure the benefits of a mental health treatment requirement would outweigh the stress these proceedings are causing Miss Evans. If you were minded not to impose a non-custodial sentence today I would ask you to do that.”

Ms Youster added: “The offences date back to 2020. She had just turned 18 and had just left the care system herself. There’s a lot of background and trauma in this lady’s life. She was around very bad people and she was unwell at the time.

“Positively, since this all took place she is doing really well. She’s got her own flat. She has been working, albeit sporadically – she’s employed at two different locations. She has started a university course. I think this perhaps shows the naivety of this lady and lack of awareness she really does have.”

Evans, of Fordbridge, Solihull, was sentenced to a two-year community order with 20 days of rehabilitation activity requirement.

She was ordered to pay a £114 victim surcharge but nothing towards prosecution costs due to her lack of financial means. Her illegally claimed benefits will be retrieved separately.

District Judge Michelle Smith told her: “I can step back from a custodial sentence. I was considering a suspended sentence because of the value and length of time (of the offence).

“But I can step back in view of your age, circumstances and everything I have read about you, the trauma you have suffered as well. I’m minded that rehabilitation will prevent further offending.”

The money that this lady illegally received will be retrieved from her by the DWP either by garnishment of her earnings or any benefits she will now legally claim.

She broke the law, she cheated the system. However, it doesn’t seem like she’s had a good life to date.

I’m not condoning her actions and she will have to pay it all back, but what about all the deception and dishonesty at the hands of our politicians? For those who have never had to rely on benefits, let’s hope you never have to.

Sometimes when you’re in such a dark place you make mistakes. This lady had a lot of trauma in her life which can cause mental health issues, and prison isn’t always the solution.

After leaving the care system, she was obviously left on her own and would not have had any family assistance. Care leavers require organised and continuous help, and the care system requires a significant rethink and investment.

If a child isn’t shown any love from their mother or is neglected, then they don’t have a role model. If their parents aren’t fit to care for them, how do they know what is ‘normal’?

This would have been a young girl who had left the care system with very little experience of being loved or cared about and would have had no feeling of self-worth, and a lot of young people look for love in the wrong way because they don’t know any better ways, and very little chance of a happy life.

A Candidate Who Called Hitler ‘Brilliant’ Oversees Party Vetting

The man in charge of vetting Reform UK’s candidates for the next general election glorified Hitler as ‘brilliant’. 

Jack Aaron, who was the party’s candidate in Welwyn Hatfield in last year’s election, also made remarks in the past calling Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad ‘gentle by nature’ and claimed Russia’s use of force in Ukraine was ‘legitimate’.

His shocking views first came to light during the election campaign which he defended by claiming there was a context and ‘nuances’ in the way he was viewing them through a psychological perspective.

 Despite the controversy, Mr Aaron is currently Reform UK’s head of vetting.

The position includes studying prospective candidates’ social media outputs and advising them on what should be deleted.

It comes after more than 100 candidates were sacked or removed for offensive and racist comments.

In September, Nigel Farage declared that the party’s vetting process would be more strict to sidestep a comparable humiliation at the next election which polls at the moment suggest Reform could succeed.

A representative for Reform UK told the Guardian: ‘Mr Aaron is Jewish, and sits on his local synagogue council. His grandfather came to this country as a refugee from Vienna and much of his family on that side were murdered by Hitler’s regime.

‘Reform UK does not disclose details of our internal vetting process and nor staff members involved.’

Mr Aaron came third in Welwyn Hatfield with slightly over 13 percent of the vote and finished behind the defeated Tory minister, Grant Shapps.

According to his LinkedIn page, he is a business psychologist, consultant, YouTuber, coach, relationship counsellor and matchmaker.

It adds that he set up the World Socionics Society – a group promoting the notion that there are 16 personality types – which began as a Facebook group.

Mr Aaron declared his remarks about dictators were part of a pseudoscientific theory of personality types.

In a post on social media in 2022, Mr Aaron said Hitler was ‘brilliant in using Fe+Ni [socionics personality traits] to inspire people into action’.

Days after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, he said that those who called Putin insane ‘do not understand him and limit their ability to oppose him’.

He added: ‘The motivation to acquire and wield force is legitimate, and there is a whole group of personality types inclined to this, and they have historically shaped the world we live in.’

In a comment on Reddit, he said that Assad was ‘gentle by nature’ and not ‘some bloodthirsty tyrant who exercises control over his people with an iron fist’.

He also declared the Syrian oppressor had been ‘led astray’ by social stereotyping.

Mr Aaron and Reform UK have been contacted by MailOnline for comment.

Mr Aaron did not say that Hitler was ‘brilliant’. What he said was that he was brilliant at manipulating voters. His remarks have been taken out of context.

History demonstrates that propaganda and the perception of inferiority in one’s own nation were the main factors in Hitler’s ascent to power.

It’s astounding how many people overlook the details, which is why this nation is in a downward spiral.

There’s a major difference between being brilliant and being evil and Hitler was just evil. Hitler was actually extremely intelligent, he was also a monster.

Even while we agree that there have been many wicked dictators throughout history who were excellent military commanders and strategic strategists, we nevertheless believe that they were bad and committed wrongdoing.

Hitler was probably the most outstanding leader in documented history. He came from nowhere, with nothing, and created his empire through little more than his intellect and determination. Of course, it all ended in ashes, and it took the rest of the world working together to bring him down.

Genghis Khan was also a bloodthirsty leader who killed people on such a scale that it might have even changed the climate. However, history regards him as a prominent leader, yet at the time he would have been despised by his opponents, and Hitler is reckoned in just the same way.

Welfare Claimants To Be Given ‘Right To Try’ Work Without Risk Of Losing Their Benefits

Labour’s reform of the system will allow welfare recipients to attempt employment without fear of losing their benefits.

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall is expected to announce legislation to introduce a ‘right to try guarantee’ for those on health-related benefits.

This will prevent people from having their entitlements automatically re-assessed if they enter employment.

A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) survey found 200,000 people on health-related or disability benefits were willing to work if the right job or help was available.

However, many people with disabilities or chronic illnesses reportedly worry that if they try to find work and it doesn’t work out, they won’t be able to receive their benefits back.

Almost four million working-age adults in England and Wales presently claim incapacity or disability benefits, up from 2.8 million before the COVID pandemic.

Since becoming Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer has slammed Britain’s ‘broken’ and ‘indefensible’ welfare system and claimed it ‘locks millions out of work’.

His Government is expected to unveil around £5 billion to £6 billion of welfare cuts in the coming days, although it has emerged that ministers could U-turn on some projects.

It has been said that Downing Street and Ms Kendall’s department are poised to backtrack on imposing a real-term cut to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for disabled people – including those who cannot work – by cancelling an inflation-linked rise due to come into force next spring.

A backbench mutiny against Sir Keir’s welfare crackdown has stung him, and some Cabinet ministers are reportedly upset.

This morning, Health Secretary Wes Streeting declined to comment on whether the government’s welfare reforms will include a PIP freeze.

He told the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme: ‘I haven’t seen the full plans, they haven’t come to Cabinet yet.

‘But what I do know is the Work and Pensions Secretary wants to support people who need help the most and we’ve got to make sure that there is a wider range of support.

‘And that everyone’s playing their part, including me, because with those levels of illness, for example, if I can help people back to health, in many cases I’ll be helping them back to work and that’s what we’ll do.’

He added: ‘I haven’t seen the proposals but you’ve seen the briefing, you’ve seen the speculation, I think the moral of the story is wait for the plans.’

A Government source said: ‘The broken welfare system we inherited is trapping thousands of people in a life on benefits with no means of support, or any hope for a future of life in work.

‘It doesn’t account for the reality of people’s health conditions, many of whom fear that they will be punished for taking a chance on work.

‘As part of our plan for change, our reforms will deliver fairness and opportunity for disabled people, and those with long-term health conditions, protecting the welfare system so it is sustainable for the future and will always be there for those who need it.’

James Taylor, executive director at disability charity Scope, said giving disabled people ‘greater confidence to try work’ was ‘a good move’, but warned against making significant cuts to benefits.

He said: ‘We hope that releasing news of this scheme at this time isn’t a smokescreen designed to blur the lines between in and out of work benefits.

‘PIP exists because life costs more if you are disabled. It isn’t an out-of-work benefit.

‘Making it harder to get benefits will just push even more disabled people into poverty, not into jobs.’

Asked about Labour’s welfare plans during a press conference on Saturday, Sir Keir said: ‘I have made the principles clear enough. We need to support those who need support and to protect them.

‘But at the same time, we need to make sure that we support and protect those who need to and are able to get into work, which the current arrangements I don’t think adequately do.

‘That’s why it’s important we make the case for reforming welfare, which is what we are doing.’

A Conservative Party spokesperson said: ‘Labour is failing to take the action needed to tackle the unsustainable welfare bill.

‘Their inaction has already cost the taxpayer £2.5 billion and counting.

‘The Conservatives are united in the belief that those who can work should, which is why we had a bold plan at the election to save £12billion from the welfare bill.

‘Labour have done no original thinking of their own. The dithering, delay and division over the need to bring spending on benefits down is not fair for British taxpayers.’

What employer is going to hire people who are disabled? Discrimination, right? However, it happens all the time.

Therefore, our government continues to increase the welfare cost because it lacks the courage to address the underlying issue while allowing illegal immigrants to continue entering the land of milk and honey.

He keeps the civil service growing because he’s terrified of unions and he taxes the diminishing ageing workforce until they squeak.

He is hurting pensioners who are unable to defend themselves and increasing the strain on companies. What a hero you are, Keir Starmer. He ought to put the nation’s needs ahead of his own goals.

Who is going to employ all these people? Where are all these jobs coming from? And don’t forget there would have to be a workplace risk assessment for anyone disabled working at a company, and most businesses don’t have insurance for this, so, therefore, would not take a disabled person on for work.

And remember our Prime Minister and MPs have no reality of the real world, and the biggest scroungers in Britain are our MPs, followed by all those arriving by boat!

In Two Years, the UK Could Sell Lab-Grown Food

Lab-grown meat, dairy, and sugar may be available for human consumption in the UK for the first time in as little as two years, which is earlier than anticipated.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is examining how it can speed up the approval process for lab-grown foods.

Such products are cultivated from cells in small chemical plants.

UK firms have led the field scientifically but feel they have been held back by the existing regulations.

Dog food made from meat that was grown in factory vats went on sale in the UK for the first time last month.

In 2020, Singapore became the first country to permit the sale of cell-cultivated meat for human consumption, followed by the United States three years later and Israel last year.

However, Italy, the US states of Alabama, and Florida have instituted prohibitions.

The FSA will collaborate with academic researchers and specialists from high-tech food companies to create new regulations.

It states that it plans to finish the comprehensive safety evaluation of two foods produced in a lab within the two years it has begun.

However, critics say that having the firms involved in drawing up the new rules represents a conflict of interest.

The effort was launched in response to UK companies’ worries that they are falling behind their foreign competitors, whose approvals processes take half as long.

Prof Robin May, the FSA’s chief scientist, told BBC News that there would be no compromise on consumer safety.

“We are working very closely with the companies involved and academic groups to work together to design a regulatory structure that is good for them, but at all costs ensures the safety of these products remains as high as it possibly can,” he said.

However, this strategy has its detractors, including Pat Thomas, director of the campaign organisation Beyond GM.

“The companies involved in helping the FSA to draw up these regulations are the ones most likely to benefit from deregulation and if this were any other type of food product, we would be outraged by it,” she said.

The science minister, Lord Vallance, took issue with the process being described as “deregulation”.

“It is not deregulation, it is pro-innovation regulation,” he told BBC News.

“It is an important distinction because we are trying to get the regulation aligned with the needs of innovation and reduce some of the bureaucracy and duplication.”

Foods produced in laboratories are developed from microscopic cells into plant or animal tissue. To modify the food’s qualities, gene editing may occasionally be required. They are said to provide possible health benefits and to be better for the environment.

The government wants lab-grown food companies to succeed because it believes they can boost the economy and provide new jobs.

The UK is good at the science, but the current approvals process is much slower than in other countries. Singapore, the US and Israel in particular have faster procedures.

Oxford’s Ivy Farm Technologies is prepared to produce lab-grown steaks using cells from Aberdeen Angus and Wagyu cows.

The firm applied for approval to market its steaks to restaurants at the start of last year. Ivy Farm’s CEO, Dr Harsh Amin, explained that two years was a very long time to wait.

“If we can shorten that to less than a year while maintaining the very highest of Britain’s food safety standards, that would help start-up companies like ours to thrive.”

A similar narrative is told by Dr. Alicia Graham. Working at the Bezos Centre in west London at Imperial College, she has managed to cultivate a sugar substitute. A berry gene is introduced into yeast in this process. By using this method, she may create a lot of the crystals that give it its sweet flavour.

It doesn’t make you fat, she says, and so is a potential sweetener and healthy substitute in fizzy drinks.

In this instance, I am permitted to sample it. It reminded me of lemon sherbet; it was really sweet, fruity, and slightly sour. But it needs permission before Dr Graham’s company, MadeSweetly, can sell it.

“The path to getting approval is not straightforward,” she tells me.

“They are all new technologies, which are not easy for the regulator to keep up with. But that means that we don’t have one specific route to product approval, and that is what we would like.”

The FSA says it will complete a full safety assessment of two lab-grown foods within the next two years and have the beginnings of a faster and better system for applications for approvals of new lab-grown foods.

Prof May of the FSA says the purpose of working with experts from the companies involved as well as academics is to get the science right.

“It can be quite complex, and it is critical that we understand the science to make sure the foods are safe before authorising them.”

But Ms Thomas says that these high-tech foods may not be as environmentally friendly as they are made out to be as it takes energy to make them and that in some cases their health benefits are being oversold.

“Lab-grown foods are ultimately ultra-processed foods and we are in an era where we are trying to get people to eat fewer ultra-processed foods because they have health implications,” he said.

“And it is worth saying that these ultra-processed foods have not been in the human diet before.”

I’m not sure I would eat lab-grown food, but I suppose as long it’s correctly labelled as lab-grown, most people will eat it, and in the end, we will have no way of avoiding it.

However, people will eventually take lab-grown meat over US-farmed meat any day.

I mean, who would eat meat that has been pumped full of hormones to stimulate growth, force-feeding them processed calorific foods and keep the animals inactive so they grow faster, then chemically washing the meat in chlorine to remove the bacteria that contaminate the meat due to the cramped conditions it is raised in – this is all pretty standard in the US.

Good job I don’t live in the US then!

The image above doesn’t exactly make lab-grown meat look very tasty, but then neither does most processed meats, but that doesn’t stop people from consuming the meat in large amounts, regardless of the environment, animal welfare or their own health. Perhaps the meat will be used in burgers, pies and fast foods, instead of being displayed in the window of your local butcher’s shop.

Eating lab-grown food is not natural, it is genetic engineering, and something feels truly wrong when they are creating food from a lab instead of the land. I believe it takes us down an extremely disturbing cul de sac, especially when saying it will create jobs – it won’t, it will cost jobs in the agricultural sector – we all know they want to stop agriculture.

I’ll have to go to vegetarianism if the only food available is lab-grown. I have no problem with this, but I should be able to choose rather than have it imposed on me.

The whole point of ‘lab produced’ is that it doesn’t rely on jobs – it automates supply. Every promotion from the global wealthy and the global corporations is to warm us up to the belief that they will supply us without having to work for it.

However, I suppose with lab-grown meat – it would lower carbon emissions, animal abuse and habitat destruction, but then making food synthetically in a laboratory – what could possibly go wrong?

Age Ranges For Conscription In The UK

The UK government has been advised to consider bringing back conscription – leaving numerous people wondering whether they would be called up to fight.

Britain’s declining soldier numbers have sparked panic among experts in national security, with one former commander warning that the country would be virtually defenceless were Vladimir Putin to launch a direct attack. Following significant cuts to the MoD that began in 2010, just over 72,000 regular forces personnel now serve in the British Army—the lowest number since the Napoleonic Wars.

One touted solution to this shortfall has been to reintroduce conscription, meaning ordinary citizens would be drafted in for compulsory military training and put on ‘standby’ for future deployment. Numerous other countries in Europe do it, including Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, but the UK hasn’t had any form of conscription since National Service ended in 1963. Here, we answer some questions about conscription and what it would mean for you.

When Britain introduced conscription in the months leading up to World War II, unmarried men aged between 20 and 22 were required to undertake six months of military training, resulting in 240,000 being called up. But when war was announced following Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland, the age range was immediately widened to any man aged 18 to 41. Exemptions were given to men who were too unfit medically, or who worked in vital industries like baking, farming, and medicine, which were essential to the war effort.

By the end of 1941, women and all childless widows between the ages of 20 and 30 were required to do work related to the war effort, while men aged up to 51 were called up for military service. Even men aged 52 to 60 were required to take part in “some form of military service”.

After the war, National Service required all healthy males aged 17 to 21 to serve in the armed forces for 18 months, along with a four-year reserve period. This generally involved training at a barracks based within the UK.

The UK has never drafted in women to serve in direct combat – but recent polling indicates the public believes that this should change if World War III ever broke out. A YouGov poll found that 72 percent supported women being conscripted as well as men, in the event of the measure ever being reintroduced.

Despite the ominous warnings of the world now being in a “pre-war” state, the same YouGov poll also found that numerous young people would be unwilling to fight for their country – even if Britain was about to be invaded.

About 38 percent of under-40s said they would refuse to serve in the armed forces if World War III broke out, and 30 percent would not serve even if the UK faced “imminent invasion”.

In World War II, ‘conscientious objectors’ who were within the conscription age but refused to fight were taken to court, and many were given mandatory jobs to contribute to the war effort in other ways.

The shaky attempts by Donald Trump to achieve peace in Ukraine have left many concerned that Vladimir Putin will feel emboldened to attack Europe again, potentially pulling the UK into a major war. As the US weakens its support for Ukraine and Russia rejects ceasefire agreements, former top brass have warned that Britain must prepare to conscript if things escalate – or risk surrendering quickly.

Colonel Hamish De Bretton Gordon, who used to lead the British Army’s Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment, told the Sun: “The government should rule nothing out at the moment. I can’t see how an army of just 70,000 is going to be able to deter Russia in the long term and maintain the mass it needs. If you look at the size of our regular Army, it’s tiny and they’d find it difficult to deploy a brigade for any period of time”. Sir Richard Shirreff, a former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, meanwhile said that the British government should be prepared to “think the unthinkable” and begin a “selective” form of conscription.

The Government has said there are no plans for any form of conscription in the UK. Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the News Agents podcast on Thursday that “nobody is talking about conscription” and that such a proposal has “never crossed my lips”.

I don’t think the discipline and hardship of conscription would be mentally manageable for today’s young men. Additionally, our educational system has shaped them into woke, left-wing, weak warriors. Who wants to fight for a government that has no allegiance to a broken Britain and mocks the working class?

This country has been broken for an extremely long time and the youths of today know nothing about hard work, respect and the checklist goes on.

I don’t believe that our teenagers would suffer any negative effects from National Service, and it’s about time our government learned that not only would National Service strengthen our forces numbers, but perhaps it would infuse some much-needed discipline and pride.

This is not only about Ukraine – we, all of us, are entering into menacing and scary times, and like it or not, we can’t just roll over and act like this is not happening.

Due to a severe shortage of troops, the UK is unable to defend itself, let alone other nations.

There is nothing for young people to do these days, so National Service would be a terrific way to get them off the streets, teach them about the proper way to live and earn them some respect.

Mind you, what exactly would these youngsters be signing up to defend?

A bygone parliamentary system where the first chamber doesn’t represent the percentage of votes cast, an unelected second chamber that is not representative of the population and is chosen by this first chamber, an unelected head of state that has no actual political power they are there by accident of birth and a financial system that is set up to enable tax dodging in ‘overseas territories’ which have no representation in parliament whatsoever.

Reeves’s Plan To Cut Welfare Triggers A Labour Revolt

Keir Starmer is facing a rebellion over plans to axe £5 billion from welfare as the government scrambles to balance the books.

Labour MPs have been warned of ‘deep concern’ over ‘draconian’ curbs, and details are expected to be announced as soon as tomorrow.

Liz Kendall is set to declare that workers who lose their jobs should receive more than long-term claimants. Check-ups on sickness payment recipients are also expected to be bolstered.

While disability subsidies could be frozen in cash terms, most of the savings are probably going to come from making it more difficult to receive personal independence payments.

Ministers have been making the ‘moral’ case for reforming welfare, with Rachel Reeves pointing to the near-million young people not in education, employment or training. 

The Chancellor is fighting to sidestep the need for more tax rises at the Spring Statement later this month, after delaying economic growth and increasing debt costs wreaked havoc with her Budget plans.

She is also under immense pressure to ramp up defence spending amid increasing alarm at the US withdrawing support from Europe and doing deals with Russia. 

Health and disability benefits in sicknote Britain are expected to cost more than £100 billion a year by the end of the decade – which would be more than the defence budget even after Keir Starmer’s recent boost.

The  Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimated in October that the cost of long-term sickness handouts will increase from £64.7 billion in the 2023-24 financial year to £100.7 billion in 2029-30.

That would be about 3 percent of GDP, while Labour has committed to spending 2.5 percent by 2027 and looking towards 3 percent after the next election.

Speaking to the BBC’s Westminster Hour on Sunday, Labour MP Rachel Maskell said colleagues were ‘deeply concerned’ about the prospect of changes to the system.

She told the programme: ‘We recognise the economic circumstances that we’re in and the hand that we were given and of course it is right that the Chancellor has oversight over all those budgets but not at the expense of pushing disabled people into poverty.’

She added: ‘There’s got to be a carrot approach, not a stick approach.

‘We’ve got to make the right interventions and that doesn’t start with the stick.’

Ms Maskell said that she had ‘picked up […] deep deep concern’ from colleagues and called for a ‘compassionate system and not taking just draconian cuts’.

There are assertions that up to 80 MPs are prepared to fight the reforms. 

The government wants to create a new, time-limited benefit for those who find themselves out of work after paying into the system, dubbed ‘unemployment insurance’.

It will have a lower age limit – probably about 22 years – with different support set to be announced for out-of-work youngsters.

The goal is for people who have contributed to the system to benefit from it more than those who have not.

Nonetheless, there will be exceptions for people with serious disabilities that prevent them from working.

After World War II, the welfare system had a far greater contributory component, but governments of all stripes have been progressively reducing it.

Liz Kendall, the secretary for work and pensions, is expected to announce to the Commons later this week, possibly tomorrow.

She is aiming to save roughly £5 billion from the welfare bill, with the majority of the cuts expected to come from changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIP).

A crackdown on personal independence payments is expected to tighten rules, potentially affecting those with conditions like anxiety and depression.

The rate of PIP will also be frozen in cash terms, rather than going up 1.7 percent like other benefits.

A Work Capability Assessment is administered to new sick benefit applicants and is intended to be repeated periodically.

That gap is meant to range from six months to three years, depending on the severity of the illness. Some 607,000 repeat assessments were carried out in 2019, but that nosedived during COVID and last year is believed to have been about a third of that level.

According to the OBR, the decline in checks is the primary cause of the increase in claims; Ms Kendall’s aides told the Telegraph that she is investigating measures to increase checks.

Cabinet Office Minister Pat McFadden said yesterday that without action four million people would be on long-term sickness benefits.

‘There are 2.8 million people on long-term sickness benefits,’ he told the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg.

‘We are an outlier in the UK and not in a good way. We’re the only G7 country that hasn’t recovered its pre-pandemic rate of employment and we’re the Labour Party.

‘We believe in work. We believe in the good that a good job can do for people. We don’t believe it is good that if somebody could work with a bit of support that they’re left to live a life on benefits.

‘200,000 of those 2.8million have told us they would work tomorrow with the right support. So, we’ve got to reform the system, because if we don’t, the trajectory of standing back and doing nothing is that it won’t be 2.8 million in a few years, it will be over 4 million people. We can’t allow that to happen.’

A government source said: ‘The challenge we inherited and the case for change is stark.

‘When this Government took office last July, more than 9.3 million working-age people were out of work and not looking for employment – that’s more than the entire population of London. 2.8 million of those were out of work due to long-term sickness – the highest in the G7.’

The UK will run out of money unless it begins to repatriate illegal immigrants.

Given that housing and caring for migrants costs billions of pounds and that many of them are economic migrants who have no desire to contribute to our nation or community, Rachel Reeves ought to reduce the budget for migrants.

I simply don’t see why our own citizens are homeless but migrants get all they want. What’s the point of repeatedly giving to them? This merely invites them over, and when they get what they want, who can blame them?

I observe people fighting and disputing with one another in the interim, while the elite is getting away with anything they want while we are fighting. It’s a tried-and-true method of inciting conflict among us.

Instead of targeting people with lifelong disabilities and health conditions, Rachel Reeves would do better to stop paying for migrants in hotels. That would plug the supposed hole. They should start addressing the elephant in the room!

People who are ill or disabled are being targeted, particularly those who are seriously disabled and simply cannot work. Every disabled person I know—and I know a good many of them—would trade their PIP for the ability to be physically healthy and lead a “normal life” without hesitation.

There must be protests at Westminster, Downing Street, and the doorsteps of lawmakers.

There are many people, however, who hate British retirees, the sick, and the disabled, and they are quite pleased that we spend £5.5 million per day on hotels for all of the economic migrants who live in our nation and receive everything for free, including our NHS care.

Put an end to this Net Zero craziness. Put an end to unauthorised immigration. Turn the budget around.

Meanwhile, people have been paying their National Insurance to get their pension for 45 years or more but will never get a penny from it – of course, our government need to hold on to that money (our money) so that they can give it to the 1600 boat people that have arrived this week!

Why should a family or individual who has never made contributions to the social system be granted benefits upon arrival in the UK?

Many migrants are not able to speak any English, and many do not work or intend to work.

Although they will never make any contributions to the UK economy, the state will provide them with welfare payments, housing, healthcare, and other benefits at no cost.

The UK cannot afford to maintain this kind of generous giving.

And why does every photo of a Labour minister show them with a smug grin on their faces? Let’s be real, they have nothing to be smug about.

Millions Of Pounds Are Spent Every Day On Foreign Prisoners

Foreign prisoners are now costing British taxpayers more than £1 million per day, official figures have revealed.

New data by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has revealed around 10,500 foreign prisoners are being held in prisons across England and Wales, each costing more than £50,000 a year.

Around 12 percent of all inmates in the UK are foreign nationals.

Among the nationalities with the most inmates in the UK, Albanians lead the unwanted league table with more than 1,200 prisoners. Poles are in second with 911, followed by Romanians (729), Irish (634) and Jamaicans (370).

About half of those inmates have been convicted while the other 50 percent are being held on remand either because they are considered to be too dangerous to release or because they are deemed a flight risk.

A Freedom of Information request seen by The Telegraph revealed violent crime was most common among prisoners from Poland, with 215. While Romanians were most likely to be involved with sex crimes, with 88 prisoners.

Ireland topped the table for robbery (80) and theft (11) while Albanians were most likely to be incarcerated for drug crimes, with 439 held on these charges, four times more than any other nationality.

The MoJ has committed to spending £5 million on new frontline immigration staff to accelerate the removal of foreign prisoners.

They plan to work across 80 prisons to remove some foreign offenders, to lower the elevated costs and free up spaces in Britain’s already overcrowded prisons.

This new unit will be operating by April 1 and will also help the Home Office to identify and handle those going through the immigration process, deporting prisoners up to 18 months before the end of their custodial sentence.

Labour says it has removed more than 2,500 foreign criminals since last July.

Prisons minister Lord James Timpson said: ‘It cannot be right for British taxpayers to foot the bill for jailing foreign criminals who have brought misery to our communities.

‘Under this Government, removals are up by nearly 20 percent. We’re now taking action to ensure this is done swifter, easing pressure on overcrowded prisons and on the public purse.

‘This is part of our Plan for Change – fixing the broken prison system we inherited and keeping our streets safe.’

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said removing foreign criminals from prisons should be a priority and argued that countries who refuse to take them back should be blacklisted for migrants wishing to enter the UK from that country. 

Mr Jenrick said: ‘That is the number one thing we can do to free up prison capacity. And how do you do that? Use every lever of the British state to put pressure on those other countries to take back their own criminals.

‘Do things like stopping issuing visas, don’t give foreign aid to those countries. If they won’t take back their criminals, we shouldn’t be supporting them.’

As previously reported, foreign nationals are up to three times more likely to be arrested than Brits in regions of the country, according to data by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

In Cambridgeshire, of the more than 21,200 arrests made between 2021 and 2023, almost 8,800 (41.5 percent) were not UK citizens. This is despite them comprising just 15 percent of the local population. 

Foreign nationals living in the UK are three times more likely than British citizens to be arrested on suspicion of a crime, according to statistics from Cambridgeshire Police, which serves places including Cambridge and Peterborough.

In the county, the average annual arrest rate for foreign nationals between 2021 and 2023 was 21.5 per 1,000 population. In comparison, MailOnline analysis suggests the equivalent rate for Brits was 6.5 per 1,000.

Last year, surprising data from MoJ revealed that foreign criminals who evaded deportation carried out more than 10,000 offences in a year.

According to the data, about 25 percent of foreign offenders committed another crime after being released from prison or receiving a court order.

The 3,235 criminals who were released from prison without being deported were behind 10,012 crimes in the year to March 2022 – a rise of 25 percent on the last annual total of 8,021.

Over the last four years of data – released by officials in a parliamentary question – foreign criminals were guilty of 40,000 offences ranging from robbery and drug dealing to murder.

As well as criminals who were released from prison and evaded deportation, the MOJ data also includes people who were previously deported before returning to Britain illegally.

All of them ought to be sent back to their own countries to fulfil their sentences. They are not helping our nation and are cluttering up prisons, costing us a fortune.

Since the human rights of law-abiding, innocent people should come before those of criminals, our government should take away their opportunity to appeal deportation.

Unfortunately, we are no longer the UK; instead, we are a hub for criminals from other countries.

If these foreign nationals have committed a crime and should be expelled, no excuses.

I have had enough of paying taxes to all the jerks from every other nation. Our government needs to take care of its own citizens, but it’s so easy to waste other people’s money, isn’t it?

All our politicians need to be locked up because they’re all traitors to this country!

The English City Where A Staggeringly High Percentage Of Women Are Married To Their Cousins

Sir Keir Starmer has signalled that he would block any attempt to ban first-cousin marriage, a practice which remains prevalent in some UK communities – despite the genetic damage it can potentially do to offspring.

 

In Bradford, one of northern England’s largest cities, almost half (46 percent) of the female Pakistani community were in a ‘consanguineous relationship’ meaning they have a common ancestor, a 2024 study found.

In December of last year, independent MP Iqbal Mohamed faced a great deal of criticism for opposing former Conservative Minister Richard Holden’s bill to outlaw the marriage of first cousins.

A senior Tory said it was ‘shocking’ that an MP would ‘defend this revolting practice’.

Mr Holden’s Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill is due to return before the House of Commons on Friday and, ahead of its planned second reading, Mr Holden pushed for government support.

However, Sir Keir, yesterday signalled that Labour would stop any such endeavour to introduce a legal prohibition on first cousins being able to marry in England and Wales. 

Speaking during Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Holden urged Sir Keir to ‘think again’ after Downing Street previously indicated it had no plans to change the law.

‘A marriage between first cousins carries significant health issues, many of which aren’t even knowable until post-birth,’ he told the PM.

‘When practised generation after generation, there is a significant multiplier effect.’

Mr Holden added: ‘In addition, the real impact for the openness of our society and women’s rights in our country are also significant.

‘After all, there are significant dynamics in having and sharing the same set of grandparents.

‘On Friday, this Government has a choice to let my Bill to ban first cousin marriage go through to committee stage.

‘Will the PM think again before instructing his whips to block this legislation?’

But Sir Keir signalled the Government would not be throwing its support behind Mr Holden’s Bill, with the PM replying: ‘We’ve taken our position on that Bill, thank you.’

While the genetic risks of first cousin marriage are hotly contested, they relate to a process called ‘unmasking’. 

Each individual receives two versions of each gene – known as ‘alleles’ – from our parents, one from the mother and one from the father.

One gene can be dominant and one can be recessive, so for a recessive gene to become active and manifest in a certain individual then both copies of the gene must be the recessive. If you only receive one recessive gene then you are just a ‘carrier’.

Since cousins share grandparents, it becomes risky in first-cousin marriages because there is a greater chance that a child would receive two copies of the same harmful gene.

Experts say that children of first-cousin marriages have an approximately double chance of having a child with an autosomal recessive genetic disorder, with the danger increasing to 6 percent from about 3 percent in the general population. 

However, not all members of the medical community believe that is a basis to prohibit the practice, as one doctor put it in a 2005 paper by Owen Dyer: ‘We know that the risk of Down’s syndrome increases with advancing maternal age, but we don’t see public education films urging mothers to have children younger.’

Experts started tracking the prevalence of consanguinity in Bradford – home to one of the UK’s largest Pakistani communities – in the late noughties.

Nearly 12,500 pregnant women were questioned about their relationship status with the father of their child.

The Born in Bradford study was later repeated with another cohort of 2,400 women between 2016 and 2019.

Last month, Wellcome Open Research, a platform operated by the esteemed Wellcome Trust, released the final results.

The study discovered that cousin relationships are no longer a ‘majority’ in Bradford’s female Pakistani community amid growing awareness of the birth defect risks.

A decade ago, a Government-funded surveillance project discovered that 62 per cent of Pakistani heritage women were in consanguineous relationships.  This figure has since declined to 46 percent, researchers say. 

He described cousin marriage as having gone from a ‘majority activity to now being just about a minority activity’.

Dr Wright added: ‘The effect will be fewer children with congenital anomalies.’

The Born in Bradford figures, it was said, may indicate that the number of Pakistani people marrying cousins across the UK as a whole is also falling.

It is believed that changes in family relations, higher educational attainment, and more stringent immigration laws are the causes of the decline.

Writing in their study, the team said: ‘It may be we are seeing generational changes and newly evolving societal norms. 

‘But these changes need to be monitored to see if they are indications of a lasting change and they need to be considered in other settings where consanguinity is common to see how widespread these reductions in consanguinity are.’

Pakistanis make up more than half of the population of the Bradford West seat, which is represented by Labour MP Naz Shah.

The figure is 36 percent in Bradford East and nearly 17 percent in Bradford South – the city’s two other constituencies.

Birmingham also has an extensive Pakistani community, with up to 40 percent of people being of that ethnicity in regions of the city.

In the past, the highest classes of Britain frequently married cousins.

In the past, it was seen to be a means of strengthening ties and preserving family money and land.

In certain communities, like travellers, the practice is still prevalent even though it has become less popular.

Prince Albert and Queen Victoria shared grandparents and were first cousins.

The existence of ‘extreme’ inbreeding in the UK was exposed pre-COVID.

Scientists studying the genes of 450,000 Brits believed 125 had parents who were either first- or second-degree relatives. This correlated to a rate of one in 3,600.

When extrapolated to the wider population, the 2019 study, published in the journal Nature Communications, was reported as meaning that 13,000 Brits were conceived through extreme inbreeding.

First-degree relations include those between parent and child, while second-degree includes more distant, but still genetic close relatives, such as half-siblings.

The University of Queensland authors noted, given the nature of the subject and the limited variety of Brits included in the sample, actual rates could be significantly higher or lower.

Incest—sexual intercourse between immediate relatives—is prohibited in the UK even if consensual.

Marriages between certain blood relatives—as well as some step relationships—are also illegal. However, it is legal to marry your cousin in the UK.

Richard Holden, a former Conservative minister, recently introduced a bill to completely ban the practice.

Saying now was a ‘sensible time’ to look at the problem, Mr Holden said: ‘People already think it is illegal and then are surprised when you mention it isn’t.’

He pointed to evidence showing it heightens the risk of birth defects and claimed that it can ‘reinforce negative structures and control women’.

Mr Mohamed, representing Dewsbury and Batley, suggested that MPs should avoid ‘stigmatising’ the issue, which is seen as ‘very positive’ in some communities.

Instead of banning it outright, he said a ‘more positive approach’ involving advanced genetic tests for prospective married cousins would be more effective in addressing issues around it.

Mr Mohamed, who is part of the Independent Alliance of MPs – including ex-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, encountered objection from senior Tories for defending the practice.

Tory justice spokesman Robert Jenrick said: ‘It’s shocking that an MP would defend this revolting practice which is linked to birth defects and abusive relationships. 

‘We know this is causing immense harm. This practice has no place in the UK.’

Labour declined to support proposals to outlaw marriages between first cousins.

Worldwide, one in 10 people is thought to be a result of a consanguineous union.

The prevalence of consanguineous marriage is estimated to vary globally.

Studies have put Pakistan as having one of the most elevated rates globally at 65 percent of unions.

This is followed by India (55 percent), Saudi Arabia (50 percent), Afghanistan (40 percent), Iran (30 percent) and Egypt and Turkey (20 percent each).

Data suggests the chance of a child of first cousins developing a genetic condition is up to 6 percent, double that of children from unrelated parents.

Although this implies that most children delivered in these situations will be healthy, there is no denying the elevated risk.

Children of first cousins may be more susceptible to developmental delays and chronic genetic problems in addition to birth abnormalities.

These can include diseases including cystic fibrosis, low IQ, cleft palate, blindness, heart issues, and even a higher chance of newborn death.

They were adamant about outlawing first-cousin marriages back when I was a child, but nothing changed.

For generations, people have been marrying their first cousins.

While many people have had children with anomalies, my grandfather’s sister married her first cousin and they produced children without any.

Prince Leopold was born with haemophilia B, a form of haemophilia, and died of a haemorrhage at the age of thirty. Prince Leopold was the son of Queen Victoria.

To avoid upsetting the Labour voters, Keir Starmer will not forbid these unions because that would mean having a backbone and the leaders of the UK seem to be devoid of one.

This man is so anti-British that it’s unreal.

This is huge and will be a lifelong burden on the UK, and this includes those who have come from elsewhere, and who have been fully assimilated into our society.

Resistance is Futile!

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started