Everton Carr
Registered
Under the Governments New Anti Muslim Hatred guidelines teachers have been told Children are not allowed to draw pictures of Jesus Christ because it upsets the Muslims bless them.
New Anti Muslim Hatred Law
- Thread starter Everton Carr
- Start date
DagenhamFox
Blue Roofer
A lady sat next to me on the tube this week sneezed and I said bless you, as you do.
I looked round and she had a headscarf. It made me think what she thought about it. She didn’t say a word.
I looked round and she had a headscarf. It made me think what she thought about it. She didn’t say a word.
Muslims believe in God too.
As usual, everything you've posted here is untrue. You really should stay away from GB(eebies) News.
Everton Carr
Registered
It was true however after pressure from Laura Trott MP the Government have backtracked. The fact they even considered it is shocking enough. What have I ever posted that's untrue?
Do you own research and stop believing people that make money out of generating anger.
Everton Carr
Registered
2/2 Not watched GB news in years so called free speech channel that bans the likes of Tommy Katie Hopkins Rupert Lowe from appearing and sacked Mark Steyn from speaking out about the jab..
Says the man sorry if your non binary who gets all is info from the BBC
Where did you get this 'story' from then? Please provide your source of news.
Everton Carr
Registered
Look it up
Everton Carr
Registered
Laura Trott Mp seems to be the main player in stopping these laws coming into play
That's not how it works. You're wriggling.
I did look it up. Obviously, it's not true. But is was reported by GB(eebies) News.
Where did you get it from if not there?
Everton Carr
Registered
So you ignore the fact about Laura Trott MP opposing it. Unlike you I don't watch GB news so no idea if they reported it. Sure you are aware they are ruled by ofcom so no channel can't make up out and out lies. No full well what you are going to say but I got the info off Andrew Bridgen on one of his YouTube videos
Pen4
Roofer
Laura Trott, the Shadow Education Secretary and Conservative MP, made comments this week (around March 12-13, 2026) criticizing guidance from several Labour-run councils that advised schools against allowing children to draw images of Jesus (or other prophetic figures in Islam, like the Prophet Mohammed) in art lessons, due to potential offense to Muslim sensitivities or views on idolatry.
She wrote a letter to Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson demanding that the government intervene by:
- Writing to the relevant councils to withdraw the guidance.
- Reviewing whether similar guidance exists in other areas.
Trott described the advice not as mere "sensitivity," but as "an imposition of one religion's doctrine onto every child's education." She emphasized that schools should teach shared British values rather than "policing or censoring lessons," and that every child deserves a "broad and balanced education."
This has been framed in some media reports and commentary (e.g., GB News) as relating to concerns over "back door blasphemy laws" or effectively imposing Islamic sensitivities on secular education, though Trott's direct quotes focus on the imposition of doctrine and educational balance rather than explicitly using the term "blasphemy laws" herself in the available statements.
The controversy stems from reports about council guidance (such as in areas like Kirklees) warning that such drawings could be seen as "idolatrous" under Islamic law. Critics, including Trott, argue it prioritizes one faith's views over others and limits free expression in education.
No direct X posts from her account (@LauraTrottMP) on this exact phrasing appear in recent searches, but her letter and position have been widely reported and shared. Some responses on X accuse her of misinformation or overreaction, claiming the guidance (issued under prior governments in some cases) applies more broadly to respecting multiple religions.
She wrote a letter to Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson demanding that the government intervene by:
- Writing to the relevant councils to withdraw the guidance.
- Reviewing whether similar guidance exists in other areas.
Trott described the advice not as mere "sensitivity," but as "an imposition of one religion's doctrine onto every child's education." She emphasized that schools should teach shared British values rather than "policing or censoring lessons," and that every child deserves a "broad and balanced education."
This has been framed in some media reports and commentary (e.g., GB News) as relating to concerns over "back door blasphemy laws" or effectively imposing Islamic sensitivities on secular education, though Trott's direct quotes focus on the imposition of doctrine and educational balance rather than explicitly using the term "blasphemy laws" herself in the available statements.
The controversy stems from reports about council guidance (such as in areas like Kirklees) warning that such drawings could be seen as "idolatrous" under Islamic law. Critics, including Trott, argue it prioritizes one faith's views over others and limits free expression in education.
No direct X posts from her account (@LauraTrottMP) on this exact phrasing appear in recent searches, but her letter and position have been widely reported and shared. Some responses on X accuse her of misinformation or overreaction, claiming the guidance (issued under prior governments in some cases) applies more broadly to respecting multiple religions.
Everton Carr
Registered
Don't confuse Neurofox/Hackney fox by stating facts
Thank you for finally admitting the truth.
Your 'source' is a batshit maniac who is a proven liar and conspiracy theorist that no party wants anywhere near them.
If you believe people that are barely connected to the human race, no wonder you think that the country has gone to the dogs.
I feel very sorry for you.
Please do me a favour and set out what 'facts' you think you know about this that I've missed?
1. There is no 'anti-Muslim' law.
2. There is no law about about what schools can or cannot tell kids to do when it comes to religious art.
3. There is no law about pictures of Jesus Christ.
4. None of the above have ever even remotely been suggested.
Everton Carr
Registered
No because of objection.You claim the story was totally untrue.The fact that this was even considered is absolutely terrifying.Why do you think Laura Trott had to officially object.And what do you mean no anti Muslim hate law it's just been put in place.
Pen4
Roofer
Ignore the Grass
Everton Carr
Registered
What Conspiracy was AB wrong about vaccine passports 15 Minuite Cities Digital ID Scrapping of Jurys CBDC He called these out 6 Years ago which one did he get wrong.?And he's joined Reclaim who have now got more members then the Torys.Enjoy your night watching GB news.
Everton Carr
Registered
Can't believe he claimed there are no Anti Muslim.hate Laws.
Pen4
Roofer
Just ignore him - he was FoxGolfer not hackney
He would be better off calling himself EstablishmentFox - ain't worth the time of day
I'll say it once again. There is no proposal for a new anti-Muslim hate law in the UK.
You are believing people that have made it up.
The reason that there is not one being proposed is because there is no need for one. We already have laws under the 2010 Equality Act. Beyond that, nobody is going to deprive your freedom to spout bigoted drivel.
You are confusing some advice (note not anything to do with the law) that some (not not all) councils have provided to (some) schools. At no point has anyone suggested that it is mandatory or legal in nature.
soupsandwich
Roofer
Comedy Gold, Terry and June quality.
Everton Carr
Registered
| Bridgen’s claim | Main scientific / evidence-based response |
|---|---|
| COVID-19 vaccines are causing large numbers of deaths that are being ignored. | Population-level studies across multiple countries show vaccines reduced mortality and severe illness. Safety monitoring systems (e.g., UK Yellow Card) record suspected events but do not demonstrate causal mass deaths. Overall death patterns do not show evidence of widespread vaccine-caused mortality. |
| COVID-19 vaccines are more dangerous than the virus itself, especially for younger people. | Risk–benefit analyses by regulators and epidemiologists show that infection generally carries higher risks (including hospitalization, myocarditis, and long-COVID) than vaccination for most groups, though risk-benefit varies by age. |
| There is a cover-up by governments and medical institutions about vaccine harms. | Regulatory agencies and researchers publicly publish safety data and regularly update guidance when risks are identified. Known risks (e.g., rare myocarditis after some mRNA vaccines) were openly investigated and communicated, which contradicts the idea of a coordinated cover-up. |
| COVID-19 vaccines are causing a large surge in heart problems such as myocarditis. | Studies confirm rare myocarditis cases, mainly in younger males after certain vaccines, but rates are low and usually mild, and myocarditis is more common after COVID-19 infection than after vaccination. |
| The vaccination campaign represents a major crime against humanity. | This claim is considered rhetorical rather than evidence-based. The scientific consensus is that vaccination programs prevented millions of deaths globally during the pandemic. |
| COVID-19 posed very little risk to most people, so mass vaccination was unnecessary. | Epidemiological data show COVID-19 caused millions of deaths and widespread hospitalisation worldwide. Public-health strategies considered both individual risk and population-level transmission and healthcare capacity. |
| Evidence of vaccine harms is being suppressed or censored in scientific research. | Scientific debate continues in journals and conferences, with many studies examining vaccine risks. Researchers report that data on adverse effects are widely studied and published, not systematically suppressed. |
| Bridgen’s claim | Main counter-response from policy experts / evidence |
|---|---|
| “15-minute cities” will confine people to zones or “sectors” and restrict movement. | Urban planners say the concept simply means designing neighbourhoods where everyday services are accessible within ~15 minutes by walking or cycling. It does not involve restricting residents from leaving their area. |
| 15-minute cities will require digital IDs and tracking of movement or spending. | Fact-checking organisations say the planning concept does not mandate digital ID systems or social-credit-style monitoring; the claims mix unrelated policies such as traffic schemes with speculative surveillance ideas. |
| Digital ID systems are a step toward authoritarian control or a “digital prison.” | Governments promoting digital ID frameworks say they are meant to simplify identity verification online, similar to passports or driving licences in digital form. Participation is generally proposed as voluntary and regulated by privacy rules. |
| Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) will allow governments to control or program how people spend money. | Economists and central banks say proposed CBDCs (like the Bank of England’s “digital pound”) are primarily intended as a digital form of cash. While programmability is technically possible in some designs, policymakers generally state they do not plan to restrict everyday spending choices. |
| Digital ID + CBDC + AI could create a surveillance system that tracks all purchases and movements. | Policy proposals currently under discussion treat these technologies as separate systems with legal privacy protections. No confirmed UK plan combines them into a single behavioural monitoring system. |
| Policies like 15-minute cities or Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods are part of a wider global plan (often linked to organisations like the World Economic Forum) to control citizens. | Researchers studying misinformation say these ideas are frequently tied to broader “Great Reset” conspiracy narratives; policy initiatives like traffic schemes and climate commitments originate from local planning or environmental goals rather than a global control plan. |
| The UK may move toward removing jury trials or weakening traditional legal protections. | Discussions about court reform in the UK have focused mainly on reducing case backlogs and adjusting which offences qualify for jury trial, not abolishing juries entirely. No government policy proposes eliminating jury trials across the system. |
Everton Carr
Registered
Is this supposed to mean anything to me?. Policy experts
Good god The health Secretary of America Robert F Kennedy Jr says they are unsafe.Look up Australia's leading Dr Kerryn Phelps said the jabs were 100% safe and that people should be banned from society if they don't take it. A year later admitted both her and her wife suffered serious health problems from the jab and regretted promoting them.It was a similar story with Dr John Campbell who also originally said the jabs were safe.Next time I see the kids of Lucy Taberer I will tell them.it's ok the jabs are safe.