Mick Hartley

I posted about this a few weeks back, with Matthew Syed's analysis of the role of cousin marriages and the important part this close-kin clannishness played – and still plays – in the Muslim communities in the northern towns where the rape gangs flourished. It also, of course, significantly increases the chance of genetic problems with offspring. 

At UnHerd today – NHS trust spends £3.6 million treating cousin marriage birth defects:

Over the last five years, a single NHS trust has spent £3.6 million treating the genetic defects of children born from related parents. Responding to FOI requests from journalist Lewis Brackpool, Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust said it treated 1,559 patients between 1 January 2020 and 1 June 2025 who were diagnosed with a “family history of consanguinity”.

Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said it was unable to provide figures, claiming its data could not distinguish between genetic conditions caused by consanguinity and those that were not. In contrast to Birmingham, which relied on a single diagnostic code, Bradford said its coding system lacked the specificity to attribute cases to parental relatedness.

It went on: “Identifying relevant cases would require a manual review of individual patient records, which would exceed the appropriate cost and time limits under the Freedom of Information Act.”

Data from Born in Bradford (BiB) from 2023 showed that in three inner-city wards, 46% of mothers from the Pakistani community were married to a first or second cousin. Cousin marriage has been cited as the cause of 53% of all South Asian infant deaths from genetic disorders in the city. There is not yet data for how many cousin marriages there are in Birmingham but studies suggest that 20% of infant deaths in the city are the result of genetic complications from birth, the risk of which is doubled by having parents who are related.

These new figures come as the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill works its way through Parliament, with its second reading due this week. Conservative MP Richard Holden introduced the bill in December, arguing that cousin marriage poses “risks to health, freedom [and] the cohesion of our society”. In February this year, the BBC reported on new data from Born in Bradford showing that children of first cousins were more likely to have speech and language difficulties, more likely to need more hospital appointments, and less likely to “reach a good stage of development”. A 2011 study showed that the likelihood of infant mortality increases substantially if the parents are first or second cousins.

Back to Matthew Syed:

The good news is that Kemi Badenoch has adopted this as Tory policy after campaigning by her colleague Richard Holden, and a poll for YouGov last month showed that 77 per cent of the British people are in favour of a ban (only 9 per cent oppose it). But here’s what astounds me: Labour remains against prohibition, despite (I am told) having read the evidence. Why? How? Permit me to suggest that I glimpse through the façade of prevarication a party still terrified of criticising any cultural practice out of fear of appearing racist. Isn’t that why it was mute for so long on female genital mutilation and honour beatings and still can’t bring itself to describe the burqa as a pernicious symbol of institutional misogyny?

And is busy preparing for a new definition of "Islamophobia" to be introduced.

Joan Smith at UnHerd on that man who expected his estranged wife to pay half the cost of his transition – and the judge agreed. 

Divorce is often difficult and acrimonious. But this case surely enters new territory, appearing to accept the claims of an ideology that’s had its central argument rejected by the country’s highest court. It also extends the definition of what is medically necessary, raising questions about other elective procedures. Should an ex-husband have to pay towards his wife’s breast enhancement, on the grounds that she’s depressed by their divorce and it will help her find a new partner?

Wives whose husbands claim to be transgender have not received sufficient sympathy or attention, even though they — and their children — are a living rebuttal of the “what harm does it do?” argument made by trans activists. The ruling raises new questions about impartiality, suggesting that the judiciary is still too inclined to accept the tenets of an ideology which promotes the interests of self-centred men over the rights of women.

No doubt because the judge in this case was a man.

Because Hamas will kill you and blame it on the IDF https://t.co/7EFNqSZWIm

— Graham Linehan 🎗️ (@Glinner) July 14, 2025

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Women only. Men not allowed beyond this point.

Clear enough? Apparently not. If men put on a wig and a dress – that's fine. From the Times:

A row at Hampstead Heath Ponds over permission for transgender women to continue swimming in the Ladies’ Pond could reach the High Court.

The campaign group Sex Matters is planning to make a £50,000 legal claim against the City of London Corporation, which runs the bathing ponds on Hampstead Heath, north London.

Since 2019 transgender women, who were born biologically male, have been allowed to swim in the Ladies’ Pond under formal guidance.

Critics say, however, that this is a breach of the law, in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in April that biological men should not have access to women-only spaces.

The organisation that runs the pond is strengthening its policy of welcoming transgender women to the Ladies’ Pond and said that it was planning to put up signs to say that trans women could use the pond, changing rooms and showers.

This would strongly suggest that someone high up at the City of London Corporation, which runs the ponds, is some kind of trans activist. Maybe with trans kids? At the very least they would seem to have an agenda. So, time to get tough.

Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, said: “We were amazed to discover that the City of London Corporation thinks the Ladies’ Pond is not a ‘single-sex service’ in law. This is nothing more than linguistic trickery.

“The corporation claims that, because it chooses to define ‘women’ and ‘men’ according not to biological sex but to who wants to be referred to as ‘she’ or ‘he’, the Supreme Court judgment doesn’t apply.

“Neither Hampstead Heath nor the City of London Corporation are sovereign entities that get to make their own laws.

“We will be taking our next steps in August and think this case will be very significant in testing what can only be described as creative interpretations of equality law following the Supreme Court judgment.”

But this is Hampstead, fabled home of the literary progressive. So if not actually authoring, then, very likely, with a job in publishing or the BBC….

After the Supreme Court ruling, the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association (KLPA), a volunteer-led group representing people who use the pond, said: “The Ladies’ Pond is open to all women and girls over the age of eight and, according to the lifeguards, trans women have been swimming there for many years without incident.

“The Ladies’ Pond is well staffed by lifeguards and stewards who are there to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all users.”

Last year, in a meeting of the KLPA, members voted to reject a motion that “only those born female in sex can use the pond”. The motion, which would have excluded transgender women, was “resoundingly defeated”.

If the lifeguards and stewards are so wonderful, why not just drop the whole "women only" charade and make it mixed? No assaults or rapes then, and women feeling uncomfortable is not really a matter of any concern when compared with the validation of men's new gender identities, and the kick they get from violating women-only spaces. So there'll be one men only and two mixed bathing ponds. Women clearly don't deserve one for themselves.

Added:

🏊‍♀️PONDS UPDATE:

We wrote to @cityoflondon and asked them to follow the Equality Act.

Their response was 🤯

"Women-only" doesn't mean "single-sex" because we let transwomen in… so that's ok then?!

Help us bring the legal challenge!https://t.co/70v4rzAJfn

— Sex Matters (@SexMattersOrg) July 13, 2025

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

More on the NHS Fife case…

my @scotonsunday column on the resumption of Sandie Peggie’s tribunal: https://t.co/SRAFRmbXko pic.twitter.com/nahfPiIvYj

— euan mccolm (@euanmccolm) July 13, 2025

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

From McColm's Scotsman article:

The political division over gender ideology has been clear for a long time. The case of Sandie Peggie brings into focus another societal split on the issue.

The trans-rights movement is the first “equality” crusade to filter from the top down. The luxury belief that an individual can magically change sex has been pushed not by grassroots activists but by well-funded organisations and political parties captured by activists.

Peggie is a working class woman while Upton – in common with so many gender activists – was raised in middle class privilege. The difference in power, in agency, is clear.

During February’s evidence sessions, Upton claimed to be a “biological female”. It says something about the doctor’s sense of entitlement that Sandie Peggie and the rest of us are expected to accept this. Until recently, a male entering a female-only changing room at work would have faced the strongest possible disciplinary action. The fact that Upton was ever permitted to use the women’s facilities at work is a scandal.

But, among the chattering political and middle classes, the idea that one should be cheered for living “authentically” rules, even when that authenticity means expecting others to share and indulge someone’s delusion, no matter how uncomfortable that may make them.

To Nicola Sturgeon and her fellow gender militants, the consequences of their actions mean nothing. If a vulnerable woman has to share a confined changing room with a man, then she should not complain but educate herself. And then see that man as the brave woman she is.

The class aspect of this whole mess is the reason it will take so long to complete the necessary process of removing the influence of gender ideologues from public bodies.

Ah, Scotland, the land where the trans cult still lives on in all its demented glory – notably, as Gillian Bowditch points out in the Sunday Times, with state-supported breastfeeding for men:

Last week, Scottish Trans, a taxpayer-funded trans rights charity, said that the Supreme Court’s ruling damaged the legal protections of men “who are able to breastfeed”. These are, apparently, men who identify as women and who use hormone therapy or drugs to stimulate a form of lactation.

In its submission to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which is producing guidance on the implementation of the Supreme Court judgement, Scottish Trans said there was now significant uncertainty over legal protection for “breastfeeding men.”

Why are we indulging these flat-earthers, let alone funding them? Breastfeeding men are an oxymoron — a feature of an Orwellian dystopia that the Scottish National Party and the Greens have attempted to will into existence. The Equality Network, of which Scottish Trans is a part, has received £2.5 million in public money over the past five years. Its funding is ongoing.

More pertinently, why are natal men who believe they can feed babies using drug-induced lactation not being routinely investigated by social services for this grotesque and dangerous form of experimentation?

At the very least, any form of taxpayer funding for organisations making a mockery of the law, of women and the will of the electorate ought to be pulled. Scottish Trans can promote the case of “breastfeeding men” but not on the public purse.

Because this is Scotland under the SNP.

Meanwhile, NHS Fife revealed that it had spent more than £220,000 of public money defending itself in the employment tribunal brought by nurse Sandy Peggie, who was suspended after complaining about having to share a changing room with a biologically male transgender medic.

NHS Fife argues that its liability is capped at £25,000 and the rest of the costs will be reclaimed through the national clinical negligence and other risks indemnity scheme, which is funded by the Scottish Government‘s Health and Social Care Directorate, itself funded by — you’ve got it — the taxpayer.

This utter waste of public resources would be infuriating at any time, but in an administration which has imposed the highest rates of income tax in the UK, and at a time of economic uncertainty, it is verging on the criminal. It doesn’t matter how often it is called out; nothing changes.

It’s not merely that taxpayers are funding splinter groups, vanity projects and cultish ideologies at odds with the electorate’s priorities for government, it’s that the SNP has lost sight of what government is for and where its remit and boundaries lie.

Well now. A man in his late fifties decides to transition. His wife, understandably, leaves him. He then demands that the wife share the (substantial) costs of the transition – and a judge agrees.  From the Telegraph:

A divorcee has been forced by a judge to pay half for her ex-husband’s trans surgery.

The mother argued that it was unfair that she had to stump up £80,000 for the procedure when the decision to transition had led to the breakdown of her marriage.

But in what is believed to be the first case of its kind, the judge said that the surgery was a “need”, not a “whim”, and therefore it was “reasonable” for the cost to be met out of their joint funds.

The husband, 58, had said that the argument was “like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery” during the hearing at Brighton Family Court.

OK, yes, it's Brighton. But still. Like cancer??

But the (male) judge agrees. Yes, we men stick together.

The husband had surgery in 2024 after they had been separated for almost two years and the £160,000 bill was paid out of their joint cash.

During their separation, the husband, who has retrained as a massage therapist and Reiki practitioner, claimed he could not afford to pay the court-ordered maintenance to his wife and children but splashed £14,000 on an Amex card in one month “mainly on clothing, nails, jewellery and restaurants”, got £13,000 worth of tattoos in six months and racked up a £1,000 Milan restaurant bill.

The poor lamb – he was forced to spend all that money because of the deep suffering caused by his gender dysphoria. 

Saïdou Dicko in the Print Sales room downstairs at the Photographers' Gallery:

Saïdou Dicko (b. 1979, Burkina Faso) is a self-taught artist whose practice spans photography, painting, video and installation. Now based in Paris, Dicko’s work remains deeply rooted in his early life as a shepherd in the Sahel, where he began drawing by tracing the shadows of his sheep in the sand. This formative act has since become the cornerstone of his work….

Dicko’s silhouetted figures are set against vivid patterned backgrounds that nod to Burkinabè textiles and the rich tradition of African studio photography. The distinctive cross motif, frequently painted above the figures’ heads, references a symbol often seen in the traditional rugs of his youth, evoking childhood memory and cultural continuity. Beads and jewellery remain visible, highlighting their cultural significance. Everyday items are elevated by the shadow children’s imaginative play and the artist’s symbolism. Dicko subtly reframes plastic vessels as essential tools in regions where access to clean water is limited – acknowledging the fragility of this reality while representing the care and creativity of sustainable reuse.

In the yacht with my cousin, T Sci Fi, 2023

The Flavours of Bananas, T UK Music, 2025

</
The song of nature, 2025

TGV ouaga lome, TMS2, 2023

Collection aborigine act 1, TMK F jaune 1, 2024

Love of nature, 2025

Collection pixels act 1, T BF feuilles, 2024

Pirate act 1, T NID abeilles, 2024
[Images: Photographers' Gallery/Saïdou Dicko]

From the Telegraph:

A summer camp sponsored by an Islamic charity accused of backing Iran could expose children to extremist views, it has been claimed.

The camp, run by the Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission (AIM) charity, is aimed at children aged nine to 14, with activities including climbing and ­abseiling along with “lectures and discussions”.

AIM describes Camp Wilayah, which is set to take place in Kings Langley, Hertfordshire, next month, as an “amazing place to enjoy the outdoors, make new friends, learn and build on Islamic values”.

It promotes the four-day camp as “a unique opportunity to explore your true potential amidst the serenity of nature and an Islamic ambience!”

Girls who attend are required to wear the hijab and are segregated from the boys, other than for daily prayers, talks and a team photo.

In an indication of the kinds of activities children at Camp Wilayah are likely to take part in, one AIM video posted on Instagram shows a group of young boys and girls drawing and colouring in Palestinian flags and watermelon symbols.

The children, described as Mahdi’s Little Believers, can also be seen making kites – in an apparent reference to the paragliders used by Hamas on October 7 to attack southern Israel.

Legal lobby group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) criticised the activities shown as “symbolically connecting very young children with nationalist resistance. This exploitation of cultural education is a way of embedding ideological allegiance at a formative age”.

In social media posts AIM, based in Cricklewood, north-west London, repeatedly praises the leader of Iran’s theocratic regime, Ayatollah Khamenei, declaring that his books are “an excellent source of knowledge and a great read”, and refuses to condemn Hamas.

It also posted material shortly after the October 7 attacks stating that “the Zionists brought this disaster upon themselves”.

There are now calls for Camp Wilayah to be banned over “urgent safeguarding and counter-extremism concerns” for the children attending.

UKLFI warned that it “is being hosted by a group that openly promotes the revolutionary Islamist ideology of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei”.

It has written to Brent council, where AIM is based, and Hertfordshire council, where Camp Wilayah is to be held, warning councillors: “There is compelling reason to believe that the event may be used as a platform to radicalise children, incite hatred or violence, and glorify terrorist ideology.”

The group goes on to claim that “of particular concern is AIM’s use of social media to disseminate extremist content that is anti-Semitic and conspiratorial”.

One video, titled “Know Thy Enemy” features a speaker describing Jews as the “harshest”, “squatters”, “settlers” and “violent”, while accusing Israel, the so-called “squatter state”, of having a policy of murdering children. It also calls moderate Muslims who may be tolerant of Israel “filth”.

“Other posts glorify and encourage martyrdom and justify Hamas’s 7 October 2023 atrocities by reframing them as legitimate acts of resistance, omitting any mention of attacks on civilians, and likening Gaza to Nazi concentration camps. Countless posts accuse Israel of genocide and liken it to apartheid.”

Lovely.

Will Brent council be taking action here? Well, they've recently announced that they're twinning with Nablus, in the West Bank, "to reinforce and enhance our solidarity with Palestine". So…don't hold your breath.

BREAKING: 1 in 4 Americans say recent attacks on Jews are “understandable.”

A new ADL survey reveals that 24% of Americans either justified or endorsed violence against Jews. The same percentage believe the attacks were staged to gain sympathy for Israel.

Hate speech has… pic.twitter.com/l6idE25KIU

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 12, 2025

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

"Hate speech has reached such terrifying heights that a quarter of Americans see no problem with a young couple being gunned down outside a Jewish museum in DC, or a 82-year-old woman burned alive in Colorado."

More here.