Mike Peatman

Vile. He was a lifelong public servant asked to do a job

@Telegraph @NJ_Timothy x.com/i/status/20347…

🖋️ "A memorial to national independence, Trafalgar Square belongs to us all. To use it as a stage for this act of domination and division is completely wrong," writes Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy). Read more here ⬇️ telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/1…

@danny__kruger x.com/i/status/20347…

Nick Timothy and Nigel Farage are right, and Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer are wrong. Small groups of people, of whatever religion, praying in public places is fine. And as a Christian country we should allow a special privilege for churches to lead services in our national spaces, like the Palm Sunday celebration that happens in Trafalgar Square. What we don't want is mass ritual observances intended to claim the civic realm for another religion, or assert the domination of another culture over our own Christian traditions. What happens in our national spaces is not neutral. People use Trafalgar Square, for celebrations and demonstrations, to make a point about the kind of country they want us to be. The Palm Sunday pageant reminds us of who we are - not as individuals (many or most of us don't identify as Christians at all) but as a national community, with the roots of our institutions in the ground of the Bible and our most solemn communal moments, from coronations to funerals, mediated through the liturgies of the Church. A mass Adhan held there, or in any town square, is making a different point: that Britain is not a Christian country, and that - inshallah - one day it shall be Muslim. This is unacceptable to the British public and indeed incompatible with our constitution. As ever with these debates, the issue is partly one of kind and partly one of degree. There is an issue with Islam itself as a religion which in most interpretations does not admit of pluralism or freedom of conscience, and therefore is inherently aggrandising, including over territory. But with a bit of confidence and a bit of toleration we could handle that - if it were not for the issue of degree. It is the scale of Islam in Britain, and the ambition of its leaders for greater scale, that makes the problem. The numbers of people who assembled for the adhan in Trafalgar Square, clearly and openly claiming the territory for a faith with no connection (indeed, with strong doctrinal disagreement) with the model of Western liberal democracy that Britain has developed and exported to the world - that is the problem. The numbers, whether everyone there understood it this way or not (and I suspect many did), convey an explicit threat to the foundations of our country. Being relaxed about other people's religion is a good thing, a very British thing. I don't mind modern druids dancing around Stonehenge in my constituency (arguably, though the historicity is tenuous, they have a claim to the place). I don't mind small groups of Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims demonstrating the reality of Britain's religious toleration by worshiping in Trafalgar Square. But let's not kid ourselves about this adhan, or pretend that we're just seeing another harmless expression of Britain's religious diversity. We are seeing an abuse of liberalism, led by people who are not themselves liberal; or - let us imagine they are acting in good faith - who are themselves deceived about what they are doing. It should not happen again. And it would be good to hear the Church of England say so.

@NJ_Timothy x.com/i/status/20347…

I will not be silenced. Labour are only demonstrating that they cannot see right from wrong. They will not stand up for our way of life. But we will.

@jdpoc @NJ_Timothy @KemiBadenoch 2015

8 public annual Islamic Eid events in Trafalgar Square held during the London Mayor tenure of Boris Johnson. I can only assume that @NJ_Timothy and @KemiBadenoch were silent at that time either because of hypocrisy, or just that their casual hatred is more acceptable now.

@NJ_Timothy Given this gathering has happened before in this location - and other faiths have used the same space, why make a fuss this time, and why do it about Muslims? Also, what do you mean by "our" way of life?

@NileGardiner @NJ_Timothy Given this gathering has happened before in this location - and other faiths have used the same space, why make a fuss this time, and why do it about Muslims?

Margaret Thatcher would have backed @NJ_Timothy 100 percent. So would Winston Churchill, and I imagine the vast majority of British people, who are tired of Islamists telling people what they can and cannot say in their own country.

@David__Osland Good question

How often do politicians who tweet about Britain being a Christian country actually show up at their local church?

@MaryHutchison14 @David__Osland I agree, Mary, that is more important. As a vicar, I hope at least some do. However the "Christian country" rhetoric from politicians on the right looks more like prejudice than anything to do with Jesus.

@David__Osland More importantly, how many people leave church feeling loved. After all, Jesus said, love one another.

Just imagine thinking this is some sort of journalistic accolade rather than confirmation that @GBNEWS has no connection with journalism in any recognisable or reputable sense.

🔥 It’s happened almost by stealth. GB News has effectively become Reform TV. A major UK political leader, Nigel Farage, hosts his own “news” show: something that would have been unthinkable in British broadcasting. A review by 20 experienced journalists found: • systemic bias • lack of challenge • factual inaccuracies • and overwhelming alignment with Reform talking points ☠️ Average compliance with @Ofcom rules? 1.5 out of 5. Meanwhile Ofcom has largely waved it through: even a Trump interview rated zero for impartiality was cleared because “balance” came hours later in a different programme. This is about something really fundamental: 👉 In the UK, newspapers can be partisan. 👉 Broadcasters are supposed to be impartial by law. That line is now being blurred or ignored. Even @afneil says the channel became something entirely different from what was promised: “A kind of Fox News… they worshipped the ground Farage walked on.” When a political movement effectively gains its own TV platform, with minimal regulation, it doesn’t just shape debate. It reshapes democracy. The question isn’t whether you agree with the politics. It’s whether the rules that underpin trust in broadcast news are still being enforced at all.

@Alexandr4Denman No. It was organised with all the appropriate consent.

Do you agree with Nick Timothy he feels this was an act of aggression! I agree it’s like a dog marking its patch , we are actually a Christian country and this should not be allowed in our country especially our beautiful Trafalgar Square in our historic London! Thoughts?

@DrDavidJeffery Although UKIP aren't Reform

Gonna be one hell of a shock when Labour loses their majority and faces a Reform opposition next May.

@dominicgrieve_ @seatrout @NJ_Timothy I also very much doubt that St Martin-in-the-Fields felt intimidated by this. If you like, I'm happy to ask the Vicar as I know him.

I am very happy to engage with you on the substance. We have never discussed your views on Islam. But you made them clear when introducing your ten minute rule bill in the Commons very recently, as you were perfectly entitled to do. I agree that mass prayer in public by large groups without prior permission, that aims to disrupt the activities of others, can be an act of 'domination' just as a sit down on Westminster Bridge or the M25 can be or any other illegal demonstration or one accompanied by threats or harassment. This did not apply to this gathering in Trafalgar Square. It was done with permission. It comprised short prayers followed by an Iftar to break the Ramadan fast. It threatened no one any more than the Palm Sunday procession ( with permission) in which I shall participate shortly where I live and where there will be hymns to the effect that Jesus Christ is Lord. Your original post says that this event 'should not happen again'. You are the Shadow Justice Secretary, perhaps one day the person who will take an oath to uphold the rule of law. As I put to you in my last post, stopping such an event would be unlawful and discriminatory unless you intend to advocate changing the law to discriminate against Muslims. Is that what you are saying? So far you have not attempted to answer this question. Lots of replies to your original post highlight that freedom of religious expression does not exist in many countries and that some of these countries have Muslim majorities and persecute minority faiths. We will, I am sure, have a shared revulsion at this. But this is surely all the more reason why we should stand up for the values of freedom under law which our forefathers have given to us. Finally you suggest that my 'world'' is falling apart'. I am not sure what world vision you are referring to. As a long standing Conservative I am a pragmatic realist about the world and its shortcomings as I might expect you to be too. I also believe that in times when there are challenges to the values of freedom and democratic pluralism there is a need for all people of goodwill to be voices of assertive moderation. Your original post comes across as entirely contrary to this and as a call to confrontation on no valid basis.

The wilful misunderstanding in this post says everything about the people behind the “Islamophobia” definition. The point is not that Sikhs have danced on Trafalgar Square. Or that the Passion Play has been hosted there. Neither is the point that Muslims gathered on Trafalgar Square. The point is that mass ritual prayer in public - in this case next to a church - is an act of domination. So is the public call of the Adhan, which explicitly denies other religions including Christianity. That is the difference. And yet neither Dominic - nor the Labour MPs who were instructed by No10 to attack me last night - will engage with the substance. Instead he claims he knows my personal views when we haven’t talked, and incorrectly describes me as a spokesman for the Free Speech Union. People like Dominic can’t work out why the ideological world they built is falling apart. They never pause to wonder if perhaps they might have got things very badly wrong.

I’m not racist, I’m simply making up lies about all foreigners being uneducated peasants in order to perpetuate the myth that immigrants are responsible for every problem in the country.

@ramonagusta You can't assume allies will join in every action you undertake - especially if they're not consulted or informed. If the US had been attacked - as in 9/11 - article 5 would apply. Here it doesn't

@mikepeat They can defend shipping; it was a test whether allies were really allies. The answer is clear.

Just remember folks, when you are shivering, or losing your job, or unable to put petrol in your car... Starmer chose NOT to defend the Strait of Hormuz. This is not 'joining the war'; it's the normal practice of *keeping shipping lanes open*. This is on him. Don't let him off the hook. #Starmergeddon

Good to see GB News doing what they do best - stirring up hatred by spreading obvious lies instead checking facts, which would be a bit too much like actual journalism.

We want the warhorse. Jesus rides a donkey. We want the eagle. The Holy Spirit descends as a dove. We want to take up swords. Jesus takes up a cross. We want the roaring lion. God comes as a slaughtered lamb. We keep trying to arm God. God keeps trying to disarm us.

@afneil I often differ from your opinions, Andrew, but I entirely agree

You want the NATO allies to join you in a war you started without ever consulting these allies about the war or explaining your war aims. We’re meant just to meekly fall in line. You recently supported a US invasion of a NATO ally (Denmark/Greenland) but now you want these same allies to join your war. Your president disparaged and misrepresented the role of NATO allies in Afghanistan. But now you want them to join with you again in a war of your making. You went to war with Iran without a thought of how to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and without involving your allies in the matter. But now you want the NATO allies to bail you out, even though there’s still no plan for Hormuz. You want the NATO allies to join you in a war in which you still cannot articulate the endgame. Or what victory would look like. You went to war thinking the Iranian regime would quickly topple, that Tehran would not attack the Gulf States or close Hormuz. Why would we align with such Epic Stupidity? You and other know-nothing blowhards started this war all on your own. You can finish it on your own. If you’re able to …