This means 'God is great' and is basically the same as 'praise the lord'. Its not a terrorist slogan at all.
'Praise the Lord' would very often have been chanted by Medieval Christians as they were burning 'heretics' and slaughtering 'infidels'... just as 'Allahu Akbar' has become most well-known for being spouted by Islamists just before they detonate their suicide vests. A slogan on its own is just words, but when spoken by those who mean deliberate harm then those slogans become harmful in themselves, as they encourage more people to follow the same path toward committing harm. The very fact that those "British" Muslims were chanting their religious mantras in an aggressive response to a peaceful protest in defence of British culture is a statement to how antagonistic they are to the native populace of these isles, and how they wish to enforce their own ways upon us instead of "doing as the Romans do in Rome" and adopting ours if they wish to live here. There are plenty of Arabic countries where Islam is the dominant religion and culture... if they want to chant their prayers and force women to wear headdresses and live as second-class citizens, they can do so there rather than here.
It's clear to see that, at this point, Islam is probably at its most backward and hostile since the 1st Millennium AD when the Arabic tribes first rose to prominence and conquered Asia Minor. Certainly the religion's Golden Age during the Middle Ages, where Islamic countries were great proponents of science and enlightenment (especially compared to Christian countries at the time), is long gone. Until it learns to grow up and join the rest of the world in the 21st Century, it certainly shouldn't be given the sacred level of protection it currently has in this country... especially not at the expense of other religions have have been in this country for far longer and caused far less trouble (e.g. Judaism, which has endured a lot more needless flak than Islam ever has).
"Relatively unbiased"... my friend, did anyone ever tell you in school that Wikipedia is not seen as a credible source for information to be used in essays and dissertations? Principally because, as anyone can edit it, it can be subtly influenced with all manner of personal bias.
you will see Labour nationally got 33.7% of the vote. I'm not sure where you got 20% from. Wherever it was, I'd be very suspicious of their reliability.
20% was the total percentage of the vote in England... if the Scottish vote (which admittedly very much got them the win through the failures of the SNP as you correctly said) was counted as well, then that would take it up to 33.7% of the vote.
The primary reason that Labour got such a large majority from a relatively small vote share is because the right wing vote split between the Conservatives and Reform
And because the Lib Dems marketed themselves as another alternative in traditionally Conservative areas... still proves my point though that a lot of people in England didn't want Labour to get in, for reasons that are making themselves clear right now.
When right-wing media like the Telegraph agree with the BBC then you can be reasonably certain its a fair representation of what actually happens. If you rely on other sources of information then you are just allowing yourself to be misled by self-serving populists spreading hate for their own personal gain.
On the contrary, I very much see the dangers of populists like Farage and Trump, both friends of Putin... but at the same time I also see how so many people are being misled by media like the BBC that shamelessly propagates Left-wing ideologies and seeks to brainwash people (especially the impressionable young) into despising the culture and race they were born into in favour of others.
Personally, your views do not represent the Britain I live in, or the problems I see. I have no issues with immigration and I don't believe there is any material conspiracy, other than the right wing agenda to try and inflame hate.
If there are any conspiracies, then there is one both on the Left and on the Right. There is an equal amount of hatred toward traditional British culture and values that is propagated by left-wing mouthpieces, and is endemic to many of our institutions... institutions that mark schools down if they have "too many white British children", are eager to decry our country as "institutionally racist" on the level of the US, who want to smear the old British Empire as an unforgivably evil regime on the par of Nazi Germany and generally despise everything about Britain's white European heritage. In that regard these people are every bit as bad as those nutcases on the Far-Right who worship Nazi Germany and equally insult everything Britain stands for. What's worse, the views of the former are openly accepted in so many institutions that are meant to be pillars of strength in keeping society functioning successfully, when they should be condemned with equal veracity as those of any genuine neo-Nazi.
As for immigration, it is acceptable in small amounts, and so long as said immigrants are grateful to live here and adopt this country's values and attitudes. Indeed there are many who do... demographics like Orientals, Sikhs and Indians are, on the whole, very well-behaved and make their own valued contributions to the UK, which is all well and good. However, there are others who, in their hypocritical mindsets, seek to demonise this country's culture and its values and replace them with their own, all the while being quite happy to take advantage of the many benefits of living in this safe and peaceful land rather than going to a country which has the culture and values they admire (and is usually far less safe and peaceful).
Moreover, the large levels of immigration we are having at this point in time are unsustainable on many levels - it requires more needless housebuilding and destruction of green space, incurs more expenditure on infrastructure (and paying out Benefits, no doubt), brings greater congestion upon our roads and escalates the level of interbreeding (which, contrary to Left-wing propaganda again, has its cons alongside its pros). Migration needs to be controlled to ensure a gradual rate of absorption of migrants into the country's demographics and help the population to remain stable and manageable.
I'd rather politicians focussed on the economy, where we can see anti-migration policies have a negative effect.
Only because not enough of our own people are being encouraged to stop leeching off the dole and go to work - even if it's a low-paid job like cleaning or working in a care home, it is still honest work that isn't a burden on the state. Indeed if Universal Credit as a concept was withdrawn in its entirety, all those of our own people who take advantage of it would immediately be off to seek these honest jobs, and we'd need a lot less migrants to fill those positions. Problem solved.
For example, significant drops in the number of foreign students coming to study at UK universities mean they make less money, so British students get a worse education as the Universities can't make as much money.
Again, I would suggest this is quite often down to the poor quality of education toward our own people (looking at you State Schools). Contrary to left-wing narratives, white British pupils seem to show the same average/below average levels of attainment as many non-white ethnicities, especially boys. Again, if more effort was placed into giving our own people education (indeed a culture shift toward realising the importance and attractiveness of education and knowledge would be beneficial here), more of them would be willing and capable of attending University and Universities wouldn't be so dependent upon foreign students, meaning we'd need less migration.
. Would 'intermixing' be more palatable?
