The Home Office Brutally Failing its Own Homeland—Broken Britain
A deep dive into the Home Office's conduct
Last week, the tumour of political prejudice growing inside our government became impossible to ignore—once again.
A Telegraph journalist, digging through the Prevent website—part of the Home Office’s CONTEST counter-terrorism strategy—stumbled across training materials that classified concerns about mass migration as part of a “terrorist ideology.”
The unit, which works with local authorities to intervene when someone is suspected of becoming radicalised, also flagged “cultural nationalism” as a narrative of concern.
This so-called “right-wing terrorist ideology” includes the view that “Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic or cultural groups.”
Critics soon pointed out the irony.
Just weeks ago, Sir Keir Starmer—apparently trying to placate huge swaths of the electorate—warned that Britain risked becoming an “island of strangers” if immigration wasn’t reduced.
So by Prevent’s logic, the Prime Minister could be considered a potential terror threat. Such is the consistency we’ve come to witness from our ruling class. Funnily enough, Starmer has since suggested he regrets that speech.
The moment ultimately captured how detached the civil service and counter-terrorist programmes are from the concerns of so many Brits.
A recent poll indicated that two in three (67%) Britons believe the total number of people entering the UK is too high, with 43% stating it is "much too high."
Internal Structure and Personnel
Now, the Home Office, Prevent, and the wider counter-terrorism apparatus are notoriously opaque. There are dozens of departments. They overlap, responsibilities blur, and accountability is hard to trace.
Still, several individuals stand out—each with, or having had, significant influence over operations.
First is Yvette Cooper, Labour’s Home Secretary, who often lauds the strength of “diversity” and bemoans the dangers of “online misinformation.”
She oversees law enforcement, immigration, the intelligence services, and national security, including Prevent’s strategic direction.
Second is Chloe Squires—a career civil servant fast-tracked from the Oxbridge pipeline. She currently serves as Director General of the Homeland Security Group.
She leads the counter-terrorism units and is widely presumed to lead Prevent day-to-day, overseeing its policy, funding, and coordination across government.
Third is Matt Jukes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP). The same man who served as Borough Commander in Rotherham from 2006 to 2010—right when organised grooming gang activity was at its peak.
Today, he ensures CTP stays in line with Home Office counter-terrorism policies.
Fourth is Richard Clarke, another career civil servant who started at HM Treasury after working as an academic anthropologist.
He serves as Director General of Public Safety, who aligns community safety initiatives with Prevent’s local engagement.
Fifth is Dame Antonia Romeo, now Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. She oversees day-to-day operations across the department—including Prevent, policing, immigration, and public safety.
She previously led the Ministry of Justice, where she oversaw the accidental release of 37 prisoners—one of them a convicted sex offender—under Labour’s early release scheme.
Before that, while at the Department for International Trade, she emailed colleagues after the 2020 BLM protests to say:
“I want to double down on our work to ensure everything we do internally and externally is supporting the diversity, collaboration and inclusion agenda.”
Romeo’s predecessor, Sir Matthew Rycroft is another figure of note—again a career civil servant and product of the Oxbridge conveyor belt.
He wrote the foreword to the Home Office Race Action Plan, which pushed critical race theory on civil servants, advocating for affirmative action policies.
One of his most revealing moments came in 2021. While hosting a Zoom call discussing diversity initiatives, he said:
"On some issues we should accept that direction – they are our democratically-elected leaders after all – but on others I think it's for us actually within the civil service to be stewards and to think about our own role in terms of the leadership of the organisation of the civil service which obviously takes account of ministerial views but doesn’t have to follow them slavishly on every particular issue.”
In essence, he was saying the civil service should ignore the democratically-elected MPs that manage them.
Lastly—and perhaps most importantly—is Dame Sara Khan.
She no longer works for the Home Office, but much of its ideological shift bears her footprint.
As journalist Connor Tomlinson has detailed in depth, Khan was appointed to the Home Office’s Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Working Group in 2005, shortly after the 7/7 bombings.
In 2008, she launched Inspire, a Muslim-led anti-extremism charity, and in 2016 published The Battle for British Islam: Reclaiming Muslim Identity from Extremism.
Appointed by then-Prime Minister Theresa May in 2018 as the government’s first Counter-Extremism Commissioner, Khan led the Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group, tasked with countering “negative perceptions” of Islam following terror attacks.
She has long-standing ties to Hope Not Hate—the infamous “anti-fascist” group that’s ironically known for its censorship campaigns against those who criticise mass immigration and extremist Islam—even directly citing the organisation’s research in her reports.
While she was in office, Hope Not Hate received government grants of £50,000 and £141,380 in 2019-2020 to “brief multiple departments… on emerging trends in UK hate”.
The same organisation that issues book ban lists to pressure retailers into cancelling authors and doxxes online influencers.
In short, after her introduction, definitions were rewritten, thresholds lowered, and priorities redirected.
In many ways, Khan helped reshape the ideological foundations of Prevent—and the wider culture inside the Home Office.
It’s part of why today the department boasts a “Home Office Islamic Network” aimed at recruiting Muslim staff and influencing government policy to reflect “Muslim needs.”
Leaked documents, obtained by GB News in April 2024, revealed the group has over 700 members in the civil service and claims to promote the “recruitment, retention and progression of Muslim staff in the Home Office.”
Non-Muslim staff can join too—but only as “associate members.”
A Home Office whistleblower described the group as an “Islamic lobby operating inside the department,” adding that it had already distributed pro-Hijab propaganda to staff making asylum decisions.
It is this array of personnel that helps explain why the Home Office has taken the direction it has in recent years.
Actions that range from data manipulation, overt progressive activism, and genuine discrimination.
Data Manipulation
Few things are more revealing than what a government department chooses to disclose—and what it deliberately withholds.
In 2020, after relentless political pressure, the then-Conservative Home Office finally completed its long-delayed review into “Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation Characteristics (CSE) of Offending” (grooming gangs).
But they initially refused to release it, having the cheek to say “it wasn’t in the public interest”. And then when they did—after a petition with over 120,000 signatures demanded its release—critics said the report was “whitewashed”.
This was because instead of directly addressing the issue of grooming gangs, officials conflated single incidences of child abuse with group-based offending that downplayed the disparities between ethnicities.
It stunk—they hid the disproportion.
The Home Office also said the review lacked comprehensive ethnicity data but still used that absence to justify its claim that “ethnicity wasn’t a factor”.
In one dataset cited in the report, Asians were found to be 11.5 times more likely to engage in group-CSE than white offenders. The Home Office maintained, “most perpetrators are white”.
Under Yvette Cooper, such stonewalling has become more common.
In January, the department blocked requests to publish figures on how many grooming gang members have been deported.
It followed multiple reports of convicted gang members still living freely in the UK, despite receiving deportation orders.
One notorious grooming leader from Rochdale was even seen strolling in the streets where he committed his crimes—a decade after being ordered to leave the country.
When pressed, a Home Office spokesperson said: “Foreign national offenders can be convicted of several offences. We are transparent with our data and publish data frequently on returns.”
This extended to general deportation data.
Next, the department refused to disclose how many deportations had been blocked due to appeals under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Dame Angela Eagle, the border security minister, claimed it would be a “disproportionate cost” to provide figures on how many deportations—of criminals or illegal migrants—had been halted.
In other words, the department decided it would take too much time and money, which outweighed our right to know if criminals were still residing in the country—at our expense.
At the time, official records showed 34,169 outstanding immigration appeals, the highest on record—most based on human rights grounds—clogging up the system and delaying removals.
Fast forward to April of this year, and it emerged that the department had tried to quietly alter the local “independent” inquiries into grooming gangs it promise back in January.
They not only revised the remit of those inquiries so it was back under their control, but then the barrister the Home Office commissioned to perform some of the work revealed that they failed to even brief him.
The original plan set aside £5 million for five inquiries. But that also quietly changed. Now, instead of direct funding, councils were told they would now need to bid for it.
In short, the same councils that survivors accused of being complicit in the cover up, were given the choice to participate or not—essentially the equivalent of letting a thief choose whether he should be investigated.
Indeed, it’s one thing to refuse to release data, to “whitewash” it, but entirely another to refuse to collect it all together.
Prior to Cooper’s appointment, reports surfaced that the Home Office had ceased recording data on visa overstayers—with no figures collected since 2021.
The rule change came under Conservative Priti Patel who allowed for more study, skilled worker, and dependent visas—triggering the “Boriswave” of record-breaking net migration, largely from outside Europe.
For context, a 2017 Pew Research estimate suggested that 1.2 million people were already living in Britain after overstaying their visas.
To put this further into context, FOI requests this year showed that the proportion of offences, including child sexual abuse, where no data on the ethnicity of convicted criminals being recorded has trebled in the past 15 years.
Meaning, they’ve been collecting less and less data on ethnicity in relation to crime in the aftermath of the worst hate crime scandals in modern history.
Something that was undoubtedly the doing of the policing hierarchy, the Ministry of Justice, and the Home Office.
Overt Progressive Activism
While manipulating data and research can signal a department’s priorities, it’s the activism that make them unmistakably clear.
In 2023, it was revealed that the Home Office allowed “non-binary staff” to carry both male and female security passes, letting them change their gender identity day by day—even seemingly hour by hour.
According to the department’s gender reassignment and identity policy, staff could “present in the gender which matches their identity on a given day.”
This preceded news that terrorists and paedophiles were being allowed to choose from 51 gender identities in a Home Office database used to track Britain’s most dangerous offenders.
Police admitted that “no formal risk assessment” was carried out before letting criminals register under terms like “androgyne,” “pangender,” “transgender person,” and “neutrois”.
They’ve since doubled down.
In February, the department unveiled plans to impose longer sentences on offenders convicted of “hate crimes” against LGBT and disabled people. The move would put offences on par with racially and religiously aggravated crimes.
These can carry much higher penalties than their non-aggravated counterparts. In some cases, the difference is years in prison.
Perhaps a slightly worrying development given some authorities have treated “misgendering” as a crime.
Activism in the department has, of course, extended to “racial justice”.
In November 2024, journalist Steven Edginton revealed that the leadership had invited staff to spend five hours attending Black History Month events.
Internal emails urged civil servants to “celebrate the Black community every day” and outlined four events meant to “reflect on the struggles and triumphs of the Black community.”
The workshops were open to all Home Office staff and scheduled during work hours.
The following month, a whistleblower came forward after discovering that the Home Office was promoting a “distorted” history course about the British Empire.
The course claimed that Britain’s economic rise since the 18th century was “solely based” on slavery and colonialism. It also pushed the idea that white people are inherently racist.
Nowhere did it mention the nuanced humanitarian or developmental aspects of the Empire—or Britain’s leading role in the abolition of slavery.
Incompetence and/or Negligence
Another factor driving Home Office conduct appears to be sheer incompetence—or outright negligence, or a combination of the two.
Little else explains just how epic some of their failures have been.
In 2023, following direction from the Home Office, the government purchased the defunct Northeye prison to house “asylum seekers”—a site closed since 1992, located on the edge of a quiet housing estate in Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex.
By December, they had to scrap the plan, citing costs for making the site safe—despite having received “clear warnings” that it was unfit for use from the outset.
The bill to the taxpayer? £100 million.
The humiliation deepened in November 2024, when it emerged that officials failed to carry out basic due diligence on asylum claims from those claiming to be “Eritrean.”
Several were found to be gaming the system, falsely claiming to be from war-torn nation rather than their country of origin. Why? Because asylum claims from Eritrea carried a 99% approval rate.
Some illegals even took to TikTok to boast of their success.
Such apparent negligence has plagued the deportation process too.
Last month, a convicted Nigerian drug dealer avoided deportation because officials wrongly accepted that he had spent most of his life in Britain when arguing for his removal.
The Home Office had based that on the total time he’d been in the country—not the time he had been a lawful resident.
Of course, we can’t ignore the curious number of electronic devices that have gone “missing” and go missing every year.
Last month, The Telegraph revealed that thousands of government phones and laptops have been “stolen or lost”.
The Ministry of Defence alone reported 501 missing devices: 379 phones, 95 laptops, 12 computers, and 15 USBs. The Home Office wasn’t far behind, “misplacing” 481 items.
There’s also the kind of spending that signals pure arrogance more than anything else.
Last November, Home Office civil servants spent over £10,000 of taxpayer money on an “extravagant” dinner at a London skyscraper restaurant.
The event, hosted by a research and strategy team, brought together 45 UK and Italian officials. They later said the meeting was vital in trying to stop Channel boats.
Then, of course, there’s the money poured into migrant accommodation—but not just any accommodation. We're talking about the four-star hotels.
In April, The Daily Express found that the Home Office were housing migrants in The Crown Plaza London Heathrow, located just off the M4 in West Drayton, Middlesex.
It was originally opened to the public in 2018 with 465 rooms, a swimming pool, and a gym.
Veteran and citizen journalist TruthHurt101—better known as the ‘Hotel Inspector’—has visited and documented dozens of these four-star migrant hotels used by the department.
His footage shows the same pattern again and again: spacious rooms, gyms, swimming pools, buffet dining—all funded by the taxpayer.
They even have private security, on-site NHS services, and curiously quick police response times.
Quite the contrast to life for the average Brit—18-week wait for consultant-led treatment, sky-high electricity bills and food prices, and some police who won’t even show up when you report a theft.
And where the accommodating is less, let’s say, accommodating, the department signs off on £60,000 entertainment packages so they can enjoy TVs with satellite channels, PlayStations, Xboxes, Nintendo consoles, and even newspaper and magazine subscriptions.
Political Discrimination/Prejudice
When a government department is dominated by activism to the extent that the Home Office is, it doesn’t take long for that activism to manifest into genuine prejudice.
How else are we to explain the Home Office’s decision to describe concerns over “two-tier policing” as a “right-wing extremist narrative” and refer to grooming gangs as merely an “alleged” problem that is “frequently exploited”.
This, in a judicial climate where non-violent Southport protesters get harsh prison sentences for posting vague incitement online, when actual violent Black Lives Matter rioters who take flying kicks at police officers are spared jail.
That same leaked report also pushed for an expansion of non-crime “hate” incidents recordings—a policy that has already been used to place informal black marks on citizens’ records for posting “racist” memes online.
The report—branded a “rapid sprint”—was commissioned by Yvette Cooper in August 2024 as part of her efforts to reshape the UK’s counter-extremism strategy. It was leaked to the Policy Exchange think tank.
This preceded one of the department’s most reprehensible moves, when they arguably prejudiced the trials of those same Southport protestors and/or rioters.
In August 2024, during the unrest, officials took to the department’s official X account and called over 1,000 people detained (mostly white Brits) by police “criminals.”
The only problem was, these individuals had not been tried, nor, in many cases, had they’re initial hearings been held. It constituted a blatant undermining of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
In April, the department embraced the sort of authoritarianism that would have made Stalin proud—and that’s not an overstatement.
They banned French philosopher Renaud Camus from entering the UK because of his views on immigration.
This is because Camus is associated with the so-called “Great Replacement” theory, which argues that Europe’s native populations are being gradually displaced by mass migration.
For such views, the Home Office ruled that his presence was “not conducive to the public good”.
We can also add religious discrimination to the list.
In May, the Home Office was alleged to have tampered with evidence to reject the asylum claim of a Christian woman.
Maria, a refugee fleeing religious persecution and attempted abduction, submitted legal documents supporting her case. But her claim was denied by a reported Muslim caseworker.
According to reports, the caseworker not only dismissed her account but accused her of fabricating it.
The rejection misrepresented evidence and twisted internal Home Office guidance to suggest Christians faced no meaningful risk in her country of origin.
Maria later won her case on appeal.
And don’t think being part of the crew protects you. If you express views—even momentarily, in private—that go against Home Office orthodoxy, you risk being punished.
That’s exactly what happened to Gary Costin, a contractor who’d worked with the Home Office for 15 years. He was sacked after sharing a post by Richard Tice, the Reform UK MP in March.
Tice had responded to a GB News report revealing that members of the Home Office’s Islamic staff network were pushing to “influence policymakers” to prioritise “Muslim needs.”
For sharing that post, Costin said he “lost almost everything.”
Then we come to prejudice evident in the Home Office and Prevent’s current counter-terrorism framework.
In February, an activist revealed that it took an hour and a half before Islamic extremism was even mentioned during a Home Office hearing on extremism—despite it constituting 75% of our intelligence agency’s caseload.
The hearing took place at a luxury country hotel in Sussex. Ironically, the activist in question works for a charity that records “anti-Muslim incidents”.
It was then revealed in March that Prevent had halved its spending on tackling Islamic extremism in the wake of the October 7 attacks.
Between October and December 2023, the Home Office spent just £100,000—19% of a £529,300 total—on grants aimed at countering Islamist extremism.
In the same period the year before, it had spent nearly £196,000, or 29% of a £677,716 total.
Also in March, a local government source from Hampshire County Council spoke out about Prevent training videos they had been required to watch.
The materials focused heavily on radicalisation linked to inceldom and right-wing extremism. But one thing stood out: every example featured a young white man. Not a single case study depicted a minority suspect.
For context, a 2023 Savanta survey of over 1,200 UK residents aged 16 to 25 found that 41 percent of Black respondents and 31 percent of Asian respondents viewed figures like Andrew Tate—often linked to incel ideology (by progressives)—favourably. Among white respondents, that number was just 15 percent.
Despite this, Prevent and the Home Office chose to focus exclusively on white males, excluding minority groups entirely.
Some said we should have predicted these events.
After all, just days after taking office, Home Office staff—now truly unburdened with Labour in control—rebranded illegal immigration, “irregular migration”.
The phrase appeared in a publication on its new border security and asylum plans, which promised faster asylum processing and the creation of a new Border Security Command.
The department denied it was an attempt to water down immigration crimes, insisting: “Irregular migration has always been used by the Home Office.”
Those same plans also weakened border enforcement by blocking officers from carrying out scientific age checks.
In 2024 alone, over 1,300 migrants were caught pretending to be children—a well-known tactic to exploit the system, since minors are far more likely to be granted refugee status.
Under existing laws, the police also have various avenues to carry out age checks on us if we’re suspected of committing a crime, which many migrants do by entering the country illegally.
Failing, As Expected
All things considered—the activism, the stonewalling, the genuine discrimination—it’s little surprise that the Home Office is now on course to oversee a record number of illegal Channel crossings this year.
More than 15,000 migrants have crossed the English Channel so far.
On June 3rd, 1,195 migrants crossed in 19 small boats—the highest daily figure of the year, and one of the busiest days since the Channel crisis began in 2018.
It’s also no surprise that our entire counter-terrorism framework has failed to prevent such clearly-preventable acts of terrorism in recent years.
Take Usman Khan. According to an inquest, he had a long history of violent behaviour as a teenager.
In 2010, he was arrested during MI5’s Operation Guava, which targeted Al-Qaeda-inspired terror plots. He later pleaded guilty to terrorism offences and was referred to Prevent, which monitored him—for a while.
But that oversight faded. Visits became “less regular.” And slowly but surely, he became isolated.
On 19th November 2019, Khan was granted special permission to attend a Cambridge University rehabilitation event—the “Learning Together” conference—a creative writing workshop.
He sat through the sessions, listened to stories, and even offered feedback. Then he stood up and stabbed two organisers in the chest, killing both, and injured three others before being shot dead.
Or take Khairi Saadallah, a Libyan asylum seeker who arrived in the UK in 2012 and was also referred to Prevent.
He was repeatedly arrested and convicted for crimes including theft and assault. On one occasion, while in prison, he reportedly told staff he supported ISIS and wanted to “blow up” Britain.
But, for some reason, he was released on license.
On 20th June 2020, just before 7pm, Saadallah walked into Forbury Gardens in Reading, armed with an 8-inch kitchen knife, attacked two groups of strangers, stabbing victims in the eye, neck, head, and back while shouting “allahu akbar”.
Three men were murdered.
Then, of course, there’s the most recent case of Axel Rudakubana.
Months ago, it emerged that the Southport child-murderer had been referred to Prevent three times—between December 2019 and April 2021, when he was just 13 and 14 years old.
The warnings were explicit: he had shown interest in school shootings, ISIS terror attacks, and other violent ideologies.
Yet despite the painfully clear red flags, his case was never escalated for specialist intervention.
On 29th July 2024, wearing a surgical mask and green hoodie, and armed with an 8-inch chef’s knife, Rudakubana walked into a Taylor Swift-themed dance and bracelet-making workshop and began stabbing children at random, murdering three beautiful young girls and subsequently causing a nation to partially break.
Quick Thoughts
I could talk about cultural Marxism, institutional capture, billionaire-backed activism, religious fundamentalism, intergovernmental agendas—the fear of being labelled racist, the fear of sparking unrest.
Whatever the combination, all these have no doubt dragged the Home Office to where it is today. The department has become, in some ways, a security threat in itself.
It ultimately speaks to a deeper divide splitting the country. One side, more often than not, still leans on data—however uncomfortable it might be. The other clings to emotion, narrative, and “lived experience.”
It’s this undermining of objectivity in place of subjectivity that allows such institutions to lose its grip on reality. It’s one thing to for a few powerful figures to push an agenda. It’s another to align so many disparate institutions to serve it.
Don’t get me wrong: emotion and lived experience have value. But not when they are used to override evidence. Not when they consistently take priority over fact.
If we continue down this path, the very things it is said our leaders fear—civil unrest, racial tension, social breakdown—may become inevitable.
Britain is heading toward a boiling point. I can feel it. Many already do.
Avoiding it will take more than tweaks, slogans, or indeed, a national inquiry into grooming gangs as Starmer announced today.
It will require an institutional renaissance—one grounded in courage, honesty, and the willingness to face reality and perhaps new laws to ensure it is preserved.
Recommended Reading/Watching:
Journalist Connor Tomlinson’s exposé of Dame Sara Khan - HERE.
Journalist Natasha Leake and her deep dive into Home Office’s RICU “propaganda unit” - HERE.
Dominic Cummings’ recent interview with GB News on the civil service beast - HERE
Do you really believe our best days lie ahead?
Will you keep watching as our politicians and broadcasters push for yet more surveillance, censorship, and control?
If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can, genuinely, make a real impact.
In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief reached over 100 million people on X. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up and put another dent in the uniparty’s monopoly.
One could easily come to the conclusion that these people are not acting in the majority interests of UKs citizens at all and might wonder if a long list of laws might have been broken along the way. Eventually everyone involved needs to be held to account, forensically and in great detail because if civil servants and public representatives are not seen to be acting in the majorities interests on such simple matters how can we trust our political system at all? And if we can't trust it that leads to some fundamentally difficult questions which our neighbours in France have addressed multiple times compared to us.
Britain is lost. Until these sycophants are removed from public office (and hopefully indicted), the UK has no chance. Large deportations will be needed to protect the public. These illegals (immigrants so lovingly called by Labour) need removed due to their lack of assimilation and their utter regard to UK customs and law.