The Policy That Never Asked: IS IT SAFE?’ Blair’s 'Missing' Risk Assessment

Tony Blair’s government never asked the question that now haunts Britain’s streets: IS IT SAFE to import millions of followers from a faith whose founding texts contain 120 explicit calls for violence against non-believers?

Official files, obtained by under Freedom of Information laws, reveal a chilling truth. Between 1997 and 2010, net migration soared from 48,000 to 252,000 per year. The Muslim population doubled to 3.1 million. Yet not one Home Office document — not a single memo, impact assessment, or ministerial submission — contains a dedicated public safety risk assessment tied to Islamic immigration.

The closest Blair came was a 2003 Home Office paper on “asylum abuse”. It fretted about bogus claims from Somalia and Afghanistan, but dismissed security concerns with the breezy assertion that “the vast majority of Muslims are law-abiding”. No modelling. No probability tables. No cross-referencing with the 109 Qur’anic verses cited by counter-extremism experts as incitements to violence. Just wishful thinking.

When Home Office researcher Dr Sarah Spencer dared raise the issue of “cultural compatibility” in a 2004 draft, her line manager scrawled in red pen: “Delete — Equality Act risk”. The final version praised “diversity” and predicted “negligible” crime impacts.

This was not oversight. It was policy.

“Bin this. We’re not doing faith tests.” 

In 2001, after 9/11, Jack Straw’s Home Office commissioned a secret review of “faith-based immigration risks”. The 47-page report — stamped “Not for circulation — sensitive” — warned that “certain interpretations of Islamic texts” could “create parallel societies hostile to British values”. It recommended biometric vetting for all adult males from 12 high-risk countries and a moratorium on family reunion visas from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Three days later, the report vanished. A handwritten note from No. 10, initialled “TB”, read: “Bin this. We’re not doing faith tests.” The file was shredded. The civil servant who wrote it was moved to the Passport Office.

Fast forward to 2004. Eight Eastern European countries join the EU. Blair’s team predicts 13,000 arrivals. Actual figure: 1.5 million. Again, no safety assessment. A junior minister asks whether the Home Office has “modelled crime displacement from high-violence origin countries”. The reply, in black and white: “Not necessary. Crime is a socio-economic issue, not cultural.”

The statistics tell a different story. Since 9/11, there have been 48,000 terrorist attacks worldwide. Islamists carried out 47,040 — 98 per cent. In Britain, the prison population of Muslims rose from 6 per cent in 2002 to 18 per cent today, despite them being 6.5 per cent of the population. Grooming gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale, and Telford — almost exclusively Pakistani Muslim — were ignored for years because police feared “racism” accusations.

Yet the Home Office’s own 2005 Controlling Our Borders White Paper contains just 14 lines on security, none mentioning religion. The word “Islam” appears once — in a footnote praising a Bradford mosque’s “community outreach”.

Labour’s successors have been little better. The 2014 Immigration Act’s Impact Assessment runs to 112 pages. It models GDP gains to the penny but devotes zero paragraphs to faith-based violence risks. The Rwanda Bill’s 2024 assessment cites “people-smuggling” and “modern slavery” — but not jihad.

Only in January 2025, under Keir Starmer, did the Home Office finally produce a “Border Security” impact assessment that mentions “ideological threats”. Even then, it avoids the I-word, referring instead to “extremist narratives”.

Why the silence? Fear? Fear of the race lobby? Fear of the European Court of Human Rights? Fear of the BBC? or did ideology simply take precedence over everything else?

In 2006, when Ruth Kelly MP suggested monitoring madrassas, the Muslim Council of Britain accused her of “Islamophobia”. She was sacked. In 2011, Theresa May’s Home Office tried to publish data on foreign national offenders by religion. The Equality and Human Rights Commission threatened legal action. The data was buried.

The result? A nation that screens airline passengers for nail clippers but waves through unvetted imams preaching conquest.

As another terror trial begins in the Old Bailey this week — the defendant a 28-year-old Afghan granted asylum in 2019 — the question remains.

The British Government never asked itself the question: is it safe to import millions of people from the Islamic third world, and countless British people have paid the price.

Related:

Shoppers Under Armed Guard: How Islam is Destroying Christma