Table of Contents
Few enormities of the elite classes outrage us more than double-standards. Even monkeys get furious when they see experimenters meting out obviously unequal treatment to their fellows.
The modern Western ruling class who prate endlessly about ‘fairness’, yet preside over the most grotesquely unequal treatment of our fellow citizens, aren’t just being world-class hypocrites. They’re tearing the fabric of society to shreds, while – yet more hypocrisy – finger-wagging the rest of us about ‘social cohesion’.
Is it any wonder that Britons in particular are increasingly venting their outrage about ‘Two-Tier Britain’? When the same police, politicians and bureaucrats who knowingly ignored Islamic mass child-rape gangs for decades, are arresting non-Muslims for posting pictures of bacon on social media, people are going to notice. And they’re not going to be happy about it.
Even when obvious dickheads get meted extraordinary punishment, where literal rapists and terrorists get gently patted on the wrist.
A former policeman has been stripped of his British citizenship over his links to Russia.
Mark Bullen had his British passport revoked based on information which would not be made public “in the interest of national security”, according to Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary.
Leaving aside the sinister, Star Chamber overtones of Mahmood’s pronouncement, the hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. If Mahmood held her fellow Pakistanis to a similar standard, half the populations of Birmingham, Luton or Tower Hamlets would vanish overnight.
So, what heinous crime did Bullen commit? Rape? Murder? Terrorism?
Mr Bullen, 45, who shared the letter online, worked at Hertfordshire Constabulary for more than a decade.
He was previously detained at Luton airport in November 2024, where officers seized his electronic devices and asked whether he had any knowledge about the 2018 Salisbury poisonings.
But Mr Bullen, who now lives in Russia after achieving his “lifelong dream” of a Russian passport in 2022, denies any wrongdoing […]
Mr Bullen has lived in Russia since 2014, where he now works for Zenit St Petersburg FC.
The club is owned by Gazprom, the energy company that was placed under UK and US sanctions in January 2025 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It seems his crime, then, is being a useful idiot for the Putin regime. If we deported every useful idiot in Australia supporting an authoritarian regime, the boardrooms and university corridors would be empty, windswept wastelands.
Speaking of his treatment by the British Government, Mr Bullen told sports.ru: “It’s like East Germany. An undemocratic country. No lawyer, no phone, no water. An ice-cold room. If someone had described this situation to me when I was working in the police and asked, ‘Is this allowed?’ I would have answered, ‘Of course not. It’s illegal.’ But now it is.”
He added that he would challenge the decision if he were granted legal aid, but admitted if he had to choose between a Russian and a British passport, he would choose the Russian “without a second thought”.
Let’s be honest: Bullen deserves little sympathy. Anyone who plays useful idiot for Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime has earned scrutiny. Supporting a power that has poisoned critics on British soil and launched a war in Europe is not a harmless personal choice. If the evidence, even if kept secret for ‘national security’, justifies the action, the state has every right to use this tool.
But the case exposes a glaring double standard that has become routine under Keir Starmer’s government.
Britain is home to thousands of individuals with links to Islamist extremism, many of whom have openly supported terrorism or travelled to join groups like Islamic State. Yet the state has repeatedly shown far more leniency toward them than toward a native-born ex-policeman with alleged Kremlin connections.
Take Anjem Choudary. The notorious Islamist preacher spent decades recruiting for jihad, praising terrorists and calling for sharia law in Britain. He was the public face of banned networks like al-Muhajiroun. Successive governments allowed him to operate openly for years before he was finally convicted in 2024 of directing a terrorist organisation. Even then, his long record of incitement was tolerated far longer than many would consider reasonable.
Then there are the so-called jihadi brides. British women who renounced the UK, travelled to Syria to join the ISIS caliphate, married fighters and, in some cases, witnessed or participated in the horrors of that regime. While Shamima Begum was stripped of citizenship, the government has quietly repatriated at least six British ISIS-linked women and nine children from Syrian camps in recent years. They chose the caliphate. Britain chose to bring some of them home.
Worse still are the foreign criminals who remain. Illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers convicted of rape, grooming and child sexual exploitation have often avoided deportation. The grooming-gang scandals in Rotherham, Rochdale and elsewhere saw hundreds of mostly Pakistani-heritage men prey on British girls for years. Many offenders were not deported despite their crimes, citing human-rights claims or ‘hostility’ back home (though, oddly, many seem to have no problems swanning in and out on holidays once they get their claws on a British passport).
MI5’s counter-terrorism workload remains dominated by Islamist extremism. Yet the state found the political will to revoke the citizenship of a British-born former policeman over Russia links while managing thousands of far greater domestic threats with far less finality.
This is textbook Two-Tier Kier citizenship and policing. Native-born Britons who flirt with the wrong foreign power face the harshest measures. Islamist extremists, jihadi brides and foreign criminals who openly reject British values or prey on British citizens receive endless second chances, appeals and taxpayer-funded legal protections.
The inconsistency is not just hypocrisy, it undermines the very principle that citizenship is a privilege, not an unlosable right. If the state can strip a British-born man of nationality for suspected Kremlin ties, the same standard must logically apply to those who champion Islamic terror or import serious crime that tears communities apart.
Britain once understood that selective enforcement does not protect national security. It erodes trust, weakens social cohesion and signals to everyone that the rules are not applied evenly. The Bullen case is a reminder: when the political class chooses favourites, the social fabric frays for everyone.
