The Official Manchester United Muslim Supporters’ Club (MUMSC) has been pushing hard for the removal of the club’s chairman, Brexit supporter and chemicals tycoon Sir Jim Ratcliffe, in recent days, for having the temerity to express views that a large share of Britain’s population already believes: that the country is “on the slide,” that mass immigration has changed it beyond recognition, and that no one in power has been “tough enough” on border control or benefits claimants.

The National Pulse takes no handouts from billionaires or big business. If you want to keep radically independent reporting on the issues the corporate media refuses to cover alive, help support the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team by JOINING PULSE+ or MAKING A DONATION. 

For MUMSC, the language was “completely unacceptable,” “playing into populist tropes,” and cause for both Sir Jim and the Glazers—the Jewish family who are Manchester United’s majority owners—to resign. Crucially, the group is not some private prayer circle. It is an official supporters’ club, given access and prominence by the club, and allowed to play a role in organizing club Ramadan feasts and in establishing a “multi-faith prayer room” suspiciously bereft of any religious items except Islamic prayer mats at its Old Trafford stadium.

When MUMSC tells Ratcliffe to resign, it is using Manchester United’s name to police a political argument the club chairman should be perfectly entitled to make. Yet while Man U might be chagrined that MUMSC is biting the proverbial hand that feeds by engaging in partisan lobbying against the club’s leaders, it should not be surprised, given its co-founder’s record.

Manchester United opened a new multi-faith room at Old Trafford for fans of all faiths.

The team worked closely with the Fans' Forum and Muslim Supporters' Club on the space, which can accommodate up to 20 fans at any given time. Prayer mats have already been provided by the… pic.twitter.com/I9Ff0RvvJr

— ESPN FC (@ESPNFC) March 3, 2025

The Man Behind MUMSC.

Ghulam Haydar, alias Ghulam “Esposito” Haydar, is a Senior Policy Lead in NHS England’s community pharmacy team, a prescribing pharmacist, and a General Pharmaceutical Council clinical advisor and inspector, paid by Britain’s socialized healthcare provider to help shape national pharmacy policy. However, far from being a neutral community liaison, he is an activist with a decade of posts and articles attacking Britain as a colonial plunderer, railing against British air strikes against Islamic State jihadists, and treating “internalised love for white / superior” attitudes as a moral disease, as The National Pulse revealed on Wednesday.

Now, further research has revealed Haydar as having volunteered for groups later flagged in government extremism assessments, lobbying for anti-terror legislation to be dismantled, and even arguing that French military strikes against the Islamic State were “no different” from the terrorist massacres the group carried out in Paris in 2015.

If you want reporting that names the activists behind the networks, help keep it independent. The National Pulse is reader-funded. Membership and donations are what pay for records like this to be assembled and reported, rather than left buried in the social media archives. If you value exclusive work from Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN PULSE+ or MAKE A DONATION today.

Haydar is not a back-office pharmacist who once liked a tweet. He is a national policy lead with a history of open political factionism. In 2015, he posted, “Hate this guy.. Nigel Farage,” referring to the then-UK Independence Party leader, who now stands a strong chance of becoming Prime Minister at the head of Reform UK. Meanwhile, he has made public appearances with Manchester’s left-wing mayor and Britain’s future Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, describing the Labour Party politician as “my old buddy” in 2022—albeit while chastising him for pronouncing “Ghulam” incorrectly.

Haydar’s hatred of Farage appears to extend to Britain and the British people more generally. The National Pulse has already reported on Haydar’s posts accusing Britain of having “ransacked, pillaged & destroyed India,” and urging future generations of British Muslims to resist “the narrative of the coloniser.” Subsequently, posts have been uncovered expressing this hostility in much blunter terms, including one from the Euros football tournament in 2016, seething, “The sooner England get knocked out, the better.”

Minimizing ISIS.

Some of the most revealing statements regarding Haydar’s worldview are not in old social media posts, but in signed articles. On November 20th, 2015, just days after Islamic State terrorists had murdered 130 people in Paris, Haydar wrote for 5Pillars that he could not “differentiate between the reaction of the French government and the ISIS claimed attacks in Paris.”

The West, Haydar argued, could not retaliate against the caliphate “simply because your innocent were taken.” In fact, doing so was “stupidity and madness,” not least because, in his view, the West was no better than the Islamic State: “What France and many other countries are doing is no different to ISIS,” he argued, adding (in case there was any doubt) that “Both are unjustifiable.”

A year prior, Haydar had equivocated on the beheading of American journalist James Foleyby ISIS (“It goes without saying that the killing of innocent civilians should be met with utter contempt, but…”), positively citing CAGE as suggesting the shocking execution was not really any different from the unintentional civilian casualties in U.S. drone strikes in the region. This opinion piece, written for Islamic21c, chose to describe ISIS as a “resistance group” rather than a terrorist organization, critiquing it chiefly for the “damage” it was causing to the “overall resistance” to then-President Bashar al-Assad.

The CAGE Connection.

The approving reference to CAGE was not a one-off. In 2017 post on Facebook, he had hailed the conviction of CAGE’s international director Muhammad Rabbani as somehow a “victory for CAGE” for supposedly exposing “flaws in the terrorism legislation.” In a 2014 article, he had defended CAGE outreach director and former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg as a supposed whistleblower crushed by an “Orwellian state,” after he was hit with multiple ultimately dropped terrorism charges related to trips he made to Syria in 2012–13.

Infamously, CAGE described ISIS executioner Mohammed Emwazi, better known as “Jihadi John,” as a “beautiful young man” and blamed Britain’s MI5 intelligence service for his radicalization—a markedly more generous attitude to a notorious terrorist than Haydar was willing to extend to Sir Jim Ratcliffe. 

Haydar also proudly declared in 2016 that he was a volunteer with MEND (Muslim Engagement and Development), which was later listed by then-Communities Secretary Michael Gove among organizations giving “rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views,” and called on Allah to bless Ali Dawah, a Muslim YouTuber accused of harassing Jews in London’s Golders Green neighborhood and defending marrying underage girls, as “an asset to the ummah (Muslim community” the same year. 

With Friends Like These.

The list of articles and social media posts from Haydar that might be described as “totally unacceptable” is seemingly endless, extending far beyond those listed above. In 2017, he amplified arguments that “Terror laws should be scrapped.” In 2018, he complained that then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid describing Pakistani Muslim pedophile gangs as “Asian” was “racism.” In 2013, he smeared opponents of the niqab as “dirty” and “sleazy.” And the list goes on. 

The question is why Manchester United affiliated with and given status to a man whose public record puts him so much farther beyond the pale than Jim Ratcliffe could ever be. These were public posts, signed articles, visible to anyone with a mind to look for them.

United did not have to make MUMSC an official club. Doing so has given a man who has branded Britain a colonial pillager, cheered for England to be knocked out of the Euros, volunteered for MEND, promoted CAGE, and written that the West and the Islamic State are “no different” standing to call for their chairman’s head, for the crime of expressing views on immigration held by millions of Britons, doubtless including many United supporters. 

Similarly, NHS England did not have to put Haydar in national policy. Patients in that system include the families of people murdered by the jihadist networks whom he spent years minimizing as products of Western policy, and girls abused by the grooming gangs he believes it is racist to name.

Hopefully, both will learn a lesson from this on the need for better institutional vetting. Because with friends like these, who needs enemies?

This kind of deep dive into the activists driving radical agendas through mainstream institutions work takes time and an editorial operation willing to dig through the data instead of chasing quick headlines. You can support more exclusive analysis from Raheem J. Kassam and The National Pulse team by BECOMING A MEMBER or making a ONE-OFF DONATION.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Restore Britain, the upstart political party backed by Elon Musk, could end up handing dozens of UK parliamentary seats to the establishment or “uniparty” based on new analysis by The National Pulse, using YouGov MRP data released on September 24th 2026.

The party is ostensibly led by Rupert Lowe, who was removed from his position in Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party after a series of disciplinary incidents in 2024. The day to day party is run by former Farage staffer Alistair Harrison and his Ukrainian wife Kateryna Petrenko.

Who is Alistair Earl Harrison? https://t.co/pb1HeZCgst

— Catherine Blaiklock (@blaiklockBP) August 3, 2026

The latest constituency-level YouGov MRP data shows a potentially significant problem for Reform UK, caused by Restore Britain. In 77 constituencies that YouGov currently assigns to another party, Restore Britain’s projected vote is at least as large as Reform’s deficit to the projected winner.

That does not mean all Restore voters would automatically vote Reform if Restore disappeared. They would not. But the scale of the overlap is striking, especially when Restore Britain voters appears to want change, rather than to hand more victories to the incumbent Labour Party, the centre-left “Conservative” Party, or any others.

The National Pulse analyzed the constituencies contained in the MRP dataset and calculated, seat by seat, how much of Restore’s projected vote Reform would need to erase its deficit to YouGov’s projected winner.

The result is not confined to seats where Reform would require every single Restore voter.

Under a hypothetical 25 percent Restore-to-Reform transfer, Reform moves ahead in 19 seats and level on the published rounded figures in another seven: 26 constituencies in total.

At a 50 percent transfer, that rises to 46 seats, and at 75 percent, it becomes 58 parliamentary seats. If the entire Restore vote were added to Reform, Reform would move outright ahead in 58 seats, while another 19 would become tied on the rounded constituency figures.

Those figures make the possible effects of right-of-Reform vote fragmentation substantially larger than a handful of isolated constituencies.

The National Pulse conducts original electoral, political, and data analysis that you will not get from the legacy press. If you value exclusive work from Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

It Doesn’t Take Anything Close to 100 Percent in Some Seats.

The most revealing constituencies are not those requiring the whole Restore vote. They are the seats where Reform is behind by only a point or two, while Restore is polling several times that amount. For instance, there are four constituencies where Reform needs only 20 percent of Restore’s projected support to erase the deficit.

In Heywood and Middleton North, YouGov has Labour on 31 percent, Reform on 30, and Restore on 5. Reform needs just one point out of Restore’s five to draw level. Similarly, in Llanelli, Plaid Cymru is projected on 34 percent, Reform on 33, and Restore on 5. Again, only 20 percent of the Restore vote closes the gap.

In Ossett and Denby Dale, Labour is on 28, Reform 27, and Restore 5: another 20 percent threshold.

And in Washington and Gateshead South, Labour is projected at 35, Reform at 34, and Restore at 5. Once again, just one-fifth of Restore’s projected support equals Reform’s entire deficit.

Seven more positive-gap constituencies require only 25 percent of Restore’s projected vote to erase Reform’s deficit:

• Erewash;
• Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor;
• Redditch;
• South Derbyshire;
• Staffordshire Moorlands;
• Vale of Glamorgan;
• Rawmarsh and Conisbrough.

Rawmarsh is particularly illustrative, with Labour is projected on 35 percent and Reform on 33, but Restore is on 8 percent. Reform’s two-point deficit is therefore equivalent to just one-quarter of the Restore vote.

These are not calculations that depend on every Restore supporter behaving identically. Rather, they are seats where a relatively modest fraction of the projected Restore vote is already as large as Reform’s entire shortfall.

The One-Third and 40 Percent Seats.

A further five constituencies require approximately one-third of Restore’s vote to close the published gap:

• Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard;
• North West Norfolk;
• Southend West and Leigh;
• West Suffolk;
• South Holland and The Deepings.

Three more: Aldridge-Brownhills, Derby South, and Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, require 40 percent.

By the time the transfer assumption reaches 50 percent, a further group enters the equation, including Aldershot, where YouGov currently projects Labour 28, Reform 26, Restore 4 in Aldershot. Reform’s two-point deficit is therefore exactly half of Restore’s projected four-point vote.

The same arithmetic becomes more demanding in Grantham and Bourne, where YouGov has the Conservatives at 33, Reform at 30, and Restore at 4. Reform would need three of those four points: 75 percent of Restore’s projected vote.

That is why Grantham is a weaker vote-transfer example than Heywood, Llanelli, or Rawmarsh, but it still sits inside the wider 77-seat universe.

This kind of seat-by-seat work takes time, data, and an editorial operation willing to look beyond national headline numbers. Support more exclusive analysis from Raheem J. Kassam and The National Pulse team by BECOMING A MEMBER or making a ONE-OFF DONATION.

The Effect Is Concentrated Against Labour and the Conservatives.

Among the 58 constituencies that become outright Reform leads under the maximal 100 percent transfer calculation, YouGov currently projects that Restore Britain would help cause the following scenarios:

• Labour ahead in 32;
• The Conservatives ahead in 20;
• The SNP ahead in 3;
• Plaid Cymru ahead in 3.

This is a damning scenario for Musk, Lowe, and Restore Britain, showing how in a poll where they do not even keep one seat in the UK Parliament (the YouGov MRP shows Lowe losing his Great Yarmouth seat), the party would hand dozens of seats to Labour, tens to the Tories, and even some to the far-left Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru in Wales.

In Britain’s increasingly fragmented first-past-the-post system, margins that small can be electorally consequential even when the national numbers appear modest.

The National Pulse will continue digging into the constituency-level numbers, not merely repeating national polling headlines. Join The National Pulse or donate today to support more exclusive analysis from Raheem J. Kassam and his team. Every membership and contribution helps fund the research, reporting, and data work behind stories like this.