To be increasung concerned about Restore Britain.

[NoisyHiker]

I know many people don't like Owen Jones, but I found this article deeply disturbing.

I am a child of immigrants, and my children are mixed race. So things like this are really starting to worry me.

I completely understand why people are angry at the current rate and quality of immigration (my own family are also disgruntled with it). But Restore want to deport even those who have citizenship.

And I am genuinely concerned that things are going to get worse than Farage if the government don't get a grip on this.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/10/restore-britain-right-politics-white-supremacist

The average adult in the UK has a reading age of between 9 and 11.
Its going to be pretty quiet here.

Yes and it’s been going on for years.

I've been a carer and stay at home mum to my autistic DC
So I'm behind in a lot of what's been happening
I read stuff in the news ,but it's hard to know if it's the truth or exaggeration

@Sliverswan it's fine that you don't know there's always stuff that we don't know we're human

I wouldn't rely on any kind of AI model to give you information though

I've been interested to see what happens if you actually ask "why do people criticise it?" I find with AI you need to keep asking questions to get real information.

I think there's probably a lot of people who are defending government decisions without really understanding what happened

part of what we're seeing now is that people are starting to understand the detail of what happened and it is always the case that the devil is in the detail

like vape shops being able to sponsor visas for their relatives to come over

Pretty sure no one voted for that - and yes, it is a fact before anyone asks

EDI equalities, diversity and inclusion policies are used by employers who decide they would like their workforce to be representative of the different demographics in society, rather than just dominated by (typically) white men, especially in top positions.
The practical reasons for this are a belief that other groups, women, people with disabilities, people who arent white, have things to contribute to the business, but face barriers white men don't, so don't get the same chance to offer their skills and businesses don't get the same access to them to utilise them.
These businesses will then make a particular effort to attract these groups.
This might mean targeted adverts, or, in the case of disabled candidates offering guaranteed interviews to people who meet the essential criteria. (Which is a good thing for anyone concerned about the welfare bill if it helps disabled people into jobs!)
Unfortunately there have been some cases where EDI policies have been implemented lazily and companies have just selected people from under represented groups in a biased way.
This is however illegal, and where it has happened those negatively impacted have won their cases.
People who disagree with EDI, because they are happy for everything to be dominated by white men use these cases to say the whole concept is wrong.
So, no in the UK its not about only allowing certain people to apply. Unless the role had an excemption under the EA, for example, only women could apply to be a worker in a women's DV refuge, it would be illegal to do that.

Thanks .
Yes I didn't know that about vape shops either
I know there's some issues around barbers
Where I live we have more barbers than coffee shops and charity shops
We have the most barber shops than any other shop
Men must like a lot of haircuts

Thankyou for explaining x

You're welcome.
There is a lot of negativity about it. Because people look at the cases where its been badly implemented and think its about people who aren't white unfairly being given jobs. This has happened on occasion, but that's due to poor implementation not the principle itself.
EDI is in the everyday small things that help us not to be at a disadvantage because we're women, older, younger, disabled, as well as due to ethnicity. It's the reason employers might offer family friendly hours, or hybrid working or adopt disability friendly policies.
I think its important to see the whole picture rather than just the soundbites about 'white people being discriminated against'.

I think also it's because America has different laws around positive discrimination etc. So you will hear these crazy stories about DEI but they wouldn't be legal here. And sometimes you get American companies trying to implement those policies in their UK offices, or young people who have absorbed American talking points trying to implement positive discrimination. But because that's not legal here there's then a court case which pushes it on the public mind as a crazy example of DEI. But the court case exists because it's illegal.

That’s the theory but reality it is very, very different.
I’m speaking as someone who has applied for hundreds upon hundreds of jobs and battling against ageism and the DEI nonsense.
Ads are openly saying that we actively encourage applicants from ethnic minorities so you are on a hiding to nothing as a white person.
Seen it time and time again.
It’s no longer a meritocracy it’s tick box that is real life now.
Hence the push back by political parties on DEI and scrapping it.
As another poster mentioned earlier so many places are being run by people that ordinarily wouldn’t get that job.
That's my real lived experience which is the same for a lot of people not just a few.
Everyone has their own take so there will be different views but it’s not a success from my experiences.

You do know that people have to prove their right to work ....

Of course they can legally work - that's the whole point, I think the law should be changed.
Graduate visas granting the right to work for 18 months don't require any proof that Britain needs you here. This is increasing competition for entry level jobs for graduates, at a time when those jobs are getting increasingly scarce. We need to prioritise opportunities for British young people.

The issue is that skin colour actually has no relevance to how privileged you are or what barriers you face.
Most of the world is 'non-white'. A lot of those 'non-white' people are very rich and privileged.
If opportunities are created that exclude all white people, regardless of the background or wealth of the 'non-white' people who can access them, it is anti-white racism. Rishi Sunak's children are not more in need of a helping hand than a white working class boy living in Middlesborough.

This is the truth. All the people in roles they are not fit for will pretend DEI is a good idea. The rest of society suffering from their incompetence knows the reality.

there is a huge wave of resentment toward white makes for being efficient and competent, it’s not got a name yet, but it’s something like “racist anti male hate” once it get a name it can be fought, but at the moment it’s going on unchecked and white makes are being attacked constantly, it’s so toxic.

This is happening everywhere, and rapidly. Vape shops, barbers, nail bars, car washes, mini-marts - taking over the high street. They are all cash based business used by organised crime gangs for money laundering purposes. Councils allow them as they pay the high business rates that genuine businesses can't afford. They often employ foreign workers who can barely speak English on 'skilled worker' visas. They are parasites on our society.
Trading standards officials are terrorised if they try to investigate them.

Councils allow them because they have zero powers to do otherwise. Councils only have powers over licenced businesses such as pubs and betting shops. Vape shops, barbers and nail bars are retail businesses that do not require any kind of licence to operate - anyone can set one up.

I'd choose a Restore government over Labour or God forbid Green any day, as would my non-White British second generation immigrant husband 🤷‍♀️

Yes. I have non-white second gen immigrant family in the US. They voted for Trump.
Now they are weathering racist abuse, being told to go back home and have to worry about ICE, despite being legal.

Turkeys for Christmas.

I'm not sure why you're implying my husband is stupid, he's a successful business owner who works hard and is also an intelligent person. Lol.

Do you not feel it's a bit racist to call them names because of their voting choice?

Why are they worried about ICE? I mean legit reasons.

Conversations about immigration always fall into the same utterly tedious trap.

"Why are we taking Gazan refugees with 18 family members?"

"Stupid Reformbot, don't you know that some immigrants are high skilled and pay tax? Checkmate atheists, immigration is good actually"

There are many different visa and settlement routes here which all have different characteristics

Within each of those routes, and across each of the different origin countries, there is significant variability in the overall quality of immigrants

There may still be reasons to be wary of very high levels of even high-quality immigration (for example cultural change, elite replacement)

Any actually realistic immigration plan (which necessarily at this point must include some degree of remigration of people physically here) must be selective across a number of these axes. "Immigrants" are not an inseparable block. It is extremely boring when people try to pretend that they are.

Agree, the organised crime aspect of it is critical to understanding these businesses. I think a lot of people, often even free-market conservative types, have this naive idea that we live in a liberal society where people should be allowed to freely operate businesses or something, and therefore there is nothing that can be done about this.

We're letting the mafia operate on the high street! Of course there's something that can be done, but it can't be solved with the tools you use for slightly dodgy individuals from the local village (i.e. one guy from trading standards turning up with a clipboard).

Then Reform/Restore need to draw clear distinctions and stick to them
Sometimes they will say they only mean bad immigrants/illegal immigrants/those that don't contribute. But then they will use scary sounding statistics about the number of people who arent "white British" (very strange definition of that) to emphasise their point. Or jump on crimes committed by second generation children with parents who fit the "hard working high earning" category. Or talk about "migrants on welfare". They already know that asylum seekers don't qualify for welfare and actually there are already strict rules for other immigrants to qualify for benefits which include living and contributing here for a set period of time. So presumably someone who came over, followed the rules, worked and paid taxes for 20 years but then needs benefits is also included in th migrants that are a problem when it suites. Even though at other times it's "of course we don't mean them"

They are very deliberately vague so.if you find it tedious migrants are discussed as if they are one block blame Farage and Lowe.

It's not new. It used to be (still is TBF) tanning salons**. It does need cracking down on.

**Not that all tanning salon owners are criminals obviously. Many of them are legitimate business men and patriots.

I don't think it's possible to draw clear distinctions though, because it's not a philosophical line, it's a "look around us and see where we're at". And "where we're at" is going to change as time goes on.

You could make a principled point of saying you're not withdrawing ILR from anyone whose been granted it - but what if Labour tomorrow grants citizenship to 10 million people? Your principled point disappears because the situation has changed. The concept of "being a citizen" has been diluted, so the protections of being a citizen should be diluted accordingly.

Likewise 2nd gen criminals. This is something you can only realise after you have enough people to have a 2nd gen (see also, ethnic enclaves, discrimination by non-white groups against other non-white groups or based on caste back home etc). So you update your concept of how many 1st gen people you let in, from different countries with different 2nd/3rd gen risk levels, even if they're really good on paper.

In practice, how I think it will work is in tranches based on what's realistic. Cancel some visas, start deportation proceedings for criminals from countries where it's possible; then reassess and see where you're at. Maybe there's then a big group of non-criminal net recipients who would voluntarily leave with some changes to social housing or benefits policy, for example. Maybe there's a country that you can put pressure on to accept returnees, but it only comes through after a few years and is treated as too hard before that.

As an immigrant I know nothing is guaranteed, but based on common sense my personal profile is not going to be at the top of any of those priority lists. So let me admit to significant bias: it's therefore in my interest to argue that immigration (and remigration) policy should be targeted based on profiles. Make that of what you will as you read my posts - I know I'm not alone among my immigrant friends!