Rupert Lowe & Restore Britain new party

[RogueFemale]

https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/

He's been very good about pursuing rape gangs. But I wonder if it's motivated purely by concern for women and girls. I saw on the party website FAQs that 'high level" donors will receive a tie (presumably branded). No apparent thought given to the possibility of a high level female donor.

I did, if you didn't get the answer that's on you.

Even Reform are calling him a Nazi, that says a lot.

It is funny the extremist-right Nazis all seem to hate each other.

I wanted to say, if anyone is interested in Lowe's outfit, have a look at Donna Rachel on X. She may be further right than you're comfortable with, but she engaged in good faith with Lowe's inquiry and has some choice things to say about it.

Her account is credible to me because she's someone who might have been sympathetic.

Tbf those on the left can be pretty cutting to each other too. They’re politicians who want to get in and see others potentially taking their vote.

You really didn’t. Try again. What is it about these particular men. Who were born in Britain. Who were raised and educated in Britain. Who worked in Britain and then chose to become MPs in the British parliament. What do you think it is about them that makes them non-British. Come on. I thought it was very important to discuss this openly.

This is page 103. it’s about illegal migrants and observes that changes may be deemed necessary in the future. It is not proposing those changes now. You appear to be misrepresenting their words.

Denmark have recently implemented similar changes - things like revoking refugee status if the country of origin becomes safe over time. Circumstances change, if a country of origin becomes safe could we expect people to return to free up some of our finite space here for others in more need?

They have said that Britain should remain a Christian country rather than have another religion be imposed as a majority but I can’t see where they say you have to be ‘ethnically British’ or Christian to be allowed to stay. They just mention that as a definition of Britain. Do you think we are entitled to define ourselves as a nation?

They do suggest that those who are here that won’t learn English and won’t work shouldn’t have the right to stay indefinitely which, given our astronomical benefits and NHS/courts interpreter bill might be sensible.

from the Restore document.
The Practical Logistics of Mass Deportations

We estimate that the total number of illegal migrants in Britain falls somewhere
between 1.8-2 million. Given our ultimate preference for the realistic estimate given
above, we have full confidence that, courtesy of our proposals, mass deportations
would be achieved in well under 3 years, if not sooner.
This paper deals with the existing illegal migrant population. Needless to say, if
ever dramatic changes are made to the status of legal migrants in Britain, as we
believe to be necessary, many of them would be rendered effectively illegal
overnight. A reasonable grace period for individuals to organise their own
arrangements is only fair, but in good time we would demand that they leave. It is
doubtful that they would all do so.
Our detailed plans for removing people who were always illegals could then be
deployed to deport those who initially came to Britain in good faith, but have
overstayed their welcome. Such difficulties shall be addressed in further Restore
Britain policy research. In this paper, we have focussed our attention on existing
illegals, given the overwhelming urgency to remove them.
‘Nothing can be done,
’ we are always told. But talk of inevitabilities is intended to
paralyse serious alternatives to an intolerable status quo. It is a brazen political
power-play posing as an anti-political assessment.
Viewed with proper clarity, the numerical roadmap of mass deportations is in fact
quite simple. Whether we allow ourselves to be knocked off course by bad faith
rhetoric is up to us.

The British identity emerged from the political union of England and Scotland, it encompasses the distinct cultures of England, Scotland, and Wales. “British” was never meant to erase those identities but to describe what they had in common, language, institutions, and a long history.
Britain is also a state, and being born within its borders may make someone legally British. But nationality in the deeper cultural sense is shaped by the influences that formed you: the traditions you grew up with, the culture of your home, and the heritage passed down through your family. Birthplace alone is just geography; it doesn’t determine the cultural identity that actually shapes who you are.

I’m not saying if I support Rupert Lowe or not - there are so many lies and misrepresentations to wade through from his detractors to form an opinion as yet.

He raises some very important points though that have to be discussed. If all he achieves is getting more people to have conversations by moving the Overton window back from the silencing by the far left “if you don’t support open borders you are a racist and must be shunned” position, and scares Labour into listening to people’s genuine concerns, that will be a good thing.

As a reminder. This is what you said “The 4 Gaza Independents we currently have in the British HoC is a good reason for banning people who are not British for sitting in parliament.”. Some people may think that you initially meant people who aren’t British citizens shouldn’t sit in parliament. Or maybe people who weren’t born here. Given what you’ve said here, maybe you’d like to spell out more clearly what should bar British citizens from sitting in parliament.

One of the aspects of citizenship is a sense of belonging and ideally loyalty to your country and fellow countrymen. A national ‘identity’ and set of values binds us and ideally promotes harmony.

The Islamist ‘Gaza’ MPs state that they a greater loyalty to another country and set of values which makes it harder to view them as British. Your place of birth is not the sole determinant of your nationality.

My BiL was born in Singapore but he is not Singaporean.

Nope. Doesn’t answer the question. We’re talking about criteria for barring people for sitting in parliament. Specifically because they are ‘not British’.

The Gaza independents bother me because I'm bothered by Muslim sectarian block voting in certain urban areas. (Or, in principle, any sectarian block voting e.g. the Tories winning in Leicester because they're the Hindu party locally. It may be unavoidable but I'll never be totally comfortable with it. It's a bit too Irish for me.)

I'd put in a qualifier that the Gaza independents phenomenon is not entirely about Gaza. Where it's bedded down at local level, say in east Lancashire, it has a lot to do with useless Labour councils and MPs. Down here in east London, Newham Independents had their big meeting over the holiday period, to gear up for their election campaign. Jeremy Corbyn spoke and got a polite reception. But the big cheers were for Gaza MP Iqbal Mohamed, who spoke about independent candidates beating Labour in Dewsbury and Batley. In Newham, which is a bit special even by the standards of London Labour, that struck a chord.

It's a shame that Newham Independents are identified as a Muslim group - not everyone in the meeting was Muslim, but well over 90% were. The borough itself is maybe 40% Muslim, and there are lots of non-Muslim voters who are thoroughly fucked off with Labour and looking for alternatives.

Which I suppose puts me in the civic nationalist camp, in the Matt Goodwin kind of position where I think integration is difficult but it has to be the goal. I can't believe in the Labour-Greens view of a rainbow coalition of unintegrated groups with a left wing government delivering different shares of the goodies to their client groups. And I can't agree with the ethnonationalist camp, because that leads to something very ugly.

There are a lot of statements from people in Lowe's orbit that they don't think people who are 1st or 2nd generation immigrant, or who don't have a particular quota of British ethnicity, should be allowed to hold political office. They seem to have a particular hate boner for Zia Yusuf and other ethnic minorities who hold senior roles in Reform. (So do Labour politicos, who really hate it when minorities don't stay in their designated area.)

I suppose I have to rely on the common sense of normie white Brits, who may think immigration is far too high but who also like their black and brown friends and really dislike overt racism. So if we look at the two positions of

• Fraser Nelson asserting that being born in England makes you totally English (Fraser identifies as Scottish, though he was born in Cornwall)
• Nick Tenconi of UKIP (you didn't know they still existed, did you?) getting his members to chant slogans about deporting David Lammy

I suppose I still have faith in normie white Brits saying "no mate, those fellas are mad, we want sensible migration policy and for everyone to get along."

Maybe that's optimistic of me, but I hope I'm right.

What does any of that have to do with my post that you're replying to? I haven't defended the SWP or any of the people you mentioned. You are defending Restore, who are white nationalists. Why can't you defend your position without deflection?

You are defending Restore, who are white nationalists

No, I'm not. Read my posts on this thread.

I'm going to flag once again that @DreamyFawn has explicitly accused me of defending white nationalists, when anyone reading my posts on this thread can see that this is a lie.

I'd appreciate an apology and retraction, not that I suppose these will be forthcoming.

It’s not my job to set rules that would guarantee we have no foreign terrorists, fraudsters or sex offenders sitting in (or trying to get elected) our parliament as we do now.

Nor to set rules that would ensure that those available for election have an affinity and loyalty for our country and its citizens and are not determined to break down society and impose foreign (in the sense of alien to us as a nation, rather than in the sense of not literally from our country) standards of behaviour.

That is what we pay vast sums of money to civil servants and lawmakers to sort. We just need to tell them we want it sorted, that’s democracy.

Again, that’s not the same as arguing for barring people on the grounds that they are ‘not British’ but then being very coy about what is actually meant by that, in those specific circumstances.

I agree, a party with a sensible immigration policy is all that most of us are asking for.

Having read parts of the Restore document, there is a lot of clumsy language there that leaves itself open to bad faith misinterpretation/twisting by the left wing but overall it sounds like it’s more about not wanting people here who are not interested in integrating. The immigrants who have no interest in learning English, who therefore struggle to get a job and who may practise extreme aspects of religion such as covering women entirely in public (and all the segregation and subjugation that goes with that view) and actively reject Western values of freedom and tolerance.

I am not supporting Restore but we have been doing exactly the same thing for years, voting in effectively the same parties for years and ended up in this terrible mess. The definition of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. We need someone to vote for rig will make an actual change and doesn’t appear to hate their citizens and British values.

The recent scenes in London where Muslim men were trying to get a Christian teacher removed from the street by the police claiming “this is a Muslim area, he can’t be here” are an example. Thankfully the police lady was one of the few sane ones left and refused to remove him and suggested that if they didn’t like what they heard they should move on. They stood their ground and insisted that it was “their area” and he wasn’t allowed.

We should not be in the situation where groups have claimed territory for their own exclusive use and are trying to prevent lawful behaviour of others in that area.

The issues in Birmingham and many other cities where police will not get involved because of ‘deals’ with the mosques is utterly wrong.

A friend of a friend lives in Oldham. He reports running battles with weapons between different ethnic groups every week. The media are silent on this. The white residents are caught in the middle and police can’t cope. The Islamist MPs/candidates and mosques are aiming to take more even more power. We are well on the way to a sectarian society which is bad for all.

Well, I didn’t say that in the first place and I’m not being ‘coy’. You have asked for something quite specific that would be challenging to get right on a legal basis which is out of my area of expertise.

As I have explained we already employ people to do that. As a democratic society, we can express our wish and ask the people we pay to sort it out. I think it’s a reasonable wish, don’t you?

No foreign terrorists/fraudsters or people who don’t prioritise Western values and the interests of all British people. Freedom and tolerance. Not a society where one group gets raised above the law, limits our free speech and claims territories for itself within our country. Not to mention threatening our democracy.

My posts are in response to someone who supports barring people who are ‘not British’, but seems unwilling to clarify what that might mean. Did anyone ever make the argument that people like John McDonnell, for example, should be barred for the specific reason of not being British?

Posted this morning on X by Lowe. 9:39am.

‘Restore Britain is abundantly clear about what we stand for on immigration. THIS is our position. I urge you to read, and share if you agree.

Every illegal migrant will be deported. No questions asked. The boats will stop. Our 100+ page policy plan is produced and ready to go. It can be done. My position is well understood on this.

Legal migrants will be expected to work, contribute, speak our language and respect our way of life. If they don't do that, they'll be asked to leave. If they hate us, and wish to do us harm - they will leave.

We support net negative immigration. Taking ultra-skilled migrants who will give far more than they take in small and manageable numbers, but shutting off entire visa routes from countries that are proven to supply us with miscreants and takers. The Red List.

Those foreign individuals who are here, who work hard, who contribute to society will absolutely be welcome. But we will not allow millions of foreigners, mainly from the third world, to take the piss.

If a foreign national is unable to support themselves financially, it is not our problem. They should leave. We should not pay for their benefits, their social housing, their NHS care. Again - it is not our problem. They will go home. Millions will go. Firm, but fair.

Dual nationals who want to blow us up will have their British citizenship stripped, and deported. If they rape young girls, they will have their citizenship stripped, and deported.

The spouse visa system will be eased, to allow citizens of non-red list countries to join their British partners. There are underhand attempts to misrepresent our position. Ignore it. Send them this post. We speak for ourselves, and only ourselves. This is not controversial.

This is certainly not 'neo-nazi' as Reform claim. This is the position of the vast majority of the British people, and they finally have a political party representing that view now.

Restore Britain.’

Whether you agree or disagree they are very clear on where they stand.

Have a think about what it means to you.

Do you think people who hate the West and our values should be our lawmakers?

Barring people who are 'not British'. No other criterion.

Look into to sinister policies they advocate ...
exit ECHR protovols 6&13 - allows death penslty
look at crime page on their site ...originally it said death penalty for murder, rape snd knife crime - no fatality needed for rape or knife crime
Knife crime by definition includes mere possession of a knife...
suggestion they intend to make this offence Aggravated Possession - same offence as above but ...with a pre- determined assumption of choice to carry a knifevin pocket means in their minds you have already decided to use it???
majority of knife crime is mere possession i.e. pocket knife in pocket - this is over 60% of knife crime! Nothing more...in 10---17yr age bracket is 99..% mere possession alone...
Make that Aggravated Possession (same offence but with assumption of use) and they declare it mandatory death sentence...if captured on police body worn video and its game over - Judge has to direct jury tonenyer guiity finding - judge dons the black cap and has no choice but to sentence the offender to death by hanging !!!
Then look at suggestion of executing Southport murderer (horrific crime but 17yrs at time of commission so juvenile) still got 52 yrs imprisonment....to hang him they have to use retroactive recalibration of sentence look it up .So go back in time to a time where tge offender was 17 and even though not eligible had it been there at time and decide new sentence is now death by hanging???
Then by doing this they have to lower the death penalty eligibility age to 16/17yrs...strong indications they plan 16yrs +
That is the test scenariio as no other civilised country (a) execute offenders bekow 18! and (b) uses retroactive process to do it not even USA...
so from there on 16+ age can hang...
so think of the penknife in pocket i described above 16yr old - Aggravated = hanging...
Think of Rape as death penalty - 16yr okd boy has consensual sex with 15yr old girlfriend is technically rape as she is below age to give consent - death by hanging mandatory!!!
i could go on more but you get the point...
its abhorrent snd sickening...
This is sinister and dangerous..they describe being Brutal on crime - see above!!!
They want to create a hostile environment - see above...
Followers are falling for the immigration rhetoric...fact unless treturn agreements in place you can't land a plane snd say 'see you later' its a load of hot air to hook supporters in...
Be very careful if you have 16+'age kids as youngsters make bad choices through immaturity ...penknife in pocket - likely a caution in 2026 in Restore land - Possession means you are going to use it =
Aggravated possession = death penalty ...
do your research althiughe commebts / statements disappear ...

Careful who you vote for...
Wait for their mandatory school uniform -you will be shocked!!! 1950's ideas..

Careful who you vote for...

Indeed. How many of us, had we had the right, would have voted for Trump in November 2024 purely because of his/the Republican's stance on trans issues? Hand on heart, how many of us would still vote for him, given the chance. At the moment, a spoilt ballot would be my choice I am sad to say.