We will prosecute any medical professional or anyone in ANY position of authority who has deliberately mutilated a young child in the name of gender ideology.

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

I do like someone who speaks their mind, clearly.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DUiPrqDYHD/

Restore - Rupert Lowe

"Important news. The sick puberty blocking trial has been stopped, for now.

A real win for everyone who has campaigned against it.

Our petition sent a strong message, but it is definitely not enough.

Restore Britain is clear here. We will prosecute any medical professional or anyone in ANY position of authority who has deliberately mutilated a young child in the name of gender ideology.

That will apply retrospectively.

We must keep this filth away from young children. We are sending a message that will hopefully make them think twice now.

Well done to all involved who have fought this - particularly James Esses and Rosie Duffield.

Heroes.

A good win. But the fight has just begun."

(FWIW Rupert says plenty of things I agree with, so does Zack , I hold a spectrum of views and I refuse to get involved in the polarising omnicause attitude both "sides" appear to have)

I am however, for reasons that may be clear if you have followed my exploits, not to mention the ones I have not yet shared, a single cause voter. ... not that they're going to win in Brighton...

Read that filth from Charlie Downes where he says England deserved the grooming gangs. That's a direct quote.

This is Lowe's number two man, who is doing all the media for Restore. Do you think this is a good look?

Also, despite Single's attempt to mind read me, I have not said anywhere that I support open borders.

But since Lowe's movement is supposedly based on being super hardline on immigration, I think if Lowe's clever young men make a point of saying that Jews aren't British, it's reasonable to ask where they're going with this.

As far as I can tell from Lowe's interviews, when they actually let him out - and he hasn't done an interview for several weeks - his personal views are boomer Thatcherite and civic nationalist, and he's cool with immigration as long as immigrants are net contributors. But he's hired a bunch of young men with very smelly views to run his party, and I think that's worth commenting on.

As I said above, it doesn't take a massive amount of effort to not fly to Austria and pose for photos with a neo-Nazi activist who's permanently banned from entering the UK, but Lowe's head of policy did that.

And again - I don't think I'm setting the bar unreasonably high here - it doesn't take a huge amount of effort to say "sorry, but Steve Laws does not represent our views and is not welcome in our party".

I'm not usually someone who will condemn people for their associations, but if you have Steve Laws openly proclaiming himself to be part of Restore... is this a good look?

You may not like Farage, but he's spent 20 years or more expelling these characters from every party he's led. The left will never give him credit for it, but the left has its own gatekeeping issues.

All our lives, at every airport and ferry port, there have been customs and border force officers checking those seeking to enter the UK.

It's transparent nonsense to pretend we've had open borders at any point we've been alive; that's the fiction that you've fallen for.

I am going on their published policies - not the leaps of faith you are making.

ANYWAY.

And yet there are an estimated one million plus illegal immigrants in the UK. I'd suggest that people who should not be here, should be deported. Thats just a normal, sane policy.

Serious question - if we were to go to Nick Griffin and ask him if he thinks the GRA should be repealed (I'm sure he would say yes) - do you think the rest of Nick's views and history could be simply handwaved away by saying ANYWAY?

If you do NOT support deporting illegal immigrants you DO support open borders. There is no half way house.

Unlike maybe your house, which you leave open, unlocked and ready for all to use.

I think your entire argument is seriously flawed because you keep saying "what about these other people which I think are connected think" and I keep saying - I don't care because I am commenting on published policies- not what you have linked together through guesses and hearsay

I don't care. I am commenting on published policies.

And I like the ones on gender. Thats the whole point of the thread

You have derailed it, though god knows why.

I'd like to reiterate here that I am providing direct quotes from members of Lowe's inner circle, and evidence of their associations, and apparently that's not evidence of anything.

Lowe's campaigns director Charlie Downes saying England deserved the grooming gangs as punishment for turning away from God.

Lowe's policy chief Harrison Pitt posing for photos with one of Europe's most notorious neo-Nazi activists.

Connor Tomlinson, a key member of the Lowe circle, trolling Lord Finkelstein with assertions that Jews aren't British.

Apparently all this can be handwaved away by saying well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

It reminds me of arguing with Corbyn supporters who would argue that you couldn't draw any conclusions from the fact that he just happened to accidentally find himself on a platform with rabid antisemites, again and again.

what you have linked together through guesses and hearsay

I have provided you with direct quotes from, and links if you don't believe me, the sayings of Charlie Downes. Charlie Downes is the "campaigns director" of Restore Britain. He is effectively Lowe's number two. Since Lowe isn't giving interviews, and Downes is doing all the media for Restore, what he says matters.

Likewise, if Restore's policy chief Harrison Pitt decides to fly off to Austria to pose for photos with neo-Nazi activist Martin Sellner, who is permanently banned from entering the UK, I think it's reasonable to ask what Pitt thinks he's achieving by this, and what audience he thinks he's appealing to.

I mean currently on X we've got Bronze Age Pervert (one of the most notorious far-right accounts out there) saying that Rupert Lowe has hired idiots to run his party, and Lowe booster Carl Benjamin saying that BAP has no right to comment on British politics because he's a Romanian Jew.

On one level there's the basic hypocrisy that Benjamin built his own career as an influencer by being a Brit commenting on American cultural politics.

But it's very striking that he feels the need to bring up BAP's Jewish ancestry. I doubt if Carl is a sincere antisemite - Carl is constantly on the grift and isn't principled enough to be antisemitic - but he's got a very keen sense of the audience that he's appealing to.

Have I said anywhere that I think illegal immigrants shouldn't be deported?

But it's not just illegals, is it? What do you think about Downes and Tomlinson specifically saying that Jews aren't British? What audience do you think they're trying to appeal to?

Have you ACTUALLY read the position paper?

Because their proposal is a fundamentally anti democratic reassertion of parliamentary authority over the courts and the repeal of several key pieces of legislation and the revival of the Hostile Environment, which led to, among others, deportations of people who had every right to be in this country.

So shove your facile open borders nonsense where the sun doesn't shine

You can keep your own front door open all you like. Just not mine

You don't have an actual response, you're just hoping I won't notice that you don't have a substantive argument.

ANYWAY

Lowe himself has advocated deporting the entire families of grooming gang members.

So if Abdul in Bradford is convicted of grooming gang offences, under the Lowe rule that would open up Abdul's daughters and sisters (who he might also have abused) to being put on a plane to Pakistan, a country they've never lived in and may not have even visited.

According to Single, if you think that's a bit much, then you're in favour of open borders.

I reject this logic.

If they had 'every right to be in the UK' then what laws were being used to deport them?

Can you at least be clear about the inferences you are making?

For example I legally live in France and if the laws changed to not allow me to stay I would take my money and go where they welcomed me. That is a forseeable potential issue abut I still think the French have every right to disallow illegal immigrants if they want to.

Look up the Windrush scandal. If you're in France it may have passed you by, understandably.

A quick suggestion for anyone who still imagines that repeal of the GRA would in any way improve matters; spend some time reading the pre-GRA case law.

The point about the Windrush scandal was that the people affected were legally entitled to be in the UK when they arrived, under the British Nationality Act 1948, and that was retrospectively questioned decades later.

So for instance, if you were born in Jamaica in 1955, Jamaica wasn't independent then, there was no Jamaican citizenship, under the 1948 Act you were a British subject. Maybe you arrived in the UK as a child when your parents moved here. Lots of people moved here under the provisions of the 1948 Act - entirely legally because they were British subjects - and never got formal immigration papers that were required under subsequent legislation. This put them in a difficult position when official bodies started asking if they could prove they had a right to be in the UK.

I'm not an immigrant but was put in a similar position a few years ago when I had hospital treatment and then got emails from the NHS trust saying "we've noticed your NHS number was issued quite recently [this is because Northern Ireland doesn't have NHS numbers like the GB mainland] and unless you can provide papers proving you have a right to reside in the UK, we'll have to charge you for your surgery". It is remarkably difficult to convince public sector bodies that you are who you say you are.

We end up in the absurd position where the government has an extremely permissive immigration policy and at the same time people who have resided in the UK their entire adult lives can't persuade the government bureaucracy that they have a right to be in the UK.