JayMan

[JayMan @Jteas]

@AnnelieseDodds And where will the profits go?
Improve service? Reduce fares? Welfare?

[JayMan @Jteas]

@Benleo Vote restore

[JayMan @Jteas]

@ZiaYusufUK Vote restore

[JayMan @Jteas]

@KimleviKim @rising_alba Restore aren't far right, just right

[JayMan @Jteas]

@WarriorSpeech28 @reformparty_uk The new centre left party

[Samantha 😇🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧💪🏻😊😇 @jude22118]

I want Rupert Lowe on @GBNEWS. He represents me and thousands more, and we want him on the show. If not, we should boycott GB News.

You are happy to have the left on there, so why not the true right too? What are you scared of?

Thumbs up if you're with me 👍🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧👍👍👍

@RestoreBritain_ @RupertLowe10

[Fast Jet Performance 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 ✈️ @timdavies_uk]

I told people not to trust Farage and was attacked for it at the time.

And here we are.

[JayMan @Jteas]

@thef1diplomat Not choclate, palm oil

[JayMan @Jteas]

@restorebrighton Don't give mad Ed ideas

[JayMan @Jteas]

@legendofol1a @cryptoocean2021 Stronger together

[JayMan @Jteas]

@Cal_III Vote restore

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

A 19-year-old Royal Holloway student — Brodie Mitchell — was suspended after a Freshers’ Fair exchange with an anti-Zionist activist who called him a “wannabe Jew”.

He responded by asking why she was wearing a “tea towel” — referring to the keffiyeh-style head-dress she was wearing.

The university suspended Brodie, locked him out of campus and his accommodation — despite having no contractual right to do so — and launched major misconduct proceedings that could have led to his expulsion.

While Brodie faced disciplinary action and serious disruption to his studies, the other student continued attending campus as normal.

The process was deeply unfair and a blatant example of double standards for speech on campus. Royal Holloway was allowed legal representation at the hearing — but Brodie was not.

Now the university is spending vast sums on lawyers to defend its actions in the High Court — wildly disproportionate to the case and seemingly designed to bully a 19-year-old student out of the litigation. Royal Holloway’s conduct is, in our view, disgraceful and intolerable. The Free Speech Union is proud to stand by Brodie in fighting back against this attempt to bully him.

With the support of the Free Speech Union, Brodie is now back on campus — but under onerous conditions restricting who he can talk to and what he can say. Royal Holloway proposes that Brodie face expulsion for any further breach of university rules, no matter how minor.

The enactment of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was a step-change in the protection of freedom of speech on English campuses. ‘Business as usual’ is no longer good enough – universities need to get serious about tolerating their students’ free speech. Royal Holloway, however, does not seem to have received the memo. It is time to remind them, forcibly, of their duties.

We are challenging the restrictions and asking the regulator to investigate. To help Brodie, and other FSU members in similar predicaments, please give to our legal defence fund. Any donation you make will go into a general fund which will pay for the best legal representation for members under threat.

[JayMan @Jteas]

@RestoreBritain_ Vote restore

[JayMan @Jteas]

@huggan_anas Were all restore now

[JayMan @Jteas]

@DuncanBarkes Restore, this is the way

[JayMan @Jteas]

@StuartStokoeUK Restore is the way

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

📣🚨The Free Speech Union is mounting a legal challenge against the Government over its official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as 'anti-Muslim hatred' — and its appointment of a new 'tsar' to punish people who fall foul of it.

This amounts to a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door. The definition is vague and subjective, and will be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism and debate about Islam, Muslims, and Islamic practices and history.

The FSU’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, said: “This is the most serious threat to free speech the Government has come up with so far — the only area in which it’s achieving any success.

“If we don’t win this fight, tens of thousands of people a year could lose their jobs at the say-so of a Labour-appointed ‘tsar’. It’s dystopian.”

Public bodies will adopt this definition — despite it being non-statutory — with the same zeal the police have shown in investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). It is predicted by one of the drafters of the definition that it could lead to around 20,000 reports of 'anti-Muslim hostility' a year. At present, the number of recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes is around 4,000.

In a free society, no religion should be shielded from legitimate criticism. This proposal places one faith above the rest.

The Free Speech Union is bringing a legal challenge on two grounds.

First, the definition relies on nebulous, legally undefined terms such as “negative and prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims”, making it incoherent and irrational — and ripe for weaponisation.

Second, adopting such a definition cuts across legislation already enacted by Parliament and therefore breaches the public law principle known as “occupying the field”. Under this established public law doctrine, new regulations, put in place by ministers, must not replace existing legislation. It is constitutionally unlawful. In this case, the body responsible for protecting Muslims from discrimination is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not an anti-Muslim hostility 'tsar'.

Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws 18 years ago. We can't let this Government resurrect them via the back door.

This is one of the biggest battles the Free Speech Union has ever taken on in its six years — and we need your help. Judicial reviews are expensive, but this is a fight we felt we had to take on.

Donate to our crowdfunder below👇

[Lynne @indyblooo]

C’mon Patriots! Rupert should have more followers than this. Shall we show him what we’re made of?

[JayMan @Jteas]

@BROKENBRITAIN0 Restore is the way