Maddie

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

What is 5G and 6G microwave technology really for ? ( clue- it’s nothing to do with mobile telecommunications) The health risks are just ignored.
Please watch and share

[Russian Garbage Human @RusGarbageHuman]

21-year-old son pleads guilty to throwing traffic cone at police.

- The cone didn't even hit the police
- It is the same judge that oversaw Southport
- All done via tele-link
- 3-5 years sentencing guidelines
- Immediately remanded to custody
- "Justice" in 72hrs because he isn't brown, muslim or a leftie.

If only he broke a policewomans nose instead. Or r*ped a working class English girl.

[Maddie @RubyBon15809833]

@POTUS @JDVance @elonmusk

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament and we have just released our findings on Britain’s broken asylum system. It is beyond damning.

Some extracts from our report…

“…Government departments still do not have a grip on how they will manage asylum as an end-to-end system, or a clear sense of what they are trying to achieve.”

“Major policy risks and operational changes have been pursued without a realistic grip on delivery risks, costs or system-wide impacts.”

“…no single point of accountability for outcomes or a governance structure for the end-to-end system.”

“…absence of a clear strategy, decisions around planning and resource allocation have been reactive and disjointed.”

“The Home Office was unable to show… that it has the commercial capabilities needed to manage asylum accommodation effectively.”

“…weaknesses in its ability to prevent excess profits accruing for contractors…”

“…no evidence that lessons from past mistakes are being used to clearly inform current actions.”

“Poor data quality and weak management information continue to prevent effective management…”

“…current data sharing limitations make it impossible to directly track individual cases through the entire asylum process.”

“The Home Office does not yet have a credible long-term strategy for asylum accommodation…”

“… there is little evidence the Home Office fully understands the impact of its approach on local services.”

“The government is at considerable risk of repeating past failures.”

But don’t worry, the government says it has a plan...

It says it has “learned a lot of lessons”.

And that it’s going to put 10,000 civil servants into what they call an “Asylum Group”.

Funded by us, of course.

How about improving data-linking systems?

The Ministry of Justice says it simply needs more of our money.

And what about ending the use of hotels and transferring to larger, “purpose-driven” sites?

“The Home Office’s own analysis suggests that large sites will cost more than hotels, as seen in previously costly attempts such as Wethersfield.”

The numbers…

£4.9 billion spent on the system each year, including:
£2.7 billion on asylum accommodation
£700 million on cash support
£600 million on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children
Nearly £1 billion on casework, appeals, detention, and removal

All spent to produce between 50,000 or so refugees each year.

And of course, these costs don’t include what is then paid by us, the taxpayer, in Local Authority housing, welfare, childcare assistance, and advice and translation services once once they receive their refugee status and are no longer in the asylum system.

Want more?

At the time of the NAO report (December 2025), Home Office reported there were roughly 224,000 individuals still waiting in the system, excluding those awaiting an initial asylum decision.

Further, since April 2024, MoJ say the number of asylum seekers waiting for an appeal decision alone has trebled, from 27,000 to 70,000, with appeals taking nearly 60 weeks to be heard.

Who pays for them while they wait over a year for a decision?

Us.

And the tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers each year - what happens to them?

The Home Office isn’t sure.

It says it knows “where some of them are”, but the rest are “elsewhere in the country”, and that it is possible they “remain in the UK without detection”.

Don’t fear though, because the Home Office won’t guarantee that it will find them, only that it would “seek to find them”. Whatever the hell that means…

And to deal with the backlog of cases and appeals?

“Home Office relaxed its recruitment arrangements, resulting in newly recruited staff being ill-suited to making complex decisions on asylum cases, which in turn affected decision quality.”

The result?

“In a rolling twelve months to May 2025, 42% of sampled decisions had significant or fail errors.”

Astounding incompetence.

But there’s more good news...

The MoJ is recruiting even more over-paid salaried and fee-paid judges, as well as recruiting judges from other chambers to sit in asylum cases.

In other words, MoJ’s response is to spend more of our money and remove judges from other work.

This is because more asylum seekers “are now representing themselves and that this requires additional support from tribunal staff.”

“The system of monitoring failed asylum seekers needs a complete overhaul,” says the report.

I have a better idea. My own view?

Scrap the entire system altogether, and deport every single illegal migrant living in Britain.

And to those of you say that it’s impossible - to any MPs, public servants, or commentators who think I’m cherry-picking information, I implore you to read every word of the PAC report, every word of the NAO report, and to watch every minute of the 2.5 hour PAC meeting from earlier this year…

And then tell me that the system is working, and that’s it’s delivering value for money, and that it’s sustainable.

It isn’t. And it never will be.

It is an intentional, monumental catastrophe designed to cripple the nation economically, socially, and culturally.

A Restore Britain government will crush the entire asylum system as its first duty to the British people.

Deport them all.

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament and we have just released our findings on Britain’s broken asylum system. It is beyond damning.

Some extracts from our report…

“…Government departments still do not have a grip on how they will manage asylum as an end-to-end system, or a clear sense of what they are trying to achieve.”

“Major policy risks and operational changes have been pursued without a realistic grip on delivery risks, costs or system-wide impacts.”

“…no single point of accountability for outcomes or a governance structure for the end-to-end system.”

“…absence of a clear strategy, decisions around planning and resource allocation have been reactive and disjointed.”

“The Home Office was unable to show… that it has the commercial capabilities needed to manage asylum accommodation effectively.”

“…weaknesses in its ability to prevent excess profits accruing for contractors…”

“…no evidence that lessons from past mistakes are being used to clearly inform current actions.”

“Poor data quality and weak management information continue to prevent effective management…”

“…current data sharing limitations make it impossible to directly track individual cases through the entire asylum process.”

“The Home Office does not yet have a credible long-term strategy for asylum accommodation…”

“… there is little evidence the Home Office fully understands the impact of its approach on local services.”

“The government is at considerable risk of repeating past failures.”

But don’t worry, the government says it has a plan...

It says it has “learned a lot of lessons”.

And that it’s going to put 10,000 civil servants into what they call an “Asylum Group”.

Funded by us, of course.

How about improving data-linking systems?

The Ministry of Justice says it simply needs more of our money.

And what about ending the use of hotels and transferring to larger, “purpose-driven” sites?

“The Home Office’s own analysis suggests that large sites will cost more than hotels, as seen in previously costly attempts such as Wethersfield.”

The numbers…

£4.9 billion spent on the system each year, including:
£2.7 billion on asylum accommodation
£700 million on cash support
£600 million on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children
Nearly £1 billion on casework, appeals, detention, and removal

All spent to produce between 50,000 or so refugees each year.

And of course, these costs don’t include what is then paid by us, the taxpayer, in Local Authority housing, welfare, childcare assistance, and advice and translation services once once they receive their refugee status and are no longer in the asylum system.

Want more?

At the time of the NAO report (December 2025), Home Office reported there were roughly 224,000 individuals still waiting in the system, excluding those awaiting an initial asylum decision.

Further, since April 2024, MoJ say the number of asylum seekers waiting for an appeal decision alone has trebled, from 27,000 to 70,000, with appeals taking nearly 60 weeks to be heard.

Who pays for them while they wait over a year for a decision?

Us.

And the tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers each year - what happens to them?

The Home Office isn’t sure.

It says it knows “where some of them are”, but the rest are “elsewhere in the country”, and that it is possible they “remain in the UK without detection”.

Don’t fear though, because the Home Office won’t guarantee that it will find them, only that it would “seek to find them”. Whatever the hell that means…

And to deal with the backlog of cases and appeals?

“Home Office relaxed its recruitment arrangements, resulting in newly recruited staff being ill-suited to making complex decisions on asylum cases, which in turn affected decision quality.”

The result?

“In a rolling twelve months to May 2025, 42% of sampled decisions had significant or fail errors.”

Astounding incompetence.

But there’s more good news...

The MoJ is recruiting even more over-paid salaried and fee-paid judges, as well as recruiting judges from other chambers to sit in asylum cases.

In other words, MoJ’s response is to spend more of our money and remove judges from other work.

This is because more asylum seekers “are now representing themselves and that this requires additional support from tribunal staff.”

“The system of monitoring failed asylum seekers needs a complete overhaul,” says the report.

I have a better idea. My own view?

Scrap the entire system altogether, and deport every single illegal migrant living in Britain.

And to those of you say that it’s impossible - to any MPs, public servants, or commentators who think I’m cherry-picking information, I implore you to read every word of the PAC report, every word of the NAO report, and to watch every minute of the 2.5 hour PAC meeting from earlier this year…

And then tell me that the system is working, and that’s it’s delivering value for money, and that it’s sustainable.

It isn’t. And it never will be.

It is an intentional, monumental catastrophe designed to cripple the nation economically, socially, and culturally.

A Restore Britain government will crush the entire asylum system as its first duty to the British people.

Deport them all.

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

Starmer on Henry Nowak: "Don't exploit this for politics"

Starmer on George Floyd:

[Claire Coutinho @ClaireCoutinho]

South Wales Police has instructed officers to log comments they feel are beyond "legitimate" criticism of Islam.

This is, exactly as I warned, a blasphemy law through the back door.

Nobody voted for this.

My letter to the Chief Constable👇🏾

[Maddie @RubyBon15809833]

Moment evil teen trio CELEBRATE killing Kayden Moy as grim CCTV footage revealed https://t.co/UXWKwriPDD if you commit crime, you forfeit your name, no matter what age

[Grumpy old man @nicfreeman60]

@dejanirasilveir

[Rachel Elizabeth Nightingale @GlamGrafter]

@dejanirasilveir The elite never miss a chance to tighten the leash while preaching freedom and convenience. Your cash, your life, soon their permission slip.

[Kimberly Harris @KimoeHH]

@dejanirasilveir

[Confuzz_led @ArcticSilhouett]

@dejanirasilveir Why are we allowing the 1% to dictate to the 99% how to run our lives when they are some of the most criminal, deluded & delinquent people on the planet.

The Epstien files prove it.

[silversurfer @RaddtheHerald]

What the fuck is this gimp talking about, “with digital id you can access your money and make payments more easily than with others?”
I can access my money and make payments just fine thank you. I don’t want or need a digital id that will just restrict my freedom even more.
This man is such a feeble little worm. When will we get this EU puppet out!! The whole nation hates him.

[Anthony @Kabbage1977]

@dejanirasilveir @MeganSu44977991 .

[3Winner 🌸 @3Luser]

@dejanirasilveir

[J @jbulldogs4]

@dejanirasilveir @goufay

[Steve @Steve69835247]

He's a fukcing liar.

The primary downsides of India’s digital ID scheme, Aadhaar, center on widespread exclusion from essential welfare, privacy and surveillance risks, and severe technical failures.

Key issues include: Exclusion from Welfare: Millions have been locked out of food rations, pensions, and healthcare because of system glitches, unverified fingerprints, or misspelt names and outdated data.

In some tragic cases, this digital exclusion has led to starvation.
Marginalization of Vulnerable Groups: Automation replaced local, human assistance.
This disproportionately penalizes the poor, the elderly, and remote tribal communities who lack the necessary literacy or documents to navigate system changes.

Surveillance and Privacy Threats: Critics warn that connecting a single foundational ID to multiple public and private services creates an "architecture of surveillance", increasing the potential for state profiling and totalitarian https://t.co/hNT6LKwXK0 Security:

While the main biometric database has largely avoided a centralized breach, various associated third-party and software databases have been hacked, raising concerns over how the government protects sensitive information.

[Geronimo Ant @TomoUk3]

@dejanirasilveir

[NHPUK South East @NHPUKSouthEast]

@dejanirasilveir

[Al H @hall53633]

@dejanirasilveir A national debate, don’t talk like a twat, you have no intention of listening to a debate. You want to impose ID cards because you are corrupt. Just as you have decided you will ignore the brexit vote and rejoin the EU.

[JoannaG @JoG1WY]

@dejanirasilveir @AndyHammers What is the benefit of having to show digital ID to access our own money!! The man is a complete charlatan