myarch

First time political home owner

🇬🇧 It's time for real change!

@restorebritain_

[Scottie McNut 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿✝️ @ScottieMcNut]

I refuse to accept that young British people should become poorer than their parents.

I refuse to accept that a country with Britain's natural resources should have ruinously expensive energy.

I refuse to accept that working people should surrender more and more of their earnings to a state that delivers less.

I refuse to accept that illegal immigration is an insoluble fact of life.

I refuse to accept that mass immigration can never be reversed.

I refuse to watch our young people replaced by zeroskilled laborers from the third world.

I refuse to accept that Britain cannot be great once again.

Rupert Lowe FULL Party Conference Speech
https://t.co/m4x0hBLkMu

[Make Britain Great Again @UK_Needs_Reform]

Definitely, Passenger transfers at prearranged points are not rescues.

THE RNLI must be the only emergency service that's booked in advance...

[Inevitable West @Inevitablewest]

🚨BREAKING: VOX Party leader Santiago Abascal sends message to voters ahead of the snap elections:

"I encourage you not to vote by mail. Vote at the ballot box, because at this moment I absolutely do not trust anything Pedro Sánchez might do." 🇪🇸

[Dr Clare Craig ✝️ @ClareCraigPath]

Are you over 50?

Do you care about someone who is?

Should they have to restrict their flour intake to 80g a day (less than one sandwich)?

No breakfast cereal, marmite, pizza, biscuits, cakes, bechamel?

It is unjust.

Sign the petition.

[Chris Rose @ArchRose90]

It’s disgusting for Shabana Mahmood to claim that everyone in Patriot Platform would "kill me in a minute if they could” with zero evidence.

She is not the victim.

People like Wayne Broadhurst, Rhiannon Whyte, Gheorghe Trica, several teenage girls are the real victims.

[Michelle @ScottishTruther]

@cryptoocean2021 @Neil80085 @Ruth1011W @DawnBracken5 @TheRestoredBear I have only 300 ish but building up slowly ❤️

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

🚨 The Government has imposed a de facto Islamic blasphemy law by the back door — and almost certainly allowed Islamist extremists to influence the process.

At the start of the year, the Free Speech Union revealed that all five members of the Government’s working group had troubling links to Islamist organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND. Successive governments have had a policy of non-engagement with both since 2009, citing concerns about their views.

A Freedom of Information request by Shadow Justice Secretary @NJ_Timothy revealed that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had said it deleted all responses to the Working Group’s consultation, which informed the drafting of the definition. That appeared to conflict with the Government’s own data policy, which requires key information of historical importance to be retained for 20 years.

The Free Speech Union sent MHCLG a pre-action protocol letter, threatening judicial review unless the department disclosed who had been given the opportunity to influence the definition.

After considerable delay, MHCLG has written back to @SpeechUnion and admitted that they had located ‘at least one available copy of the dataset’.

This is a shocking revelation — and raises serious questions about the handling of the process.
Angela Rayner must come clean.

Why did officials originally claim that the data had been deleted?

If it has been deleted, and subsequently “recovered”, why did this happen, and why did they attempt to hide behind data protection legislation?

Did the Government allow extremists to influence the drafting of a definition that has had a chilling effect on free speech — and then mislead the public about what happened to the consultation responses?

The public deserves to know the truth.

[Darren Grimes @darrengrimes]

The 34-year-old from Kuwait had arrived in the UK on a small boat 16 days earlier, after a previous illegal entry four years ago. The migrant Hokey Cokey is the most dangerous iteration of the game.

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

A Restore Britain Government will restore the link between British citizenship and being British in any meaningful sense.

[Montgomery Toms @MontgomeryToms]

Yesterday, I was mobbed by more than 1,000 students at Bristol University.

Riot horses arrived, and police closed the road.

Antifa attacked us, vandalised our equipment and shut down our peaceful debates.

@freedomwatchgb has more momentum than ever, and they’re terrified.

[Darren Grimes @darrengrimes]

Shabana Mahmood, Sunday: nearly all women on the small boats have been raped.

Shabana Mahmood, same interview: the real danger is blokes in balaclavas who'd like the boats to stop.

She's identified the predators. Then aimed her fire at the people complaining about them.

[Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes]

Treasury Hires Lead Pensions Policy Adviser: No Experience Needed https://t.co/PupJhGbFig

[Nick Timothy MP @NJ_Timothy]

The Justice Secretary released 700 criminals from prison early last week.

He says he doesn’t know how many of them have been tagged because “it only happened on Thursday”.

I have written to ask when he will be able to answer this basic question.

Public safety is at risk.

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

The Evidence Wasn't Deleted. So Publish It

For months, the government's answer to who shaped its new definition of anti-Muslim hostility was simple: the evidence was gone. It never was.

Will Garton, director general at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, has confirmed in writing that more extensive searches, including technical work by departmental IT specialists, found that "the underlying Call for Evidence response dataset is still held on Departmental systems." Nick Timothy was first told the material wasn't held. He kept pushing. The department eventually discovered that it was.

This isn't some incidental pile of correspondence. The government's own published account calls the working group's evidence gathering "significant" and says the Call for Evidence "forms the basis of the definition that the government is now adopting." If this evidence underpins a definition ministers want organisations across Britain to use, the public has an obvious interest in knowing who submitted it and how it shaped the outcome, personal data protected where the law requires.

Questions about the process predate the dataset reappearing. Rayner appointed Dominic Grieve to chair the supposedly independent group despite Grieve having written the foreword to the 2018 APPG report proposing the earlier Islamophobia definition. Akeela Ahmed, a panel member, had publicly championed that same definition. Harder to find among the five members is any voice for the free-speech or secularist case. Sir John Jenkins, a former ambassador the group approached, refused to take part, believing its direction already appeared predetermined.

There's also a question ministers haven't properly answered. In June, James Cleverly asked specifically whether MEND, CAGE, the Muslim Association of Britain or the Muslim Council of Britain had submitted written evidence. The government replied that the consultation was open to everyone, that the department hadn't engaged with those groups, and that the working group hadn't met them. Cleverly hadn't asked who they'd met. He asked who had submitted evidence.

That distinction matters. An organisation doesn't need to sit across a table from Grieve to shape an open consultation. It only needs to send a submission. That alone doesn't prove the process was captured, even though it might look that way. It does mean transparency matters more, not less, and the records now survive to provide it. Publish the submissions, redact what the law requires, and let the public see who tried to shape this definition.

The deeper problem goes beyond Islamophobia. A department built national policy on what it calls a substantial evidence exercise. When an opposition MP sought the material, officials said it wasn't held. Only further pressure and a forensic search found it was. Garton's letter says ministers weren't involved in handling or retention decisions, so there's no evidence yet that ministers ordered anything concealed. There's every reason to ask how an official FOI process missed evidence important enough to justify government policy.

The government can no longer claim disclosure is impossible because the evidence vanished. Its own director general confirms it survives. If the process was as rigorous as ministers maintain, publishing it should only prove that. If it wasn't, the public deserves to know that too.

The question was never really where the evidence went. It's why, now the government admits it still has it, the country still isn't allowed to see it.

"Rayner appointed Dominic Grieve to chair the supposedly independent group despite Grieve having written the foreword to the 2018 APPG report proposing the earlier Islamophobia definition."

[George K 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @GeorgeKedge]

'Split vote' narrative plays right into the hands of the establishment..

Conditioning you to believe that the only option for Britain is a vote for the least worst choice.

I cannot put a number on the amount of reformers I meet that prefer restore & their policies.

Mad logic

[Robert Abel @rj_abel]

A Welsh flag carrying an Arabic message instead of Welsh. What an utter disgrace.

If you’re going to display the flag of Wales, have the basic respect to honour its language and heritage.

How many Arabic flags display a message in Welsh?

Typical Plaid ! 🤮

[Sarah McLaughlin @sarahemclaugh]

UK officials have now admitted that the under-16 ban will require *adults* to verify their age with a passport. And that the under-16 ban is the beginning, not the end point, of the online safety campaign.

This is why we’ve been warning about the coming risks to online speech.

[Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes]

Labour to Harshen Social Media Ban After Kids Find Workarounds https://t.co/5yx8aD2cv2

[Andrew Neil @afneil]

PM Burnham is considering delaying a decision about when the government will increase defence spending until the autumn of next year in the hope that Britain’s economy improves. I’m sure Britain’s many enemies will give him the breathing space he requires to make up his mind. It’s not as if it’s a dangerous world.

[Reclaim The Net @ReclaimTheNetHQ]

The UK government wants a passport, a driving license or a face scan before you can open a new social media account. This is the same country that arrests people over tweets. Britain has jailed people for what they posted online and now the state wants to know exactly who is behind every account before the first post goes up.

The ban covers Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook and X, and it is expected to start in spring 2027.

Discord already leaked government IDs after it introduced age checks. There is no reliable, privacy-preserving way to verify the age of every internet user. A pile of faces and passports linked to social media accounts is a gift to a government that prosecutes speech.

https://t.co/bYGks8GGnI