Public bodies across the country continue to allow biological males into female only spaces while ministers cite procedural excuses and political caution. This is not administrative delay. It is deliberate ideological resistance to a clear legal verdict that protects women and girls.

The Supreme Court Judgment And Its Clear Mandate

On 16 April 2025 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the case brought by For Women Scotland that references to sex in equality law refer exclusively to biological sex. Transgender women, who are biologically male, are not legally women for the purposes of single sex provisions. The judgment brought statutory clarity to toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons and sports. The Equality and Human Rights Commission prepared an updated code of practice and submitted it to ministers in September 2025. Yet the government has refused to lay it before Parliament. Hundreds of NHS trusts, councils and police forces cite the absence of this guidance as their reason for maintaining policies that contradict the ruling and leave women and children at greater risk.

Labour Ministers Drag Their Feet Amid Mounting Criticism Even From The UN

Bridget Phillipson, the Women and Equalities Minister, has faced accusations of refusing to meet the women who won the case and of watering down the EHRC guidelines. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has spoken publicly about the need for trans inclusive spaces while single sex wards remain non existent in the NHS. On the anniversary of the judgment campaigners from For Women Scotland hand delivered a letter to Downing Street demanding immediate action. They received no substantive response. Ministers now claim purdah rules ahead of the 7 May 2026 Scottish and Welsh elections prevent publication. This is the same government that promised clarity within weeks of the ruling. One year on nothing has changed and I am convinced its deliberate.

Starmer The Human Rights Lawyer Who Ignores Domestic Law

Remember Starmer is a former human rights lawyer, and initially welcomed the Supreme Court judgment at the time and stated that a woman is an adult female. Yet his administration treats the ruling as optional. The same Prime Minister who lectures the country on international law and human rights obligations refuses to implement a binding domestic judgment on the most basic of protections. This selective approach reveals the priority. Political ideology and the fear of internal party dissent outweigh the safety and dignity of women. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, has publicly criticised the failure to enforce the ruling across public authorities and service providers, warning that it endangers women.

The Practical Harm To Women And Girls

The consequences are not abstract. Biological males continue to access female only hospital wards, changing rooms, toilets and prisons because public bodies await guidance that never arrives. Campaigners including Maya Forstater of Sex Matters and Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies have highlighted how this inaction leaves women vulnerable in precisely the spaces where they are most exposed. Labour claims it wants to halve violence against women and girls yet refuses to define what a woman is in law. This is not compassion. It is cowardice dressed up as consultation.

• Hundreds of NHS trusts still permit biological males in female wards.

• Councils and police forces maintain outdated self identification policies.

• The EHRC code remains unpublished despite being ready for months.

• Ministers cite elections as an excuse while women wait indefinitely.

Restore Britain Would Enforce Biological Reality Without Apology

This fiasco exposes the ideological capture of the Labour Party. Starmer and his ministers place the feelings of a vocal activist minority above the physical safety and privacy of the female majority. A right leaning perspective sees this for what it is, the triumph of fashionable dogma over immutable biology and common sense. Women did not ask for their rights to be negotiated. They expect them to be upheld.

Restore Britain offers the decisive alternative. Its policies state clearly that sex is biological, not a social construct, and that men must not be permitted to enter women only spaces including lavatories, prisons and sporting contests. The party commits to repealing the Gender Recognition Act so that legal documents no longer permit individuals to change their sex in law. Biological sex would be recognised as immutable and recorded accordingly. Objective truth, not ideology, would guide governance. These measures would resolve the current chaos in weeks rather than years. No more delays, no more excuses, just enforcement of the law as the Supreme Court intended. Britain deserves leadership that puts women first, not one that endangers them to appease a lobby.

The Vetting Failure Foreign Office Officials Overruled

The vetting process requires full disclosure of personal finances, business links and even sexual history, along with input from intelligence services and what they know on an indiviual. Mandelson’s file raised major red flags, including long standing concerns from British and allied agencies about his vulnerability to hostile foreign states and blackmail risks. He has also been in trouble many times before in government, hence his nickname, the Prince of Darkness. Despite this, senior Foreign Office officials invoked a rarely used override procedure to grant him clearance so he could take up the post. I cannot believe that Starmer and his cronies were not aware, involved or put pressure on regarding this.

Vetting failures at this level are described by insiders as exceptionally rare for a role as sensitive as ambassador to Washington. The decision was taken after Starmer had already named Mandelson publicly, creating a dilemma the civil servants resolved by bypassing security advice.

Morgan McSweeney’s Resignation Starmer Chose To Ignore

Starmer’s then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, had played a central role in recommending Mandelson. When the appointment unravelled amid Epstein file revelations late last year, McSweeney resigned on in February saying he took full responsibility, admitting the decision was wrong and calling for the vetting system to be fundamentally overhauled. Starmer’s response was to carry on as if nothing had changed. He continued to tell Parliament that full due process had been followed and that the same rigorous checks applied to every ambassadorial appointment.

McSweeney’s departure should have triggered an immediate review. Instead Starmer doubled down, even refusing six times in PMQs to answer straightforward questions about his conversations with Mandelson before the appointment.

Starmer’s Assurances To Parliament Now Lie In Ruins

On multiple occasions last year Starmer told the House of Commons and wrote to the Intelligence and Security Committee that due process had been completed and Mandelson had cleared all necessary checks. A government spokesman repeated the line as recently as September last year. Downing Street now claims Starmer only learned of the vetting failure and the Foreign Office override earlier this week, really? The Prime Minister, they say, was furious and has already ordered the Foreign Office to explain itself and suspended its power to overrule vetting recommendations.

So again, either Starmer knew about the override and misled Parliament, or he did not know and allowed a critical diplomatic appointment to proceed without proper oversight. In either case the assurances he gave were false.

More documents related to the decision that were due to be released are now at the centre of a fresh row, with officials debating whether to withhold them from the Intelligence and Security Committee despite a parliamentary vote demanding their release.

Foreign Office Civil Servants Acted Above Accountability

The override was carried out by unelected officials inside the Foreign Office. Sir Olly Robbins, the department’s top civil servant, is now reported to be leaving his post after Starmer and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper lost confidence in him. Civil servants made a political decision not on national security grounds and overruled professional vetting advice.

This is not isolated incompetence. It is another example of a civil service being ideologically and politically biased.

Conclusion

Britain cannot afford another scandal that exposes the rot at the heart of public appointments and national security vetting. Restore Britain has consistently demanded publicly accountable government and an end to the unaccountable power of the permanent bureaucracy. Its policies call for civil servants to be held personally responsible for failures, the abolition of final-salary pensions that insulate officials from consequences, and a foreign policy that puts British interests first rather than the convenience of political insiders.

Rupert has repeatedly stated that the failing civil service must be personally held to account. This Mandelson affair proves why. Only by implementing those reforms, scrapping the culture of political overrides and restoring real ministerial oversight can Britain prevent the next vetting disaster. Starmer’s Labour has shown it is incapable of delivering that change. Restore Britain stands ready to do so.

This campaign targets retailers such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s and M&S, which have moved away from earlier commitments to match the benchmark after leading on it before the tax and legislation changes by Labour really began to bite. Aldi and Lidl remain the only major players paying entry level shop staff this rate nationwide.

The push comes via shareholder resolutions and annual general meetings, with ShareAction framing it as essential for workers facing rising living costs.

ShareAction’s Left Leaning Agenda And Funding Sources

As a registered charity operating under the name Fairshare Educational Foundation, ShareAction specialises in shareholder activism to advance environmental, social and governance policies. It originated in 2005 as FairPensions, a project of the left wing group People and Planet, and received early funding from the Trades Union Congress. It’s current leadership includes chief executive Catherine Howarth, who previously worked with the left-leaning Citizens UK and serves on various ESG advisory roles.

Major funding in recent years has come from left-leaning foundations, including:

• The Sunrise Project, which provided over 639,000 pounds in 2022.

• IKEA through the New Venture Fund, contributing around 453,000 pounds.

• The European Climate Foundation and KR Foundation, both focused on environmental causes.

• Additional grants from the Ford Foundation, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and others.

This funding profile underscores ShareAction’s alignment with progressive causes rather than neutral sensible economic analysis.

Labour Government Policies Drive Retail Job Losses And Cost Pressures

The very problems left wing ShareAction highlights stem directly from policies enacted by the left wing Labour government. In the October 2024 Budget, Rachel Reeves raised employer national insurance contributions from 13.8 percent to 15 percent and lowered the threshold at which it applies from £9,100 to £5,000 annually. Combined with above inflation increases in the national minimum wage, these changes have added an estimated £5 billion in annual labour costs to the retail sector alone. Someone has to pay this but ShareAction seems to hapily ignore that.

The British Retail Consortium has warned that such measures make job losses inevitable, with up to 160,000 part-time retail positions at risk over the next three years and 10,000’s loosing their jobs monthly. Retail has already shed thousands of roles, contributing to broader rises in unemployment, particularly among young workers and part-timers, with Britain having the highest youth unemployment in the EU.

Businesses face a cumulative burden of higher taxes, energy costs and regulatory pressures that leave them without the budget to absorb further wage hikes or even maintain current staffing levels. ShareAction wanting a 5.8% increase to take minimum wage employees to living wage employees is just too much.

Basic Economics Explains Why Forced Wage Rises Backfire

ShareAction’s call for supermarkets to pay above the statutory minimum ignores the straightforward reality of business economics. Retail operates on tight margins, and when governments impose higher employer taxes and mandatory wage floors, firms respond by cutting hours, reducing headcount or passing costs to consumers through higher prices. Surveys of retail finance directors show nearly half planning staff reductions specifically due to the national insurance hike.

This is not corporate greed but survival. Mandating a real living wage through shareholder activism or regulation simply accelerates the cycle: businesses hire fewer people, productivity stagnates, and the low-paid workers ShareAction claims to champion end up with fewer opportunities altogether. The left’s approach of taxation and intervention creates the precise shortage of funds that prevents voluntary pay rises.

Restore Britain’s Policies Provide The Genuine Solution

The only realistic path out of this mess lies in pro-growth, pro-business, low taxation, small government policies that reward work and reduce the tax burden on both employer and employee. Restore Britain’s economic and taxation policies directly address the root causes by slashing corporation tax to the lowest rate in Europe, abolishing inheritance tax, scrapping IR35, doubling the VAT threshold for small firms and overhauling dividend tax rates to reward success.

Crucially, the party would slash national insurance contributions, a direct tax on jobs that has fuelled the current unemployment spike, and end the punitive business rates and red tape strangling retailers. Rupert Lowe has repeatedly highlighted these failures, noting in public statements that taxing employment inevitably leads to higher unemployment because governments treat businesses as a source to squeeze rather than grow. A Restore Britain government would also ban benefits for non-UK born individuals, get healthy Brits off welfare and into work, and cut wasteful spending to free up resources for genuine economic expansion.

By getting government out of the way and creating an environment where firms can thrive, Restore Britain would enable supermarkets and other retailers to offer competitive wages naturally, without the job killing mandates pushed by groups like ShareAction. This is the common sense approach Britain needs to restore prosperity for workers and businesses alike.

The Scale Of The Tax Bills

According to Paragon Bank data reported in the Metro on 7 April 2026, the 883,000 higher-rate savers face an average bill of £2,030. Another 1.42 million basic rate taxpayers will receive bills averaging £641. In total, HMRC expects to issue letters to 2.79 million people as it processes 2025/26 interest data.

The trigger is basically anyone with £3,500 or more in a savings account that can now breach the Personal Savings Allowance because interest rates have risen. A higher-rate taxpayer putting £3,500 into a three-year fixed-rate bond at 5 percent would earn the full £500 allowance by maturity and owe tax on anything above. Basic rate taxpayers need around £7,000 in the same account to hit their £1,000 limit. At current easy-access rates of around 4.5 percent, higher rate taxpayers exceed their allowance with just over £11,000 saved, while basic rate taxpayers need roughly £22,000.

These figures hit retirees and working families who have struggled for years to build small emergency funds after paying tax on their earnings. The number of people caught has risen 128 percent for higher-rate and 132 percent for basic-rate taxpayers since 2022/23.

How The Personal Savings Allowance Now Punishes Modest Savers

The allowance itself has not changed. £1,000 tax-free interest for basic-rate taxpayers, £500 for higher-rate, and zero for additional-rate. Yet frozen tax thresholds and higher interest rates have dragged more people into tax. HMRC receives the data from banks and building societies each year and adjusts tax codes or sends P800 letters demanding payment, often through higher deductions from pay or pensions.

This is not a new tax law. It is aggressive enforcement of rules set when interest rates were near zero. Prudent Brits who struggle and avoid debt, manage to save just a few pounds a month are now penalised for it. Meanwhile, the government has raised taxes by tens of billions since taking office in 2024, with the first budget alone adding £40 billion, the second adding £30bn and further rises will follow.

Billions Wasted On Net Zero, Foreign Aid, And Non-British Welfare

The contrast is stark. Official figures show the UK spent £13 billion on foreign aid in 2025, even after a £1 billion cut. Over 18 percent of that budget still covers asylum seeker and refugee costs inside Britain. Asylum housing and welfare support alone is projected at £2.1 billion for 2025/26, down only modestly from previous years and still far above historical levels.

Net zero policies add further strain. Estimates from the Office for Budget Responsibility and others put the transition cost at around £30 billion a year on average through to 2050, with cumulative figures running into hundreds of billions. Households face higher energy bills, subsidies for unreliable renewables, and mandates that deliver little global benefit when major emitters like China and India continue unchecked.

Labour has increased taxation heading towards £100bn since 2024 through all these extras and employer national insurance hikes, capital gains changes, inheritance tax reforms, and more. British taxpayers foot the bill for all of it.

Restore Britain Would Cut The Waste And Reward Savers

This tax raid on small savers is indefensible when the state continues to fund priorities that do not serve British people first. Restore Britain has clear, practical policies to reverse the damage.

• Ban all social benefits for those not born in the UK, ending Universal Credit, disability payments, and housing support for foreign nationals. This would free billions currently diverted to non-British claimants and reduce pressure on the NHS and social housing.

• Scrap net zero targets and invest instead in nuclear power. This would save billions a year, lower energy bills, and prioritise reliable British energy security over virtue-signalling targets.

• End foreign aid waste and refocus spending on British taxpayers. As Rupert Lowe has repeatedly stated, government must treat every pound of tax as coming from a family or business and stop the profligacy.

Rupert has made the case plainly on X. He has called for massive tax cuts paired with welfare and spending reductions, arguing Britain needs an economic reality check. He has highlighted net zero as a mad drive that harms food production and energy costs, and he has demanded respect for taxpayers money rather than endless waste on foreign nationals and overseas schemes.

These policies directly address the root problem. Stop the handouts to non-British nationals. Stop the net zero obsession. Stop shipping billions abroad. The money saved would allow tax relief for British workers and savers instead of raiding their modest nest eggs.

The choice is clear. Continue the current path of higher taxes and misplaced spending, or back Restore Britain to put British people and their hard-earned savings first. Prudent families deserve better than this latest HMRC raid.

Starmer himself described Kanye West as a nutcase in the eyes of many, and to be fair to him (for once) I agree. No one disputes that the artist has made deeply unpleasant and antisemitic remarks in the past. Yet this ban reveals a glaring hypocrisy at the heart of Starmer’s approach to national security and free speech.

The Selective Ban on Kanye West

The Government moved after pressure from Labour MPs, advocacy groups and festival sponsors. Kanye West’s history of inflammatory statements made him an easy target. Starmer’s office framed the decision as protecting Britain from extremism. Yet the speed and certainty with which this ban was enforced stand in stark contrast to other cases. When it suits the narrative Starmer labels speech a threat. When it does not he turns a blind eye or worse offers a warm welcome.

Welcoming Real Extremists With Open Arms

While Kanye West is barred Starmer has rolled out the red carpet for figures whose records raise far more serious questions. In December 2025 the Prime Minister publicly celebrated the return of British-Egyptian activist Alaa Abd El-Fattah after his release from an Egyptian jail. Starmer said he was delighted the activist had been reunited with his loved ones. Days later social media posts surfaced in which Abd El-Fattah called for killing Zionists and white people denied the Holocaust and advocated violence against police. Starmer later admitted regret saying he had not known about the comments, but the evidence was to the contrary when he said in parliament some years before about him being jailed for social media posts so he knew damn well. The damage was done. Taxpayers funded this hero’s welcome for someone whose views Starmer himself later called abhorrent.

Even more damning is the red carpet treatment given to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Starmer hosted him in Downing Street for talks and al-Sharaa who unbelievably also met the King. Al-Sharaa formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani led Hayat Tahrir al-Sham a group designated as terrorist by the United States and others with roots in al-Qaeda in Syria. He has a long history tied to jihadist organisations that fought alongside and against ISIS elements during the Syrian civil war. Britain under Starmer legitimised a man with that background while citing extremism as the reason to block a controversial rapper.

Banning Critics While Ignoring Genuine Threats

This is not an isolated lapse. Starmer’s Government has also revoked the electronic travel authorisation of Dutch anti-immigration activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek in January this year. Her notification stated her presence was not conducive to the public good. Vlaardingerbroek who has spoken out against mass immigration and criticised Starmer directly on free speech saw her visa free access cancelled shortly after her comments. Meanwhile figures with documented calls for violence against Jews white people and British institutions receive official welcomes.

The pattern is clear. Speech that challenges open borders or mass immigration is treated as dangerous. Views that align with certain foreign policy goals or progressive narratives receive a free pass even when they cross into extremism. Taxpayers foot the bill for diplomatic engagements and welcomes that many Britons find disgusting.

The Broader Pattern of Hypocrisy

Starmer’s record shows repeated double standards. His decision to recognise a Palestinian state has been criticised by many including the mother of a freed British-Israeli hostage as rewarding Hamas after the horrors of 7 October. He insists Hamas has no future in government yet the timing and messaging have left critics asking why terrorists abroad receive softer treatment than a foul-mouthed rapper at home. Even George Galloway a vocal opponent of Starmer has expressed concerns about the atmosphere in Britain under this Government and is afraid to come out of excile. The message is unmistakable. Certain voices are silenced while others are platformed.

Restore Britain Offers the Only Sensible Path

Keir Starmer’s selective outrage on extremism is not principled governance. It is political theatre that endangers British security and erodes trust. Rupert Lowe leader of Restore Britain put it bluntly on X. He could not care less what Kanye West says but questioned why Britain suddenly decides who enters while failing to deport third-world rapists conmen and sex pests first. Lowe added that banning West goes too far and it should be up to ticket buyers not the Prime Minister who decides.

Ironically there was no need to ban him and the festival has collapsed after the major sponsors have now pulled out.

Restore Britain’s policies cut through the nonsense. They demand immediate suspension of visa routes from high-risk countries for terrorism and extremism. Every illegal entrant identified as a foreign Islamist extremist would face deportation on day one. Dual nationals involved in extremism would be stripped of British citizenship and removed.

The focus is simple. Protect British borders, prioritise British safety and stop importing threats before lecturing the public on speech. Only Restore Britain will restore order end the two-tier hypocrisy and put Britain first again.

Starmer’s Britain is broken. Restore Britain will fix it.

This betrayal left her facing death threats, public accusations of being a paedophile, and the very real risk of losing her own child to social services. Despite Starmer’s repeated boasts in the House of Commons that he oversaw successful prosecutions of these gangs, the facts reveal a complete failure to protect the very girls his office was supposed to serve. This is not the known pattern of how political correctness and a fear of offending certain communities allowed systemic abuse to continue unchecked, but how the CPS and Starmer acted with pure wickedness to a victim to put her as the perpetrator.

The Betrayal Of Victim Amber In Rochdale

In the Rochdale grooming gang prosecutions which took place while Starmer led the CPS as he has continually boasted, one key victim known as Amber provided extensive evidence against the mainly Pakistani Muslim perpetrators who had raped and exploited girls as young as 12.

Far from being treated as a victim, unbeknown to her the CPS named her in the indictment as part of the conspiracy for what it called ‘tactical reasons’. She received no arrest, no caution, and no opportunity to defend herself. An independent review commissioned in 2017 concluded that the CPS showed an unacceptable lack of concern for her safety and subjected her to deplorable further abuse. Greater Manchester Police eventually issued a full apology in 2022 and formally recognised her as a victim. Yet the damage was already done, remember for ‘tactical reasons’. Death threats followed, her address was shared online, and social services tried to remove her infant child. This was no accident. It was a deliberate CPS strategy that prioritised securing convictions over basic humanity and they didn’t give a shit.

Another survivor, Ruby, who was raped repeatedly from age 12 and impregnated at 13 by one of the gang leaders, has now spoken publicly for the first time. She has condemned Starmer’s claims of a job well done, pointing out that DNA evidence existed but rape charges were not pursued against her key offenders.

The result was early release for some of the worst abusers after serving only a fraction of their sentences.

Starmer’s Bragging In Parliament Meets Harsh Reality

Starmer has repeatedly claimed credit for the first grooming gang prosecutions under his watch at the CPS. Downing Street has even stated that as Director of Public Prosecutions he secured those landmark cases more than a decade ago. Yet the Express investigation, supported by direct evidence and testimony, shows he personally oversaw decisions that included the smearing of a child victim that resulted in a risk to her life.

Former GMP detective and whistleblower Maggie Oliver, who resigned in disgust over the handling of these cases, has described the tactic used against Amber as inhumane, unlawful, and something that should never be repeated. Oliver has supported both Amber and Ruby for over 12 years and confirmed that even in 2023 the CPS refused to apologise or rule out using such tactics again.

This is not isolated. It fits a pattern across Rotherham, Oldham, Rochdale and beyond where authorities turned a blind eye to the ethnicity and cultural background of the perpetrators to avoid accusations of racism. The result was thousands of British girls sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism and Labour’s reliance on bloc votes from Pakistani Muslim communities.

A Cover Up Driven By Votes And Political Correctness

The grooming gangs scandal has always been about more than individual crimes. It exposed a systemic reluctance by police, social services and prosecutors to confront the reality that gangs of mainly Pakistani Muslim men targeted vulnerable white working class girls. Concerns about community tensions repeatedly trumped child safety. Whistleblowers like Maggie Oliver were ignored or forced out. Independent inquiries later confirmed what many on the right had warned about for years: political correctness paralysed institutions. Starmer’s CPS did not challenge this culture. Instead it reinforced it with tactics that further victimised the victims.

Mainstream media outlets such as the BBC have previously downplayed Starmer’s direct responsibility, claiming no evidence he blocked prosecutions. Yet the new Express revelations, backed by the victims themselves and Oliver, paint a different picture. The cover up served a purpose, protecting Labour’s electoral base in key northern seats. British girls paid the price.

Victims And Campaigners Demand Accountability

• Maggie Oliver has worked tirelessly with Daily Express journalist Zak Garner-Purkis to bring this story to light, highlighting how the CPS under Starmer failed the most vulnerable.
• Survivors like Amber and Ruby have shown extraordinary courage in coming forward after years of silence.
• Anti grooming campaigners such as Raja Miah have long documented similar patterns of institutional denial across towns like Oldham and Birmingham. Raja is another another victim of police and the judiciary promoting lies and releasing personal information on him that put himself and his own daughter in danger
• Sammy Woodhouse, the Rotherham survivor leading calls for the national inquiry, has repeatedly highlighted Starmer’s weakness on tackling paedophilia and exploitation.

These voices are united in their demand that those responsible face scrutiny. The independent review already labelled the CPS actions deplorable. Starmer owes the public far more than boasts in Parliament.

Rupert Lowe And Restore Britain Offer The Only Path Forward

Rupert Lowe has been relentless in calling out this national disgrace. He has labelled Starmer a disgrace for allowing the abuse to continue and for delaying the national inquiry. Lowe’s independent Rape Gang Inquiry, crowdfunded and run without government support, has already heard horrific testimony from survivors and is exposing the full scale of the scandal that Labour tried to bury. Through Restore Britain, Lowe and his team are committed to real action where others offer only words.

This latest exposure of Keir Starmer’s handling of the Rochdale grooming gangs is not just a failure of one man or one office. It is the inevitable outcome of a political class that placed votes and cultural sensitivity and votes above the safety of British children. The betrayal of Amber, the risks she faced, and the suffering of countless others demand more than apologies. They demand root and branch reform. They demand prison sentences for many in authority.

Restore Britain’s approach offers the resolution Britain desperately needs. By prioritising the protection of vulnerable girls, confronting the cultural and religious factors behind these crimes without fear, and ensuring foreign nationals involved face deportation where possible, their policies cut through the political correctness that enabled this horror. Rupert Lowe’s independent inquiry is already delivering the truth that the establishment suppressed. Only by restoring sovereignty over our borders, our justice system and our national priorities can we prevent another generation of British girls from being sacrificed. The time for cover ups is over. Restore Britain will deliver the justice victims deserve.

Watch the interview with Maggie Oliver here;

Data from Henley and Partners shows Britain lost a net 10,800 millionaires in 2024, with forecasts pointing to 16,500 leaving in 2025, the highest outflow of any modern country. Business Secretary Peter Kyle has openly admitted that Labour tax rises, including non dom changes, are partly to blame for some wealthy individuals relocating. High profile cases, such as steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal, underscore the trend. Even Cabinet ministers acknowledge the link between policy and departure. This is not speculation. It is happening, driven by a business environment that punishes achievement rather than rewards it.

Personally I now know of 5 individuals who have left the UK directly due to this labour governments policies. One guy has a brilliant AI concept with multiple investment offers but he has been forced to the USA where entrepreneurship is positively encouraged, not punished and no anti business sentiment as back here in the UK. Its such a terrible loss and that is the top of the iceberg.

Demonising success fuels the flight

Labour and Green voices portray the wealthy as a problem to be solved through higher taxes and wealth levies. Green Party figures have dismissed concerns about the rich leaving as absurd, despite the evidence, while pushing for a one per cent tax on assets over 10 million pounds and two per cent above one billion. This rhetoric frames success as something to penalise, ignoring that these individuals generate jobs, investment, and revenue. The constant attacks create a toxic climate where entrepreneurs feel unwelcome. Britain once attracted global talent. Now it repels it through envy driven politics.

An Exit Tax would make matters worse, not better

Introducing this ‘settling up’ charge, reportedly around 20 per cent on unrealised gains for those departing, would not stem the tide. It would accelerate it. Wealthy people plan long term. They see the writing on the wall and move assets and families before traps close. Britain, trillions in debt, the economy failing, unemployment growing, inflation increasing, but still this government continues to grow its anti business stance. The tax would deter not only leavers but also potential arrivals.

Why risk building wealth here if the state claims a cut on the way out as well as taxes all along the line? This is self defeating. It treats high achievers as prisoners rather than partners in national prosperity.

The Dubai trap highlights the financial prison mentality

British citizens based in Dubai and the Gulf now face another barrier. As conflict prompts some to consider returning, HMRC rules under the five year temporary non residency provisions mean they could owe tax on gains realised abroad if they re establish UK residency too soon. Reports confirm wealthy expats are bypassing Britain entirely, heading to Ireland or France to avoid bills running into millions. This is no exaggeration. It turns a humanitarian or practical move into a punitive tax hit. The message is clear.

Even in the current crisis with Iran, Britain tries to extract every last pound from those who once contributed here. No other major economy treats its own people with such suspicion upon return, which is why they are diverting to other countries who welcome them.

The UK Economy relies on these wealth creators

Britain needs its millionaires and billionaires. They do not simply hoard wealth. They deploy it productively. Bullet points illustrate the scale:

• They spend millions locally on homes, services, expensive cars and luxury goods, supporting high street retailers, builders, and tradespeople.

• They employ staff directly in households and businesses, from gardeners and domestic help to specialist professionals.

• They launch and expand companies that create thousands of jobs and pay substantial corporation tax and national insurance.

• One wealthy individual contributes more in taxes than hundreds of middle income earners combined.

Without them the burden shifts squarely onto nurses, teachers, doctors, firefighters, and other middle class professionals. Public services suffer as the tax base shrinks. The middle class cannot plug the gap left by high net worth departures. Economic reality demands growth through enterprise, not redistribution through punishment.

Global rivals offer welcoming alternatives

As mentioned earlier, countries such as the United States under Trump are rolling out low tax, pro business policies that actively court talent and capital. Italy, Spain, and the UAE provide competitive regimes with fewer regulations and friendlier attitudes towards success. Britain competes in a global marketplace when you look at it from the levels of wealth we are talking about here. When it demonises wealth creators while rivals incentivise them, the outcome is predictable. Money and talent flow to opportunity, not ideology.

Restore Britain offers the only sensible path forward

This anti wealth agenda from Labour and the Greens will only deepen Britain’s economic woes. It accelerates departures, deters arrivals, and loads ever higher taxes onto ordinary working families. The solution lies in a radically different approach, one that rewards grafters and builds a competitive economy. Restore Britain has the policies to deliver exactly that. Abolishing inheritance tax entirely removes the penalty on passing success to the next generation, in a recent interview Rupert clearly started that once anyone has paid their due taxes, they can do with it as they please without interference from the state.

Slashing corporation tax to the lowest rate in Europe would make Britain a magnet for investment and jobs. Scrapping IR35 ends the bureaucratic assault on entrepreneurs and small businesses. These measures, outlined clearly in Restore Britain’s economic plan, would reverse the exodus by creating freedom and fairness.

Rupert has repeatedly stressed that Britain must become globally competitive while ensuring wealth generated here benefits British people first. No more punishing success. No more financial prisons. Restore Britain would restore the incentives that once made this country a powerhouse, delivering real growth that lifts everyone rather than driving the best and brightest away.

As Supreme Governor of the Church of England and holder of the title Defender of the Faith, the King attended the Royal Maundy Service in Wales but chose silence on the central Christian festival of Easter. This is no minor oversight in my opinion. It raises serious questions about priorities at the heart of the British establishment, especially given the King’s well documented history of warm statements towards Islam, accepting large donations and endorsing the religion.

True, it’s not a custom, but when the country needs Christianity, he is not there

A Royal Easter addresses is not an unbroken annual custom. Queen Elizabeth II issued one only during the COVID pandemic, and the Palace has never treated them as mandatory like the Christmas broadcast. King Charles did mark Easter last year with words that referenced Jesus Christ alongside ethics shared with Islam and other faiths which drew some criticism. Yet the absence this year stands out even more because its just months after the royal family issued a prominent Ramadan message, complete with Arabic script.

Critics rightly note his contrast to Islam. When the head of the established Church skips the resurrection, one of the most important events in the Christian calendar, while actively acknowledging other religions. It sends a clear signal.

Britain remains a Christian nation by law and heritage. The Act of Supremacy 1534 established the monarch’s role in defending Protestant Christianity. Ignoring Easter while embracing other observances looks less like neutrality and more like selective deference.

King Charles and Islam: Decades of Public Affinity

The King’s interest in Islam is not new. As Prince of Wales he studied Arabic to read the Quran, visited mosques, and delivered lectures praising the faith’s contributions. In one 1993 speech he stated that Islam is part of Britain’s past and present and that it created modern Europe while teaching lessons Christianity had lost. He has long advocated redefining his title as Defender of “Faith” in the plural, signalling openness to all religions rather than exclusive guardianship of the Christian one. Rumours of deeper alignment, including alleged secret conversion, have circulated for years and were dismissed by the Palace.

What cannot be dismissed are the public record and the pattern. He hosted an iftar at Windsor Castle and has spoken repeatedly of Islam’s spiritual value. Meanwhile, attacks on Christians worldwide intensify, churches empty at home, and radical Islam gains ground in British towns. The King’s words and actions appear to prioritise interfaith harmony over robust defence of the faith he swore to uphold.

Financial Links Raise Further Questions

Reports over the years have detailed large donations accepted by the then Prince of Wales from figures tied to Islamic states or families. In 2013 he received £1 million from the family of Osama bin Laden for charity. Between 2011 and 2015 he accepted €3 million in cash, handed over in bags during meetings with a former Qatari prime minister. Palace statements insist these were proper charitable contributions and properly accounted for. Yet the optics matter. At a time when Britain faces grooming gang scandals linked to specific communities and parallel Sharia practices, such ties fuel legitimate public unease. The monarchy must remain above suspicion of foreign influence, particularly when the donor nations or families represent a faith the King has repeatedly elevated.

Right Leaning Voices and Public Backlash

Right leaning commentators and independent voices have not held back on this latest betrayal by the King. YouTube reactions, including Asmongold’s widely viewed clip, label the King a traitor for failing his coronation oath. Comments across platforms call him the “Traitor King” and question why the Supreme Governor cannot acknowledge Easter when Ramadan receives prompt recognition.

Accounts such as @Sargon_of_Akkad highlight the steady advance of Islam under secular pretexts, while the New Culture Forum continues to defend Britain’s Christian heritage and Easter observances. Outlets like GB News and Christian Today report growing Christian frustration. Even mainstream titles such as the Telegraph and Daily Mail note the criticism. The pattern is clear. Ordinary Britons sense their ancient faith is being sidelined while Islam receives special accommodation.

This is not isolated. It fits a broader elite reluctance to affirm Britain’s Christian foundations amid mass immigration and cultural change. Schools face pressure over “blasphemous” childrens drawings under Islamic sensitivities. Public spaces host displays that challenge British norms. The King’s silence amplifies the sense that the establishment has lost its way and is no longer acting as he promised, to be the Defender of The Faith.

Restore Britain Offers the Necessary Correction

Britain does not need a monarch who hedges his bets on our Christian faith. It needs leadership that proudly defends the Christian identity that shaped our laws, customs, culture and freedoms. Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain understand this. Lowe has stated plainly that Britain is a Christian country and under a Restore Britain government it will remain one. The party’s policies directly address the rot. They include banning the burqa and niqab, outlawing Sharia courts and parallel legal systems, halting foreign funding of mosques and radical institutions, and ending special privileges for any religion over our own. Lowe’s personal Easter message, a simple walk and church service, shows the unpretentious Christianity the nation needs from its leaders.

Restore Britain’s commitment to halting mass immigration, reversing cultural erosion, and restoring national confidence would prevent further drift. A government that treats Christianity as the foundational faith, not one option among many, would ensure the Defender of the Faith title means something again. The King’s Easter silence is a symptom. Restore Britain supplies the cure with an unapologetic restoration of our Christian heritage, secure borders, and a country that puts its own people and traditions first.

The time for polite accommodation is over. Britain must be restored.

Ministers have been explicitly warned that Tehran is exploiting Britain’s permissive environment to run intelligence gathering and propaganda operations on British soil. This comes on top of the government’s refusal to proscribe and ban the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its earlier decision to approve the Chinese mega-embassy despite clear security risks. British residents are being put at risk, and the government’s response is silence and inaction.

The Iranian Spy Recruitment Hub Exposed

The hub centres on Press TV, the English-language arm of Iran’s state broadcaster, which maintains a studio in London even though its UK broadcast licence was revoked more than a decade ago. According to sources who spoke to The Telegraph, Press TV serves as a front to identify and cultivate intelligence assets. Journalists linked to the channel have been accused of spotting and assessing potential recruits for the Iranian regime.

Its programming has reportedly singled out Jewish charities, schools and community organisations in ways that amount to a target list for these terrorists. This is not an abstract threat. It aligns with a pattern of Iranian activity already disrupting UK security in the last few months;

• In early March 2026, four men (including Iranian and dual British/Iranian nationals) were arrested in north London on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence service by conducting surveillance on Jewish sites, the Israeli Embassy and other targets.

• Two men were later charged under the National Security Act with gathering information and carrying out reconnaissance for Iran’s intelligence services.

• The UK summoned the Iranian ambassador in response, yet no decisive domestic action has followed.

MI5 has already disrupted at least 10 Iranian backed plots in the UK since 2022, and the threat level remains high. London has undoubtably become a permissive base for a hostile foreign power.

The Government’s Refusal to Ban the IRGC

The spy hub operates against a backdrop of the government’s continued refusal to proscribe the IRGC. The IRGC is the Iranian regime’s ideological army, responsible for terrorism, espionage and proxy violence worldwide. Former intelligence chiefs and MPs, including Iain Duncan Smith, have urged proscription as a necessary step to restrain its activity in Britain. A group of ex-intelligence directors wrote in The Telegraph that the government’s hesitancy leaves the UK strategically exposed.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has repeatedly stated that proscription powers “are not designed for a state organisation” and that the matter remains under review. The UK has imposed sanctions on the IRGC in its entirety but stops short of a full ban, citing legal and diplomatic concerns. This is despite calls from allies such as Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have all taken stronger action. The result is a green light for Iranian operatives to operate with reduced fear of legal consequences in our country.

The Parallel Failure Over the Chinese Mega-Embassy

This Iranian scandal is not isolated. In January, Labour government approved plans for China’s vast new mega spy embassy near the Tower of London that will intensify surveillance and intimidation of dissidents and the Chinese diaspora. Despite objections from everyone including Labour MPs, the Metropolitan Police (initially) and local residents, Housing Secretary Steve Reed gave the go-ahead days before Starmer’s visit to Beijing, nothing to see there obviously! Security experts including ourselves highlighted risks of espionage and foreign influence, yet economic and diplomatic priorities prevailed and betrayal of the British people ensued.

It’s just appalling. One hostile state’s spy hub is tolerated, another’s diplomatic fortress is rubber-stamped. The message to adversaries is unmistakable. Britain is open for business, even when that business is espionage and against the interests of the British people.

The Challenges Posed by This Permissive Environment

The government’s approach creates several direct dangers to public safety:

• Recruitment and radicalisation: Press TV’s activities and social media channels linked to Iranian operatives are already targeting vulnerable individuals, including British teenagers, with offers of payment for surveillance tasks.

• Escalating plots: Recent arrests confirm active Iranian reconnaissance of Jewish and Israeli targets in London. MI5 warnings show this is part of a wider campaign that includes proxy attacks and disruption.

• Eroded deterrence: Without proscription of the IRGC or decisive action against fronts such as Press TV, the UK signals weakness. Hostile states face minimal cost for operating here.

• Resource strain: Counter terrorism police and MI5 are left playing catch-up while ministers delay the legal tools needed to shut down these networks at source.

British families, Jewish communities and dissidents living here deserve better than to be treated as collateral in a policy of diplomatic caution.

Only Restore Britain Offers Real Resolution

This is not isolated incompetence. It is a pattern of putting foreign interests and diplomatic niceties ahead of British security. The current government has failed to ban the IRGC, failed to close the Press TV spy hub and failed to block the Chinese mega-embassy. Each decision leaves ordinary residents more exposed.

Restore Britain would approach these threats differently. Our policies place British security first. We would immediately prioritise the deportation of illegal migrants and foreign nationals who pose risks, including those from Iran and other hostile states. Rupert Lowe has made this explicit, a Restore Britain government would deploy the full power of the state to remove millions of illegal entrants, starting on day one, rather than entangle itself in foreign wars or permissive environments that invite espionage. As he stated in March, our flagship policy is mass efficient deportations of those here illegally, combined with integration requirements for those here legally. Anyone who fails to contribute and respect our way of life would face removal. We would not tolerate spy hubs or mega-embassies that undermine our nations sovereignty.

Rupert Lowe has repeatedly warned against unnecessary foreign entanglements while insisting Britain must control its borders and protect its people. The Iranian spy hub and the IRGC threat are exactly the sort of national security failures that Restore Britain’s deportation first, Britain-first agenda is designed to end. Only by electing a government prepared to act ruthlessly in the national interest can we close these hubs, proscribe the IRGC and restore safety to our streets. The alternative is more weakness, more risk and more betrayal of the British people.

Labour is systematically dismantling 800 years of British legal and parliamentary tradition in favour of centralised power and political appointments to the Lords, to destroy the UK and its constitutional history from its very heart.

The David Lammy destruction dossier

I have been tracking Lammy’s crusade in detail over the last 18 months. As a quick reference, here are the core facts from some of those posts;

Injustice Secretary Lammy Continues His Crusade to Replace Magna Carta with AI

• Lammy advocated AI transcription of court hearings, anonymisation of documents, summarisation of judgments, and a new AI tool called J-AI for court scheduling during a speech at the Microsoft AI Tour in London.

• He praised Canada’s Ontario Court of Justice model of paperless, judge-only trials as a blueprint for Britain, claiming it would deliver quicker justice and cut costs.

• Legal experts, including Black Belt Barrister, warned of AI’s unreliability in nuanced cases and a slippery slope toward machine-made decisions.

• This fits Lammy’s broader push to reduce jury trials for minor offences rather than properly fund the courts, undermining the Magna Carta’s guarantee of trial by peers.

800 Years of British Constitution Destroyed by David Lammy with No Democratic Mandate

• Lammy announced plans to scrap jury trials for most criminal offences except murder, manslaughter, and rape, with no mention in Labour’s manifesto. So you could be sentenced up to 3 years with no trial by your peers.

• This tears up safeguards dating to the Assize of Clarendon in 1166 and Magna Carta in 1215, replacing them with single salaried judges susceptible to political pressure and DEI ideology.

• Historical figures such as Blackstone called jury trials the ‘sacred bulwark’ of liberty, a view echoed by modern jurists as protection against state oppression.

Lammy ‘Fact’ Video Is Propaganda Nonsense and Called Out by Barristers and The Bar Council

• Lammy released a video defending limits on jury trials for ‘either-way’ offences such as theft and assaults carrying sentences under three years, shifting them to magistrates or judge-only hearings and raising magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years.

• He claimed this would clear an 80,000-case Crown Court backlog, yet the Institute for Government estimated savings of just 7-10 percent of court time, with judge-only trials contributing under 2 percent.

• The Bar Council and over 4,000 lawyers signed an open letter opposing the changes, citing risks of wrongful convictions and loss of public trust. Lammy’s own 2020 tweet had called jury trials ‘a fundamental part of our democratic settlement’.

Lammy Is Continuing to Decimate Our Historic Constitution for Ideology, Now the Right to Appeal Is Going

• Defendants convicted in magistrates’ courts will lose the automatic right to a full re-hearing in the Crown Court and must instead seek permission, with appeals restricted largely to points of law.

• Around 40 percent of current appeals succeed, with 44 percent on sentencing, meaning miscarriages of justice will rise.

• This compounds earlier failures, including Starmer’s pre-trial statements prejudging Southport riot defendants and the early release of foreign criminals who then absconded.

It’s Christian to Scrap a Jury...But the Bible Promotes Due Process and Our Courts Are Idle

• Lammy defended curbing jury trials by citing his Christian faith, claiming it helps him ‘see the face of the victim’ in knife-crime cases delayed for years.

• The Bible emphasises due process, not efficiency at the expense of safeguards, and that courts sit idle on many days while billions are spent on immigration instead of hiring judges and opening courtrooms.

These are not abstract reforms. They form a pattern of prioritising ideology and state control over centuries old protections for the British people. It’s Labours twisted ideology pitted against British culture, tradition and safeguards. Remember Starmer himself said ‘The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.’

The scream of irony when replacing inheritance with politically ideology

Labour’s manifesto pledge framed these changes as ‘the biggest reform to our Parliament in a generation’ but it is a disaster for the country. The loss of independent expertise from fields such as medicine and industry is bringing with it the risk of shifting Britain towards dominance by the Commons and with it left wing political ideology.

The irony is astounding. These changes bring the replacing of hereditary members with purely political appointees to those who have pleased those in power and will continue to vote with the government position of the day. The House of Lords will soon be an extension of the House of Commons and the checks and balances needed with be no more.

Examples include young life peers such as Charlotte Owen, a former Boris Johnson adviser, and Carmen Smith, a Plaid Cymru activist. Labour has also been striking deals to ease passage, exposing Starmer to his packing of the chamber with new life peers to neutralise any opposition. Even the bias BBC recorded the end of the 700-year link between hereditary peerage and parliamentary membership. This is no modernisation. It is cultural vandalism dressed as some sort of progress and ending the class system, which it clearly is not.

Let’s not forget the latest rumours that Starmer wants to appoint Sadiq Khan to the Lords to protect his own position as PM to extinguish the threat of Khan running as an MP and then challenging him due to his substantial backing from Labour MPs. Also don’t forget Khan the man who has presided over Londons decline, denies the existence of rape gangs despite having him name on documentation and whilst police open 9,000 old cases for review.

Ideology over institutions

Labour’s actions expose a deep hostility to Britain’s unwritten constitution. Hereditary peers, whatever their flaws, provided a check against elective dictatorship, ironically a term commonly pitched to Starmer and a term Lord Hailsham used to warn of Commons overreach. Removing them without a robust elected replacement hands Prime Ministers unchecked appointment power, exactly as we have warned many times before.

Pair this with Lammy’s so called justice reforms, which erode jury trials, appeals, and human judgment in favour of AI and magistrates, and the picture is clear. Britain is trading 800 years of safeguards for short term ideology. Public polling may favour an elected Lords, but that reflects decades of liberal education, not informed consent. The result is weaker scrutiny, cronyism, and a justice system tilted toward the state. Independent voices from Black Belt Barrister on X to the Bar Council have called these moves highly dangerous. There is a unbelievable hypocrisy of removing undemocratic hereditaries and flooding the chamber with political loyalists who toe the party line.

Conclusion: Restore Britain Holds the Solution

Labour’s twin assaults on the constitution and justice system are not accidents. They are deliberate steps to centralise power and erase traditions that have served Britain well and are the backbone of the worlds most respected justice and political system. The hereditary peers reform and Lammy’s justice decimation both weaken the very institutions that protect ordinary citizens from arbitrary rule.

Restore Britain stands clearly against this destruction of the UK and prioritises restoring British sovereignty, effective law and order, and respect for historic institutions over progressive liberal experimentation.

Rupert has long criticised a Lords ‘stuffed with failed politicians’ and called for genuine reform that serves the people, not party insiders. His X account has repeatedly highlighted the need to fix a broken parliamentary system. By rejecting ideological vandalism and refocusing on what actually works, Restore Britain policies on immigration control, policing, and constitutional integrity would reverse this damage, safeguard jury trials, protect parliamentary balance, and restore faith in British justice.

The choice is clear, continue down Labour’s path of destruction or back the party that puts Britain, its citizens, its laws, its history, tradition and sovereignty first.

As a Christian sure you can mock me, point out chapters of the Old Testament that are not exactly in line with the teaching of the modern day Church and wars where atrocious things happened under the name of Christianity. It’s your right, however uncomfortable it makes me feel, in fact I would rather you say these things then allowed me to talk to you about it calmly. And this is the problem…stopping conversations.

Labour are now openly prioritising one groups belief system over another in the United Kingdom, risking national security and gagging discussion. Labour’s definition is vague, targeting “prejudicial stereotyping” of Muslims as a collective with fixed negative traits, intended to stir hatred regardless of individuals’ actual beliefs or actions.

Lets get one thing out of the way. Not all Muslims are terrorists, of course not. One man, Raja Miah, is an absolute legend of a man and I donate to his cause. He has campaigned at risk to his own life against the Pakistani Muslim Rape & Murder Gangs. So we know this is not the case, but closing down discussion through fear is not the way.

Things you cannot now talk about

So we need to consider the realities that the definition risks criminalising discussion on a number of areas so, for information purposes, and to ensure you do not fall foul of this new definition. These are, and not exclusive to, the following;

• Prison Population

  • Muslims Overrepresentation Muslims make up only 6 per cent of the British population but account for 18 per cent of the prison population.

  • Muslim Gangs Many UK prisons are now dominated by Muslim gangs, with former ministers (including Robert Jenrick) warning that Islamist and violent prisoner influence is out of control.

  • Criminal Convictions Eight of the top ten nationalities for criminal convictions in the UK are Islamic nationalities, according to Home Office data.

• Rape, Torture, Murder & ISIS Style Gangs
  Predominantly Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs abused, tortured, traded and in cases killed an estimated 100k-250k young white British children over 40 years, with survivor accounts citing clear racial and religious motivations. This represents the largest hate, faith and racist crime in British history, all conducted against vulnerable children, systematically covered up by authorities including elements within the Labour Party. Survivor testimonies include accounts of ISIS style trading of children for sex including being drugged and locked in cages in the back of vans driven between locations for sale and horrendous abuse.

  • Terms of Reference The terms of the independent enquiry have been watered down to continue to coverup of the horrific actions by removing many key areas such as what race and religion drove this horrific scandal. Watered down so much many of the survivors who were in involved with the inquiry have left citing government manipulation and more coverups.

  • 1.6m Courtdesk Deletions The government have also attempted to delete digital court archives that could well be used in evidence within the national inquiry and only halted after massive public outrage.

  • Mayor Sadiq Khan Complicity Khan was quizzed multiple times by Susan Hall and he continuously denied or avoided answering having any rape gangs in London but then suddenly 9,000 cases have been reopened and his name has been found on some of the documents, so he has seen them.

• Terrorist Attacks
  Islam is the single biggest driver of terrorism in Britain, with numerous successful attacks including;

  • 7/7 Bombings

  • Beheading of Lee Rigby

  • Westminster Bridge attack

  • Manchester Arena bombing

  • Manchester Victoria Station attack

  • Reading Forbury Gardens attack

  • Glasgow Airport attack

  • London Bridge attack

  • Borough Market attack

  • London Stephen Timms attack

  • Leigh-on-Sea Sir David Amess attack

  • Liverpool Hospital bombing

  • Hartlepool attack

  • Rochdale Islamic State attack

  • Parsons Green bombing

  • Second London Bridge attack

  • Streatham stabbings

  • Manchester synagogue attack

• Attempted Terrorist Attacks

  • 32 late-stage attack plots since March 2017 and October 2025

  • In October 2025, MI5 stated 19 late-stage plots disrupted since 2020, amid a resurgent threat from Al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

• Security Services Resources

  • 43,000 On Terror Watch Lists 1 in 100 Muslims in the UK on MI5’s terror watch list, meaning at least 43,000 individuals, excluding those who are here illegally, figures we don’t know.

  • 90% Muslim 90% of those monitored by the Metropolitan Police’s counter-terrorism unit are Muslims.

  • 75% Of Resources Islamic related anti-terror investigations is around 75 percent of all resources.

• Electoral Fraud
  Irregularities in Muslim majority areas include cases such as Tower Hamlets under former mayor Lutfur Rahman, and recent examples of accusations of family voting (a euphemism for coordinated or coerced voting) in by-elections like Gorton and Denton.

• Culture Crimes
  Muslims have significant over representation in;

  • Honour killings

  • Female genital mutilation

  • Acid attacks

  • Forced marriages

  • Child marriages

  • Cousin marriages

• Clamping down on British Culture for diversity

  • Councils warning schools that innocent children’s drawings could be blasphemous under islamic law

  • Teacher still in hiding after showing a cartoon of the prophet as part of his religious education class

  • The parents of a child who dropped a Quoran has to beg for leniency after multiple death threats but the police did nothing

  • Muslim only areas where dogs are not allowed, posters put up and leaflets handed out

  • Christian marches banned and Christian street preachers arrested

  • Football games abandoned for made up evidence because of political pressure from Muslim MPs, and stopping games so players could observer fasting

  • British Taxpayer funded MPs campaigning for sectarian subjects including airports in Mirpur, the rape gang capital of Pakistan.

These are facts, however awful they are and you now must not talk about them. All are drawn from official sources, Home Office data, MI5 statements, police reports, and survivor testimonies, form the basis Labour’s definition and risks making discussion of them illegal or hateful. Remember you are not allowed to talk about these subjects, in Free Speech Britain.

Muslim Council of Britain is unhappy with the definition

The MCB (Muslim Council of Britain) is the UK’s largest Muslim umbrella body with over 500 affiliated organisations. The MCB describes the new definition as a “diminished version” of the recommendations from the government’s own Independent Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia.

My Challenges With the Subject

The definition’s ambiguity is its weapon. It fails to clarify whether criticism targets Muslims as a group bound by Islamic beliefs or solely as individuals. Many Britons view core Islamic teachings and culture incompatible with or harmful to British society; are we still permitted to say so openly? To have an open calm discussion?

• Can factual citation of Home Office nationality conviction data be labelled Islamophobic?

• Can the grooming gang scandals, their scale, cover-ups (including Labour’s reluctance for full inquiries into race and religion), and links to figures like Sadiq Khan be discussed without fear?

• Can terror statistics, watch-list numbers, and the dominance of Islamic extremism in investigations be highlighted?

• Can prison gang takeovers, electoral irregularities in specific communities, and over-representation in certain crimes be examined?

• Can the numerous postings online from members of the Muslim communities saying things like ’We are not here to take part, we are here to take over’ be discussed?

• If radical Islam has secured such influence and outcomes at just 6 per cent of the population, what happens at 10 per cent, 15 per cent, or 20 per cent?

This vagueness creates self censorship where people are too scared to talk about anything, implementing two-tier speech laws, empowering radicals while disarming critics. Labour appears desperate to retain Muslim votes ahead of the May elections, even at the cost of British freedoms that have been in place for 100s of years.

As I said at the start, I am a Christian and if you wish to mock me that’s your right in a free country, the same right i have, but as soon as we start to gag people to protect one side only, that freedom is lost.

He used this foreign example to push for dramatically expanded use of artificial intelligence across British courts, including AI transcription of hearings, anonymisation of documents, summarisation of judgments, and a new AI-assisted listing tool called J-AI to handle scheduling.

This all comes amid ongoing efforts to reduce jury trials and right to appeal for less serious cases in a bid to tackle the Crown Court backlog, rather than investing in getting the court system up to scratch, we reduce peoples right to a fair trial of their peers as we have had in place for 800 years.

As someone who has followed Lammy’s repeated interventions in our legal system, this latest move fills me with despair. It represents yet another direct attack on the finest justice system in the world, one rooted in centuries of British tradition and envied across the globe. His continued ‘reforms’ all combine to dismantle the very foundations of British justice by importing alien models that prioritise efficiency over fairness and most of all, human judgment.

Lammy’s loves for foreign digital courts because he doesn’t understand British heritage

Lammy was gushing about the Ontario model. He described walking through the Toronto courthouse and feeling as though he had stepped into the future, contrasting it with what he sees as Britain’s ‘outdated’ system, but we would call it 100’s of years of rich legal heritage.

The Canadian court handles summary offences through judge only trials in a modern, paperless environment. Lammy presented this as the blueprint for Britain, arguing it delivers quick and fair justice while saving time and resources. But we know its not fair with DEI signed up under qualified judges as we have written about previously.

This is no isolated comment. It fits a pattern of Lammy looking abroad for inspiration rather than defending our own common law heritage. Mainstream reports from MSM and the government itself confirm he framed the visit as proof that Britain lags behind in modernisation.

The expansion of AI into the British court system

Lammy’s speech outlined concrete steps to embed AI across the system. These include;

• Expanding AI transcription to more hearings, including in immigration and asylum tribunals.

• Using AI to anonymise court material and summarise judgments.

• Piloting the J-AI listing assistant to replace manual, pen-and-paper scheduling.

• Investing further in an in-house Justice AI unit and backing LawtechUK with additional funding.

He claimed these tools would free up staff time, reduce delays, and deliver faster justice for victims. Yet independent right-leaning voices, including legal commentators on X, have pointed out the obvious risks. BlackBeltBarrister has produced videos testing AI on similar legal scenarios and exposing how unreliable it remains for nuanced decisions.

But the point is that this is a step on the slippery slope towards AI decisions in a dystopian system and following removal of judgement by your peers, against the very foundations of the Magna Carta, to an under qualified magistrate judge, the next step with be AI justice and no sitting human.

The ongoing erosion of jury trials and constitutional safeguards

This AI push does not stand alone. It accompanies Lammy’s broader agenda to slash jury trials for a wide range of offences. Rebel MPs have already forced partial climbdowns, but the direction remains clear, fewer cases heard by ordinary citizens, more decided by judges, and then comes judgement by algorithm.

The challenges here are profound. British justice rests on principles enshrined in the Magna Carta of 1215. The right to due process, trial by peers, and protection from arbitrary power. Replacing human juries with AI-assisted judges or foreign-style digital systems threatens to undermine these safeguards. AI lacks conscience, context, and accountability. It cannot weigh moral nuances or community standards the way twelve ordinary Britons can. The Law Society has warned that decisions with serious consequences for people’s lives must remain with humans, not machines.

Mainstream coverage in the BBC and Politico acknowledges the backlog crisis, yet right-leaning independent outlets rightly question whether trading centuries of constitutional protection for technological quick fixes is worth the cost. We have seen Lammy’s previous attempts to decimate the court system. This latest episode continues that pattern, prioritising globalist efficiency over British sovereignty, culture and traditions.

Rupert Lowe made his position perfectly clear when he voted in Parliament to protect jury trials. His stance underscores the growing resistance to these changes from those who value British legal traditions.

Conclusion

Lammy’s enthusiasm for AI courts and judge only models imported from abroad is not modernisation. It is another step in the destruction of our constitutional settlement and the erosion of British culture. The Magna Carta, habeas corpus, and trial by jury are not relics, and not there by chance. They are the bedrock of our liberty, envied around the world precisely because they place power in the hands of the people rather than the state or unaccountable technology.

Restore Britain offers the genuine alternative. Our commitment to restoring national sovereignty, overhauling failing institutions, and prioritising British traditions directly counters this liberal assault. Rupert Lowe’s vote to protect jury trials demonstrates the leadership needed to halt the rot. Under a Restore Britain government, we would safeguard our ancient liberties, reject foreign experiments, and rebuild a justice system that serves the British people first, not the latest Silicon Valley fad.

The time to reject Lammy’s vision and restore our proud legal heritage is now.

Prime Minister’s Questions this week was yet another shameful display of evasion, theatre and outright contempt for the electorate. What should be a vital weekly check on government became a farce, with Starmer dodging every serious question asked by MPs on behalf of their constituents. It got so bad this week that Reform UK MPs walked out in protest and the Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle refusing to hold Starmer to account. This is not how a mature democracy functions.

Chaotic scenes as Farage walks out in frustration

The session descended into chaos when Farage rose to ask a direct question on behalf of his constituents about the government’s “Smash the Gangs” policy and the ongoing small boats crisis. Starmer failed to provide a straight answer. Instead of addressing the 70,000 migrant arrivals, with 1000 in the last week along, the lack of any credible Plan B or the national security risks involved, he pivoted to unrelated attacks and pre-prepared jibes.

Starmer refused to answer every single question put to him during the session, repeatedly dodging scrutiny on key failures including small boat crossings and gang-smashing measures. Every question was treated them with open contempt by waffling on about unrelated topics such as council tax or past opposition statements.

To be honest i can’t blame Nigel for walking out.

Lindsay Hoyle lied

The most damning aspect is the blatant double standard displayed by the Speaker. Sir Lindsay Hoyle claimed today that he lacks the power to make a Prime Minister answer questions. That claim is demonstrably false. Multiple recorded instances from previous sessions show Hoyle actively forcing Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister, to address the House directly. On several occasions Hoyle interrupted Johnson mid-reply, ordered him to sit down and explicitly reminded him that it was “Prime Minister’s Questions” and that he must answer the question asked. Did he do this in the most shocking examples ever seen at PMQs? No.

This selective enforcement is not neutral. It protects the current Labour government while the British people pay the price through unchecked mass migration, failing public services and a Parliament that no longer feels answerable to those it claims to represent. When MPs walk out it is not mere theatre, sure there is some of that in there, but its a response to a system that has abandoned its core purpose of holding power to account.

Restore Britain Points the Way to Real Accountability

Keir Starmer’s performance today, shielded by a compliant Speaker, is the latest proof that the Westminster establishment has no intention of fixing itself. Rupert Lowe has repeatedly called out this government’s failures in uncompromising terms, describing Starmer as a disgrace and the worst Prime Minister in memory. His frustration mirrors that of millions who see their country slipping away while politicians play games.

Restore Britain’s entire approach offers the resolution this country desperately needs. By putting British people first in every policy area, from immigration and energy security to restoring trust in our institutions, the party demands genuine accountability rather than performative outrage. Where the current system allows evasion and selective rule enforcement, Restore Britain will insist on transparency and consequences. Only by rejecting the failed consensus and backing a movement committed to real reform can we ensure Prime Ministers are forced to answer, Speakers uphold rules consistently and Parliament once again serves the British public rather than itself.

The walkout today was a warning. Restore Britain is the answer.

Manchester’s New LGBTQ+ Housing Project and Council Comments

Manchester City Council is pressing ahead with a £37 million scheme in Whalley Range on the site of the former Spire Hospital. It will deliver around 80 social rent homes designed as extra-care accommodation for people aged 55 and over, with the majority reserved for the LGBTQ+ community. The project is promoted as meeting specific needs and aspirations of older LGBTQ+ residents who, according to the council, require extra support as they age. Yes extra support.

Councillor Gavin White, executive member for housing and development, has hailed it a landmark development for Manchester’s LGBTQ+ community. Councillor Bev Craig stated: “Some older LGBT residents told us they need extra support as they age, so we’ve been working with the LGBT Foundation to fix that.” Work has already started on site, with completion expected in summer 2027. The council frames this as enhancing diversity and vibrancy while insisting all other housing schemes remain welcoming to everyone, as long are you are not straight of course.

Straight, gay and lesbian people openly offended by the segregation

Far from uniting communities, the scheme has provoked anger across the board. Straight British residents see it as yet another example of everyone else getting priority except them. Gay and lesbian voices have been equally vocal in rejecting the patronising premise that their sexuality creates unique housing needs in old age. What a load of political rubbish this is.

Comments under Christys’ X post reflect the depth of resentment;

• “Gay man here. I’ve never heard such a load of patronising, divisive baloney in my whole life. These lunatics need removing from every level of government ASAP.”

• “Thanks but no thanks. I don’t want to be segregated because I am gay.”

• “I’m gay and think this is 100 per cent wrong! Housing should be allocated upon NEED not protected characteristics!”

• Straight commentators were blunt: “So literally everyone gets help except straight white men.” “Why does one section of society become more important than any other section of society?” “Its the constant divisive droning dreariness of it all. Where are the housing schemes for those of us who just want to be left alone?”

The message is clear, this is not equality, it is special treatment that insults everyone and in its very nature promotes division but Labour cant see it.

This is not the first segregated community

This is not an isolated case. In September 2021 London saw the launch of Tonic@Bankhouse, the UK’s first LGBT+ affirming retirement community in Vauxhall. The project, supported by a £5.7 million loan from the Mayor of London, was celebrated by Sadiq Khan himself at the official opening.

Khan has repeatedly signalled a preference for faith-based and minority clustering in housing. In an interview on the Islam Channel he said: “The other big issue facing Londoners, particularly Londoners of Islamic faith, is the issue of housing. We need to build far more homes in our city because often people from minority communities want to live near a mosque, near halal food, near where there are other people like them for a number of obvious reasons. And they are priced out, because there is not enough housing. So, we’re going to build at least 40,000 council homes, at least 6,000 rent-controlled homes.”

Whether in Manchester for one identity group or London for another, the pattern is the same. Public money is being used to create and promote enclaves and breaking up communities rather than promoting integrated ones.

OBR statistics show more housing going to migrants, not British people

The situation is made worse by the sheer scale of migration. Conservative analysis of the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast reveals that net migration of around 1.17 million people between 2026 and 2030 will require roughly 499,000 additional homes. With only 1.34 million new homes expected to be built in that period, migrants could account for nearly 40 per cent of new stock.

OBR statistics indicates that only 40% of new housing will go to native British people and now we find that if you want some of that stock you will be blocked if you are not of the ‘correct’ sexuality. Its just wrong.

As reported across GB News and other outlets, senior Conservatives have warned that British families already on waiting lists or saving for years will be left with the scraps. The message is blunt, high immigration has direct consequences for rents, house prices and access to housing. Native Britons, who have paid into the system their entire lives, saved hard, sacrificed, are being pushed to the back of the queue because they don’t meet the Labour governments criteria of being a minority.

Restore Britain puts British people first and rejects divisive policies

Restore Britain offers the clear alternative. Their core principle is simple and unapologetic - put the British people first, each and every time. Lowe has repeatedly stated on X that Britain must prioritise its own citizens before spending on foreign adventures or identity experiments. We reject the DEI-driven division that fragments communities and demands housing allocation based on need, not protected characteristics.

Scrap the segregation schemes. End the preference for minority clusters. Halt the flow of new arrivals that overwhelms housing supply. Restore Britain’s policies would ensure council homes go first to those who have waited longest and have the most need, British families who have contributed most, and communities that want cohesion rather than engineered division.

The Manchester scheme, the London precedent and Khan’s comments are not progress. They are symptoms of a political class that has lost sight of who it is supposed to serve. Only by putting British people first, as Restore Britain promotes, can we end this taxpayer funded fragmentation and rebuild a united country.

This very statement tells us a lot about Matt himself that is very very worrying. As I mentioned, I honestly liked Matt when I was supporting Reform back in the day but always had my doubts on Farage and his true intentions. It seems like they are both peas in the same pod and should have doubted both of them equally. My mistake.

The podcasts, one with Winston Marshall and another with Peter McCormack, have drawn sharp responses from myself, independent commentators and Restore Britain supporters who argue the issue is not about careers but core principles and what Britain urgently needs.

The podcasts that revealed too much

Goodwin appeared on the Winston Marshall podcast discussing the Gorton and Denton by-election results and broader political realignment. He warned young people against minor parties on the right of Reform UK, stating they risked being led into a cul-de-sac instead of building long term influence in Westminster. In the Peter McCormack podcast titled “Britain Is Facing a Civilisational Crisis”, he went further, describing Restore Britain organisers as too extreme, too strident, detached from political reality with insufficient political experience, and this is where both I and others take issue.

He added that young men involved had destroyed their political careers and would be blown apart at a general election or by-election, urging them instead to join Reform UK branches and stand in council elections.

Young Restore Britain activists have hit back strongly on X. Charlie Downs, Montgomery Toms and Keiran Mishchuck, among others, have posted responses stressing that their move is driven by belief in Britain’s future rather than personal advancement and political ambition. Something that Matt has now exposed as lacking in himself.

Further commentary has come from Dan Wooton, WorldbyWolf and Basil the Great, the latter having hosted a recent podcast episode directly addressing “The War for the Right – Restore Britain vs Reform UK”. These accounts and wider X discussion reject Goodwin’s framing, arguing Matt completely misunderstands the principled stand many younger patriots are taking for the future of their country.

Matt completely misreading the principled stand youngsters like Conor and Charlie are taking with Restore Britain and not being there for a political career but fighting on principle of what is needed to save Britain, exposes him for not understanding that very thing himself. Matt has basically shot himself in both feet and confirmed he and Reform are just another uniparty of career politicians and nothing will ever change as it needs to and the decline will continue.

A Hope Not Hate past that is now an issue

Matt Goodwin has a documented history with anti-extremism circles that contrasts with his current positioning. From 2011 to 2015 he sat on the government’s working group on anti-Muslim hatred. Upon resigning in 2015 he criticised the lack of central government support and warned that insufficient action on the issue played into the hands of extremists. Hope Not Hate, the campaign group often critical of the right, has since published multiple pieces labelling Goodwin a far-right provocateur and detailing what it calls his “strange radicalisation” from academic studying the far right to becoming one of its prominent voices.

Goodwin has rejected such characterisations and continues to focus on immigration and cultural change but after believing it’s where you are and not where you came from, this is all sitting very uncomfortably for me now and weighs on my mind. Who really is Matt Goodwin?

Insulting young activists who helped him

Goodwin’s comments have been viewed by many on the right as particularly ungrateful given the grassroots energy that has supported broader Reform aligned causes. In the McCormack podcast he specifically said young activists had been “led into some cul-de-sac by people who should really know better” and that “egos have got in the way”. He contrasted this with his advice to join Reform UK for pragmatic, long-term change. So these young guys who helped him write his Substack posts, he now slags them off and then goes back and tries to woo them?

This decision reflects a commitment to principles over compromise, with several posts noting that “when you have integrity of your values, political careers mean nothing”. Basil the Great’s podcast and other right-leaning voices have framed the exchange as part of a deeper split on the right over strategy and authenticity.

Matts New Book, Plagiarism and ChatGBP

Goodwin’s latest book, Suicide of a Nation: Immigration, Islam & Identity, published in mid-March 2026, has faced immediate scrutiny. Independent analysis by journalist Andy Twelves and others identified false or fabricated quotes, misinterpreted data and statistical claims that appear to rely on AI-generated content. Several footnotes in the early chapters contain embedded ChatGPT URLs, and of the book’s only twelve references, five point to Goodwin’s own Substack while others link directly to AI sources.

Critics across outlets including Byline Times and UnHerd have dubbed the work “MattGPT”, accusing it of heavy AI assistance and sloppy scholarship. Goodwin has defended the book but the revelations have circulated widely.

Its also a little strange that he took the subtile from Douglas Murrays book and just swapped the words around. Another red flag?

Splitting the right for power

The core challenge is that Goodwin’s criticism risks dividing the very movement he claims to champion. By dismissing young Restore Britain activists as career wrecking amateurs, he overlooks the genuine frustration many feel with what they see as Reform UK’s change of stance in the last 18 months on core issues such as mass immigration and national identity. In reality it’s those in Reform whom have moved away from their core principles and not Restore. They watered down original policies and welcomed ex-Tories who were the very architects of the countries problems.

Restore will win, Britain has had enough

This latest row underscores a fundamental choice facing patriots. Restore Britain and Rupert, offers a clear alternative grounded in principle rather than career calculation. Our policies, which prioritise controlled borders, remigration of those who do not contribute, and the restoration of British sovereignty and identity, directly address the civilisational challenges Goodwin himself describes in his podcasts and book.

By rejecting compromise and focusing on what Britain truly needs, Restore Britain provides the resolution - a movement that puts country first, rewards belief over ambition, and delivers the decisive action required to prevent the very “suicide of a nation” that Goodwin warns about.

The young activists who have chosen this path have not wrecked their careers, they are principled and have invested in Britain’s future.

Labour policy in tatters

Labour’s original policy paper ahead of the 2024 election promised £1 billion annually for local and community energy projects, including up to £600 million in funding for local authorities and £400 million in low-interest loans for communities each year. It aimed to support up to 20,000 renewable projects across the UK, with specific commitments like over 1,000 projects in Scotland alone, and to generate 8GW of clean power, enough for more than four million homes and thousands of jobs.

In contrast, the finalised Local Power Plan reduces this to backing just over 1,000 projects in its first phase with funding slashed to £1 billion or less throughout the rest of the Spending Review period until 2030. The 8GW target has been quietly dropped entirely. Scottish critics, including Aberdeen Central MSP Kevin Stewart and Scottish Green MSP Patrick Harvie, have labelled it a broken promise and a cynical attempt to mislead voters.

Dig in a little more and we find Labour’s energy pledges unravelling;

• The promised £300 cut in household energy bills by 2030 has been abandoned by key figures, including GB Energy’s CEO Dan McGrail, who refused to endorse it.

• Job losses in Scotland’s energy sector, such as 250 roles cut by Harbour Energy citing Labour’s taxes, highlight the policy’s fallout.

• Independent analyses, like from the Tony Blair Institute, warn that Labour’s clean power goals risk higher costs without recalibration and recently Blair himself came out and said we need to drill more in the North Sea.

• Government spending reviews confirm only £8.3 billion for GB Energy overall, far below initial promise, with funds redirected to nuclear and private sectors over community projects.

Public and media backlash on platforms like X echoes this, with users calling GB Energy a “scam” and pointing to unfulfilled promises on Grangemouth refinery and broader energy independence.

Challenges with Labour’s GB Energy Approach

This drastic reduction exposes deep flaws in Labour’s energy strategy, prioritising ideological net zero targets over practical outcomes and economic reality. Energy bills have risen under Labour, contradicting their manifesto claims, with Ofgem’s price cap increasing costs for households and businesses. Critics argue the policy ignores Britain’s reliance on North Sea oil and gas, accelerating job losses in Aberdeen and beyond while failing to deliver tangible benefits.

Key issues include:

• Overdependence on private investment for green projects, deterring investors amid tax hikes like capital gains raids.

• Bureaucratic bloat, with GB Energy advertising high-salary roles like a £117,000 HR director despite struggling to attract talent.

• Risks to energy security, as shutting down North Sea operations loses £9 billion in tax revenue, thousands loosing their jobs and forcing reliance on imports and enriching foreign regimes.

• Political hypocrisy, as Labour’s clean energy push aligns with EU rules potentially, undermining British sovereignty.

The Telegraph and Guido Fawkes highlight how net zero pursuits will mean higher bills and economic drag, with officials admitting costs could reach £1,823 per household annually. In reality we all know there will never be a decrease in our energy bills, it will continue to increase. This echoes warnings from figures like Kemi Badenoch about dangerous dependence on China for green tech.

Time for Restore Britain’s sensible energy vision

Labour’s GB Energy debacle is yet another example of big-state overreach failing to deliver, leaving Britain with billions wasted, higher bills, lost jobs and weakened energy independence. Restore Britain’s policies offer a clear path forward by prioritising North Sea oil and gas to secure domestic supply, cutting green levies to lower costs, and rejecting burdensome net zero mandates that burden taxpayers. Under Rupert Lowe’s leadership, as seen in his advocacy for British sovereignty and economic realism on X and YouTube, Restore Britain would restore control over our resources, protect Scottish jobs, and ensure pledges are kept, not cynically slashed. This approach would truly empower communities and resolve the energy chaos Labour has created.

Counter terror police are investigating, and an Iran linked group has already claimed responsibility. Keir Starmer rushed to condemn the incident and promise funding for replacements, but its just inadequate and show contempt as his record shows these concerns are little more than empty symbolic gestures. I would suggest his stance is due to his obsession with the failing multicultural society project and voter intention.

The attack right outside a synagogue

Four Hatzola Northwest ambulances were deliberately set alight outside the Machzike Hadath synagogue in Highfield Road, Golders Green, at around 1.45am. The Jewish volunteer service, established in 1979, provides free emergency medical response to the local community, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Gas canisters on board caused explosions that shattered windows in nearby buildings and it was a miracle no one was seriously injured.

Metropolitan Police confirmed the incident is being treated as an antisemitic hate crime and handed to counter terrorism officers. CCTV footage shows three hooded suspects approaching the ambulances before fleeing.

An Iran-aligned militant network, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyya, claimed responsibility via online channels, the same group linked to recent attacks on Jewish targets in Belgium and the Netherlands. MI5 has not ruled out direct Tehran involvement, consistent with the 20 Iranian sponsored terror plots already thwarted in the UK in recent years.

This follows the charging of two Iranian men, Alireza Farasati, 22, and Nematollah Shahsavani, 40, with conducting hostile surveillance of Jewish institutions in London on behalf of Iranian intelligence. Their activities, including reconnaissance of community sites last summer and into 2026, were exposed just days ago.

Starmer trotted out his normal fake concern as he has dozens of times before described the arson as a “deeply shocking antisemitic attack” and had a sheer ordacity to look as though he was doing something by meeting Jewish leaders in Downing Street.

Starmer announced government funding to replace the ambulances and spoke of “constant vigilance”……but he STILL refuses to proscribe either the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organisation, despite the EU designating the IRGC as such and repeated calls from security experts to do so.

Starmer just wont ban these groups

Starmer’s quick condemnation rings hollow when set against his failure to act on the very threats fuelling these attacks. Iranian state backed networks operate openly on British soil, yet the IRGC remains unprescribed and the Muslim Brotherhood, long accused of ideological support for extremism, faces no ban. This is not vigilance, it is weakness.

Mainstream coverage from the BBC, Guardian and others correctly labels the arson antisemitic and notes the counter terror probe, but stops short of demanding the obvious, immediate proscription of Iran’s terror proxies and a halt to the mass migration that imports these risks. Right-leaning outlets such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express have highlighted the Iran connection more forcefully, reporting Israeli concerns and the pattern of attacks across Europe.

The Jewish community in Golders Green, one of Britain’s largest, now lives with the reality that volunteer life saving vehicles are fair game for arson and maybe its their house or business that will go up in flames tonight. Police resources are stretched policing tweets and thoughts, MI5 warn on the danger whilst the public watches as foreign agents stalk and strike with impunity. Starmer’s words change nothing because his policies enable the problem. They are laughing at our liberal self destruction in full view.

• Continued refusal to ban the IRGC leaves Iranian operatives free to direct attacks.

• Failure to proscribe the Muslim Brotherhood allows ideological networks to thrive.

• Open-border immigration has allowed hostile foreign intelligence to embed itself unchecked.

• Reliance on so called “vigilance” without decisive action leaves British Jews paying the price.

Restore Britain will resolve this issue

Britain cannot afford more performative outrage from Keir Starmer while Iranian-backed terror escalates. The solution lies in the clear, decisive policies of Restore Britain. Their mass deportations framework would remove illegal entrants and failed asylum seekers who pose risks, including those tied to hostile foreign states.

Their immigration and border control plans demand net negative migration and rigorous vetting to stop agents of the IRGC or Brotherhood from entering or remaining. By retaking control of our borders and prioritising British security, Restore Britain would proscribe these terror-linked organisations without hesitation and restore confidence that Jewish communities, and all Britons, can live without fear of imported hatred. When it comes to getting these people who pose a threat to Britain out, I personally see no choice that get the SAS in.

Only these policies deliver the resolution successive governments have failed to provide.

This is not some minor mishap. It is the latest blow to parliamentary and police probes into one of the most damaging scandals to hit any government in recent memory.

The story begins with Mandelson’s appointment as Britain’s ambassador to the United States in December 2024. Security services and vetting officials had warned Starmer and his inner circle about Mandelson’s longstanding links to Epstein. Files released earlier this month show Starmer was explicitly cautioned that the appointment posed a general reputational risk. His national security adviser even called the process weirdly rushed and unusual.

Mandelson, a close associate of McSweeney, pushed ahead anyway. When the full extent of the Epstein connections emerged in early 2026, Mandelson was sacked, resigned from the Labour Party and the House of Lords, and faced police investigation over allegations he passed sensitive government information, including details of a major Eurozone bailout, to the convicted sex offender and also received moneys in return.

McSweeney, Starmer’s then chief of staff and the driving force behind the appointment, resigned on 8 February 2026. He took full responsibility, admitting the decision was wrong and had damaged the party, the country and trust in politics. Starmer issued a public apology to Epstein’s victims, claiming he had been lied to by Mandelson. Yet critics, including opposition figures, accuse the Prime Minister of knowing far more than he admits and of misleading Parliament.

Phone stolen and backups disabled

Now comes the latest twist. A mobile phone used by McSweeney during the period of Mandelson’s appointment was stolen last year and reported to the police. It contained direct text messages between McSweeney and Mandelson. These messages are central to the ongoing parliamentary inquiry and Met Police investigation into misconduct in public office.

Downing Street admits the device cannot be recovered, which I would also confidently assume means that backups were disabled, which is utterly unbelievable considering government policy is that all messages are backed up and stored. This stinks and this isn’t the end of the matter by a long way

This lost data has created gaps in the Mandelson files that Parliament ordered released. Some communications have been found elsewhere, but the phone’s data is gone for good.

Government either use encrypted enterprise servers they control for backups, secure private clouds or in very restricted circumstances built in iCloud backups. So which one was it and why was it DISABLED? Another bloody government coverup in progress.

In the UK government context, device losses are far from rare. Official reports show thousands of mobiles, laptops, and tablets reported lost or stolen across departments each year, with encryption mandated to protect data. So with this many devices lost or stolen, you cannot again tell me that backups were not in place. I smell something very unsavoury…

A pattern of deceit and underhand behaviour by Labour

This is not an isolated incident. It follows a pattern under this government where key evidence conveniently disappears just when it is needed most. Shadow ministers have already described the episode as smelling of yet another cover-up. How can the public have confidence in an inquiry when the very messages that could reveal who knew what, and when, are missing?

Starmer stands accused of lying or at best showing catastrophic judgment. He ignored clear warnings from security services. He allowed a man with documented Epstein links into one of Britain’s most sensitive diplomatic roles. And now, with crucial texts lost, the full truth may never emerge. Labour backbenchers and even some of their own MPs have called for heads to roll, yet Starmer clings on while the public watches yet another establishment scandal unfold with disappearing evidence.

The challenges are clear:

• Repeated failure to heed national security warnings on high-level appointments.

• A culture where personal loyalty trumps proper vetting.

• A worrying trend of “lost” phones and messages in major investigations, eroding trust in Westminster.

• Large Mandelson payout despite evidence of corruption and lying

Restore Britain offers the only genuine alternative

This seedy saga exposes everything wrong with the current political class. Weak vetting, ignored intelligence, and convenient losses of evidence that protect the powerful. Keir Starmer’s government has shown it cannot be trusted to investigate itself.

Restore Britain stands for the opposite. Their commitment to full transparency, including publishing unredacted Epstein files on all British politicians and business figures linked to the scandal, would cut through the secrecy and lies. Proper oversight of security vetting, rigorous accountability for public appointments, and a determination to expose the truth would prevent future disasters like this.

Only by backing Restore Britain and their policies can Britain end the cover-ups, restore integrity to government, and ensure those in power are held to account, no matter how inconvenient the messages on their phones might be. The public deserves better than disappearing phones and half-truths. Restore Britain would deliver it.

Thousands gathered in Trafalgar Square for what Kahn described as a record breaking Iftar during Ramadan. The event, backed by Mayor Sadiq Khan, featured mass ritual prayers and the focus of this outcry being the mass public Adhan broadcast across one of Britain’s most iconic spaces, directly beside a church, beamed around the world.

The social media post that started it all

In his follow-up post he stood firm against critics such as Dominic Grieve, making clear the issue was specifically the mass ritual prayer and public Adhan next to a church, not other cultural events. He developed the argument in a Telegraph article titled “Islamic domination of public sphere is unacceptable.”

Mainstream media and Labour attacked Timothy instantly. Keir Starmer demanded his sacking at what was the worst Prime Minister’s Questions ever seen refusing to answer any question on Mandelson and his relationship with a convicted pedophile. Left-wing outlets called the remarks Islamophobic, which is exactly what the definition has been created for, silencing discussion and criticism of one religion.

Moderate Muslims admit it’s wrong

Muslim journalist Khadija Khan confirmed the reality, posting: “Nothing in Islam requires its adherents to organise such mass ritual prayers in public places. This ‘biggest Iftar’ in London strikes as nothing else but an act of asserting Islamic domination in the public sphere. This is not assimilation. This is a theocratic privilege that should never be normalised in a secular democracy such as Britain.”

Support also arrived for Nick from Christian leaders including Revd Canon Fr Phil Harris and Fr. Calvin Robinson.

Multiple moderate Muslim callers to LBC including Zaid and Mohammed gave Nick Ferrari their thoughts and said Nick Timothy “is not wrong” and the event “wasn’t necessary” and should have been in private in Mosques, of which there are assesed to be up to 1,500+ in London alone depending on whether small prayer rooms and temporary spaces are included.

Muslim countries mostly prohibit this behaviour too

The hypocrisy runs deeper. In nearly all of the approximately 50 Muslim-majority countries, unregulated mass street prayers are prohibited or heavily restricted. Worship is confined to mosques or designated rooms. Countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE and Dubai treat open street prayer as illegal or disruptive. Muslims themselves note they never see it in their home nations.

Public Christian prayer fares even worse. In at least a dozen Muslim-majority countries, including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Maldives and Yemen, non-Muslims face outright bans or life-threatening risks for any public worship. Saudi Arabia prohibits all public non-Muslim religious activity and allows no churches. Apostasy and blasphemy laws in others make open Christian prayer dangerous or illegal.

Exceptions are given to one community only

The truth is this fits a wider, documented pattern of separate laws and standards depending on your faith which is a recipe for disaster as one side will obviously feel hard done by and victimised, and that in this instance are the native Christian British people.

Christian street preachers face repeated arrest or violent confrontation in London areas such as Whitechapel. Recent videos show preachers shoved and surrounded while crowds shout “this is a Muslim area.”

A planned Walk with Jesus inviting all faiths to join a march through Tower Hamlets and Whitechapel was banned by the Metropolitan Police in January 2026 over fears of “serious disorder” and offending the majority Muslim locals. Rather than stopping those who would be conducting the “serious disorder”, they stop the walk.

This continues again and again with one group receiving concession after concession while others face restrictions.

• Non stun slaughter enjoys legal exemptions despite animal welfare concerns that would not be tolerated for other faiths.

• Sharia councils operate in parallel with British law, handling family and divorce matters in ways that undermine equality.

• Refusal to ban inappropriate behaviour like cousin marriage that can lead to birth defects and a terrible quality of life for the child.

• Local councils and police have considered or imposed dog restrictions in Muslim-heavy areas, with signs declaring “Muslims do not like dogs, this is an Islamic area now” and proposals to limit dog walking to avoid offence.

• Grooming gang inquiries continue to be delayed and diluted. Home Office Minister Jess Phillips recently apologised in Parliament for report delays and faced accusations of cover-up for multicultural reasons, with critics noting Labour’s reluctance for a full national statutory inquiry despite years of institutional failure.

• Internal Government Muslim networks of staff to push the needs of this one section of society over others.

Are there these types of exceptions for the Sikh community? The Indian community? The Chinese community? No because overall they accept that is they are in the UK they have to adapt to living within our culture.

A homing beacon to the Islamic world to come London

The world record attempt itself is cynical and here is the biggest risk. It serves as a homing beacon, signalling to Muslims worldwide that London tolerates displays of Islamic supremacy in its most famous square, one of the worlds most famous Cities. This is not organic worship. It is calculated assertion, encouraged by Sadiq Khan, to attract more arrivals who view Britain as territory to claim. It keeps both him and Labour in power and doing exactly what the native British people have been voting against for years.

Wait till next year, I would put money on it today there will be calls to beat this years world record, thousands spent on promote and calling Muslims from around the globe to come to London to once again show dominance.

We need prioritise Christianity in our Christian country

Britain’s Christian heritage is being erased in its own capital while one community piles up exceptions; from ritual slaughter to parallel courts to grooming gang cover-ups. The arrests of preachers, the banned March for Jesus, and the unchallenged takeover of Trafalgar Square expose the failure of mass immigration and multiculturalism.

Restore Britain provide the only honest solution. Their policies demand net-negative migration, mass deportations of those who reject British values, and the restoration of ancestral and Christian identity at the core of the nation. By halting the inflows that fuel unwanted demographic change and enforcing integration on our terms, no one else’s, public spaces will be reclaimed, free speech protected for Christians, and displays of domination ended.

Only Restore Britain has the courage to reverse this. Honesty, not politeness, will save Britain. Despite being a Conservative, good on you Nick.

The recent Watt-Logic report details the risks backed by data and concludes the following:

• Traditional power station capacity reducing
  Around 12 gigawatts of ageing gas-fired power stations, over a third of the existing fleet, face closure within five to seven years because of their age and lack of upgrades and net zero ideology of not replaying them. National Grid ESO assumes they will run at only 5 percent utilisation, this is unrealistic and the plants were designed for far higher loads.

• Renewables don’t produce when we need them most
  On cold, still winter evenings, when demand peaks, wind and solar produce little or nothing. North Sea gas production is declining, exploration licenses refused and we risk shortages exactly when we need firm power most.

• Electricity rationing is virtually inevitable
  Probability of regional electricity rationing or blackouts by 2030 sits between 65 and 85 percent, with a 5 to 10 percent baseline risk of a full grid collapse. A near miss occurred in January 2025, costing 23 million pounds to balance the market.

• The Iberian blackout is a lesson we are not learning
  In April 2025 Iberia experienced a blackout and was triggered by renewable assets failing grid code compliance under weak conditions. Solar inverters and other inverter based resources disconnected, causing frequency instability and a peninsula wide outage. The same vulnerability exists here as renewables replace conventional generation and reduce system inertia.

• No one has accountability
  No single institution holds accountability for security of supply. Governance failures compound the problem, while political leaders ignore warnings and press ahead with Clean Power 2030 targets.

These are not theoretical risks. Events in 2025, including the Heathrow substation blackout in March, have already shown ageing infrastructure and poor maintenance under strain.

Renewables are so much more expensive

Multiple governments are guilty of false reporting on the true affordability of net zero ideology but Ed Miliband takes this insanity to another level. He insists renewables are cheap because the fuel, wind or sunshine, is free and our bills will go down but thats just not true. Yes the sun is free, as is the wind but the rest is pure fantasy. This is all ideology dressed up as economics and ignores the full system costs that households actually pay through their bills and insane taxes.

• Wind is hugely more expensive than gas
  Offshore wind subsidies under recent Contracts for Difference stand at 83 pounds per megawatt hour in today’s money. The average day-ahead wholesale price based on gas sits around 70 to 73 pounds per megawatt hour. Even on subsidy alone, wind is already 13 percent more expensive than firm gas power, and that subsidy figure does not include any of the extras.

• Wind and solar figures are also false
  Onshore wind and solar appear around 70 pounds per megawatt hour on paper, yet this headline levelised cost excludes everything that makes them expensive in practice.

• Billions in subsidies on our bills
  Since 2006 consumers have paid an extra £220bn, in today’s money, because of net zero policies and renewables subsidies recovered through bills rather than general taxation. Had Britain stayed with its legacy gas-based system, even allowing for the gas price spike, households would be hundreds of pounds a year better off and the country would have avoided this cumulative hit.

• Wasted billions on backup when renewables fail to produce
  Intermittency forces massive backup. Wind delivers only about 35 percent capacity factor and solar around 10 percent. We therefore pay for gas plants through the Capacity Market to sit ready when the weather fails, adding billions annually.

• Huge new infrastructure costs billions in grid connections
  Grid reinforcement and connections cost billions more. Renewables are often built far from demand, especially in Scotland. One 800 megawatt gas station needs a single grid connection. The equivalent output from wind requires dozens of turbines and multiple new lines. National Grid prioritises renewable connections over maintaining legacy assets, many of which date from the 1970s and are now failing.

• We pay to turn renewables off, then pay again to turn gas power on
  The Sea Green offshore wind farm off Scotland had two thirds of its output curtailed in 2024 because the grid could not carry the power south. Consumers paid the wind farm compensation at full subsidy rates and then paid gas stations downstream to generate the electricity that was needed anyway.

• Real-time balancing adds further billions
  Every gust of wind or passing cloud requires immediate adjustment to keep frequency stable. These costs, plus carbon taxes, the Renewables Obligation, climate change levies and other hidden charges, all land on bills without scrutiny.

The Climate Change Committee itself admits no net savings from the policy until 2038 to 2042 at the very earliest, by that time our economy will be dead, families will experience tough day to day living and thousands will die from cold. This reality is completely at odds with Labours multiple promises at elections to save consumers £100s on their bills so they don’t have to make the choice between ‘heating and eating’. They are either ignorant or liars.

Even those projected savings rest on wildly optimistic assumptions that wind costs will fall dramatically, assumptions contradicted by every recent auction round. The government has refused to publish a proper full-system-cost comparison between renewables and alternatives, cancelling one such exercise under Miliband. The result is a deliberate deception that keeps the public paying for an unreliable system while being told it is cheap.

Net zero is an ideology not a reality

Renewables plus net zero does not deliver cheaper, greener, and more secure energy. The evidence shows the opposite. The policy is ideological zealotry, not science. Successive governments, especially the current Labour administration, have edited independent advice, refused to engage experts, and assumed unrealistic build rates for replacements. They offshore manufacturing, raise global emissions, and burden British households while virtue signalling how great they are and care for the planet.

It’s sheer complacency. Near misses and real blackouts elsewhere are dismissed as one-offs, yet the grid is losing rotating mass for stability and faces higher demand from electrification and data centres. Remember Starmer pushing for the UK to be an AI powerhouse? We don’t have the energy capacity or reliability needed and we never will on the current trajectory.

A four-hour rolling blackout by region is what rationing would look like initially. Lives would be lost, ventilators would fail, and the economy would take a hit far beyond airport delays. Yet ministers prioritise targets and stupid blinkered ideology over physics.

Trumpeted AI data centers require huge energy resources

Rachel Reeves has also just announced a major £2.5 billion funding package aimed at accelerating artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum technology adoption in the UK, with a significant focus on data center infrastructure. But this is another issue that is not being addressed, their hunger of energy is immense and we just don’t have that level of surplus or consistent energy.

Drop windmills, keep gas and coal whilst we build nuclear to replace them

There seems to be a complete lack of urgency on nuclear and gas extensions and more urgency on windmills and buying Chinese solar panels to go on farmland with kill switches made from slave labour and dodgy mining practices. We need modular nuclear at sites around the country, thats the long and short of it and we need to build them quick.

They cost roughly £1.75bn each and can be built in 5 years, if the government takes the necessary steps. If they can remove our right to jury trials they can do this, if they want to. We need to keep coal and gas powered stations on a temporary basis to keep the lights on and our economy functioning. But this net zero obsessed government instead chases intermittent capacity that requires parallel backup systems.

Think about this. Some years ago the Conservative government spend £175bn subsiding energy bills under the Energy Price Guarantee in 2022. If that money would have been used for nuclear investment as many called for, we could be close to having 10 modular nuclear reactors coming online in the next couple of years. Now add in the extra £220bn we have had to pay extra on our bills so far and will continue to do so for another 15 years and the financial incompetence is immeasurable.

This is not a managed transition, it is self sabotage on the altar of net zero.