Latest Activity

My last post on this thread simply because I don’t want to fall out with anyone I don’t think i actually said there was a first country rule but there should be if it’s safe in a neighbouring country then that’s where you should stop. and you should be able to apply at an embassy it’s British soil.

Yep, the British installed and backed The Shah of Iran because Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh wanted to have a close look into Anglo-Iranian Oil who he felt were not paying a fair price for oil. When they refused he basically nationalised the company. AIO is part of BP. Also the funding of Iranian arms by Ronald Reagan and his additional attempts to stall the Iranian hostage situation so he could become President of the USA blaming Jimmy Carter who wanted a peaceful defusing of the situation. That one is shameful. USA sending arms to Iran 'discreetly', while the Iran Iraq war was going on, with most major nations, including USA supplying Iraq with weapons. Jimmy Carter had placed an arms embargo on Iran, as they had inherited US weapons during the fall of the Shah. When the UK, and USA learn that you can't back both sides against the middle or intervene in other nations.

Ok. Got it now As long as I receive my order by the 25th, I'll give you a 5 star trust pilot review.

Often times the women and children are in an”safe country” and then men make the journey to Britain as the risk is high in the channel. Then once here they bring the family. Your statements show you need to do some internet research as you don’t fully understand any of what you’ve said. Women and children in Ukraine were FLOWN out at the expense of other countries taxpayer money to those countries. The men were forced to stay, those that left cant go back. One that did flee got a visa here and lived across the road from my parents. I’ve spoken to him first hand. Avoided duty because of a bad back, was here working as a labourer the following week. They have a choice on where to go. They might prefer British food to Italian. Simple as that. They have freedom of choice. also, it just sounds like you don’t care about women and children sexually assaulted by British men. So much focus on these migrants and what they’ve done when a majority of SAs in Britain are carried out by white men, same with child SAs. Get a grip on reality please. Villainising a small % of the perpetrators and ignoring the majority is utter stupidity. Are you as vocal about British rapists? If all of these migrants disappeared will you still be vocal about rape and sexual assault? Were you before they were here? they are a recent phenom after all.

It’s the same with all these people harping on about Iran, that regime is/was only there because they overthrew a brutal and sadistic dictatorship installed by the British under proxy for the Americans, because the leader at the time who everyone in Iran loved, wanted to nationalise oil and cancel the contracts with BP. A history well documented and factual, but that they bury whenever they can. History repeating itself again. What do they say, if you keep on doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, they call you crazy. Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Iran…

If they can pay what is rumoured to be thousands of pounds to cross the channel, then surely just buy a plane ticket once in a safe country. And, why once in a "safe" country do they carry on to the UK? And let's not sugar coat anything here, what about the suffering of the young girls who have been sexually assaulted by some of these men, one girl who actually worked in a migrant hotel killed by one of these men? My gripe with all this is, where are the women and children on these small boats? If it was a mix of women , children and men then i get it, but it isn't The Ukraine war with Russia, the women and children left and the men stayed to fight. Poland who don't take illegal immigrants, took thousands of Ukrainians, because they were real victims of war.

Sadly I have deleted a post on this thread. The argument or opinion may be valid, but as soon as I see censored language or inferred swearing in a post, I will remove the post, and frequently ban the user. On this occasion I just deleted the post. Keep it clean! Let's see where I pulled those figures from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2025/summary-of-latest-statistics https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/ https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/stay-informed/explainers/top-facts-from-the-latest-statistics-on-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c363k7xj9k5t#:~:text=In 2025 there were 46%2C497,routes%2C Home Office figures show. The internet is eye opening, and certain companies within the internet world do 'censor' results. Google for one, the search results and Ai Overview are skewed towards what they want you to believe. Years ago I did some research on who set up government contracts to house immigrants in hotels, and the answer may surprise you: Tony Blair, used a company called Clearwater. Google hides this, it doesn't like it being found. Then the reason for Middle Eastern and African immigrants coming to UK, the UK and US interfered in Libya, Iraq, and the fall of those nations saw former officers and soldiers moving across the region creating ISIS, Al-Shabaab and other offshoots.

So they plan to ignore and actively hide the bad side of British history, which we all know exists and to educate people properly, should be taught to our children. It’s like Germany saying they won’t teach anyone about the Nazi party….although that does need looking in to if you have a brain on who set that policy and wrote the textbooks. the entire issue with this policy is that the internet is free, people will go and question and interrogate it for the truth and start asking questions in school, what happens then? They are expelled for questioning the history they are taught? Imprisoned? What happens? censor the internet? you teach the good and the bad side by side. You should be taught the truth. Churchill for example, he did many a bad thing, that’s facts. Why hide it? What happens if I bring that up in a Restore Britain Britain? Death penalty for the truth? the internet will always win the day unless censored, which sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship that restore criticise. The truth about what you were taught, what I was taught, what’s being taught now, is out there. go translate hitlers speeches for a start, eye opening. Go look up who publishes school textbooks. Go research the real history and current affairs. Eye opening stuff. Kids are savvy and a fake history doesn’t run anymore.

Looking at those policies it's a good job Rupert Lowe will never become prime minister.

Where did you pull those numbers from? I would wager they wouldn't hold up to much scrutiny.

So this country can continue to afford incoming immigration? You do know that Britain has had over 10million come into this country since 2010? The cost per day to the UK taxpayer is around £6million. The majority are not refugees, not asylum seekers, but are economic migrants. The total last year who were genuine refugees is 33,000, out of 898,000. Some figures to make you think, and why we cannot continue to allow the system as it is.

Key Points on Claiming Asylum in the UK No "First Country" Rule: There is no international law stating that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. UK Inadmissibility Policy: Under UK law, the Home Secretary can declare a claim inadmissible if you were previously in a safe country where you could have claimed asylum. Removal Challenges: While the government aims to remove people to safe third countries, this requires that another country is willing to accept them, which is not always feasible. Post-Brexit: The UK is no longer part of the EU Dublin Regulations, which previously allowed for the transfer of asylum seekers back to their first point of entry into the EU. How to Claim: You must be present in the UK to claim asylum; it is not possible to apply from outside the country, such as at a UK embassy.

Ps I have no real problem with real asylum either.

In the first safe country. dont need to go through 10 other safe countries to claim asylum plus asylum and migration are 2 different things.

It's not illegal to claim asylum.

People start taking drugs for a lot of reasons. Most aren't criminals quite often victims of circumstance. The prisons are already overcrowded and just breed more addicts, who then get released and the cycle continues. Rehabilitation into society would be a more useful tool. And by controlling drugs it could be taxed to fund treatment and rehabilitation so people could get back on their feet and contribute and integrate into society. Punishing people for taking drugs doesn't work but it makes criminals richer.

That’s down to the government to sort out not me. Britain has been built on migration so I genuinely have no problem with it we would be screwed without it. illegal, then that’s a different story.

How can they when there is no safe and legal routes sent up?

Illegal immigrants… yup, no problem with that. if you want to come over then do it the correct way.

No only Fins.

Remigration of illegal immigrants, that will become a witch hunt of any non white citizen of the UK. This is part of their policy manifesto Operationally, the paper recommends a two-pronged approach: voluntary departures reaching around half a million or more per year driven by a hostile environment, and between 150,000 - 200,000 enforced removals per year. Just sounds like BNP fascist nonsense to me. Exactly the same sort of propaganda present in 1930's Germany.

Excuse my ignorance but what human suffering are restore or reform planning?

It's in their manifesto and Zack Polanski said on the news: "Speaking to BBC South East ahead of his party conference, Zack Polanski said he agreed with a Kent Green councillor, who earlier this year called for the legalisation of all drugs, including class A drugs like heroin and crack cocaine." So you legalise drugs, and in the process increase the welfare bill and psychiatric reliance in the NHS. If you go the other way and reduce the 'acceptability' of drug taking, increase criminal punishment and dare I say it prevent the incoming mafia dealers from abroad by reducing immigration you can start to break the problem.

Only fans

The 500 size canisters last longer. On a session I get a minimum of 4 days out of 1 canister, but only a couple of days out of the smaller ones, so not a great saving. The current canister in use has done plenty of pike and beach trips.