The Green Party

[elmoputney]

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

[greekskii]

1 hour ago, Dave Fowler said:

- An education system that teaches, respects and celebrates British history and the triumphant contribution our little island has made to the world.

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. 
 

[salokcinnodrog]

6 hours ago, elmoputney said:

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

 

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.

 

 

55 minutes ago, greekskii said:

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. 
 

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.

 

[emmcee]

10 hours ago, elmoputney said:

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

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. 

 

 

 

[greekskii]

22 minutes ago, salokcinnodrog said:

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.

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… 

[greekskii]

1 minute ago, emmcee said:

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. 

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. 

 

4 minutes ago, emmcee said:

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? 

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. 

[salokcinnodrog]

25 minutes ago, greekskii said:

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… 

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.

[framey]

10 hours ago, elmoputney said:

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. 

 

 

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.