Restore Britain - St Helens Branch

11/10/2026

Waaaah! 😭 Tell us we’ve triggered you without telling us.

Only discovered us today, and you're already throwing a tantrum. That didn't take long, did it?

Block our page all you like. We can still see your posts and will continue commenting on your poisonous rhetoric.

Keep whinging, stamping your feet and making a public spectacle of yourselves. We'll happily use every pathetic meltdown as fuel.

At this rate, you'll have done more to publicise us by tomorrow than we could have managed ourselves.

Cheers, mate 👍🏼

⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️

11/10/2026

Many of them profess fealty to Karl Marx, revering him as some towering intellectual whose legacy deserves unquestioning admiration.

But who was he, really?

A man who railed against exploitation while living off the generosity of others. A supposed champion of equality whose own correspondence betrayed ugly racial prejudices. A so-called revolutionary who preached liberation while openly entertaining political violence, and whose despicable treatment of those closest to him exposed the morally bankrupt, self-serving hypocrite beneath the façade.

For all his grand theories about reorganising society, Marx struggled spectacularly to put his own affairs in order. He was a quarrelsome, financially irresponsible parasite who spent much of his life depending on other people's money while his wife and children endured poverty, debt and squalid living conditions.

Four of his seven children died before adulthood. His eldest surviving daughter died of cancer shortly before him, while his other two daughters later took their own lives. Doesn't sound great, does it? Particularly for the family of a man who presumed to know how the rest of humanity ought to live.

What about his wife? Poor Jenny spent decades enduring the consequences of his financial recklessness, supporting his work and shouldering the burdens of their household. He was reportedly filthy, drank heavily, could be viciously impatient with her distress and, according to a longstanding allegation, even fathered an illegitimate child with their housekeeper. He didn't attend her funeral either.

Unfortunately for humanity, Marx's influence extended far beyond his own household. His ideas would later inspire regimes responsible for some of history's most appalling atrocities, yet his admirers are often remarkably eager to separate the philosopher from the consequences of movements that invoked his name.

How many people do you think died under communist rule? A couple of hundred? Maybe a few hundred thousand? Wrong. Try one hundred million worldwide.

Stalin's forced collectivisation and terror devastated entire populations. Mao's Great Leap Forward produced a famine estimated to have killed tens of millions. Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge presided over the deaths of roughly a quarter of Cambodia's population. Starvation, executions, labour camps and political persecution on an almost unimaginable scale.

Despite what rabid Marxist zealots will tell you, these were the lived reality of millions subjected to governments promising to build a communist utopia. Imagine looking at the mountains of corpses left behind by regimes that claimed Marx's legacy and concluding that the real tragedy was that the world hadn't listened to him enough.

Neo-Marxists make me sick 🤢

This 💯 👇👇👇

11/10/2026

Yesterday morning, four of us headed out litter-picking in Sankey Valley Park -- in the pouring rain, might I add 🥲

Still, it was a productive couple of hours, and as you can see, we collected quite a lot of litter that had been strewn around the park.

We're just happy to have done our bit for the local community and put all that rubbish where it belongs -- in the bin.

A little effort goes a long way towards keeping our green spaces clean and enjoyable for everyone 💚

Fancy joining us next time? Reach out in the comments below or message us privately.

Not a member yet? Join here: https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/join_us

11/10/2026

Honestly Andy Burnham is so out of touch it's untrue 🤦 For those who haven't seen the story: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/own-cones-hotline-burnham-ridiculed-115516766.html

06/10/2026

“RESTORE IS SPLITTING THE VOTE.”

That line gets repeated every time somebody refuses to automatically fall in behind Reform.

But there is a problem with it:

RESTORE AND REFORM ARE NOT THE SAME PARTY.

There are serious differences.

So let's talk.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BRAVERMAN & JENRICK — THEY'VE ALREADY HAD THEIR CHANCE

We're constantly told that Reform represents a completely new alternative to the political establishment.

But all of its most prominent figures have already occupied parliment for years, and more importantly the very offices responsible for immigration.

Suella Braverman was Home Secretary.

Robert Jenrick was Immigration Minister.

These weren't powerless backbenchers.

They were ministers in the Conservative government responsible for Britain's immigration system.

So when Restore supporters are told to simply trust that the same politicians will deliver a completely different result next time, that's asking for a considerable leap of faith that we do not have.

We've already seen them fail in government, they SHOULD NOT GET A SECOND CHANCE!

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

MASS DEPORTATION — THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE

Nigel Farage previously described deporting hundreds of thousands of people as a “political impossibility.”

He also said:

“I'm not going to get dragged down the route of mass deportations.”

Restore's response?

WE DISAGREE!

Rupert Lowe and Restore didn't just shout “deport”

They published Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality and Logistics.

An actual blueprint.

It deals with detention capacity.

Removal capacity.

Legal barriers.

Voluntary departures.

Enforced removals.

The ECHR.

The Human Rights Act.

The asylum system.

And Restore's proposed programme envisages 150,000–200,000 enforced removals EVERY YEAR alongside voluntary departures.

Farage said mass deportation was politically impossible.

Restore published a document explaining how it can be achieved.

We don't accept that something becomes impossible simply because Westminster lacks the political will to do it.

Look around the world.

Governments can enforce immigration law when governments actually decide to enforce it.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

THE BURQA — LOOK AT THE TIMELINE

This distinction couldn't be clearer.

June 2025.

Reform MP Sarah Pochin raises banning the burqa.

Zia Yusuf responds:

“I think it's dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do.”

Because banning the burqa wasn't Reform policy!

Restore's position?

BAN IT.

No sugar coating.

No waiting for focus groups.

No trying to make the position more “palatable.”

When Danny Tommo and the Patriot Platform appeared on the streets.

Farage condemned the masked demonstrators.

Danny Tommo later confronted Yusuf in Portsmouth.

What happened directly after that? Farage announced support for banning all full-face coverings in public, including religious face coverings.

Fine.

We agree with the eventual destination.

But don't pretend the journey didn't happen.

Reform has been around for years.

It took until 2026 for Farage to adopt that position.

Restore had already drawn that line.

And Restore goes further:

BAN THE BURQA.

BAN HALAL AND KOSHER SLAUGHTER ON UK SOIL.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

THE GROOMING GANGS DISPUTE

This is another thing people should understand.

Rupert Lowe says Reform leadership demanded that he remove from a speech his proposal that complicit foreign-national relatives who knowingly facilitated grooming-gang offenders should face deportation too.

Lowe refused.

Farage later went on T.V and said "the moment he started talking about removing those families, I knew he had to go"

WE STAND WITH LOWE'S POSITION.

If a foreign national knowingly enabled these horrific crimes, Restore believes the consequences should extend beyond the perpetrator where the evidence establishes complicity.

That is a substantive political disagreement.

Calling Restore supporters “vote splitters” doesn't make that disagreement disappear.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

THEN RUPERT LOWE OFFERED FARAGE A DEAL.

This part seems to get conveniently forgotten.

Despite everything that happened between them, Lowe publicly offered cooperation.

And he put FIVE TERMS on the table.

1️⃣ MASS DEPORTATION

Deport illegal migrants, including women and children.

2️⃣ RADICALLY REDUCE LEGAL MIGRATION

Alongside bans on the burqa, halal and kosher slaughter, cousin marriage and sharia courts.

3️⃣ DEATH PENALTY REFERENDUM

Let the British public decide.

4️⃣ WELFARE AND SPENDING REFORM

Move Britain towards national self-sufficiency.

5️⃣ NO FAILED FORMER CONSERVATIVE MINISTERS IN A FUTURE GOVERNMENT

There's the offer.

So rather than shouting:

“YOU'RE SPLITTING THE VOTE!”

Answer something more interesting:

WHICH OF THOSE FIVE TERMS IS THE PROBLEM?

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

“ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT” — WHILE RECRUITING THE ESTABLISHMENT?

Farage presents Reform as the anti-establishment insurgency.

Restore takes a different approach.

We don't believe replacing one Westminster political class with politicians recycled from another party represents the fundamental change Britain needs.

We want candidates drawn from outside the Westminster conveyor belt.

Scientists.

Engineers.

Doctors and healthcare workers.

Business owners.

Hospitality workers.

Tradespeople.

Farmers.

Veterans and serving-community voices.

Teachers.

Ordinary working people who actually understand the consequences of government policy.

Because if Britain genuinely wants political change, eventually Britain has to stop handing power back to the same political class and expecting different outcomes.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

AND THEN THERE'S POLICY.

Restore isn't simply posting angry slogans.

It has published a detailed mass-deportation blueprint.

It has published a 42-page energy-security strategy.

It has published substantial proposals covering policing and criminal justice.

Maritime security.

Economic policy.

Housing.

Inheritance tax.

Pubs.

Student-loan interest.

And more.

Reform only now has began creating substantive policies in several of these areas as well, including deportation and energy.

Good.

PUT THE DOCUMENTS NEXT TO EACH OTHER.

Compare them.

Look at what each party actually proposes.

Look at the dates.

Look at what politicians were saying before public pressure.

Look at what they're saying after public pressure.

That's a far more useful exercise than shouting “split vote.”

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

AND THEN THERE WAS CLACTON.

Farage voluntarily resigned as the MP for Clacton, triggering an entirely new parliamentary by-election — and then stood for the same seat again.

The estimated bill to the taxpayer?

AROUND £250,000.

The Conservatives didn't field a candidate.

Labour didn't field a candidate.

The Liberal Democrats didn't field a candidate.

The major Westminster parties effectively declined to participate in the spectacle.

So who became Farage's main opponent?

COUNT BINF​​ACE.

A man wearing a bin on his head.

Farage won and subsequently talked about the result as a rejection of the establishment.

So yes, Farage “won”.

But let's remember what actually happened.

He resigned a parliamentary seat he already held.

He forced the people of Clacton through another election.

The contest was estimated to cost taxpayers roughly a quarter of a million pounds.

The major parties refused to play along with the circus.

And his nearest opponent was Count Binface.

If that's supposed to demonstrate victory over the British establishment, then sorry but we don't see it.

Meanwhile, the parliamentary standards investigation that had been paused when Farage resigned resumed after he was re-elected.

That's the full context.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

So here's the answer to:

“RESTORE IS SPLITTING THE VOTE.”

No.

RESTORE IS ARTICULATING POLITICAL POSITIONS THAT REFORM HAS NOT ALWAYS SHARED.

On mass deportation.

On the burqa.

On grooming-gang accomplices.

On former Conservative ministers returning to government.

On the political establishment.

And on exactly how far Britain needs to go.

In some areas Reform has subsequently moved closer to positions Restore has advocated.

GOOD.

Political pressure changing policy is not a failure.

It's the entire point of political pressure.

But Restore supporters aren't obliged to forget who said what, when they said it, or which positions were considered unacceptable until somebody else started making the argument.

Rupert Lowe has even publicly offered a route to cooperation.

Five terms.

They're there for everyone to read.

So instead of demanding Restore disappear because its existence is electorally inconvenient:

DEBATE THE TERMS.

Debate mass deportation.

Debate the burqa.

Debate halal and kosher slaughter.

Debate grooming gangs.

Debate the ECHR.

Debate the death penalty.

Debate immigration.

Debate whether former Conservative ministers should return to government.

But stop pretending three words settle every one of those arguments:

“SPLITTING THE VOTE.”

Restore Britain
Reform UK
Rupert Lowe
Nigel Farage

02/10/2026

Love this 🥰

Patriots.

01/10/2026

This is what we've imported.

28/09/2026

On Saturday, a few of us went to a local cemetery to honour the servicemen who fought and died for us in both world wars.

When asked how it made her feel, our branch organiser had this to say:

“I hadn’t been to many graveyards in my life before that day, and I’d never considered them inviting places. But strangely, what I felt when I went there was a profound sense of peace. It was sunny and warm, and there were many more graves than I’d imagined.

As we began looking for the military graves, I was struck by the sheer volume of flowers that had been placed by so many headstones. It looked beautiful. More than anything else, it showed me that St Helens as a town is full of love, and people show it openly.

The first headstone I cleaned was that of a Private in the Army Catering Corps. As I scrubbed it with a soft-bristled brush, I found myself wondering who he was, why he decided to join the Army, what he did during his years of service, and what circumstances had led to his death.

There was something satisfying about watching the dirt wash away from his headstone and seeing the difference we were making. I was a bit annoyed, however, that I couldn’t clean it thoroughly. As volunteers, we’re only allowed to use water, so I’d be interested to see how the professionals do it.

As we moved through the cemetery, we came across servicemen from a range of different roles. We cleaned the graves of several privates, corporals and engineers, as well as an ordinary seaman, an aircraftman and wireless operators/air gunners. I was intrigued by their titles and found myself wanting to learn about what their roles involved and, most importantly, about the men themselves.

By the time we’d finished, I felt deeply fulfilled. I was particularly glad that we’d been able to take care of graves that looked like they might have been forgotten about. Those men deserve to be honoured, and we ought to make sure people know their names.”

With that, we’re beginning our series on local war heroes. Each week, we’ll choose a serviceman laid to rest in St Helens and explore the story of the man behind the headstone.

Want to join us next time?

Our final cemetery care event of the year will take place next month, as we’re not permitted to clean the gravestones between November and March.

If you’d like to come along, let us know in the comments or send us a private message 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧

26/09/2026

Let’s talk stats, shall we?

On one of our recent posts, a total of 409 people responded positively, while a meagre 47 opposed it -- we even had a couple of wangry faces 🥲

The upshot? That’s 90% in favour.

What does that tell us about the appetite for change in this country? That the loudest voices are not representative of the majority.

Beneath all the screeching and manufactured outrage, there is a strong desire for change.

They can call us racists, N***s, fascists and whatever other meaningless epithets they care to throw at us.

Their petty attempts to dissuade us are like water off a duck’s back at this point.

So, here’s our little love letter to the self-appointed guardians of acceptable opinion:

We don’t care that you dislike us.

We don’t care about hurting your feelings.

We don’t care about winning your approval.

We won’t apologise for saying what we believe.

We won’t be bullied into silence by your embarrassing tantrums -- and if we’re assaulted by you or your chums, we won’t hesitate to defend ourselves.

Most importantly, we won’t abandon our principles to make ourselves more palatable to those whose opinions were never of any consequence to us in the first place.

You can continue sneering, shouting and insulting us.

But just to be perfectly clear: we don’t care 😘

All our love and affection,
Restore Britain - St Helens

26/09/2026

Another day, another band of lunatics.

As if their mere existence wasn't enough of a burden, these basement dwellers are regularly going out of their way to harass and attack us.

With that in mind, let's all take a moment to review the law on self-defence in England and Wales:

👉🏼 Reasonable force may be used to defend yourself or another person. Under section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, whether the force used was reasonable is assessed by reference to the circumstances as you believed them to be.

👉🏼 You do not have to wait to be attacked first. Reasonable force may be used in response to an imminent threat; there is no rule requiring you to wait for the first blow to land.

👉🏼 There is no duty to retreat. The possibility that a person could have retreated may, where relevant, be taken into account when deciding whether the force used was reasonable, but it does not give rise to a duty to retreat.

👉🏼 Self-defence ends when the need for defence ends. If the danger has passed, further violence may amount to retaliation, revenge or punishment rather than lawful self-defence. Good to keep this in mind.

👉🏼 Different rules apply in certain householder cases. When defending yourself or another person against someone you believe to be a trespasser in your home, force that is subsequently considered disproportionate may still be reasonable. Grossly disproportionate force, however, cannot be regarded as reasonable and should be avoided.

Ultimately, keep your actions proportionate to the threat, and don't be afraid to defend yourselves and those you love.