Mass Deportation and/or Civil War

The stakes are rising in Britain

For at least the last decade - and probably more like two - the British public as a whole has been very clear that they do not want lots of non-British people coming to live in the British Isles. Especially not ones who try to enter illegally.

A significant driver of Brexit was to cut down on foreign migrants (partly from Eastern Europe in that case, but not just them because EU freedom of movement meant that if you were accepted by one EU country you could then go anywhere). In fact ever since the Tories came to power in 2010 they promised, and failed to deliver, reductions in immigration, both legal and illegal. Despite this clear desire to cut immigration - a desire that in the case of illegal immigration, YouGov recently found was held by mindblowing 79%¹ of those questioned - no one has actually reduced it.

As the BBC notes in a recent article on Nigel Farage’s plans to deport, the problem often seems to be that the judges rule their plans illegal:

The plan involves creating new laws to fast-track people into detention and removal from the UK - and providing the legislation is correctly worded, there is nothing in principle to say that Parliament could not create such a scheme.

But it has been tried before and failed. In 2010 and then in 2015 judges ruled that accelerating failed asylum seekers through to removal was unlawful.

The courts found in 2015 that fast-tracking conflicted with one of the UK's basic legal principles: the opportunity to fairly put your case before a court rules against you.

So the challenge for Reform is how they deal with the fact that everyone has a right to be heard.

And indeed, as Spiked reports in it’s Farage deporation plan piece, the courts regularly stop deportations of undesirables:

It would strike most people as common sense that illegal entry to the UK should lead to removal. Yet in Britain, in 2025, illegal migrants are instead funneled into the asylum system. They are housed in hotels and HMOs around the country as the Home Office processes their claims. Not that this process counts for much, as rejected claims are highly unlikely to lead to deportation. Even migrants who arrive illegally and commit serious criminal offences can claim a right to stay indefinitely with the help of the ECHR. In some cases, the criminal behaviour itself is cited as a reason to block deportation – as in the recent cases of an Afghan sex offender, a Zimbabwean paedophile, a Nigerian terrorist and a Jamaican gang member, all of whom were allowed to stay because their crimes would supposedly put them at risk in their home countries. The threat such people might pose to the UK population isn’t even an afterthought. It never seems to factor into the thinking of immigration-tribunal judges at all.

That piece is not the only one that notes that a big part of the problem is the British Establishment/Deep State. The judges, mainstream politicians, senior police officers, many NGOs, and civil servants all fail to see that immigration is a serious issue and indeed, if anything, see the biggest problem being the British people protesting that their country is being taken over by foreigners. Particularly when they do something outrageous like putting up national flags².

The flag protests are already, despite an odd (see footnote above) reluctance by the media to cover them, causing much grief in officialdom. Gavin Towler points out that and much more in his recent substack:

Raising the Flag:

Authorities appear particularly unnerved, with councils like Labour-run Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, and Tower Hamlets ordering removals under the guise of safety, flags on lampposts might endanger pedestrians or require costly maintenance. Yet Palestinian flags, waving for months in solidarity with Gaza, remain untouched, even when posing similar (non-existent) hazards. A leaked Birmingham email hinted at fears of "destabilising community cohesion" by removing them, while English ones are swiftly excised. Kemi Badenoch called it "shameful," accusing selective enforcement that alienates patriots.

This disparity begs introspection. If the fear is comprehensible, flags as potential flashpoints in tense times, why is it so acutely felt in England at the sight of England's own emblem? The St George's Cross isn't inherently menacing; it's flown proudly at Euros matches or royal jubilees. Yet for the technocratic, globalist uniparty establishment, those who prioritise transnational alliances over national roots, it evokes discomfort, a reminder of borders and belonging in a borderless ideal. Thornberry's tweet encapsulated this: contempt for the rooted, the 'Somewheres' who cling to place amid globalisation's flux.

Officialdom is, I think, partly correct. The flags are a threat - to them. The flags are saying “this is our country” in much the same way that MAGA hats and signs do/did in the US. But they are more of a warning, than an actual threat. What they are doing now is demonstrating visually the preference of a majority that has been roundly ignored at best and more often told off for being “racist”. The unstated warning is that if officialdom doesn’t take the migration crisis seriously and stop it then more direct action will take place.

In this environment, Nigel Farage and Reform’s announced plans for mass deportations are the first time a leading national politician/party has set out concrete steps for the ending mass immigration. Whether or not there’s an election soon for him to implement them is immaterial. He’s moved the Overton Window on immigration solidly over to the “stop it” side and is willing to face the blow back from the “nice” people. Like President Trump, he and his team are unmoved by the effects their policy might have on people in other countries. As Richard Tice put it when asked by ITV if Reform was comfortable sending illegal immigrants back to countries like Eritrea and Afghanistan:

There are uncomfortable things that happen elsewhere in the world. It is not our job to govern the whole world.

That is something that Trump, Vance or Rubio might say in the US. I don’t think it has ever been said by a leading European politician, because up until now saying so got you branded as an ebil racissss³.

Will It Work? Is It Practical?

Every report on the Farage proposals for deportations of recent migrants says that, if he tries to implement them, he will face considerable issues. The Torygraph, for example, puts it this way:

Mr Farage pledged, if elected, to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, repeal the Human Rights Act, and disapply the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UN Convention Against Torture, and the Anti-Trafficking Convention. He promised massive detention centres, returns agreements with countries around the world, and up to 600,000 migrants deported in his first term.

In providing these answers to the problem of illegal migration, Mr Farage has raised at least as many questions over practicality – the use of Ascension Island as a “fallback” for those who cannot be sent elsewhere raised eyebrows – and his party’s ability to navigate what could well be a protracted legal and parliamentary battle. Equally, it remains to be seen which sites would be chosen for the detention estate central to the plan.

And former Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg goes further at GBNews:

We can't do it inside the convention and that's what Farage has realised. And to do this, frankly, he has to take on the blob and win.

But that's not going to be easy, because one legal eagle has even claimed that common law, the basis of British law, would debar such deportations, and that there would be a battle over the supremacy of Parliament if that turned out to be the case.

The old parties, my party, indeed, and the Labor Party, have never pledged action as radical as this on such a large scale, and the measures they have brought in have been repeatedly blocked by the courts under human rights grounds and vigorously opposed by the House of Lords by the blob.

Reform seems to me to be seeking a constitutional showdown with the establishment, the likes of which has not been seen since Lloyd George's budget in 1909. It's potentially very exciting.

I love the “potentially very exciting” bit. I think that is Rees-Mogg’s way to point out that policemen, judges and lawyers are human beings who live in houses and travel to work and could have “pointed” interactions with fences, railings and lampposts⁴ if they continue to frustrate the will of the overwhelming majority.

The judiciary is the key part of this. In fact as David McGrogan explained recently, the judges were the ones who started all this idiocy in the first place

Because France is Not War

Specifically he discusses some cases back in the 1990s where the judges created a precedent that was opposed by the government at the time:

In none of the three cases in question had any of the individuals presented themselves to the authorities straight away on arrival in the UK - each, you will recall, did so only after having been rumbled at the airport. This would (again, applying common sense) seem to suggest that they ought not to be able to avail themselves of Article 31 immunity, since they had not been open or honest about their status and had obviously been attempting to dupe their authorities and pass into the country, or through it, unmolested.

This indeed was the position of the Home Secretary, the respondent. The meaning of Article 31, in his view, insofar as it required a refugee to present himself ‘without delay’, was that an asylum seeker had to present himself voluntarily at passport control. If he maintains the deception and is caught, and only then ‘presents himself’ to the authorities, he can hardly expect Article 31 protection from prosecution.

This, though, was not how the court saw the matter. Simon Brown LJ, who gave the lead judgment, decided to apply the reasoning of Atle Grahl-Madsen, a Norwegian academic and refugee law expert, who had in the early 1970s written a treatise on The Status of Refugees in International Law and declared that ‘a person crossing the frontier illegally may have reasons for not giving himself up at the nearest frontier control point or to a local authority in the border zone’ and that ‘if he succeeds in finding his way to the capital or another major city and presents himself to the authorities there he must be deemed to have complied with the requirement and the same ought to apply if he was unsuccessful but could show that such was his intention’.

This was in Brown LJ’s view persuasive, and meant that if, for example, Mr Adimi had intended to claim asylum ‘within a short time of his arrival even had he successfully secured entry on his false documents, then I would not think it right to regard him as having breached this condition’. No evidence was adduced of such an intention, and you will have noticed that in fact Mr Adimi was precisely in Grahl-Madsen’s class of person who had ‘succeed[ed] in finding his way to the capital’ of the UK, but had still only presented himself to the authorities after having been caught. But as far as Brown LJ was concerned it would ‘not be right’ to deny him Article 31 protection, and that was that.

This, as President Trump is discovering in the USA, is a problem. Judges seem to like inventing new laws and interpreting old ones in ways that are counter to common sense and/or the desires of the electorate. Many current UK politicians, including of course Prime Minister Two-Tier, are lawyers and they tend to obey the courts instead of directing them.

Officialdom fails to grasp that their flouting of the desires of the population is the problem. It is not “wise” to invent reasons why criminals should remain undeported or “brave” to stop the authotities from executing the law of the land. Objecting to Farage’s plans, does not mean that everything will continue unchanged. That is not the case. If you block Farage you open the door to something more determined, because Farage is the moderate.

Farage is the Moderate

The problem is that Farage’s goal of 600,000 deportations, while enormous by the scale of current efforts, is not in fact large by the scale of the problem. In fact it’s probably on the order of 10% of the number because, in addition to the couple of million boat people, “refugees”, and “asylum seekers”, there are several million immigrants who have got in legally as family members or similar but who have no desire to integrate with the larger UK and who probably have been complicit in the rape gangs if not active participants.

Firstly there’s the boat people, which the British coastguards helpfully tow across the channel to make sure they don’t sink. I have not seen a poll on the topic, but I have seen a lot of chatter on social media (and may even have added to it myself), and it seems to me that an enormous majority (i.e. approximately that 79% mentioned above) of the British population wants the coastguard, and indeed the Royal Navy, to actually defend the country against such boats by stopping them entering British waters by any means necessary - up to and including spraying the boats with machinegun fire if they don’t take a hint and turn around.

And yes, they (we) want that broadcast on international TV “pour decourager les autres” as it were.

President Trump has shown that migrants react to incentives. A couple of dinghies filled with bloody corpses slowly sinking in the channel would pretty much stop that method of entry dead.

Them there’s the rapists. Rupert Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, who fell out with Farage and Reform recently, is far less moderate than Farage. If officaldom thinks Farage and his plans are bad then they really hate Lowe.

Farage has just attacked me for backing mass deportations - let me be clear about what happened. What he is referring to is my support for removing foreign/dual nationals who were aware that their husband/brother/uncle/son was raping vulnerable young white girls on an industrial scale. If they knew, and did nothing, then yes. They should be removed from our country. I make absolutely NO apologies for stating that. I do not want such evil walking our streets. Deport them all. If that results in entire communities being deported, then that is what must happen. Obviously. The number is irrelevant. Everyone who knew and did nothing must go. If a Pakistani woman knew that her husband was raping a young white girl, facilitating it? Then yes - she should go back to Pakistan with her husband.

Lowe and people like him are the next level. They want to stop Sophie from Dundee⁵ (see title photo) and her sister from becoming the next victims of a rape gang the legal way with some due process. They have a list of places where they have evidence that such rapes took place and they want the rapists and those who protected them removed.

What they haven’t said directly, but clearly imply, is that if the judiciary fails to provide that due process and tries to block the whole thing then the judiciary is now a part of the problem. That is officially civil war territory, it sounds remarkably like the complaints our revolting ex-colonial brethren had in the 1770s, not to mention the complaints against Charles I in the 1640s. In the Americas they just kicked the crown out. In the 1640s the crown literally lost his head (and almost 50 years later his son only kept his by bravely running away).

The UK isn’t there yet. But it is on the (Liverpool) pathway to it. The police and the courts seem more worked up about mean tweets than about actual crimes, and more concerned about the fate of foreigners than those born in the country. Officialdom, and particularly the judiciary, can still keep their heads, if they actually start listening to the populace and implementing their clearly expressed wishes. Judges need to consider that they rely on the rest of the system and the general public to go along with their decisions. If they fail to do so they may discover that they are a handful stacked against hundreds and, in the UK for sure, they don’t have the weaponry to defend themseleves when attacked by a mob.

To quote a certain gentleman involved in an earlier civil war:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. Precept may be upon precept, line may be upon line, and yet the Word of the Lord may be to some a Word of Judgment; that they may fall backward and be broken, and be snared and be taken!

British officialdom would do well to take that passage to heart, and consider what happened to the recipients of it when they failed to admit that they “may be mistaken”

Update/PS Regarding the Rape Gangs. Back in January I did the sums. For women/girls in the right age range the likelihood of being gang raped was on the order of 1 in 300 (333/100k if you want to be all disease like). It was of course far higher if you were a white girl in a town with a load of Pakistanis

1. That 79% is made up of 61% who think it is “much too high” and 18% who just think it is “too high”. 11% don’t know, 8% think the number is about right and just 2% think it is too low

2. Sarcastic? moi?

3. OK so it probably still gets you branded that by the right-on progressives, the difference is that now the majority don’t care

4. One point each, that is, unless they fall in a particularly unfortunate manner

5. Actually I think she’s called Lola and there’s a givesendgo for her here https://www.givesendgo.com/lolaandruby