Tens of thousands have joined pro-Restore Britain Facebook groups being run by people who appear to be based in Pakistan and Bangladesh, an investigation has revealed.
Research by the organisation Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD UK) and PoliticsHome has found that multiple Facebook groups showing support for Rupert Lowe and his Restore Britain party are run by individuals who appear to be based in Asia, with the investigation also finding admins based in the United States.
Some of these groups, which have tens of thousands of members, are later being turned into vessels for selling firesticks, download codes and tech support, with admins changing the group name and picture to suit the new purpose.
Siddharth Venkataramakrishnan, Analyst and Editorial Manager at ISD UK who uncovered the groups, told PoliticsHome that the phenomenon was “really a continuation of an increasingly common trend we’ve seen: accounts promoting content that is misleading, politically charged or hateful for clicks”.
“There is obviously a particular irony that groups producing anti-Muslim content are run by Muslims themselves, but we are seeing these groups being run globally.”
Venkataramakrishnan said that the politics in these groups is “incidental”, with the groups ultimately just “a vehicle to monetisation”.
Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, has built a huge following on Facebook compared to other political party leaders. The Restore Britain leader currently has 1.3m followers on the platform. He also has a significant following on X, where, as PoliticsHome recently reported, he has made tens of thousands of pounds since being elected in 2024.
One group uncovered by the investigation, called ‘Rupert lowe [sic] fans’, which was set up in February 2026, is run by Mahiya Mim, Rifaat Alamin and Eliana Maya.
According to their Facebook profiles, Maya is based in New York, while Alamin is based in Sylhet, Bangladesh. Mim does not specify her location but claims to have attended school in Bangladesh. In an added twist, Mim and Alamin appear to be married.
Both Mim and Alamin have been admins for the group since the date it was created, while Maya became an admin two days later.
The posts made on the group range from nostalgic British posts about former high street retailer Woolworths to pictures of women in the burqa, asking: “Do you agree that these should be banned?”
Posts on ‘Rupert lowe fans’ also encourage engagement, posing questions such as “should Muslims be banned from all public office in the UK” and “who do you trust more to lead Britain?” with a picture of Lowe and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage included. The pages also post “relatable” British culture references, such as asking whether local bank branches should be reopened.
While the group has amassed more than 28,000 members, the admins have been recently attempting to push members towards what they call their “new group”, ‘Restore Britain & Rupert lowe [sic] for PM’, which currently has just over 6,000 members and was created in April.
Another similar group called ‘Restore Britain – Rupert lowe [sic] for PM’, which has more than 19,000 followers, was set up in March.
At the time of writing, the admins of this Facebook group are listed as Sheren Dmax, who is based in Birmingham, and Arsala Rauf, who is based in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. As none of the individuals were admins from the group’s inception, it can be presumed they are not the creators.
It is unclear whether the accounts or groups are managing to monetise from the platform, but the income could be coming from elsewhere.
While many of these groups continue to purport to be Rupert Lowe or Restore Britain fan bases, some have been completely changed, with the groups instead becoming advertisements or selling pages for Amazon Firesticks.
Venkataramakrishnan also found evidence of Clarkson’s Farm fan groups being set up and later pivoting to promoting firesticks and tech support.
One Facebook group, which has more than 4,000 members, was created on 4 March 2026 and was originally called ‘Restore Britain Rupert lowe [sic] for pm’. In April, the name was changed to ‘Downloader Codes 2026’.
Originally, the group was politics-focused, including posts about British political party leaders and issues like border control, as well as offensive content like hateful posts about Muslims. However, on 13 April, the group name was changed by Itx Saddam. According to his Facebook page, Saddam lives in Islamabad, Pakistan.
When the group name and picture changed, there was very little pushback from members, apart from Andy Milne, who wrote “FUCK OFF YOU PR1CK, NOT GHE GROUP I FVCKIN JOINED!! [sic]”
While the group claims to be based in the UK, the group is run by Shan Arsal, who is based in Karachi, Pakistan, according to his Facebook profile.
Other listed admins include Fabian Rahlmann (whose location is unknown), Adrian Wystub (who is based in the UK), Adam Chester (based in New York), and Babar Ali (based in Lahore, Pakistan).
Venkataramakrishnan told PoliticsHome: “One part of that is advertising revenue, but these groups are obviously trying to maximise how much money they can get. Promoting questionable goods is just one expansion of that; another likely one is targeting commenters with scams.
“This again just shows how there is a complete disconnect from the impact that these groups have both on those being targeted with hate and the accounts being drawn in – they’re all just avenues to making cash.”
Victoire Rio, executive director of technology charity What To Fix, told PoliticsHome: “We regularly see people ‘hijack’ political issues to ‘warm up’ Facebook pages and groups. This can be a good way to build a targeted following – in this particular case, Brits. There is also a vast resale industry for digital assets, so it’s also possible that these groups are being warmed up for resale.”
The Hidden Business Behind Political Fan Groups
The investigation has raised broader questions about the increasingly blurred line between genuine political activism and online commercial manipulation. While many users join these groups believing they are participating in political discussions, researchers warn that some may unknowingly become part of a system designed primarily to generate attention, traffic, and profit.
The phenomenon highlights a growing challenge facing social media platforms: political identity has become a valuable digital commodity.
Facebook groups built around controversial topics, emotional debates, and strong opinions can attract thousands of members in a short period of time. Once a large audience has been gathered, the groups can potentially be repurposed, renamed, or redirected toward entirely different objectives.
Experts describe this process as “audience farming” — building a community around a highly engaging subject before later using that audience for advertising, sales, or other forms of online monetisation.
Political groups are particularly attractive because they often generate high levels of interaction. Posts about immigration, national identity, crime, religion, and cultural change frequently receive thousands of comments and shares, creating exactly the type of engagement that algorithms reward.
However, investigators warn that this creates opportunities for bad actors who are not necessarily interested in political outcomes but instead view controversy as a tool for financial gain.
The discovery has also renewed concerns about the difficulty of verifying who is behind online political communities.
Unlike official party pages, independent Facebook groups often operate with limited transparency. Administrators can change names, images, and purposes, sometimes without members immediately noticing. A group that begins as a political discussion forum can later become something completely different while retaining the same audience.
This creates a situation where users may continue interacting with a community believing it represents a political movement, while the individuals controlling the page may have very different motivations.
Political experts say the issue is becoming increasingly important as more voters receive political information through social media rather than traditional news organisations.
For smaller political movements, Facebook and other platforms can provide a powerful way to build support quickly. But the same tools can also be exploited by people seeking clicks, advertising revenue, or access to large audiences.
The controversy surrounding Restore Britain-related groups comes at a time when concerns about online influence operations are growing across many Western democracies.
Governments, researchers, and technology companies have increasingly focused on the risks of coordinated misinformation campaigns, fake grassroots movements, and networks designed to manipulate public debate.
The challenge is particularly complicated because not all unusual online activity represents malicious behaviour. Some genuine supporters may live abroad, operate pages voluntarily, or participate in political discussions from outside the country.
The key question is not simply where an administrator is located, but whether users are being misled about the purpose, ownership, or intentions of the communities they join.
Restore Britain supporters have argued that criticism of these groups should not distract from genuine concerns among voters about issues such as immigration, public services, and trust in political institutions.
Critics, however, say the investigation demonstrates the need for greater awareness among social media users, particularly when dealing with politically charged content.
They argue that emotional posts encouraging anger or fear should be examined carefully, especially when the source of the content is unclear.
The controversy also places pressure on Meta, Facebook’s parent company, to improve transparency around political communities. Researchers have repeatedly called for stronger systems showing who manages large political groups, where administrators are located, and whether groups have undergone significant changes in purpose.
At the same time, campaigners caution that solutions must avoid restricting legitimate political discussion.
Freedom of expression remains a central issue, particularly in democratic societies where citizens have the right to organise, criticise governments, and debate controversial subjects.
The challenge is finding a balance between protecting open political conversation and preventing manipulation.
As political competition intensifies in the United Kingdom, social media is expected to remain a major battleground. Parties and movements will continue attempting to build online communities, while researchers and platforms attempt to separate genuine grassroots engagement from artificial amplification.
The investigation into Restore Britain-related Facebook groups therefore represents more than a single political controversy.
It reflects a wider transformation in modern politics, where influence is increasingly built not only through rallies, speeches, and traditional media, but through algorithms, online communities, and digital attention.
For ordinary users, the lesson is becoming increasingly clear: the appearance of a political movement online does not always reveal who is truly behind it.
In an era where thousands of followers can be gathered with a few viral posts, the question of authenticity has become one of the defining challenges of digital democracy.