Release Tommy Robinson

I wasn't speaking to you, but since you butted in...
He belongs to "Veteran's Against Terrorism" that is exactly what they stand for and he is ex-services. You can find his own words on youtube. Because his own words are all anybody has to go by at this point so I suggest do some digging before you turn opinion into fact.




I wasn't speaking to you too, so since you butted in...

KKK.....racist, racist, (YAWN) give it a rest.
"Crimes committed by minorities", yeah whatever. Suppose it sounds better than the truth, ie terrorism. And "we" sounds better than "me". Maybe you should try the same remedy, you windy-up cymbal bashing monkey, It might put some originality into your beat.

Nice attempt at new-speaking my words....You are Owen Jones and I claim my shilling.



But he is ex-services and now civilian, For the life of me I cannot find a reference to the rules that apply to him easily.
None of the rules apply to him and quite rightly as he's an ex-soldier. Still makes my fucking toes curl though, the fat, cringeworthy, embarrassing mess.
 
None of the rules apply to him and quite rightly as he's an ex-soldier. Still makes my ******* toes curl though, the fat, cringeworthy, embarrassing mess.
Doubly ironic that he was (apparently) a member of the 'Light' division.

But IIRC isn't there something on the books about impersonating a soldier? Or maybe several soldiers in this case...
 

Pob02

War Hero
Book Reviewer
I know him (RGJ) its not he.
Beat me to it . .. though some of the descriptions used in this thread would fit him down to a tee ( unlike the uniform on the bloater in that photo).
 
There is a video going round of a Police Medic pushing a couple of TR fans around at a demo in London. (depends what side of the fence you sit as to whether it was fair force or not).

So far I have seen the following statements from EDL/TR fans:

"Strike him off the medical register!"
"Paramedics take an oath, he should not be doing that"
"If he ever had to treat me in a car crash I would refuse his help"
"How can a Doctor push people around like that?"
"How can a medical professional be so violent, he should be arrested"
"He is not wearing the correct Police uniform, he must be under cover SAS, they get taught medic stuff in case someone gets shot".

Now, considering this happened next to a bus that had been boarded by TR fans, the driver physically removed from his seat and the passengers harassed and told to get off the bus while they ripped up the interior and danced on its roof (one of those half roofed tourist buses), it seems ironic to have a video posted on YouTube by the TR fan club pointing out a single Police officer pushing some protestors and claiming Police violence.

As for the Medic designation...a 3 day First Aid at Work certificate ;)..but TR fans seem to think he is a doctor (or under cover SAS!!).
 
I wasn't speaking to you too, so since you butted in...

KKK.....racist, racist, (YAWN) give it a rest.
"Crimes committed by minorities", yeah whatever. Suppose it sounds better than the truth, ie terrorism. And "we" sounds better than "me". Maybe you should try the same remedy, you windy-up cymbal bashing monkey, It might put some originality into your beat.
You may not have been talking to me directly, but the thrust of your post seems to be that a lack of support for VAT equals support for terrorism (or presumably on-topic that a lack of support for TR equals support for sexual offences) which I why I felt the need to point out that was a cuntish thing to write.

I have no time for either - as far as I’m concerned both are parts of the same problem, feeding off of each other to further their own abhorrent objectives. I’m no more likely to join “Veterans Against Terror” than I am to join ISIS.
 
But he is ex-services and now civilian, For the life of me I cannot find a reference to the rules that apply to him easily.
Why the fûck is he wearing uniform then? I stand to be corrected, but I think that there is some elderly legislation banning the wearing of uniforms at political meetings (think of the BUF in the 1930s).

Q.v. Public Order Act 1936.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
I agree with everything except your last paragraph*. There is little doubt that the polarity of politics is changing: rather than class being the defining issue, it is our relationship to the outside world that defines us. You only have to look at the numerous 'brexxxt' threads on here to see that.

So, no issues with your observations; it's the analysis in your last paragraph that, to use a economic term, is pants.

1. As has been pointed out to you before, resorting to populist policies ('throwing a bone') is a dangerous strategy for politicians and is almost ALWAYS a sign of desperation. The examples of CMD and PMTM in very recent times are evidence enough of that.

2. There is no need to head any scenario off, certainly at this point. Again, as has been pointed out to you before, the voting for TR etc is way outside what you'd expect in statistical errors. If you wanted to write a dictionary definition of an 'outlier' you could use the EDL as an example. This is particularly so with our 'first past the post' electoral system. FFS the two main parties aren't usually even particularly worried about the Lib Dems: they're not going to be worried about someone who polls similar to Lord Buckethead.

3. And on the subject of fringe politics: if TR, for example, tried moving closer to the centre to pick up UKIP support, for example, there'd always be some twat that would call 'splitter' and form a new bat-shit crazy far right party.

ETA * Well, apart from your grammar, spelling and use of punctuation, obviously.
What is Populism ? the default option, for all democracies, is populism i.e. the recent 20 billion to the NHS, is a rather populist policy and I don't know any politician, who doesn't enact laws to solicit votes.

I disagree on the class argument, as there are countless laws passed on behalf of the wealthier, or educated classes. To reasons why, there has been no populist laws enacted, is, because the government isn't finished with open door.

TR and other Mongs, going back to the 70s, are the outliers, which the government don't try to address, but just push the policy deeper from the public eye. That is not fixing a policy, or even giving a few bones to the peasants to give them something to hang onto. Its just putting the problem off in the hope it goes away.
 
What is Populism ? the default option, for all democracies, is populism i.e. the recent 20 billion to the NHS, is a rather populist policy and I don't know any politician, who doesn't enact laws to solicit votes.

I disagree on the class argument, as there are countless laws passed on behalf of the wealthier, or educated classes. To reasons why, there has been no populist laws enacted, is, because the government isn't finished with open door.

TR and other Mongs, going back to the 70s, are the outliers, which the government don't try to address, but just push the policy deeper from the public eye. That is not fixing a policy, or even giving a few bones to the peasants to give them something to hang onto. Its just putting the problem off in the hope it goes away.
You are beginning to rant, fella.

"The default option for all democracies is populism". No it isn't. Political parties do seek to be popular...that's not 'populism*'.

Politicians are elected BEFORE they pass laws...and indeed if their policies are 'unpopular' they will lose votes when the next election: but see differences between 'popularity' and 'populism'.

I agree with you that the 20 bn for the NHS is a foray into the land of populism: but as I explained to you, it's an indicator of desperation IMHO, and it's not going well for PMTM.

I simply don't understand your last two paragraphs.

Wikipedia's not bad in this regard:

Populism - Wikipedia
 
What is Populism ? the default option, for all democracies, is populism i.e. the recent 20 billion to the NHS, is a rather populist policy and I don't know any politician, who doesn't enact laws to solicit votes.

I disagree on the class argument, as there are countless laws passed on behalf of the wealthier, or educated classes. To reasons why, there has been no populist laws enacted, is, because the government isn't finished with open door.

TR and other Mongs, going back to the 70s, are the outliers, which the government don't try to address, but just push the policy deeper from the public eye. That is not fixing a policy, or even giving a few bones to the peasants to give them something to hang onto. Its just putting the problem off in the hope it goes away.
Doing what you believe is popular, rather than doing what you believe is right.

Do you really think that Trump actually thinks that a wall around Mexico is necessary?
 

Helm

MIA
Book Reviewer
There is a video going round of a Police Medic pushing a couple of TR fans around at a demo in London. (depends what side of the fence you sit as to whether it was fair force or not).

So far I have seen the following statements from EDL/TR fans:

"Strike him off the medical register!"
"Paramedics take an oath, he should not be doing that"
"If he ever had to treat me in a car crash I would refuse his help"
"How can a Doctor push people around like that?"
"How can a medical professional be so violent, he should be arrested"
"He is not wearing the correct Police uniform, he must be under cover SAS, they get taught medic stuff in case someone gets shot".

Now, considering this happened next to a bus that had been boarded by TR fans, the driver physically removed from his seat and the passengers harassed and told to get off the bus while they ripped up the interior and danced on its roof (one of those half roofed tourist buses), it seems ironic to have a video posted on YouTube by the TR fan club pointing out a single Police officer pushing some protestors and claiming Police violence.

As for the Medic designation...a 3 day First Aid at Work certificate ;)..but TR fans seem to think he is a doctor (or under cover SAS!!).
You only need to look at this thread to see his fan club are a bit "challenged" by this thinking thing.
 
Having never heard of veterans against terrorism before this thread what do they actually stand for?

That may seem like a silly question, and the obvious answer should be they stand against terrorism, but as it seems they are marching with a group who have recently had a supporter who commited an act of terrorism that made wordwide news it seems rather hypocritical.
 
Having never heard of veterans against terrorism before this thread what do they actually stand for?

That may seem like a silly question, and the obvious answer should be they stand against terrorism, but as it seems they are marching with a group who have recently had a supporter who commited an act of terrorism that made wordwide news it seems rather hypocritical.
Think they’re essentially a sort of para-military EDL, obstensbly against terrorism (isn’t everyone?) but have ties to groups like the “football lads alliance” and a quick look at any of their material looks like pretty standard nationalist fare.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
You are beginning to rant, fella.

"The default option for all democracies is populism". No it isn't. Political parties do seek to be popular...that's not 'populism*'.

Politicians are elected BEFORE they pass laws...and indeed if their policies are 'unpopular' they will lose votes when the next election: but see differences between 'popularity' and 'populism'.

I agree with you that the 20 bn for the NHS is a foray into the land of populism: but as I explained to you, it's an indicator of desperation IMHO, and it's not going well for PMTM.

I simply don't understand your last two paragraphs.

Wikipedia's not bad in this regard:

Populism - Wikipedia
Nah, i only rant about been accused of having Russian links :)
Wikipedia is edited and gives the establishment view.
I agree with you, that populism, equates to desperation. But, that could be interpreted, as all politicians are populists, as they are always desperate for column inches.

The last two paragraphs are to imply, that the defined problem, or problems of migration. Are not seen as a problem in government. Except, when some incident occurs. The fact, no populist measures have been enacted, apart from a few tokens like buses plastered with go home signs, is an indicator of deceit on their part.
 
Think they’re essentially a sort of para-military EDL, obstensbly against terrorism (isn’t everyone?) but have ties to groups like the “football lads alliance” and a quick look at any of their material looks like pretty standard nationalist fare.
No, not everyone is against terrorism. Some groups or politicitians are more than happy to condone one or more terrorist groups.
 
Why the fûck is he wearing uniform then? I stand to be corrected, but I think that there is some elderly legislation banning the wearing of uniforms at political meetings (think of the BUF in the 1930s).

Q.v. Public Order Act 1936.
The bolded bit is the important question.
The rest may be or may not be but why is this twerp wearing full combat rig as a civvie?
Is he trying to pretend he is still a regular or AR, in which case what might the present generation of regulars and AR think about this idiot?

There are some daft basterds out there, I bet he gets done up proper for remembrance...
 

New Posts

Top