Release Tommy Robinson

Their mission statement says they're against all forms of terrorism, yet their actions are purely focused on Islamic terrorism.
Much like the "Football Lads Alliance", who are against all forms of extremism, but I can't recall their counter S Y_L protest?
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
1. You 'suggested another populist initiative.' Yes, hence the discussions about what populism actually means and the problem with it. I'm still not 100% convinced you've quite got your head around that.

2. You said 'not tested by democratic means'. Yes it is, every time there's an election. Mainstream parties don't make that much of a fuss about it (compared to TR et al) and, er, they get elected, whilst the extremists who DO make a fuss about immigration don't get elected.

3. I've no idea what the sentence containing the word 'hanging' means. Say again in clear or send key setting please.

4. TR isn't 'dealing' with anything. Apart from avoiding bending over in the shower.

5. What paradox?

6. Yes someone cleverer could use TR for something. We could have a whole thread on 'alternative uses for TR'. I'm sure his cellmate could come up with a few, for example.

7. I do not see TR as ever being a political problem per se, for the reasons I have already explained to you. He is at best a crowd control problem. What you might be alluding to is that desperate mainstream politicians might throw some TR-esque polulist policies out there to appease a 'crowd'. But, as now explained to you several times by several people, that crowd isn't much of a crowd, and mainstream politicians will still have the case of CMD and his referendum at the front of their minds.
Your logic:-
A mainstream politician should never do anything populist, because they are not very good at it.
Populists are bad, because they try and address difficult problems, head on.

The Hanging reference, was a demonstrator of a point, on how Governments operate, where they do not wish to budge an inch.... Firstly, they change the subject and don't want to talk about. Then, usually look to educate, rather than engage, with the public. Finally, they switch to the virtue argument, of helping the innocent and appealing to the audience, to shut down this horrid line of questioning.

My conclusion, was there are always going to be downsides to migration and the government are unwilling to engage, or implement anything tangible to alleviate the concern and the tap is still running. There has to be a tipping point, where the dangers you can't see, manifest themselves. McMillan once said about Events, dear boy, events.
 
Populists are bad, because they are brave enough to try and address difficult problems, head on.
I would say that is the exact opposite of what populists do. Populists choose to do the easy option that will get them (as they see it) the most applause. The hard option is doing the unpopular but necessary thing.
 
Your logic:-
A mainstream politician should never do anything populist, because they are not very good at it.
Populists are bad, because they try and address difficult problems, head on.

The Hanging reference, was a demonstrator of a point, on how Governments operate, where they do not wish to budge an inch.... Firstly, they change the subject and don't want to talk about. Then, usually look to educate, rather than engage, with the public. Finally, they switch to the virtue argument, of helping the innocent and appealing to the audience, to shut down this horrid line of questioning.

My conclusion, was there are always going to be downsides to migration and the government are unwilling to engage, or implement anything tangible to alleviate the concern and the tap is still running. There has to be a tipping point, where the dangers you can't see, manifest themselves. McMillan once said about Events, dear boy, events.
@Drazyl has already explained (again) the problem with populism to you (and more eloquently than me).

Your analysis of capital punishment is verging on tin-hat wibbledom. The problem with capital punishment- as much as we can all think of a few people we'd nail up - is that sometimes the criminal justice system gets it wrong. I fail to understand how 'education' on that is a bad thing or even that it is dichotomous with 'engaging'. And, to paraphrase Captain Blackadder, that paragraph started badly and the less said about the last sentence the better. Again, I don't understand it.

Yes there are always going to be downsides to migration. I don't think anyone's disputed that. But when you use emotive and unsubstantiated statements like

"alleviate the concern and the tap is still running"

You are either falling into the TR trap or you're an exponent of it.

What concerns? Those same 'concerns' that lead to successive XRW candidates losing their deposit? That have led to Farage NOT being able to get elected?

What do you mean by 'the tap is still running?' I know what you mean grammatically, but what data are you using to substantiate it?

And, again, the unsubstantiated call to a warning of a dramatic event is NOT analysis. Lord Buckethead is not going to be elected, nor is TR.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
@Drazyl has already explained (again) the problem with populism to you (and more eloquently than me).

Your analysis of capital punishment is verging on tin-hat wibbledom. The problem with capital punishment- as much as we can all think of a few people we'd nail up - is that sometimes the criminal justice system gets it wrong. I fail to understand how 'education' on that is a bad thing or even that it is dichotomous with 'engaging'. And, to paraphrase Captain Blackadder, that paragraph started badly and the less said about the last sentence the better. Again, I don't understand it.

Yes there are always going to be downsides to migration. I don't think anyone's disputed that. But when you use emotive and unsubstantiated statements like

"alleviate the concern and the tap is still running"

You are either falling into the TR trap or you're an exponent of it.

What concerns? Those same 'concerns' that lead to successive XRW candidates losing their deposit? That have led to Farage NOT being able to get elected?

What do you mean by 'the tap is still running?' I know what you mean grammatically, but what data are you using to substantiate it?

And, again, the unsubstantiated call to a warning of a dramatic event is NOT analysis. Lord Buckethead is not going to be elected, nor is TR.
1. Populism; you explained the problems of populism. Absolutely no examples, of success then ?
2. Hanging; I was trying to use as an example, alongside migration, to show that emotive issues, where the populace and those deemed our representatives, the courts and government are out of tune. Are never submitted, to the judgement of the people. Meaning our representatives play fast and loose with democracy ?
3. Tap running; is exactly what its meant to sound like. The Government has turned a blind eye, only now they are making smoke and mirror changes, to restrict the volume, but not switch the tap off.
4. TR/Elections; I don't like corbyn, but like some of his points. I don't like TR, but like some of his points. I wouldn't vote for either of them.

Because a single issue party does not do well. The single issue is unimportant, by your logic.. You perhaps want to consider asking a remain campaigner, about single issues suddenly becoming important.
 
Your logic:-
A mainstream politician should never do anything populist, because they are not very good at it.
Populists are bad, because they try and address difficult problems, head on.

The Hanging reference, was a demonstrator of a point, on how Governments operate, where they do not wish to budge an inch.... Firstly, they change the subject and don't want to talk about. Then, usually look to educate, rather than engage, with the public. Finally, they switch to the virtue argument, of helping the innocent and appealing to the audience, to shut down this horrid line of questioning.

My conclusion, was there are always going to be downsides to migration and the government are unwilling to engage, or implement anything tangible to alleviate the concern and the tap is still running. There has to be a tipping point, where the dangers you can't see, manifest themselves. McMillan once said about Events, dear boy, events.
No, populists are bad because they offer a simplistic sound bite cure, rather than what will be a complex, difficult, and often expensive, solution, which will actually make a difference.

Oh, and re the migration issue, yes, there are always downsides. There are also upsides. Which you point to, and emphasize, is a clearer indication of the kind of person you are, than a swot analysis of the situation.
 
1. Populism; you explained the problems of populism. Absolutely no examples, of success then ?
2. Hanging; I was trying to use as an example, alongside migration, to show that emotive issues, where the populace and those deemed our representatives, the courts and government are out of tune. Are never submitted, to the judgement of the people. Meaning our representatives play fast and loose with democracy ?
3. Tap running; is exactly what its meant to sound like. The Government has turned a blind eye, only now they are making smoke and mirror changes, to restrict the volume, but not switch the tap off.
4. TR/Elections; I don't like corbyn, but like some of his points. I don't like TR, but like some of his points. I wouldn't vote for either of them.

Because a single issue party does not do well. The single issue is unimportant, by your logic.. You perhaps want to consider asking a remain campaigner, about single issues suddenly becoming important.
1. Depends how you define success. If -FFS- you understand 'populism' in its correct sense, it's successful every time it helps a politician achieve a short term tactical goal. That does NOT make it right. See explanation by @Drazyl at post 1885.

2. Total shite. Capital punishment - if it were such an issue - would have dominated an election. See my previous explanation to you. Which it never has. There are a number of times when politicians HAVE tried playing a bit 'fast and loose' but (a) they are much more nuanced than the Daily Mail-type examples than you are using* and (b) they inevitably get caught. Normally by other politicians or (gasp) MSM.

3. It sounds like bollix, is what it sounds like. Inchoate use of metaphor, unsupported by data, is the mark of the demagogue. A policy decision to restrict immigration flow is NOT 'smoke and mirrors' but (bügger me) a policy decision. Like what policy-makers do. It only becomes 'smoke and mirrors' when it masks a deliberate intent NOT to do it. You can have an opinion about whether it's enough, but its hyperbole to say it's smoke and mirrors without data to back it up. But data is something that is lacking on one side of the debate in this thread**

4. I did not say that single issues are not important. Party manifesto are made up of lots of them. I would argue that single issue PARTIES do not do well in our electoral system, whatever you feel about them and their issues. Even Brexxxt only happened because CMD feared that UKIP would split his vote at a time when it was felt that Ed Miliband was posing a threat, and then only as a result of the referendum he was panicked into offering. Even at their peak UKIP managed a massive one seat. And look what's happened to them since.

* Read up on the Conservative party's handling of the elections in 1974, and Tony Benn's scathing critique.

** it's like waiting for Godot but maybe Corvid will provide us with some of his answers. Contributions on data would also be welcome from any of the other TR fans challenged on this thread.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
You're absolutely right. He's a civilian and can dress as Pope Gregory XII if he wishes, and TBH he's look less clown like if he had.

Surely though, he's trying (and failing miserably) to look as though he's a soldier to add credibility to his cause? Surely he would be aware that Toms don't wear shades unless they're doing driving or have some freaky disease and a biff chit to back it up because otherwise he looks a complete spaz? Along with the wearing of what looks like purchased medals because once again, he looks like a knob. But he can do these things because he's a civilian and there's no law against it.

But the clincher is this; when you join the Army, one of the first things they teach you is how to dress yourself, and your mate/acquaintance/whatever you call him, clearly doesn't know how to put his trousers on properly. The cuffs of the legs are way to high. Any ex soldier would know this and correct them before going out because otherwise he would feel self conscious and a bit ridiculous. But this man doesn't know that, so I surmise that he's never done basic training and therefore has never been in the Army.

I mean, I know he's your little chum and all that, and he has exciting war stories to entertain you, and I'm sorry to tell you this and break the magic spell, but your mate is a fraud.
 
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.
Veterans against Terrorism are bell ends of almost epic proportions.

Just racists and mouth breathers who think two years as a stores NCO give them vast geopolitical insight.
 
Their mission statement says they're against all forms of terrorism, yet their actions are purely focused on Islamic terrorism.
A bit like the Labour Party is supposed to be against all forms of terrorism whilst being focused on bashing the Jews and being friends of Hamas and Hezbollah
 
If I am seeing the correct MTP wearing chap there seem to be two red/maroon areas on his shirt I cant make out.
On his left side he has what looks like (on a small screen) an oval backed badge para reg badge. On his right hand side there looks like a red blob or stain. Is that a trick of the light or a badge/patch.
 
@Robbo_72

I've only just seen the chap other posters are talking about dressed in MTP combats.
I get the impression you know him (apologies if you don't), can you tell me what the cap badge on his beret is please.
 
If I am seeing the correct MTP wearing chap there seem to be two red/maroon areas on his shirt I cant make out.
On his left side he has what looks like (on a small screen) an oval backed badge para reg badge. On his right hand side there looks like a red blob or stain. Is that a trick of the light or a badge/patch.
Its ketchup.
 
You're absolutely right. He's a civilian and can dress as Pope Gregory XII if he wishes, and TBH he's look less clown like if he had.

Surely though, he's trying (and failing miserably) to look as though he's a soldier to add credibility to his cause? Surely he would be aware that Toms don't wear shades unless they're doing driving or have some freaky disease and a biff chit to back it up because otherwise he looks a complete spaz? Along with the wearing of what looks like purchased medals because once again, he looks like a knob. But he can do these things because he's a civilian and there's no law against it.

But the clincher is this; when you join the Army, one of the first things they teach you is how to dress yourself, and your mate/acquaintance/whatever you call him, clearly doesn't know how to put his trousers on properly. The cuffs of the legs are way to high. Any ex soldier would know this and correct them before going out because otherwise he would feel self conscious and a bit ridiculous. But this man doesn't know that, so I surmise that he's never done basic training and therefore has never been in the Army.

I mean, I know he's your little chum and all that, and he has exciting war stories to entertain you, and I'm sorry to tell you this and break the magic spell, but your mate is a fraud.
If you think he is a fraud, be a hero and expose him, Other than that it's just your opinion, which carries as much weight as the fellow in question.
He is not my mate, I have no idea if he has war stories so I do not regret to bespell your own little version of reality.
 

Latest Threads

Top