Current Affairs Tommy Robinson Bailed

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've typed "Robinson" more often. "Tommy" is his character, hence "how Tommy came to be".
Oh I'm aware. It wasn't directed at you, but there's something similar to the RS cultism that his supporters follow that is laughable and terrifying.

Whether it's his character or not, it's a name designed to make him more human and soften his perception by his supporters. I won't be using it.
 
Oh I'm aware. It wasn't directed at you, but there's something similar to the RS cultism that his supporters follow that is laughable and terrifying.

Whether it's his character or not, it's a name designed to make him more human and soften his perception by his supporters. I won't be using it.

Not sure about that. For the opposite reason the Americans would refer to Saddam Hussein as simply "Saddam", to afford him disrespect.
 
Interesting. Bit like the Koch Bros backing Rubin? If you've got a link about that I'd like to check it out.

The group that backed Robinson I mentioned - the Middle East Forum - claim they spent a five figure sum to fund his legal case, they got one Congressman to speak at his demo that kicked off and got someone in Trumps' government to demand his release via the British Ambassador. The MEF is one of those groups about whose donors are not registered on a regular basis (however if you do a Google search for the donors they will come up) but we do know that many of the worst elements of the US neoconservatives are associated with them (Daniel Pipes runs the show, but Bill Kristol was/is a board member). There is a good description of the MEF here, on TellMAMA's blog.

Trump's son tweeted his support, and the first interview Robinson had was on Tucker Carlson's Fox show. Bannon openly supports him, and the vermin Alex Jones has for years.

Would you agree that regardless of how Tommy came to be, that the most effective way to nullify his influence is to talk about what he talks about but in a more humane & fair manner? This would bring most of the reasonable pro-Tommy lot onside while only leaving him with the extremists, he wouldn't get very far then.

No, because to do so accepts the premise of Robinson's (or rather, the people behind Robinson's) argument - that immigrants, specifically Muslims, are a threat and that is the reason why the various areas where the EDL gets its support - the midlands, the North - have declined; that the indigenous cannot get on, that their children are treated as second class citizens in their own country.

Of course, the reason those people have had their lives ruined is because of the policies of the British Government - to first allow the industrial base to collapse, to strip out most of the secure well paid working class jobs, to cut social provision (like housing) and specifically to focus immigration on areas where it was cheapest to house them. People need to be told this and that someone is going to fix it; the last people to do that are the people who are responsible for it in the first place and who fund / support the likes of Robinson.

What's that more specifically?

When countries look as if they are about to face a crisis - which is what we are approaching, thanks to the serial misgovernment of this country - they can either blame the people responsible, or blame a scapegoat.
 
The group that backed Robinson I mentioned - the Middle East Forum - claim they spent a five figure sum to fund his legal case, they got one Congressman to speak at his demo that kicked off and got someone in Trumps' government to demand his release via the British Ambassador. The MEF is one of those groups about whose donors are not registered on a regular basis (however if you do a Google search for the donors they will come up) but we do know that many of the worst elements of the US neoconservatives are associated with them (Daniel Pipes runs the show, but Bill Kristol was/is a board member). There is a good description of the MEF here, on TellMAMA's blog.

Trump's son tweeted his support, and the first interview Robinson had was on Tucker Carlson's Fox show. Bannon openly supports him, and the vermin Alex Jones has for years.



No, because to do so accepts the premise of Robinson's (or rather, the people behind Robinson's) argument - that immigrants, specifically Muslims, are a threat and that is the reason why the various areas where the EDL gets its support - the midlands, the North - have declined; that the indigenous cannot get on, that their children are treated as second class citizens in their own country.

Of course, the reason those people have had their lives ruined is because of the policies of the British Government - to first allow the industrial base to collapse, to strip out most of the secure well paid working class jobs, to cut social provision (like housing) and specifically to focus immigration on areas where it was cheapest to house them. People need to be told this and that someone is going to fix it; the last people to do that are the people who are responsible for it in the first place and who fund / support the likes of Robinson.



When countries look as if they are about to face a crisis - which is what we are approaching, thanks to the serial misgovernment of this country - they can either blame the people responsible, or blame a scapegoat.

Good post, tsu, hard to find fault with your reasoning.

Personally I'd like a Corbyn-led government to slowly heal things. His policies would go some way to fix some of the issues you've mentioned, but not just his policies, it's his whole outlook I find very healthy, especially in these mad polarised times. Here he is having to defend charges of anti-semitism in ways that recognise all sides of the debate (he also mentions Tommy Robinson).

It's this thoughtful balance (and it's genuine too) that I like most about him, he brings this to other issues as well. We need that. More balance means less room for the extreme ends to shout.
 
Oh I'm aware. It wasn't directed at you, but there's something similar to the RS cultism that his supporters follow that is laughable and terrifying.

Whether it's his character or not, it's a name designed to make him more human and soften his perception by his supporters. I won't be using it.
Should probably call him Steve Yaxley, just to irritate him.
 
It is worth noting that the first crime he was convicted of was assaulting a police officer who was trying to prevent him from beating up his girlfriend so his views on abuse of female victims shouldn't be taken seriously as it is purely racial in its intent and nothing to do with abuse.

On the other hand, he's entitled to his opinion, however the MSM should not be complicit in disseminating such views, in my opinion.

Like I said before, it is a sad, sad state of affairs that this purveyor of hatred is given the oxygen of such highly visible publicity whilst the guy who genuinely wants to make life better for everyone (or 99% of the population) is made out to be a monster.
 
Nobody uses it as a sign of disrespect, it's used as a respect to him. Saddam or Osama were used as they were obviously only referencing that one person.

It's a bit of both, I grant you. Arab naming customs are different anyway, so the more learned media would in this case correctly use "Saddam", but there was also the contingent who's aim was to belittle the man by only spitting out his first name. Bush Sr was celebrated for doing it with added venom.

In the case of Tommy, I agree it's being used chummily by his supporters, but also can be used by others to describe the character, or even derogatorily, depending on context & tone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top