News2 mins ago
No Fool
Just watched an interview of Tommy Robinson (EDL) by Andrew Neil in the Sunday Politics on TV and he held hos own , in my opinion, against a thorough and well researched interviewer.
He presented many aspects of life in Britain which are threatened by Islam to which i had a certain amount of sympathy.
He presented many aspects of life in Britain which are threatened by Islam to which i had a certain amount of sympathy.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sqad. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Most of the questions were predictable, so he was prepared with an answer. Confronted with a photo of EDL members with Nazi insignia, he dismissed it rather unconvincingly as having been photoshopped. He dismissed his conviction for a violent offence, as something that happened a long time ago.
He didn't seem to understand the Help for Heroes non political stance and said its refusal to accept money from the EDL was PC gone mad.
He didn't sway me.
He didn't seem to understand the Help for Heroes non political stance and said its refusal to accept money from the EDL was PC gone mad.
He didn't sway me.
I have since watched that. It was a pretty dispiriting experience. What I saw was a typical performance by a rabble rousing leader - i.e. absolve himself from all blame for anything nasty while refusing to accept the reality that the consequences of his actions are to stoke extremism in the sort of brainless individuals in that YouTube link, and fear in the hearts and minds of others.
I didn't feel he made a single valid point about the threat of radical Islam, other than to mention that there is one, which we all know.
However he was helped by the interviewing technique of Andrew Neil, who let him off the hook, ironically, with his hostile approach. I had the same feeling when I saw Stephen Nolan interview Nick Griffin recently: these people are used to bruising tactics. A bit more subtlety wouldn't have gone amiss.
I didn't feel he made a single valid point about the threat of radical Islam, other than to mention that there is one, which we all know.
However he was helped by the interviewing technique of Andrew Neil, who let him off the hook, ironically, with his hostile approach. I had the same feeling when I saw Stephen Nolan interview Nick Griffin recently: these people are used to bruising tactics. A bit more subtlety wouldn't have gone amiss.
AOG, there was no sensible debate. And in fact as I indicated earlier, this was possibly partly the fault of the interviewer.
Basically, Tommy Robinson's stance is this:
There's an issue with extremism in Islam: fair enough most people would agree.
However, the "powers that be" i.e. politicians, the police etc, aren't doing anything about it - in fact they seem to be on "their side". The implication therefore is clear (and was in fact born out by the film of one of his speeches): we will take the law into our own hands if need be. He may say he hates Nazis, but those are effectively the tactics of Nazis/Fascists. The thing is though, because of the way the interviewer approaches it, we never hear these beliefs thoroughly examined. It's left to others to do the analysis.
Basically, Tommy Robinson's stance is this:
There's an issue with extremism in Islam: fair enough most people would agree.
However, the "powers that be" i.e. politicians, the police etc, aren't doing anything about it - in fact they seem to be on "their side". The implication therefore is clear (and was in fact born out by the film of one of his speeches): we will take the law into our own hands if need be. He may say he hates Nazis, but those are effectively the tactics of Nazis/Fascists. The thing is though, because of the way the interviewer approaches it, we never hear these beliefs thoroughly examined. It's left to others to do the analysis.
Tommy Robinson eh?
Not Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?
Nor Andrew McMaster?
Nor Paul Harris?
Why do you suppose such a fine upstanding man would have so many pseudonyms?
But then again he's on bail for using a fake passport right now
Quite mild for an ex-football hooligan eh?
I guess his 'holding his own' just shows how easy it is to pull the wool over the eyes of some people if you only have to appear in short burts on TV and people can't be bothered to look into your background
http://
Not Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?
Nor Andrew McMaster?
Nor Paul Harris?
Why do you suppose such a fine upstanding man would have so many pseudonyms?
But then again he's on bail for using a fake passport right now
Quite mild for an ex-football hooligan eh?
I guess his 'holding his own' just shows how easy it is to pull the wool over the eyes of some people if you only have to appear in short burts on TV and people can't be bothered to look into your background
http://
Jake -the -peg...yes! yes!, we know all that and he explained it....in a way.
However the point of my thread was that in my opinion, he coped very well with the expert interrogation of Andrew Neil....that's all.....a simple opinion.
You have in the past made it quite clear in a very erudite manner that the UK has little to fear from Islamisation, but Mr Robinson put alternative views and these have been backed up by reputable polls indicating that well over half the population,are concerned about the effect of Islamisation on British culture.
Just the other side of the coin Jake........
However the point of my thread was that in my opinion, he coped very well with the expert interrogation of Andrew Neil....that's all.....a simple opinion.
You have in the past made it quite clear in a very erudite manner that the UK has little to fear from Islamisation, but Mr Robinson put alternative views and these have been backed up by reputable polls indicating that well over half the population,are concerned about the effect of Islamisation on British culture.
Just the other side of the coin Jake........
What views did Mr Robinson put? He mentioned certain alleged acts of violence and threatening behaviour by certain extreme elements, which surely, if he wanted to be constructive, he should be reporting to the police.
His point though is that - in his opinion - the police are no use. And standing for parliamenet is no good because politicians are all useless too.
So, he effectively rejects the law to further his agenda.
Meanwhile the debate about "Islamisation" goes on separately while he and his "non-members" snarl and shout
His point though is that - in his opinion - the police are no use. And standing for parliamenet is no good because politicians are all useless too.
So, he effectively rejects the law to further his agenda.
Meanwhile the debate about "Islamisation" goes on separately while he and his "non-members" snarl and shout
AOG,who are 'they' in 'they will still say we have nothing to fear when all their women are walking three paces behind wearing burkhas' Do you mean our women will a) be forced to follow Islam, as will we and b) follow only the minority in Islam whose women wear burkhas?
And how and when do you think this undesirable state will occur?
And how and when do you think this undesirable state will occur?
