Important to remember that other parties forcibly remove protestors, such as in this example from the Labour Party 2024 conference.
(Link to
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-sales-israel-labour-conference-speech-video
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Reform UK discussion
- Thread starter telstarbox
- Start date
(Link to
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-sales-israel-labour-conference-speech-video
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
As I acknowledged with my mention of Walter Wolfgang. But that video highlights the difference between Reform and other parties - compare how that heckler was removed to how the heckler was removed from the Reform conference last week.
The right have played some cynical games in the last few years in their demand for free speech. They've rightly protested against the existence of a "heckler's veto" where the threat of disorder has been used to cancel events. Yet at the same time, they've demanded immunity from being heckled as though that's a threat to their existence - they cannot have it both ways. And when representatives of the Reform Party defend their party leader's need for security because of (unspecified) threats against him, but then condone thuggery against a heckler, their protests against political violence seem more than a little thin.
It's an old playbook, where you cause disorder and then offer to stop the disorder that you've caused.
nlogax
Established Member
I don't remember the police getting involved in your example, unlike last week where West Mids Police announced investigations into five different assaults. I also don't remember Keir Starmer or Rachel Reeves suggesting that those who removed the protester should be 'given a medal'.
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,745
And in the whataboutery Labour example the protestor was removed by trained security. At the Reform conference the security were too slow to react - but that's what you get for £5 million these days
The problem is that heckling is the lazy thinker's approach. They don't have to articulate their point, don't have to listen to opposing views and come up with responses ( or even acknowledge where another person has a point and adjust what one thinks about an issue). It comes back to, if you feel strongly about an issue, join a political party and/or engage in other settings where you can express your opinion, debate and be challenged.
That's an interesting view as, in the days when politicians actually went out in public, the ability to deal with a heckler was a key skill.
I also find it ironic that this is being said in support of Reform, which of a pretty thin skinned bunch, is the one with leaders who are least able to take challenging questions
They're all thin skinned. Take Danny Tommo who cried when stopped in his car for trivial things like illegally tinted glass, no insurance and more.
He cried online and set up a gofundme that raised about £30k in no time. His supporters talking of two-tier policing and implying it's unfair someone like him should have to abide by rules that others do.
Now he's not currently a big fan of Reform because Nigel spoke out against face coverings, but besides that I'd assume him to definitely support Reform or Restore based on his opinions on immigration.
Killingworth
Established Member
Storm in tea cup. The demonstrator surely factored in the probability that they would be removed. Exactly how was not text book but did the waved walking aid cause any broken bones or serious abrasions? The pulling of hair was clearly unconformtable and demeaning but did it cause any lasting injury? Was she any less likely to be removed from any other political public meeting?
Whatever, there are bigger issues to tax our minds.
Reform has received, or is to receive, at least £72 million from two donors who until recently had chosen to live abroad. They seem to have made vast sums from dealing in crypto currencies, sums so vast they can afford to give away so much without batting an apparent eye. Supposedly without getting anything back. Really? Pull the other leg.
I spent Sunday supporting my son and grandson in the Great North Run, both raising sums for two worthwhile charities. Over 60,000 ordinary people also entered and many worthwhile charities benefitted. Nevertheless I suspect the amount they will have raised will be less than £72m.
I know where my respect goes. I couldn't support Reform/Restore before I heard about this obscene funding. I have grave suspicions that the ultimate source of these funds will be the gullible conned into crypto gambling. Who else?
Whatever, there are bigger issues to tax our minds.
Reform has received, or is to receive, at least £72 million from two donors who until recently had chosen to live abroad. They seem to have made vast sums from dealing in crypto currencies, sums so vast they can afford to give away so much without batting an apparent eye. Supposedly without getting anything back. Really? Pull the other leg.
I spent Sunday supporting my son and grandson in the Great North Run, both raising sums for two worthwhile charities. Over 60,000 ordinary people also entered and many worthwhile charities benefitted. Nevertheless I suspect the amount they will have raised will be less than £72m.
I know where my respect goes. I couldn't support Reform/Restore before I heard about this obscene funding. I have grave suspicions that the ultimate source of these funds will be the gullible conned into crypto gambling. Who else?
Hmmm, I think questions of criminal assault are a little more serious than that. Especially when the assailants have sought (and may be assumed to seek again) public office
GusB
Established Member
It doesn't matter whether a heckler has anything important to say or not; it's the violent way they were removed that is in question.
Another one who doesn't see that assaulting someone is a problem. It does not matter one bit that bones were not broken; assault is assault. In any case, having one's hair pulled can be excruciating, especially when someone is standing on it any trying to haul you up off the ground.
Hopefully lots of people also ran to raise money for charities related to violence against women. Seems they really need it to create further awareness considering your initial comment.
Killingworth
Established Member
As far as I can see none of the demonstrators has come forward to lodge a claim of assault against them. That doesn't mean they weren't assaulted, or that an accusation couldn't be substantiated.
See West Midlands police carefully worded statement; https://www.westmidlands.police.uk/...-at-reform-uk-national-conference-at-the-nec/
I'd add that I am not a supporter of Reform or Restore or anything they stand for but we sometimes need to keep a sense of proportion. The demonstrators achieved most of their aim, to be noticed.
However, a series of court cases could swing opinions both ways depending on how evidence were presented. The flagrant attraction of somewhat dodgy money from abroad offers plenty of scope for further investigation. There's a bad smell there.
Last edited:
Of course not. I thought we had dealt with that.
Yes, I understand this is what you think, but reviewing the actual posts above, clearly not.
Fundamentally, I believe that Reform voters think differently to most people, and the last couple of pages of this discussion provide very good evidence of this.
Given that the examples of Reform voters in the last couple of pages are purely myself and those in the video, and I have said that:
a) I disapprove of the actions of those in the video
b) The rest of us at the conference couldn't even see what was goung on and were cheering at the protestors' removal
I really can't see how you can fairly come to that conclusion.
With the bonus for the hecklers of causing senior Reform figures and conference attendees to look terrible on camera.
I’m aware of that, and I find it interesting that they haven’t - we can only speculate as to why.
You said all sorts of things that were debunked. Taking just one example:
This is a misreprentation, and a classic example of a false equivalence fallacy; others clearly explained that:
The fact you appear to suggeest this is in any way comparable, and appear to be seeking to deflect from the criminal actions at the Reform event, demonstrates either an attempt at being deliberately obtuse or it is a fundamental lack of understanding and a genuinely misguided belief that the incidents are in any way comparable, or maybe there is some other explanation for your perception being at odds with the reality.And in the whataboutery Labour example the protestor was removed by trained security. At the Reform conference the security were too slow to react - but that's what you get for £5 million these days
I don't understand why it is that you think the way that you do, but fundamentally it is clearly detatched from reality and this appears to be a common theme with voters of Reform (and it's a similar story in other countries, e.g. the MAGA movement in the US and other far-right movements elsewhere).
I could go on with other examples; the last few posts have several, but we're getting nowhere here. You - and others who vote for reform - clearly see things differently to most people. No wonder we are going round in circles. We'll have to agree to very fundamentally disagree.
Tezza1978
Member
Its pointless arguing with Reform suppporters, its like talking to a brick wall. I always try engaging with people with differing political positions from my own.
But with a significant, large chunk of Reform supporters - and basically ALL of those angry people who threaten others while putting flags on lampposts and scream abuse at asylum seekers while wearing balaclavas..........you are trying to discuss policies with die hard racists who will never change their views......
Yeah it's a weird one.
I'm not one to tar a lot of people with the same brush, but I would say that most, if not all, Reform voters I know, are also conspiracy theorists. And to an extent this makes sense - Reform UK practically advertise themselves as an anti-establishment party.
It's obviously entirely possible that anthropogenic climate change is a scam and chem trails are a thing but most people, and peer-reviewed science, thinks not.
So then many Reform UK voters are those who believe the state is out to get them, whether through climate engineering or locking people into 15 minute cities or whatever else.
Almost by definition, it becomes very difficult to have serious discussions with such voters because they believe you to be (knowingly or unknowingly) supporting the state conspiracies.
I will concede however that every now and then the government does do something which really harms their side. Take chem trails for example - for about 40 years, starting near the beginning of WWII, the UK government did actually conduct biological warfare trials which covered millions of people. They admitted this in some lengthy reports released about 20 years ago. They were testing things, rather than trying to harm citizens, but it hardly helps the situation of trying to calm the population about condensation trails from aircrafts not being chemical spraying when the government themselves admit to having done it for nearly half a century. When that sinks in, the notion of Reform UK supporters being difficult to convince makes a bit more sense.
I can't say every Reformer i have met is like this, but a significant number are. No Reformer has ever appeared to me to be an intellectual however and they will often move any argument either into the realm of contested conspiracy or "facts, simple as" logic. Or they just fall into whataboutery. This for me is the key difference between Reform and Tories.
Reform is distinctly and deliberately anti establishment, and anti intellectual.
Yes, and while I don't politically agree with the Tories 95% of the time, I have met many more who appear intelligent than those from Reform.
I've met 6 Tory MPs in my time that I can recall, didn't really agree with their politics, but all but one are what I'd describe as "statesmanlike" - you could send them to a UN or a NATO meeting and assume they won't embarrass the country. I don't have that confidence in any Reform MP. There is one Reform councillor who I have confidence in but in all honesty his political leanings are more Labour and he wasn't shortlisted by the party because the incumbent councillor wanted to stand again. He is anti-establishment but not conspiracy theorist. I don't know him personally but he's the exception to the rule and I think he's been poached by Reform UK (Wales) really, and I suspect he may go independent at some point.
I am left wondering where some of the Reform members I have met, and some I know, such as a professor, a headteacher, a medical doctor and others fit into that?
Reading these comments, I do have to say those with different views to Reform do seem to have very cliched ideas about its members which don't reflect the real world. They are no more accurate than saying every member of the Labour Party is a Marxist. Every party has its 'headbangers', but they rarely reflect the general membership.
The fact you can have some professional people with degrees in a party is, once again, not evidence the party does or does not suffer from an anti-intellectual bias. I'm not saying there are no smart people in Reform, but it is not a place for intellectuals. That is why people with university degrees tend to join other parties and why they are substantially under represented. There are good reasons for this; the party tries to appeal to dissatisfied Brits, and those with lower levels of education are bound to feel they have been let down by the social contract. But it is nonetheless true. It's a populist and anti-intellectual party which generally holds academia in contempt and blames the academy and elites for the country's failure (and they might have a point!).
"There are some black or brown people in the party and we even have women too" is just such a surface level defence to claims the party might have racist and sexist biases it only serves to prove my point really. The presence of people of ethnic minority background - who are still under represented by the way - is useful for a surface level deflection against claims you might be in a party which is racist.
Do you think that, for example, when Green Party candidates or members are seen to be often going too far with their pro Gaza stuff, that the party can just point out the leader is Jewish so shut up please there is no antisemitism issue? Or might these issues be more complex than that?
Women make up half of society, and everyone knows a woman and might even live with one or have married one - but that doesn't mean sexism isn't a thing!
These are points which have been laid out before and which you are not interested in engaging with.
Last edited:
My problem is that you on one level complain that I only use my own examples rather than hard data, but on the other hand you make sweeping statements without the use of data.
No, I am not complaining about that. Specifically I am pointing out that your defence to the party not having certain biases is the presence of minorities, who are actually under represented there for a reason. I have pointed out that you cannot use the "I have black friends" defence. If we want to examine whether a person or a party or a business might have certain biases we cannot just pop our head round the corner and say "a black person is here, not racist".
I tick a fair few "minority bingo" boxes myself and it is fine to speak from personal experience in a general sense. In fact my personal experience informs my voting choices, as it would anyone else.
But, I cannot use the fact I have a disability, or black relatives, or trans friends, or Muslim friends, or a daughter and wife, as a defence to someone claiming I am ableist or racist or transphobic or Islamophobic or sexist. That's what you're doing. Organisations having structural bias might well have some members it is biased against, and the way to examine whether it is true or not is not to just say "Zia Yusuf is there!". The RUC was about 10% Catholic at its nadir but it's not a defence to criticism it had sectarian bias.
I don't think you're very interested in examining this given you've started sealioning about "data" when you don't even contest the facts as stated. And I have to say this interaction has only reinforced my view that Reform members in general do not really prefer to engage with intellectual argument.