[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[Eric the meek]

What are you incredulous about? That a poster on a forum isn't equivalent to a regulated publication.

What you're implying is utter bullshit.

I'm incredulous about your double standards.

In your world, your criticism applies to the Byline Times, but not yourself, and see no reason why it should.

I also notice that you further criticise The Byline Times, for doubling down, while doubling down yourself. I guess this is just another manifestation of the same thing.

 

[cunning fergus]

Let’s change that narrative for you:



*”(I)f [Rishi Sunak’s] instinct was the same as the British people’s he would never have contemplated for a moment not being there for the big international ceremony. He’s utterly disconnected in every way”. Farage 2024 leaving 250,000 residents of Southhampton wondering why they’d never been told that Southhampton is no longer a part of Great Britain but had been granted independence in some vague and distant past.

I know it’s been done on a different thread, however as you bring it up, it is a FACT that Sunak decided not to stay on for the DDay commemoration. That decision did significant damage to him politically amongst the vast majority of British people who have a connection to that period of this country’s history. It didn’t lose him an election on its own, but it was his “bigoted woman” moment.

It is equally true that the younger generation, and check out the age of his chief of staff by way of example, are not connected to the types of commemorative events, like DDay, as their forebears. Equally true, is they fact that millions of new arrivals to this country in last 50 years will not have the same connection to this country’s history, including WW2.

Sunak’s political “instinct” is generated from his experience as being a child of the 80s, a first generation immigrant of parents with Indian heritage and from his advisors, who themselves were children of the 80s. This particular combination of instincts evidently concluded that the 80th anniversary of DDay was not important. Ergo he left early.

This lack of connection by Sunak to commemorations like DDay is not and shouldn’t be a surprise, there are millions of people in the country young and new that feel the same way, and didn’t see it as an issue. No doubt, at the time, there were many who agreed with Gordon’s Brown response and didn’t see it as damaging. Farage in recognising that position, with his instinct (personal and political) has a right to express it.

If he was going to be a shithouse he would have referenced the influence Sunak’s Grandad would have had on the family.

Rishi Sunak’s grandfather was part of banned RSS, reveals report

Political observers say Ramdas's links to the RSS are likely to be embarrassing for the PM

search.app

 

[Zeberdi]

I know it’s been done on a different thread, however as you bring it up, it is a FACT that Sunak decided not to stay on for the DDay commemoration. That decision did significant damage to him politically amongst the vast majority of British people who have a connection to that period of this country’s history. It didn’t lose him an election on its own, but it was his “bigoted woman” moment.

It is equally true that the younger generation, and check out the age of his chief of staff by way of example, are not connected to the types of commemorative events, like DDay, as their forebears. Equally true, is they fact that millions of new arrivals to this country in last 50 years will not have the same connection to this country’s history, including WW2.

Sunak’s political “instinct” is generated from his experience as being a child of the 80s, a first generation immigrant of parents with Indian heritage and from his advisors, who themselves were children of the 80s. This particular combination of instincts evidently concluded that the 80th anniversary of DDay was not important. Ergo he left early.

This lack of connection by Sunak to commemorations like DDay is not and shouldn’t be a surprise, there are millions of people in the country young and new that feel the same way, and didn’t see it as an issue. No doubt, at the time, there were many who agreed with Gordon’s Brown response and didn’t see it as damaging. Farage in recognising that position, with his instinct (personal and political) has a right to express it.

If he was going to be a shithouse he would have referenced the influence Sunak’s Grandad would have had on the family.

Rishi Sunak’s grandfather was part of banned RSS, reveals report

Political observers say Ramdas's links to the RSS are likely to be embarrassing for the PM

search.app

I wasn’t questioning the fact Sunak left early nor that wasn’t a bad PR moment for the ex-PM - he did and it was. However , read again what he actually said (with none of the proviso or justifications you are now excusing his comment with ). To quote Farage’s comments again - he said

*”(I)f [Rishi Sunak’s] instinct was the same as the British people’s he would never have contemplated for a moment not being there for the big international ceremony. He’s utterly disconnected in every way”

Rishi Sunak was born in Southampton. He IS British. Yet accusing him of not understanding the culture like the “British people” and being “disconnected in every way” is a poorly veiled dog-whistling reference to his ethnicity and suggests people of colour are not part of British culture or society.

Labour's shadow justice secretary Shabana Mahmood said at the time: "I think this is a classic Nigel Farage trick, lean just enough to signal a bit of a dog whistle and then lean straight back and sound perfectly reasonable and say something good about the contribution that Commonwealth soldiers, ethnic minorities made towards the war effort.”

If he was going to be a shithouse he would have referenced the influence Sunak’s Grandad would have had on the family.

But unsurprising, a reference you went out of your way to mention which was entirely irrelevant to the facts. Even providing a convenient link for people that did not know that.

 

[Springal]

 

[Billy the Fish]

You put that better than I could.

Normally, I'm all for evidence based analysis (that's where my heart is), but I realise that this is a forum, and at the time of writing, nothing is proven or disproven about the lists of teachers, and speculation is more entertaining than facts. If we all waited for the evidence to emerge, if it ever does emerge, then we wouldn't have much to write about!

I'm incredulous about your double standards.

In your world, your criticism applies to the Byline Times, but not yourself, and see no reason why it should.

I also notice that you further criticise The Byline Times, for doubling down, while doubling down yourself. I guess this is just another manifestation of the same thing.

Arrogant prick. I've stated why there's a difference and you ignore it just to trot out the same rubbish. Discussion about a story in the press is not the same as publishing that story in the first place.

The fact that you aimed that at me only 5 minutes after posting a complete juxtaposition, presumably with the intention of sucking up to one of the other deranged geriatrics, is absolutely mind boggling.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

On the money side, unless you actually win the seat which gets you a lot of cash then it's something like £44 per 200 votes received but that's offset against the £500 deposit to stand. Roughly 2200 votes to break even then.

Your sums assume that they fall short, and actually lose that deposit, in each case.

 

[nevergoagain]

Your sums assume that they fall short, and actually lose that deposit, in each case.

Correct, I missed that out, apols. 5% being the threshold that gets your deposit back.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I wasn’t questioning the fact Sunak left early nor that wasn’t a bad PR moment for the ex-PM - he did and it was. However , read again what he actually said (with none of the proviso or justifications you are now excusing his comment with ). To quote Farage’s comments again - he said

*”(I)f [Rishi Sunak’s] instinct was the same as the British people’s he would never have contemplated for a moment not being there for the big international ceremony. He’s utterly disconnected in every way”

Rishi Sunak was born in Southampton. He IS British. Yet accusing him of not understanding the culture like the “British people” and being “disconnected in every way” is a poorly veiled dog-whistling reference to his ethnicity and suggests people of colour are not part of British culture or society.

Labour's shadow justice secretary Shabana Mahmood said at the time: "I think this is a classic Nigel Farage trick, lean just enough to signal a bit of a dog whistle and then lean straight back and sound perfectly reasonable and say something good about the contribution that Commonwealth soldiers, ethnic minorities made towards the war effort.”



But unsurprising, a reference you went out of your way to mention which was entirely irrelevant to the facts. Even providing a convenient link for people that did not know that.

Precisely. The implication is that it is understood that Sunak isn't properly British. Farage is criticizing him for not making an effort to be more like the British and how they behave. You can only do that if your basic premise (which you present as an accepted fact) is that Sunak isn't British.

Expect more of this shite, and it being more visible now he's an MP. He needs to be monitored and held to account. But but discussing issues as inferred from unstated premises without stating the premise from which the inference is made is very clever. It certainly seems to have fooled @cunning fergus.

Here is another (fictitious this time) example. One might criticize Eddie Izzard for wearing heels at a function along the lines of "if his instincts were the same as normal people then he would realize the necessary dress code for the occasion". This would be signalling that Izzard is not 'normal' without actually saying so and risking censure.

If Farage's instincts were the same as people who aren't ****s then none of this would be an issue.

 

[Zeberdi]

Arrogant prick. I've stated why there's a difference and you ignore it just to trot out the same rubbish. Discussion about a story in the press is not the same as publishing that story in the first place.

The fact that you aimed that at me only 5 minutes after posting a complete juxtaposition, presumably with the intention of sucking up to one of the other deranged geriatrics, is absolutely mind boggling.

That’s uncalled for.

All that is being pointed out is that you felt comfortable constructing a narrative based on a lack of or in the absence of evidence and posted it on an internet forum yet you criticise Bylines for doing the same thing.

Can you not see the inherent contradiction in holding that position?

There is no difference in the process by which you come to form a “probable” conclusion than the process you accuse Bylines of using.

It doesn’t make any difference in essence whether you post a false narrative in the capacity of the press or post false narratives online in the capacity of an individual, we all have a duty to tell the truth (and are all subject to the laws of libel and defamation) - fact-checking and adherence to what is objectively considered to be a rational and logical thought process is part of that.


I agree though, that would be holding you to a higher ethical standard than 95% of other online users.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Arrogant prick. I've stated why there's a difference and you ignore it just to trot out the same rubbish. Discussion about a story in the press is not the same as publishing that story in the first place.

The fact that you aimed that at me only 5 minutes after posting a complete juxtaposition, presumably with the intention of sucking up to one of the other deranged geriatrics, is absolutely mind boggling.

Sort yourself out, son. A conniption fit is never a good look

 

[Pavilionaire]

So it turns out that many of the Reform UK candidates on the ballot paper up and down the land were people who had volunteered to have their name entered as a "paper candidate". These people had not set foot or done a day's campaigning inside the constituencies they were (nominally) standing for.

As a result Reform UK then comes across as a national party. Picking up a couple of thousand votes per seat was a money making exercise to get centralised funding simply by appearing to be a bigger animal than you actually are.

In essence, the government of the day - and now Opposition - has been wrecked to a large extent by two charlatans.

If you are a charismatic neo-Nazi waiting to be bought by the highest bidder then all you need is to find 100 like-minded racists, each with 6 or 7 like-minded friends who are prepared for their name to go on a piece of paper and - hey presto - you have a National Party capable of a higher vote count that even the resurgent Lib Dems.

I maintain that Reform UK was a wild night out in a wine bar that got out of hand. It turns out it is more tinpot than anyone imagined.

 

[Billy the Fish]

That’s uncalled for.

All that is being pointed out is that you felt comfortable constructing a narrative based on a lack of or in the absence of evidence and posted it on an internet forum yet you criticise Bylines for doing the same thing.

Can you not see the inherent contradiction in holding that position?

There is no difference in the process by which you come to form a “probable” conclusion than the process you accuse Bylines of using.

It doesn’t make any difference in essence whether you post a false narrative in the capacity of the press or post false narratives online in the capacity of an individual, we all have a duty to tell the truth (and are all subject to the laws of libel and defamation) - fact-checking and adherence to what is objectively considered to be a rational and logical thought process is part of that.


I agree though, that would be holding you to a higher ethical standard than 95% of other online users.

I don't think it is. If someone presents an argument in good faith, as I believe you've just done, I'll respond in good faith.

Can you not see the difference between a regulated publication with a reach in the millions and a person on a forum discussing that story and presenting an alternative theory?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So it turns out that many of the Reform UK candidates on the ballot paper up and down the land were people who had volunteered to have their name entered as a "paper candidate". These people had not set foot or done a day's campaigning inside the constituencies they were (nominally) standing for.

As a result Reform UK then comes across as a national party. Picking up a couple of thousand votes per seat was a money making exercise to get centralised funding simply by appearing to be a bigger animal than you actually are.

In essence, the government of the day - and now Opposition - has been wrecked to a large extent by two charlatans.

If you are a charismatic neo-Nazi waiting to be bought by the highest bidder then all you need is to find 100 like-minded racists, each with 6 or 7 like-minded friends who are prepared for their name to go on a piece of paper and - hey presto - you have a National Party capable of a higher vote count that even the resurgent Lib Dems.

I maintain that Reform UK was a wild night out in a wine bar that got out of hand. It turns out it is more tinpot than anyone imagined.

Brilliant post.

One thing I sincerely hope is that all the proper parties can unite to deal with Farage and his carpetbagging chums. Having 1970s style shouting matches in parliament will only lend Farage credibility. Perhaps the most effective strategy would be to give him absolute silence and then ignore him in parliament. Make it seem as if he isn't even in parliament. Sadly this won't happen.

 

[Mellotron]

Ah yes, Mark Matlock is actually real. Apparently, he used the AI image to alter the colour of his tie. Yes, really.

This is what he actually looks like compared to his AI image.


It was said he couldn't attend the hustings and count because he was in hospital with pneumonia

Richard Tice said with a straight face in an interview the other day that Matlock NEARLY DIED of Pneumonia.

They're such relentless pricks these lot aren't they?

 

[Mellotron]

Keeping lists of people you don't like is f***ing weird and disturbing.

 

[The Clamp]

Reform’s manifesto includes a commitment to scrap the £170 a year television licence and to reform the “institutionally biased” and “out-of-touch” BBC.


The party would also introduce a new free speech bill to “stop Left-wing bias and politically correct ideology that threatens personal freedom and democracy”.

The manifesto adds: “No more de-banking, cancel culture, left wing hate mobs or political bias in public institutions. Stop Sharia law being used in the UK.”

Elsewhere it would make St George’s Day a bank holiday and would reform both the Lords, to make it more democratic, and postal votingto tackle fraud.

Reform says it would reject the World Health Organisation’s pandemic treaty and quit the organisation itself “unless there is fundamental reform to its structure and funding”

From The Telegraph.

It’s like ppf wrote it

 

[Zeberdi]

I don't think it is. If someone presents an argument in good faith, as I believe you've just done, I'll respond in good faith.

Can you not see the difference between a regulated publication with a reach in the millions and a person on a forum discussing that story and presenting an alternative theory?

Yes, of course there is a difference and it purely lies in the the way in which false narratives are publicised both in terms of the readership (I doubt someone posting on NSC reaches ‘millions’ of readers) and in terms of who is doing the publicising - but it does not change the essence of how we arrive at the ‘truth’. That pathway should be a process of critical analysis and if any building blocks to the ultimate discovery are missing the whole pyramid of cards upon which the truth is allegedly based, collapses very easily under closer scrutiny.

Btw - You really didn’t present an ‘alternative theory’ , you presented what you thought was the only probable theory. There is a difference there too. I don’t think us being ‘just‘ online users, excuses us from the responsibility of trying to keep fake news and false narratives from spreading on the internet.

 

[rippleman]

Keeping lists of people you don't like is f***ing weird and disturbing.

I can attest that the Nazis in 1930s / 40s Germany were the world leaders for keeping "lists of people". I have seen some with my very own eyes.

 

[The Clamp]

 

[Mellotron]

Look guys, Reform might look, walk and quack exactly like a duck, but it's definitely NOT a duck, ok?