Tommy holds his own against hostile BBC ‘journalist’ Paxman

I for one am very proud of this young man for managing a disingenuous hostile interviewer who’s intention was sabotage and not the dissemination of information. Tommy also showed how class plays into attitudes in England (for beter or worse) today as always. People who live in towns and cities like Tommy’s, they see the problem of massive destruction of local culture and history a lot differently than the well insulated upper classes.

Congratulations Tommy Robinson. You have won my admiration. Again.

Eeyore for Vlad.

The Full Segment:

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

13 Replies to “Tommy holds his own against hostile BBC ‘journalist’ Paxman”

  1. Tommy is good unfortunately his accent will stop him from having a political career, it is sad that some one who is that smart and talented is being punished for his accent. Of course the same thing happens over here, anyone with a Southern accent is looked down on and as in Britain if you haven’t go the the correct schools the self proclaimed elite look refuse to take you seriously. The interviewer is going to find his awakening to reality over the next few months to years to be very painful.

  2. The interviewer definatly had an agenda beyond the technical constraints of the segment. That it was a short piece at the end of the show and there was lot of questions the interviewer asked explains some of it but not all.

    The snotty tone was telling the audience how they were supposed to feel emotionally about the subject regardless of the content of his responces.

    The quick fire delivery of questions combined with very quick interruptions made it more of a pointless rhetorical entertainment then an education about the issues.

    What wasn’t asked was most telling. If the interviewer didn’t have an agenda he would have asked why they were protesting on the 5th and for details about the guy who was recently shot at. Discussion of those subjects would be of more interest to the public then what some smelly idiot said on someone elses website. (doh!)

  3. Richard, sorry I beg to differ, you are way, way wrong.

    I had this same argument with a lady on Daphne Anson’s blog. That is such an old fashioned mind set.

    It’s now 2010, not 1800 and soemthing. In this day and age people don’t worry what a person wears or how a person speaks..it’s what they say that counts.

  4. Tommy Robinson held his own against Paxman.

    When Paxo asked him if Islamisation was taking place all over, Tommy should have replied that Paxman wouldnt notice what is going in the working class areas of English cities, as Paxman lived in the wealthy and comfortable all white leafy suburbs.

    One thing though, Paxman did agree that a lot of people were worried about Islamisation. That is victory, given the Islamic BBC.

  5. Shirl I was talking about the attitude of the party bosses, it is my understanding that in Britain it is harder for a dark horse candidate to get anywhere, over on this side of the pond we have the primary system where the non “elite” can run (if they find enough funding) and become the party candidate. Sarah Palin and the TEA party people are perfect examples of this. If I am wrong Tommy has a big future as a politician, but am I wrong? Can he get on a ticket that will allow him to gather enough votes? I hope you are right, the world needs political leaders like him, I am just afraid the “elites” will decide that he isn’t one of them and freeze him out, like they are trying to do with Sarah Palin.

  6. For the life of me, I cannot understand the American political system.

    In this country, a person becomes a member of a political party and joins a branch in their own area.

    From there they can nominate to be a candidate and it’s up to the branch to vote on nominations.

    Quite normal people can become the local candidate for the lower house. Obviously they need a certain level of intelligence. We had an unheard of situation in the last Federal election, where we had a 20 year old elected and so far by all accounts, he is doing a fantastic job. He worked very hard and as he said he ran a real grass roots campaign

    Many people work their way up, by starting at local Council level, then go to State and if they have the attributes they need they can nominate for a Federal seat. It all depends on the local branch.

    http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/who-is-wyatt-roy/20100821-13a3f.html

  7. The party apartchiks (sp) go that route, the mavericks take the route of getting signitures on a petition and getting on the primary ballot. The winner of the primary winner of each party is the candidate for the main election. This lets groups like the TEA party that doesn’t like what the main party is doing get together run people in the primaries and start changing the party. The extent that the TEA party is going to be able to change the Republicans is still a major question.

    Calling the rebels mavericks comes from the wild west, back in the days of the open range (no fences) you branded your cattle and held round ups every year to brand the calfs. One rancher named Maverick didn’t brand and claimed all calfs from unbranded mothers, since these were all wild the term maverick was used to mean any person in a political race that wasn’t the one the party elite wanted.

    Personally I prefer our system, under yours it is hard for the rebels to change what the politicians are doing, right now we have scared the Republican leaders so much that one 30+ year veteran in the Senate is doing all he can do to get on the TEA parties good side.

  8. “”under yours it is hard for the rebels to change what the politicians are doing””

    No it isn’t Richard.

    At this point in time we have three Independents controlling the Lower House, no major party has a majority.

    With your system, you have a President that has the final say. We have no such thing…thank G-d. We have many checks and balances in place, unlike yours, I have been told by a few experts that your Constitution is very flawed, as it was thrown together. Ours is a very well thought out document and has been used verbatim by a fair number of countries that achieved independence in recent years

    You have a situation at the moment, where you have different parties controlling the upper and lower houses, if there is a dead lock, the awful person you have in the White House, has the final say.

    If that happened here, we can go to the people, which in essence happened in 1975. The Upper House blocked supply and the Governor General in 1975 sacked them, on the advice from the Queen.

  9. I bow to your wisdom on your political setup, but no the President doesn’t have the final say, any veto can be over ridden by a two thirds vote in both houses, and this has happened many times. Also the purse strings are in the hands of the House of Representatives, the house of Congress that is closest to the voters. They have to originate all spending bills, and all tax increases or decreases, while they can’t eliminate programs on their own they can defund them, and can stop any tax increase. Obama is trying an end run around Congress to implement programs they refused to vote into law, both parties are working to repeal any regulations he creates. And the Courts also have a real big say in matters, one Federal Judge in Florida has ruled the entire Obamacare, otherwise know as the nationalization of our health care system is un-Constitutional. This means it is headed to the Supreme Court, they will rule on it and one of the members will have to recuse herself because she was a lawyer for the Obama administration that wrote the original defense of Obamacare saying it is Constitutional. This leaves a court of 4 Consrevatives 2 Moderates and 2 Liberals to rule on the matter, the smart money is on a ruling of un-Constitutional. Yes we have a messed up system at times but so far it works to preserve our freedom.

  10. Richard…I have no idea about your political or electoral system. It does not make sense and is unlike most other countries, which either are like, or at least very similar to the Westminster system

    All I know is that I have a couple of very learned friends in the US, who both tell me that your system is a very hotch potch one, which was thrown together without a great deal of thought.

    It’s strange every State has different laws on major things. We are a confederation of states here too, and there a few minor differences on a very few minor laws, but in the main everything is Federal. We are one country.

  11. Shirl the people who wrote our Constitution were the best educated people in the US, they spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing what type of government we would have. The two main inspirations for the US Constitution were the Iroquois confederation and the government of ancient Sparta. They wanted to create a Representative Republic that would have limited government, granted several changes have been made to the Constitution, some good and some bad but it isn’t a hodgepodge that was hurriedly thrown together. The writers took a hard look at the British Parliamentary system and decided it had too much potential for repression of the citizens. Yes as far as I know we are the only nation using this form of government, but up until lately it has worked well to preserve freedom and protect our citizens. Our current problems, along with yours were caused by the far left working to use our own laws and freedom against us. To a very alarming extent they have succeeded, but given what is happening with our internal politics I think their influence has peaked and that the voters have woken up to the dangers. Our problems won’t be solved quickly but we are starting to move in the right direction to fix them, now if we can just get the far left out of office things will start looking up much faster.

  12. Richard it still works. The jury is far far from back on whether or not the left and even the executive branch have managed to undermine the constitution. My money is on that document and its amendments. Alan Alda in his role in the Woody Allen film, ‘Crimes and Misdemeanours’ said when teaching about comedy: “If you bend it, it’s funny. If you break it, it’s not”. I have found that to be a profound idea in many walks of life. Substitute funny for whats needed. The constitution can be bent temporarily from time to time, but I believe in Americans and their ability to fight back when someone tries to break it.

  13. Eeyore you are right it hasn’t failed us yet, but it is being tested, the big question is will be manage to save it without a violent revolution? I pray we will but know that they left is planning massive demonstrations and given their past history riots this spring and summer. I have great confidence in the over all good sense and intelligence of the American public once they wake up to the threat, and am positive the US will survive. The big question is will we survive in such a way we can help or friends maintain their freedom, or will we survive in such a way that we will have to rebuild before we can help or friends regain their freedom? I think it was you who said we are living in the Chinese version of interesting times, or as I put it we are sailing on uncharted waters with fools for the navigators. Keep up the good work and hang in there, the one thing I am not going to admit is broken so it can’t be fixed is the Constitution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.