By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
So in a protest for peace on 08:26 - Nov 13 by Herbivore
Yes, I'd personally characterise O'Brien as a fairly old school liberal, pretty much slap bang centrist in most respects. You're correct that it shows the slip to the right that he is considered a lefty, but that seems to be where we're at as a country. Lots of folk talk about TWTD being left-wing when I'd say it's pretty centrist but those on the right these days are often so far to the right that centrism looks left-wing.
I think illiberal liberal would be a better term, given the way he treats people he doesn't agree with.
0
So in a protest for peace on 08:59 - Nov 13 with 1974 views
A seemingly well balanced view of the events. Apportions appropriate blame to the disgusting anti semetism, whilst placing it in the important context of a largely peaceful protest attended by upwards of 300k people. It also provides a useful insight into the overtly right wing bias in some of the reporting.
Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness.
0
So in a protest for peace on 09:04 - Nov 13 with 1949 views
The conclusion bears repeating re: coverage of the march but also a snapshot of UK politics in 2023:
“Perhaps the most striking incident, though, was when the far right charged past police who sought to hold them back from the Cenotaph – certainly the closest thing to the feared riot. In this video, a man shouts “this is f****ing our country” in celebration. Whereas the pro-Palestine march had been excluded from the area as a precaution, the far right was not; by overwhelming the police, they supposedly sought to defend the site from an enemy that simply wasn’t there.
All in all, Mark said, “the Met did a brilliant job at policing the march and maintaining order”. But while both sides needed to be policed, the claims that both bear equal responsibility for what unfolded appear fatuous. “To draw that equivalence is beyond sleight of hand - it’s disingenuous,” Mark added. “Anyone airbrushing the difference has got it very wrong - or they’re politically motivated.”
Pronouns: He/Him
1
So in a protest for peace on 09:10 - Nov 13 with 1931 views
So in a protest for peace on 09:19 - Nov 13 by DJR
That's putting a very favourable light on it. I can't bear to listen to him. He's a know-all's know-all.
[Post edited 13 Nov 2023 9:22]
I'm not a huge fan either to be honest as he's usually toying with people he knows he is far more intelligent than and it's all rather unseemly. That's talk radio for you though. I'm just not sure I'd agree with the description of him being illiberal when much of his show is taken up by giving airtime to views he disagrees with.
So in a protest for peace on 09:26 - Nov 13 by Blueschev
Yeah I find a condescending bellend.
Yes maybe, but in a world where my county/country votes blue blue blue, and the entrepreneurs chant might is right, and I have to listen to all the unchallenged selfish nasty bilge parroted by a seemingly gleefully ignorant populace, fed them by their media masters ..... there's simply a nasty satisfaction in seeking a thicko taken apart in public.
So in a protest for peace on 17:48 - Nov 12 by GlasgowBlue
With all due respect, when there is widespread antisemitism and support for the actions of Hamas at these protests, to the extent that Jewish people are avoiding going into London at weekends, and you flippantly put it down to a "few racists and idiots", then you are guilty of dismissing and trivialising racism. Sorry that upsets you.
London in 2023. Just a few idiots and racists. Nothing to see here. Nothing for Jews to worry about in London.
[Post edited 12 Nov 2023 17:53]
Interested to know what kinda figures your suggesting here in your 'widespread antisemitism and support for Hamas at these protests'. Obviously any signs of this kinda of behaviour are abhorrent, but guessing by widespread you mean way more then half those in attendance? So perhaps 60-70%? 200, 000+ people supporting Hamas and engaging in antisemitism?
0
So in a protest for peace on 12:49 - Nov 13 with 1708 views
So in a protest for peace on 20:35 - Nov 12 by wkj
Facebook - Mostly right leaning Twitter - Was mostly left, then Elon shook it all up Tumblr - So left that even the left didn't think the left was left enough Truth Social - Delusional
[Post edited 12 Nov 2023 20:35]
You missed out Grindr....
You are the obsolete SRN4 to my Fairey Rotodyne....
So in a protest for peace on 09:28 - Nov 13 by Herbivore
I'm not a huge fan either to be honest as he's usually toying with people he knows he is far more intelligent than and it's all rather unseemly. That's talk radio for you though. I'm just not sure I'd agree with the description of him being illiberal when much of his show is taken up by giving airtime to views he disagrees with.
I briefly listened half an hour ago and gave up when in the space of five minutes he called Brexiteers gammon and justified the appointment of a non-MP and Lord as Foreign Secretary.
I would regard neither of those as representing the enlightenment thinking and other principles which represent liberal democracy.
[Post edited 13 Nov 2023 13:41]
0
So in a protest for peace on 13:35 - Nov 13 with 1623 views
So in a protest for peace on 18:50 - Nov 12 by Swansea_Blue
A) it sounds like he has a history of disruption B) he’s clearly looking for a reaction with the last one in front of a (presumably) largely Muslim audience (or at least muslim-friendly), where we all know muslim nations don’t have the best record with homophobia. C) It’s not a message that was part of the official event.
He’s clearly looking for a rise and response/publicity. That seems bleedingly obvious to me.
There’s nothing stopping him from starting his own demonstration against Hamas. It would be a very valid aim.
you think that saying “End Hamas’s Sexist, Homophobic, AntiHuman Rights Dictatorship” is "looking for a reaction." ??
what sort of people would react negatively to that call? and why would anyone choose to march with people who react negatively to it?? if criticising hamas is looking for a reaction something is very badly wrong. and i also think assuming that a muslim audience (or at least muslim-friendly) would react negatively to that call is quite offensive.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
So in a protest for peace on 13:43 - Nov 13 with 1578 views
So in a protest for peace on 13:35 - Nov 13 by lowhouseblue
you think that saying “End Hamas’s Sexist, Homophobic, AntiHuman Rights Dictatorship” is "looking for a reaction." ??
what sort of people would react negatively to that call? and why would anyone choose to march with people who react negatively to it?? if criticising hamas is looking for a reaction something is very badly wrong. and i also think assuming that a muslim audience (or at least muslim-friendly) would react negatively to that call is quite offensive.
So in a protest for peace on 12:38 - Nov 13 by leitrimblue
Interested to know what kinda figures your suggesting here in your 'widespread antisemitism and support for Hamas at these protests'. Obviously any signs of this kinda of behaviour are abhorrent, but guessing by widespread you mean way more then half those in attendance? So perhaps 60-70%? 200, 000+ people supporting Hamas and engaging in antisemitism?
No. The majority of people marching would have been entirely peaceful. In a march of 300,000 it doesn't have to be a majority to be widespread.
The vast majority of people who attended football matches in the 1970's and 80's were there for the football and not for the violence. However, football hooliganism during that period was "widespread". It's not about percentages, it's about the number of instances.
If it was just 1% then there would have been more anti semites marching through the streets of London this weekend than there was at Cable Street.
Hamas cosplayers, attempted stabbing of a man condemning Hamas, fireworks set off at the police, antisemitic placards, genocidal chants, calls to murder Jews, a Jewsih house daubed in red paint, homophobic abuse of Michael Gove, flares outside a synagogue. I'd say that passes the test for being widespread.
So in a protest for peace on 13:43 - Nov 13 by wkj
In the case of some people, it absolutely is
Peter Tatchell has probably done more for shining a spotlight on human rights abuses against LGBT people across the world than most. He's also ben a vocal campaigner for the Palestinian people for 50+ years.
He isn't looking for a reaction. He is being true to his long standing beliefs and isn't prepared to turn a blind eye because it may be a little inconvenient.
So in a protest for peace on 13:35 - Nov 13 by lowhouseblue
you think that saying “End Hamas’s Sexist, Homophobic, AntiHuman Rights Dictatorship” is "looking for a reaction." ??
what sort of people would react negatively to that call? and why would anyone choose to march with people who react negatively to it?? if criticising hamas is looking for a reaction something is very badly wrong. and i also think assuming that a muslim audience (or at least muslim-friendly) would react negatively to that call is quite offensive.
As has already been explained, it's not so much about the words on the sign but it being different enough from the 'message' of the march to stand out and bring eyes on him. He's got a habit of doing this and, being a 'name' in the protest world, has rubbed people up the wrong way by coming across as a bit smug and wanting to make sure he gets in the headlines.
He used to turn up to anti-EDL protests with signs about the bigotry in Islamist extremism for example. Again, not untrue or wrong to point that out but not strictly relevant and gives the impression, to some, that he's just trying to be different for attention.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
So in a protest for peace on 14:42 - Nov 13 by LankHenners
As has already been explained, it's not so much about the words on the sign but it being different enough from the 'message' of the march to stand out and bring eyes on him. He's got a habit of doing this and, being a 'name' in the protest world, has rubbed people up the wrong way by coming across as a bit smug and wanting to make sure he gets in the headlines.
He used to turn up to anti-EDL protests with signs about the bigotry in Islamist extremism for example. Again, not untrue or wrong to point that out but not strictly relevant and gives the impression, to some, that he's just trying to be different for attention.
I can well believe that would be annoying for fellow protestors. I can even see how it may come over as self-obsessed or self-promoting, but another reading of his behavior is that he holds a mirror up to self-righteous crowd and reminds them that they may not be perfectly right either (always a valuable exercise).
don't get me wrong - I know little about the guy, but appreciated his sign from Saturday as something close to how I feel about it all.
[Post edited 13 Nov 2023 15:04]
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
So in a protest for peace on 14:03 - Nov 13 by GlasgowBlue
Peter Tatchell has probably done more for shining a spotlight on human rights abuses against LGBT people across the world than most. He's also ben a vocal campaigner for the Palestinian people for 50+ years.
He isn't looking for a reaction. He is being true to his long standing beliefs and isn't prepared to turn a blind eye because it may be a little inconvenient.
I remember Peter Tatchell well from the disgraceful South Bermondsey by-election in 1983 not least because I passed through the constituency each day on the train into London Bridge.
The homophobic campaign against him made it by far and away the worst by-election campaign in my life.
For those not aware of the campaign, the following link is worth reading. It includes the following passage, and it is interesting to note that the winning Liberal candidate, Simon Hughes, went along with the homophobic campaign, even though it later emerged that he was gay himself.
"In the run up to the vote, he was subjected to more than 100 assaults, 30 attacks on his flat and even a bullet being put through his letterbox – as well as countless death threats and hateful messages."
So in a protest for peace on 14:42 - Nov 13 by LankHenners
As has already been explained, it's not so much about the words on the sign but it being different enough from the 'message' of the march to stand out and bring eyes on him. He's got a habit of doing this and, being a 'name' in the protest world, has rubbed people up the wrong way by coming across as a bit smug and wanting to make sure he gets in the headlines.
He used to turn up to anti-EDL protests with signs about the bigotry in Islamist extremism for example. Again, not untrue or wrong to point that out but not strictly relevant and gives the impression, to some, that he's just trying to be different for attention.
"it being different enough from the 'message' of the march"
how can a peace march not condemn hamas. how is condemnation of hamas different from the 'message' of the march?
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
So in a protest for peace on 15:23 - Nov 13 with 1271 views
So in a protest for peace on 15:04 - Nov 13 by giant_stow
I can well believe that would be annoying for fellow protestors. I can even see how it may come over as self-obsessed or self-promoting, but another reading of his behavior is that he holds a mirror up to self-righteous crowd and reminds them that they may not be perfectly right either (always a valuable exercise).
don't get me wrong - I know little about the guy, but appreciated his sign from Saturday as something close to how I feel about it all.
[Post edited 13 Nov 2023 15:04]
Protests, rallies, marches etc. like the one at the weekend are very much about 'message discipline'. The entire point of doing them in the first place is to try, with the little agency that they have, to affect change by way of showing the powers that be (whoever they are in each circumstance) that there is large support for cause x and/or that decision y should be reversed, changed etc.
Obviously hard to keep that discipline when you've got so many people turning up but anything that appears to water down the message in any way is usually frowned upon.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
So in a protest for peace on 15:15 - Nov 13 by lowhouseblue
"it being different enough from the 'message' of the march"
how can a peace march not condemn hamas. how is condemnation of hamas different from the 'message' of the march?
These people have very real concerns about robot dogs firing lasers and enslaving humanity.
Back on point though, some of this stuff is low level that people wouldn't even notice. This lady sounds very reasonable and peaceful But the mask slips.
So in a protest for peace on 15:24 - Nov 13 by GlasgowBlue
These people have very real concerns about robot dogs firing lasers and enslaving humanity.
Back on point though, some of this stuff is low level that people wouldn't even notice. This lady sounds very reasonable and peaceful But the mask slips.
At last, we know who's really behind it all...
(I should have added, 'because some of the are also a bit nuts' to the reasons why the Palestine marches don't sit 100% comfortable with me. Thanks for the reminder).
So in a protest for peace on 15:24 - Nov 13 by GlasgowBlue
These people have very real concerns about robot dogs firing lasers and enslaving humanity.
Back on point though, some of this stuff is low level that people wouldn't even notice. This lady sounds very reasonable and peaceful But the mask slips.
0
So in a protest for peace on 15:33 - Nov 13 with 1189 views
So in a protest for peace on 15:23 - Nov 13 by LankHenners
Protests, rallies, marches etc. like the one at the weekend are very much about 'message discipline'. The entire point of doing them in the first place is to try, with the little agency that they have, to affect change by way of showing the powers that be (whoever they are in each circumstance) that there is large support for cause x and/or that decision y should be reversed, changed etc.
Obviously hard to keep that discipline when you've got so many people turning up but anything that appears to water down the message in any way is usually frowned upon.
I appreciate what you're saying but think that's a pretty weak excuse as well. Peter Tatchell has shown more even handedness than most on either side. If the world had more people like him, and less of the rest, we'd be in a much better place.
ETA - There should be no reason why people cannot call for a Free Palestine whilst also showing Hamas up for what they are.
So in a protest for peace on 15:15 - Nov 13 by lowhouseblue
"it being different enough from the 'message' of the march"
how can a peace march not condemn hamas. how is condemnation of hamas different from the 'message' of the march?
I take the point but the march was specifically pro-Palestinian and organised in part (I can't off the top of my head remember the names of all of them) by groups who have long been critical of Israel's occupation and are therefore protesting against what they see as the government's lack of action in stopping Israel's current offensive which is causing a huge amount of civilian death.
In other words, the government has already strongly criticised Hamas and has openly backed Israel to respond to their attack. The march is essentially 'Palestinians would like a bit of support as well please'.
That's just the way things are with all protests really, like it or not. Think most are aware issues are more complex than how a march represents them but, to refer to a previous point, if the central message was watered down too much it would take away from the thrust of the argument and make the whole thing a bit pointless in the first place.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
