Jacob Rees mogg at the University of the West of England (Title edited by MNHQ)

[Grrrrrsnarl]

Just watched the clip of Jacob rees mogg at Bristol university, when a few momentum activists try to cause havoc and stop him from talking

Whatever anyone thinks of this man, I have to say he was pretty gutsy going up to them, considering they are all hiding behind Balaclavas and scarves and there wasn't any security there.
Most politicians wouldn't have gone near them, let alone try to talk to them

I like him. Yes his views are controversial and I don't agree with some of them, but at least he stands up for what he believes in

Full video
twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/959529976616947712. ( Sorry only know how to link to a tweet)

"Except that's not what had happened on this thread at all, is it."

Isn't it? I asked what more I could say and it seemed to me as if I was being asked to say the same things again. Maybe I misunderstood.

Sashkin Jews are very much considered "white" these days to a large majority of the extreme left, especially in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict and Zionism. Of course to many on the extreme right, Jews are considered non-white or in a racial category of their own. They really can't win.

Because if you stop them from saying it out loud, it ceases to exist? It reminds people it's not a nice way to think, and is not the norm for the society. Hopefully, it means that a few people who might have been persuaded towards racism, aren't, because they haven't been subjected to the speeches advocating it.

"Because if you stop them from saying it out loud, it ceases to exist?"

No. Because if you stop them from saying it out loud it might stop Neanderthals from going and chucking a brick through the corner shop's window..

You did misunderstand.

Those posts were directed at one poster - in fact, a few posters who were inviting her to condemn instead of excuse (me included) actually went out of their way to acknowledge your posts & agree with you.

If anyone ended up getting hurt in the scuffle he is as much to blame as the protestors.

Wow, just wow. Just to blame as those covering faces, obviously there to cause trouble. Right.

OK- so one person on the left not condemning this enough is more significant than all those who do. Fair enough.

Piglet if you are the "celebrity" at an event you really aren't helping the situation by getting involved. You might want to look brave, be gung ho but it isn't sensible and it makes it harder for the security people.

Have you ever seen someone in power, like a president or PM or royalty when there is a security threat? They don't get to be macho, they do what they are told by the security people.

By getting involved JRM made himself more of a target, endangered the people around him and made the security people's job harder. He is an idiot.

There are bound to be a couple of shouty prats in any group of that size

Oh well that's ok then.

Seriously what is wrong with people that they can't say what happened is wrong and condemn it? As to be fair have a number of Labour MPs. Are you that drenched in Corbyn ideology that you can't see the wood for the trees.

A group breaking into a room with their face covered aren't there for healthy debate are they???

If people exercise their right to free speech then it means they can be called out on abhorrent shit in an open and transparent way.

If we ban it then they still find their audience, but the audience are less likely to be exposed to the directed counter-arguments.

Remember Nick Griffin on question time?
That appearance ruined him (and rightly so) - had he been banned from appearing then he'd have played the victim card & probably garnered more support.

No. Because if you stop them from saying it out loud it might stop Neanderthals from going and chucking a brick through the corner shop's window..

So I presume you think Mcdonell should be protested against in the same vein then, or is political violence only tolerated when it is dressed up as "punching up"

I certainly think that there is an argument for stopping people advocating racism for example.

I agree with that. But it has raised the problem that once you silence part of the debate then there is a creep further along to stigmatise or criminalise other points of view on that part of the spectrum.

For example, many people now believe that to advocate anything other than an open door immigration policy is racist. To wonder if immigration has added to pressure on housing and services is labelled racist. Some people have even labelled criticism of ISIS racist and said it creates a 'hostile environment for Muslims' so shouldn't be allowed.

And this is what we're seeing with the JRM invasion. He is a Conservative, he is not a fascist.

Which is the problem with Antifa. Anybody who isn't far left is a fascist in their eyes and deserves silencing, threats and destruction.

If people really can't see the danger in that then they are extremely naive. Unless you are a fully paid up member of the far left, they will come for you eventually if they get their way.

OK- so one person on the left not condemning this enough is more significant than all those who do. Fair enough.

You are an expert at missing the point Bertrand - I often wonder if it's deliberate tbh.

It isn't OK, I don't think anyone has said it is but it isn't a shock either, these things happen. People should be able to deal with it though, in the past politicians could do a good put down without going into the crowd.

Harold Wilson was good at it if I remember rightly.

"Seriously what is wrong with people that they can't say what happened is wrong and condemn it?"
Have you read the thread?

"You are an expert at missing the point Bertrand - I often wonder if it's deliberate tbh."

Nope, not deliberate at all. What is the point I am missing?

What a liar huh?

No. Because if you stop them from saying it out loud it might stop Neanderthals from going and chucking a brick through the corner shop's window..

Yes, if you're against violence, then surely you must be against what these protestors did? Unless what you actually mean is that you think the left including you should get to be the arbiters of who deserves violence. Which makes you just as bad as brick chucking Neanderthals...

in the past politicians could do a good put down without going into the crowd.

They were thugs breaking into a room with faces covered, not heckling from the back of a crowd. Don't think a one line put down would cut it somehow.

LadyDeadpool, I haven't seen that before but that is the sort of incident I was talking about. JRM entering the crowd escalated it, that man might have intended to hit her, or he might have aimed for someone else and they moved but JRM upped the ante by his actions.

And getting into the thick of it worked so well Piglet. Do you think we didn't have protestors in the 60s and 70s?

Piglet you’ve misunderstood me. I’m saying that the fact that these two were Labour Party members is irrelevant. This wasn’t a Labour Party (or Momentum) demo, it was two people causing a disturbance. The focus on whether they were Labour Party members or not is just an attempt to smear the left. 99.99% of Labour supporters are not out causing trouble at Tory events, and it’s disingenuous for PPs to suggest otherwise

"Yes, if you're against violence, then surely you must be against what these protestors did?"
I am. For the avoidance of doubt, my earlier post. "I loathe him. But the way he was treated was outrageous- and I think he was brave to handle it the way he did. The democratic process is precious."

Sashkin you are right, there are trouble makers on all sides.

EltonJohnsSyrup has nailed it.