What can an individual do to keep Reform out?

[Thepoliticsofchaos]

I have a young friend (a university student) who is getting depressed about the prospect of Reform getting in next election. He thinks that the UK is fucked, basically. He's left-leaning, I assume a Labour voter. I've advised him to get politically engaged (so that in the future he'll at least be able to feel that he did what he could). He's not the most outgoing of people, though is interested in politics. Can anyone suggest how he could become usefully politically engaged to try to reduce the Reform vote? Not just joining a party and turning up to meetings, but actually doing something?

Are you trying to change the subject, Mike? Why would that be?

What NF actually said was he thought Parliament had better things to talk about at the moment than Prince Andrew. And that it needs to rise above kicking one man when they are down at the expense of taking attention away from things that actually matter like rape gangs.

hardly changing the subject we are talking about sexual crimes, they are all accused of sexual assault - but it seems an investigation into Andrew isn't needed. The fact Andrew spent 12 million on not getting investigated in the first place has helped. Strange one type of case needs investigating and the other doesn't

I thought it was a bit of a dick move by the reporter with a rape gang victim sitting on the podium to try and deflect interest to the privileged brother of the King. I thought NF did very well to stay on the subject that the conference had been called for.

And also one of the reasons 5 survivors left was due to (similar to what you ard trying to do) the widening of the issue to include all sex offences rather than focusing on these specific ethnic ones.

Surely a victim is a victim and any crime should be investigate, both have rumbled on long enough and been kicked down the road

Of course. But it's a transparent tactic to dilute the focus on the ethnic element of these particular crimes. In order that they don't happen again on this scale to hundreds of thousands of girls in the UK. Ms Reynolds was very clear on this being her motivation in highlighting these particular types of organised crime.

Unlike Prince Andrew. Whose behaviour is getting plenty of exposure and doesn't need Nigel Farage chipping in to detract from the Rotherham rapes.

Both are getting plenty of exposure on the front pages of newspapers and NF is bring this victim as part of his political conference - therefore political questions will be asked. Should parliament investigate Andrew, its a valid question to see whether NF is interested in all possible perpetrators or just one type of perpetrator

I don't really care about Andrew personally. There's not much really to be done. Epstein is dead so presumably can't carry out any more crimes one would hope and Virginia is not from here and also sadly dead so there's not much to be done to help her. And she's one woman. It's a set of very specific circumstances.although appalling. They don't apply to many.

Unlike the nationwide rape gangs and grooming carried out by Pakistani Muslims on hundreds of thousands of girls over decades.

You're trying the dead cat tactic, Mike. I get it. But I think more people with young daughters in the UK will care.more about Rotherham than any shady US billionaire getting hold of them?

So because you don't care about Andrew, not relevant as to whether you care about the crimes Andrew is accused of, there were and are victims of crimes of sexual abuse and the question was whether they should be investigated - NF answered that question negativley.

The fact only two MPs have ever paraded a vulnerable survivor in front of the press, probably as other `MPs do actually understand that these people are vulnerable and exploiting them is wrong. Then the fact that 5 victims have written to the PM and stated they will only work with Jess Philips, and NF slags her off, as not being interested in the victims and only interested in votes in the next election.

It seems to me that Reform are very often in a position where they are “not deliberately racist”. Apparently.

And those 5 people are the ones that Labour want to keep as they were the victim of non ethnic crimes. So diluting the investigation by widening it to all sex crimes.

Also I think Epsteins crimes have been investigated?? He was in the US and he's now dead?? And Prince Andrew has never been convicted of a crime. The Rotherham rapes actually happened?!

we will have to agree to disagree Mike. I don't think your argument is persuasive but I can see why you are trying it on.

Do you think Labour are not racist? By trying to avoid investigating crimes against white girls properly?

What do you mean by properly in the context of investigating these grooming gangs?

And those 5 people are the ones that Labour want to keep as they were the victim of non ethnic crimes. So diluting the investigation by widening it to all sex crimes.

Only one has allowed her name to be given Samantha Walker-Roberts (who was the victim of ethnic rape gang) - the other 4 have not legally been named as they want to remain anonymous.

Your statement is factually wrong

5 of the victims are victims of Pakistani rape gangs. Five are not.

I'm not sure it's productive to discuss this with someone who wants to include Prince Andrew in a discussion about Pakistani Muslim rape gangs 🤷‍♀️

Because sexual abuse by rich, white men is somehow more acceptable and less damaging to their victims?

could you answer the question? The question doesn't have anything to do with Andrew but has everything to do with the grooming gangs

what is properly in the context of investigating the grooming gangs?

What's your question?

you can't possibly know which 5 have written to the PM, unless they name themselves which only one has done - you are factually incorrect

We can agree to disagree Mike. Again.

Watch the Reform press conference.

what is properly in the context of investigating the grooming gangs? hth

its not a case of disagreeing - your are bullshitting, as you don't know the victims names or who abused them

Quite.

No. Farage is a self serving snake who jumps on things that further his own agenda. This is a perfect example. The victim deserves a better untainted platform than his.

The approach by @MikeRafoneand @BIossomtoesis a classic far left "framing the question " tactic.

I find it fascinating to dissect their approach.

So firstly the far left mindset is all
about the oppressor and the oppressed or a victim and a perpetrator. The far left sees themselves as the "champion of the oppressed or victims".

Under this mindset they see Farage and Reform or anyone that disagrees with their views as the "bad guys" and that they are the "good guys".

The fact that a victim of the grooming gangs appeared on stage with Farage causes a contradiction of this mindset, a bit like a computer glitch.

On one hand Farage is a bad guy, yet here is a victim of grooming gangs standing alongside him. To criticise the victim would go against their views of "standing up for the oppressed or victims" plus they recognise that criticising a sex abuse victim would not be a good look.

So how to deal with this contradiction?

@BIossomtoes- took the approach of saying that the sex abuse victim had no agency in her decision to stand with Farage, that somehow she was manipulated or groomed to make this decision. In her view "why else would a victim choose to stand with a bad person ". The answer being of course that she could have taken the decision in her own free will and that maybe she and others don't see Farage as the bad guys.

@MikeRafone- has taken a different approach. Recognising that this "victim manipulation " theory wasn't really holding up, he took a different tactic.

He sought to reform the boundaries of the question by saying well what about other victims of sexual abuse and what about the alleged sex abuse by Prince Andrew. This was clearly an attempt to widen, dilute and divert attention from the specific question of sex abuse grooming gangs.

When called out on this, his response will typically be"
"Are you saying that other sex abuse victims (not from grooming gangs) don't matter" (ie you are a bad person for wanting to stick to the specific topic and "not caring about other sex abuse victims ")
"Are you saying that Prince Andrew should get away with his alleged sex crimes "(ie you are a bad person by wanting to stick to the specific topic and are an implicit supporter of the "Royal family cover up".

Of course the other posters respond or defend themselves on these points all the while helping to divert attention from the original specific question.

I find unpacking the far left mindset really interesting and it's very much like a cult where they are convinced that they are "the good guys " and if anyone disagrees with them or doesn't share their ideology then they are automatically the "bad guys "
or are far right, racists, Nazis, implicit supporters of other sex crimes etc etc.

What is worrying is how widespread and cult like this far left mindset has spread in society and its institutions.

Now I'm sure that they will be along shortly to shoot this view down as ridiculous etc but often the problem with cult like views is that those expressing them don't even realise or believe that they have cult like views.