The Reform Thread

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

What I don’t like is that many people who say they support them don’t seem to understand what they stand for. For example it is well understood by people who have followed Farage’s career that he is racist. Somehow you don’t see that.

You say the ban is “pathetic” but would you be happy with some of the people who have been thrown out of Reform for clear race hate comments on that platform? If Reform didn’t attract so many deeply unpleasant people with deeply abhorrent views to their ranks maybe they wouldn’t have this problem.

Again, as some people don’t seem able to understand English. I don’t agree with the ban myself.

Incidently, I have seen Reform representatives totally embarrassed in debates with University students so I don’t understand the ban.

 

If they'd be thrown out of Reform then they wouldn't be part of the Reform debate would they.

But wait, Reform are racist but have thrown people out for making racist comments, how can this be? You dont seem to understand them yourself. 

And you keep banging on about Farages past, cant we just dismiss this as "everyone makes mistakes" like you do or "clumsy language" like your racist comments?

Edited Tuesday at 14:51 by Turkish

[badgerx16]

18 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Oh, I see. I was trying to be generous. For example, we have a Reform supporter here who seems oblivious to Farage’s racist background. I have upset a couple of people on here in the past when assuming people who support others who are clearly racist share their views.

Perhaps it is something they are not overly concerned about.

Edited yesterday at 08:13 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

40 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps it is not something they are not overly concerned about.

I guess not.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, iansums said:

Which poster are you referring to?

Take a guess. When I referred to Farage as a racist you asked for evidence.

[Zorba]

On 04/02/2026 at 18:27, benjii said:

These wankers couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, have no serious policies, have links to dodgy foreign funding and plenty of connections to Epstein, and still some people think they are a credible choice for government.

Makes you wonder how the Labour Party ever got into power!?

[iansums]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Take a guess. When I referred to Farage as a racist you asked for evidence.

Me then. I wouldn’t say I’m a supporter of Reform or any political party. I’ve mostly voted Tory but also voted Labour on one occasion. I voted Reform last time, really as a protest vote, I don’t know how I will vote next time.

[sadoldgit]

33 minutes ago, iansums said:

Me then. I wouldn’t say I’m a supporter of Reform or any political party. I’ve mostly voted Tory but also voted Labour on one occasion. I voted Reform last time, really as a protest vote, I don’t know how I will vote next time.

Fair enough. I just assumed from your posts that you were solidly behind Farage.

[benjii]

One of the stupidest, most ignorant, mean, fuckwitted, arse-headed public statements ever uttered by an MP in the UK.

[Winnersaint]

10 minutes ago, benjii said:

One of the stupidest, most ignorant, mean, fuckwitted, arse-headed public statements ever uttered by an MP in the UK.

Tice the Temu Trump.

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps it is not something they are not overly concerned about.

Perhaps it’s not true…

[whelk]

49 minutes ago, benjii said:

One of the stupidest, most ignorant, mean, fuckwitted, arse-headed public statements ever uttered by an MP in the UK.

Yes what a total prick. Let’s have him making decisions. 

[egg]

55 minutes ago, benjii said:

One of the stupidest, most ignorant, mean, fuckwitted, arse-headed public statements ever uttered by an MP in the UK.

Yep. If ever there was any doubt that Reform are in Trumps shadow, this highlights it. 

[Gloucester Saint]

Labour certainly haven’t lived up to their promise to be the adults back in the room but this is Tice the Toddler, straight out of the Trump/Dementia manual. Reform will never be fit to govern as long as they’ve got a hole in their arses. I don’t agree with the no platforming, to be clear, the more scrutiny Reform receive the better, same as all political parties, but the response is so poor, they’re students FFS. Be the adult Richard, put your big boy pants on and grow up.

Edited yesterday at 07:46 by Gloucester Saint

[egg]

30 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Labour certainly haven’t lived up to their promise to be the adults back in the room but this is Tice the Toddler, straight out of the Trump/Dementia manual. Reform will never be fit to govern as long as they’ve got a hole in their arses. I don’t agree with the no platforming, to be clear, the more scrutiny Reform receive the better, same as all political parties, but the response is so poor, they’re students FFS. Be the adult Richard, put your big boy pants on and grow up.

Indeed. Debate is healthy, and gives understanding to the listener and the undecided, whilst provoking thought and understanding. Shutting it down is wrong, and takes away an opportunity for open and frank discussion. 

With that said, there's a line between a right to speak and an obligation to listen, and needing to be involved in a debate. 

On balance, I'd prefer to see Reform involved in healthy debate, but Tice's reaction is wrong, not least because it's Trump esque coercion, but also as it  ignores that this is a debating society decision rather than the Uni itself. 

[whelk]

34 minutes ago, egg said:

Indeed. Debate is healthy, and gives understanding to the listener and the undecided, whilst provoking thought and understanding. Shutting it down is wrong, and takes away an opportunity for open and frank discussion. 

With that said, there's a line between a right to speak and an obligation to listen, and needing to be involved in a debate. 

On balance, I'd prefer to see Reform involved in healthy debate, but Tice's reaction is wrong, not least because it's Trump esque coercion, but also as it  ignores that this is a debating society decision rather than the Uni itself. 

Trump is unique. Trying to mimic him just shows how feeble and weak minded this lot are. Never mind not understanding our constitution.

[Gloucester Saint]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

Trump is unique. Trying to mimic him just shows how feeble and weak minded this lot are. Never mind not understanding our constitution.

And it’s also about behaving like an adult when there’s immature behaviour, in this instance by a student society.

It’s why politicians like Jeremy Hunt get my respect because he’d laugh that off in the same circumstances. Too many Reform, Cons and Labour would have reacted like Tice did although probably not quite as petulant. 

[egg]

49 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

And it’s also about behaving like an adult when there’s immature behaviour, in this instance by a student society.

It’s why politicians like Jeremy Hunt get my respect because he’d laugh that off in the same circumstances. Too many Reform, Cons and Labour would have reacted like Tice did although probably not quite as petulant. 

I don't buy the line of going easy on students. If they're mature enough to vote and handle debate, they can debate with people who seek votes, and expect criticism from people who see them shirking that debate. 

[Gloucester Saint]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

I don't buy the line of going easy on students. If they're mature enough to vote and handle debate, they can debate with people who seek votes, and expect criticism from people who see them shirking that debate. 

Not suggesting going easy on them because they have to learn to be open-minded and inclusive even with things they like less, but a bit of humour goes a long way. Starmer understandably gets hammered for being humourless but Tice is just as bad there. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Indeed. Debate is healthy, and gives understanding to the listener and the undecided, whilst provoking thought and understanding. Shutting it down is wrong, and takes away an opportunity for open and frank discussion. 

With that said, there's a line between a right to speak and an obligation to listen, and needing to be involved in a debate. 

On balance, I'd prefer to see Reform involved in healthy debate, but Tice's reaction is wrong, not least because it's Trump esque coercion, but also as it  ignores that this is a debating society decision rather than the Uni itself. 

There is the issue though, the should be allowed to be involved in healthy debate, but too often these things end up in shouting down with no one actually listening to what it being said. I remember when Nick Griffin was on Question Time. Whatever anyone might think of him and the BNP it was pointless him being on there because the audience appeared to be rigged and every time he said anything he just got shouted over. Any question he got asked was met with boos and jeers if it wasn't what the audience wanted to hear. It wasn't debate or discussion it was a complete set up. It's this sort of stuff that actually as the opposite effect as people who might sympathise with the views slightly get deeper turned because the so called liberals dont want to listen to what they dont want to hear. It's a massive problem in this country IMO. Just so i dont get accused by certain people of being a BNP/Nick Griffin fan, i dont agree with what they stand for, but if you're going to invite them to a discussion at least have the courtesy to make it one so the public can decide for themselves. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not suggesting going easy on them because they have to learn to be open-minded and inclusive even with things they like less, but a bit of humour goes a long way. Starmer understandably gets hammered for being humourless but Tice is just as bad there. 

You would think that the University itself would understand the importance of debate with those you disagree with and would be putting pressure on the society itself not take actions like this.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

There is the issue though, the should be allowed to be involved in healthy debate, but too often these things end up in shouting down with no one actually listening to what it being said. I remember when Nick Griffin was on Question Time. Whatever anyone might think of him and the BNP it was pointless him being on there because the audience appeared to be rigged and every time he said anything he just got shouted over. Any question he got asked was met with boos and jeers if it wasn't what the audience wanted to hear. It wasn't debate or discussion it was a complete set up. It's this sort of stuff that actually as the opposite effect as people who might sympathise with the views slightly get deeper turned because the so called liberals dont want to listen to what they dont want to hear. It's a massive problem in this country IMO. Just so i dont get accused by certain people of being a BNP/Nick Griffin fan, i dont agree with what they stand for, but if you're going to invite them to a discussion at least have the courtesy to make it one so the public can decide for themselves. 

Its why long form podcast discussions have become so huge online. All sorts of potentially controversial people with more extreme views get a fair hearing where they aren't asked gotcha questions and are given a chance for their views to be aired. Recently there was a bloke doing the podcast rounds who wants to deport every person with a non English parent. I disagreed with almost everything he said (not least because my wife and children would be gone.) but I was pleased he was given the chance to be questioned properly and to hear his view. He definitely wouldn't have been allowed to talk if he was on mainstream media- he would have been silenced and shouted down. 

[egg]

16 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You would think that the University itself would understand the importance of debate with those you disagree with and would be putting pressure on the society itself not take actions like this.

My understanding is that they don't support this decision. Part of my issue with Tice's comment is that the call for punishment is against the Uni, but for a decision made by a small number of its students. 

[sadoldgit]

17 minutes ago, egg said:

My understanding is that they don't support this decision. Part of my issue with Tice's comment is that the call for punishment is against the Uni, but for a decision made by a small number of its students. 

That’s right, it is only the debating society that have refused Reform’s request.

A missed opportunity. It would have been great to see Sarah Pochin on stage and trying to defend her statement about too many brown faces in tv adverts.

Meanwhile Yusuf has suggested that the University will have its funding pulled if Reform get into power despite the fact that the decision has nothing to do with the University itself. Echos of what is currently going on in the US.

Edited 22 hours ago by sadoldgit

[whelk]

32 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Its why long form podcast discussions have become so huge online. All sorts of potentially controversial people with more extreme views get a fair hearing where they aren't asked gotcha questions and are given a chance for their views to be aired. Recently there was a bloke doing the podcast rounds who wants to deport every person with a non English parent. I disagreed with almost everything he said (not least because my wife and children would be gone.) but I was pleased he was given the chance to be questioned properly and to hear his view. He definitely wouldn't have been allowed to talk if he was on mainstream media- he would have been silenced and shouted down. 

There are limits and that bloke sounds insane so would struggle to find how the hell he was interesting or deemed a credible guest.

[whelk]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

My understanding is that they don't support this decision. Part of my issue with Tice's comment is that the call for punishment is against the Uni, but for a decision made by a small number of its students. 

Tice’s response isn’t worthy of a serious reply. Should just be doing the media rounds and made to look the daft cunt he is

[whelk]

11 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It would have been great to see Sarah Pochin on stage and trying to defend her statement about too many brown faces in tv adverts.

Quite straightforward to defend that. I get that you will scream racists at anyone who notices

[hypochondriac]

30 minutes ago, whelk said:

There are limits and that bloke sounds insane so would struggle to find how the hell he was interesting or deemed a credible guest.

I disagree. I thought it was interesting to hear the perspective because I like to hear different points of view even if I strongly disagree. His argument seems to be that he wants very strong immigration and even if he thinks deporting everyone is unlikely, he believes that by aiming for that he's likely to get stronger policies. I can sympathise with someone who is upset at the rate and amount of demographic change but I certainly don't agree with what he sees as a solution. I thought the podcast hosts made some decent counter points too.

 

[hypochondriac]

54 minutes ago, egg said:

My understanding is that they don't support this decision. Part of my issue with Tice's comment is that the call for punishment is against the Uni, but for a decision made by a small number of its students. 

I get that but let's be honest it's a flippant comment made on social media years before he has any chance of power. I think it's incredibly unlikely that he will actually end up removing funding from universities. I think his point was more that the threat of something like that would be enough to reverse course. I'd much prefer that the university itself is having words with these societies to prevent stuff like this because it's a terrible look for their reputation if nothing else. 

[hypochondriac]

33 minutes ago, whelk said:

Quite straightforward to defend that. I get that you will scream racists at anyone who notices

That's one of the least controversial things someone from reform has said.Noticing reality.

[badgerx16]

Surely the debating society should be confident of winning the debate. Nothing to be afraid of if you have faith in the strength of your position.

Edited 21 hours ago by badgerx16

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I get that but let's be honest it's a flippant comment made on social media years before he has any chance of power. I think it's incredibly unlikely that he will actually end up removing funding from universities. I think his point was more that the threat of something like that would be enough to reverse course. I'd much prefer that the university itself is having words with these societies to prevent stuff like this because it's a terrible look for their reputation if nothing else. 

It was daft and disrespectful, but I don't doubt the message and intent. It wasn't flippant. 

It's too easy, and frankly dangerous, to dismiss comments like that as flippant or irrelevant etc. 

You mention the coercive nature of his words, and seem to suggest that's ok if it causes the uni to lean on the debaters. We should not be tolerant of politicians, especially those wanting power, using SM to coerce as per Trump. 

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

You would think that the University itself would understand the importance of debate with those you disagree with and would be putting pressure on the society itself not take actions like this.

I broadly agree but there’s a duty they have of freedom of speech both ways - external and internal. And having been a student myself in the 1990s student societies can get very touchy about top down edicts (and that was long before the Lord Brown Review and the fee hikes).  If I was them, I’d have had a counter-statement saying that they thought Reform should have been heard but respecting the autonomy of student bodies. The top Unis are engaging with Reform a lot more and there seems to be some reciprocation. I would if I was a Vice Chancellor.

[hypochondriac]

38 minutes ago, egg said:

It was daft and disrespectful, but I don't doubt the message and intent. It wasn't flippant. 

It's too easy, and frankly dangerous, to dismiss comments like that as flippant or irrelevant etc. 

You mention the coercive nature of his words, and seem to suggest that's ok if it causes the uni to lean on the debaters. We should not be tolerant of politicians, especially those wanting power, using SM to coerce as per Trump. 

I want the university to pressure the debating society in order to avoid embarrassing proclamations that damage their reputation regardless of what a politician puts on social media. I don't think it's worth panicking about a stupid comment on social media. Richard Toce isn't Trump and even if he was looking to do that, I don't believe the system would allow him to remove funding and he won't be in a position to do that for years, by which time the students involved will have left anyway. The principle of universities standing up for free speech and challenging students that want to shut down debate is a good one although I don't necessarily support comments on social media however flippant I consider them to be.

Edited 20 hours ago by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

21 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

I broadly agree but there’s a duty they have of freedom of speech both ways - external and internal. And having been a student myself in the 1990s student societies can get very touchy about top down edicts (and that was long before the Lord Brown Review and the fee hikes).  If I was them, I’d have had a counter-statement saying that they thought Reform should have been heard but respecting the autonomy of student bodies. The top Unis are engaging with Reform a lot more and there seems to be some reciprocation. I would if I was a Vice Chancellor.

Fair enough. I think that broadly universities should be strongly in favour of hearing views from legitimate people that some may find objectionable or even offensive. It's terrible that some students don't hear opposing points of view. I thought the Tories introduced something alongside the free speech union to prevent this sort of thing happening but it was shelved when labour came in. I could be wrong about that.

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Fair enough. I think that broadly universities should be strongly in favour of hearing views from legitimate people that some may find objectionable or even offensive. .

Plenty of videos of the Cambridge Union debating with Charlie Kirk.

[egg]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I want the university to pressure the debating society in order to avoid embarrassing proclamations that damage their reputation regardless of what a politician puts on social media. I don't think it's worth panicking about a stupid comment on social media. Richard Toce isn't Trump and even if he was looking to do that, I don't believe the system would allow him to remove funding and he won't be in a position to do that for years, by which time the students involved will have left anyway. The principle of universities standing up for free speech and challenging students that want to shut down debate is a good one although I don't necessarily support comments on social media however flippant I consider them to be.

There's a difference between the university doing what it can off it's own steam, and doing it under coercion or threat of sanctions.

There's no "panic" from me, rather, I find it surprising that anyone thinks it ok that politicians should coerce and / or threaten in this way. It's wrong as a matter of principle. 

[sadoldgit]

6 hours ago, whelk said:

Quite straightforward to defend that. I get that you will scream racists at anyone who notices

Straightforward to defend the statement that there are too many brown faces in tv adverts? I hadn’t even noticed how many there were until she had her rant. Isn’t it racist to comment about things just based on race?

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Straightforward to defend the statement that there are too many brown faces in tv adverts? I hadn’t even noticed how many there were until she had her rant. Isn’t it racist to comment about things just based on race?

What a loony.

[badgerx16]

22 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Straightforward to defend the statement that there are too many brown faces in tv adverts? I hadn’t even noticed how many there were until she had her rant. Isn’t it racist to comment about things just based on race?

But you have since ?

[sadoldgit]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

But you have since ?

I don’t pay much attention to adverts.

l’m just wondering why anybody would have a problem with British citizens appearing in adverts on British TV. 

I’m also wondering why some people think that someone saying that they are fed up with seeing so many black and brown faces in TV adverts isn’t a racist comment.
 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t pay much attention to adverts.

l’m just wondering why anybody would have a problem with British citizens appearing in adverts on British TV. 

I’m also wondering why some people think that someone saying that they are fed up with seeing so many black and brown faces in TV adverts isn’t a racist comment.
 

If you went to Nigeria and you saw that white faces were massively over represented in adverts, at the very least you'd consider it rather odd and worthy of comment.

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t pay much attention to adverts.

l’m just wondering why anybody would have a problem with British citizens appearing in adverts on British TV. 

I’m also wondering why some people think that someone saying that they are fed up with seeing so many black and brown faces in TV adverts isn’t a racist comment.
 

Without trying to be controversial, the racial demographic of people appearing in adverts is far from representative of the UK population as a whole both as individuals and in the composition of couples. How people respond to this varies widely.

I suspect that advertisers are trying to tick as many boxes as possible so that no group feels excluded.

Edited 15 hours ago by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

Here's soggy on his holiday in Nigeria.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Without trying to be controversial, the racial demographic of people appearing in adverts is far from representative of the UK population as a whole both as individuals and in the composition of couples. How people respond to this varies widely.

I think there were some figures going around (no idea the source or agenda if any of it), to demonstrate that.

I rarely watch TV, and skip half times etc. So, ages can go past in between me seeing adverts. It was very obvious to me, after such a gap, that there was a large shift in the ethnic mix in the people in the ads. An ad makers dream of appealing to as many demographics as possible.

Observational without saying it's good, bad or of no interest. And without conveniently hiding behind anything.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Here's soggy on his holiday in Nigeria.

Proof that SOG pays little attention to ads. As shown, he instead stares into the middle distance thinking of his mixed race barmaid.

[Weston Super Saint]

23 hours ago, benjii said:

One of the stupidest, most ignorant, mean, fuckwitted, arse-headed public statements ever uttered by an MP in the UK.

I'm genuinely intrigued why anyone gives a flying fuck who appears at the tinpot debating society at a tinpot University in the first place. I'm astonished this is even 'news'.

I didn't even know Bangor had a university - ex polytechnic or technical college I suspect, let alone a debating society. I'm sure their debates are truly riveting though.

[sadoldgit]

29 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Without trying to be controversial, the racial demographic of people appearing in adverts is far from representative of the UK population as a whole both as individuals and in the composition of couples. How people respond to this varies widely.

I suspect that advertisers are trying to tick as many boxes as possible so that no group feels excluded.

I’m not sure why people would respond to the differently unless they had an issue with people with different colour skins. Does anybody worry about the number of black/brown skinned players play for their football club or work in their local hospitals unless they have racist issues?

We have a few posters who only get upset  about sexual assaults on women if the perpetrators have black/brown skin. You would imagine they would have started a thread about the adverts if it was a major issue.

Pochin’s comments were called out generally as racist when she made them. Has anything changed?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Soggy will soon  change his tune when he sees the latest Oxo family.

 

 

 

[Winnersaint]

48 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I'm genuinely intrigued why anyone gives a flying fuck who appears at the tinpot debating society at a tinpot University in the first place. I'm astonished this is even 'news'.

I didn't even know Bangor had a university - ex polytechnic or technical college I suspect, let alone a debating society. I'm sure their debates are truly riveting though.

Have no skin in the game but I'm not sure its quite as 'tinpot' as you suggest. Not Russell Group I admit, but dates back to the late 19th Century part of the federation of Welsh Universities. not a converted Poly not Tech College. Unlike my Alma Mater which was a non-specialist College of Higher Ed specialising in teacher training and is now a fully fledged university.

[ecuk268]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t pay much attention to adverts.

l’m just wondering why anybody would have a problem with British citizens appearing in adverts on British TV. 

I’m also wondering why some people think that someone saying that they are fed up with seeing so many black and brown faces in TV adverts isn’t a racist comment.