I have a new philosophical dilemma that gives me a persistent headache: whom should I tell to “fuck off” first—the politicians, or the self-styled activists who claim to support them while presuming to speak for me? Once I decide, should I add: “When you’ve fucked off as far as you can, go a little farther; you’ll be doing us all a fucking favour, you muppet”? Setting aside the angst and florid profanity, let me explain…
What a week that was
So, the week ending 6th September 2026 delivered even more piss-boiling content than is now unfortunately a regular occurrence. The sort of effluent that grips my shit just keeps flowing of late.
The week brought further—understandable—fallout from the recent A66 incident (see here); Reform held its vitriolic annual conference and set out its ambitions for government (see here); and Farage faced renewed scrutiny over his apparent acceptance of international financial support “bungs” (see here). A woman who apparently asked a question was allegedly violently assaulted by Reform supporters, then forcibly manhandled and removed from the auditorium (see here); nothing says “protecting women” quite like a young woman being struck with a walking stick by a frothing middle-aged man.
Meanwhile, a handful of self-described “peaceful activists” and “patriots” descended on the Port of Dover (see here) to “take back our streets” from marauding small-boat immigrants. Although, to provide balance, there were no reports of any violence or arrests for any offences. However, their behaviour – all dressed head to toe in black and wearing face coverings – was rather intimidating for many. Their gathering and “safety patrols” are probably better characterised as that of ignorant white-supremacist thugs cosplaying Mosley’s Blackshirts, with disturbing echoes of the run-up to the 1930s Battle of Cable Street.
The apparent lack of police action over the latter quickly revived the long-running debate about perceived two-tier policing in the UK (see here). These were surely only a few examples among many. We can, however, be grateful (not) that the media covered them with industrial efficiency, churning out ream after ream of hyperbolic, emotive headlines and preordained narratives, 24/7, ad infinitum!
Anger = Grift
Regardless of where you stand in today’s often contrived, vitriolic and increasingly violent political debates, it is worth beginning with a little-recognised fact: Nigel Farage—and many others on his side of the political spectrum—are increasingly revealing themselves as little more than self-serving grifters.
Farage and his allies often present themselves as a much-needed insurgent movement, but their finances – as with any political party – have always warranted closer scrutiny. In September 2026, cryptocurrency billionaires Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne each donated £36 million to Reform UK—£72 million in 24 hours and, at the time, the largest individual donations to a British political party. Earlier Electoral Commission figures showed that Delo and Harborne supplied £7 million of Reform’s £9.3 million in private donations during the first quarter of 2026. However, these [currently] lawful donations do not prove that policy has been purchased, but their scale exposes a wider democratic risk, and should rightly prompt additional scrutiny: how can a party claiming to represent ordinary voters become heavily dependent on a handful of extremely wealthy backers? But these concerns are not confined to Reform. Transparency International UK reported that the share of private political donations supplied by individuals and companies – giving at least £1 million – rose from 1 per cent in 2015 to more than a third in 2024. The Electoral Commission has likewise called for stronger donor checks and tighter rules on company donations.
To be fair—because even political polemic should occasionally nod at evidence—Reform’s rise should not be judged by historical analogies and insults alone, however tempting or entertaining that often is. The more useful test is tediously practical: follow the money. Who funds the party, what access do those donors receive, which policies might benefit them, and do its claims on immigration, public services and living standards survive contact with facts? A lifetime of witnessing political sleaze warns me to remain sceptical; the evidence will eventually decide whether that scepticism was informed judgement or merely an unusually well-dressed hunch.
However, I’m also finding that the irony in this current debacle is palpable. The Conservatives, who had fourteen years in government, to reform and change the asylum system, improve border administration and make post-Brexit cooperation with the EU work failed—hardly a rushed probation period. Their legacy includes increasingly intense pressure on the NHS and other public services, stagnant real wages for much of that period, and continuing concerns about tax avoidance. I will do my upmost to level my criticism on demonstrable failures and on one simple question: does Reform offer credible remedies, or merely soundbite policies, populist slogans, convenient scapegoats and a lavishly financed touring production in which everyone insists the smoke machine is a manifesto?
Oysters: Social Poisoning
Yet the two questions that were uppermost in my mind this week were: who decided that an ugly, rough-skinned, bottom-feeding mollusc—resembling a salty globule of gristly snot—could or should become an expensive delicacy for the glitterati? And when did it subsequently become a staple for wannabe grifters seeking to emulate their disgustingly wealthy peers – those “beautiful people” who float around in high society, generally viewing the serfs below with disdain?
Please bear with me: what follows was never intended to be another disgruntled rant from either side of the political divide, although it is already becoming rather long—as often happens when I try to unpack one of my fairly frequent social observations. That said, I’ll begin with the etymology and historical significance of the humble oyster.
Oysters: Brief Genealogy
Oyster is the common name for differing genus of saltwater bivalve molluscs found in marine or brackish habitats. Their often-irregular shells can be heavily calcified, and many—but not all—belong to the superfamily Ostreoidea.
Some oyster species are eaten as delicacies, while pearl oysters are harvested for pearls formed within their mantles. Others, including translucent windowpane oysters, are collected for their shells.
Oysters: Food for the Impoverished
Humans have eaten oysters for millennia. Mesolithic middens, including one in Shetland, and Roman sites on the East coast of England show widespread consumption and processing. Oyster beds later appeared in the Domesday Book, and oysters remained common food into the Victorian era.
In eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century London, oysters were inexpensive working-class fare sold by street vendors, pubs and shops. In London Labour and the London Poor, pioneering social researcher Henry Mayhew documented daily shellfish purchases, while Dickens remarked that “poverty and oysters always seem to go together”—though probably not as we would understand the association today. Eaten alone or added to pies and stews, oysters became expensive only later, as declining stocks, pollution and disease reduced supply.
Oysters: Food of the Elite
The oyster’s modern status as an elite delicacy is relatively recent. For centuries, plentiful coastal beds and efficient distribution made oysters an affordable food for working people (see above). Industrial harvesting later depleted natural stocks, while pollution and disease damaged or closed many remaining beds. As supply dwindled, tighter regulation and costlier cultivation drove prices higher. Restaurants and fashionable diners then reframed scarcity as exclusivity, associating oysters with champagne, luxury hotels and formal dining. Once valued for their abundance and affordability, oysters became symbols of rarity, expense and social prestige—an overt display of real or perceived opulence.
Oysters: Connecting Past to Present
Once associated with “the great unwashed” and abject poverty, the common oyster has become an edible symbol of opulence among the extremely wealthy and powerful—a staple of the social oppressor. It is rather like Dickens’s notorious villain Fagin reappearing as figures such as Donald Trump or, among Britain’s lesser imitators, Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe: people who profit by emptying others’ pockets while relying on the politically unsophisticated – and educationally immature – to advance their broadly antisocial aims.
Base camp established at mountain of oyster shells left behind at Reform conference (Satire: News Thump)
Political Finances
I have long believed that politics and vast private wealth make for dangerous bedfellows—not because every donation buys a decision, but because reliance on a few wealthy funders can create privileged access, influence and the appearance of obligation.
My concern is neither new nor theoretical. Long before the 1990s “cash for questions” scandal, money shaped British politics. Eighteenth-century votes were openly bought, and wealthy patrons controlled “pocket boroughs” through payment, patronage or coercion. After 18 MPs were unseated for corruption following the 1880 election, the 1883 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act criminalised bribery and curbed campaign spending.
Financial sleaze also reached the Cabinet. In the 1912–13 Marconi affair, ministers including David Lloyd George and Rufus Isaacs bought shares in American Marconi while the government awarded a lucrative contract to its British affiliate. A parliamentary majority cleared them, but minority reports found “grave impropriety”. As prime minister, Lloyd George’s government then created 120 hereditary peerages and more than 1,500 knighthoods amid systematic fundraising from wealthy honours-seekers. The scandal prompted the 1925 Honours Act, under which intermediary Maundy Gregory was convicted in 1933. “Cash for questions” was therefore part of a much longer history of wealth buying access, status and influence.
Today, donations and loans still provide most UK political finance, and the system permits unlimited contributions from permissible donors. The scale and concentration are striking. The Electoral Commission recorded almost £98 million in donations and public funds to political parties in 2024. Transparency International UK found that the share of private donations supplied by individuals and companies giving at least £1 million rose from 1 per cent in 2015 to more than a third in 2024; it also identified Christopher Harborne’s £9 million gift to Reform UK in 2025 as the largest single contribution from a living donor at that time. The concentration intensified further in September 2026, when Harborne and Ben Delo each announced a £36 million donation to Reform UK—£72 million combined, exceeding the £64.8 million received by all UK political parties during 2025.
These figures do not prove that any specific policy was purchased, but they do show how a very small number of extremely wealthy people can acquire a financial presence in British politics far beyond the reach of ordinary voters. And this phenomenon is now beginning to play out even more overtly, initially in America but even more overtly now within the UK.
“Unlike the people who express mock concern for the health of ‘our democracy’ while doing everything they can to keep it as a cartel, I want a fair fight and a level playing field. (Ben Delo, The Telegraph)
Delo apparently followed by concluding; “…Reform’s recent troubles is that they should spend less time trying to raise funds to compete on equal terms and more time preparing for government.” But my questions would always be – agreed with by many – why do any politicians need so much money, and why does it seemingly always come from oligarchs and kleptocrats? What are they hoping to buy? Because they certainly don’t donate such large sums for free.
Despite alleged and proven sleaze at the highest levels of British politics, the UK has also long provided a haven for kleptocrats’ illicit wealth. Those seeking to launder, spend, store or conceal stolen assets often use British property and registered companies. Professionals in regulated sectors—including bankers, lawyers and accountants—can facilitate these arrangements, yet too rarely face meaningful consequences for unethical, negligent or criminal conduct. This combination of professional complicity and wider complacency allows the problem to persist.
Exploiting a Failing Moral Compass
It is hardly surprising that politicians such as Nigel Farage seek advantage from concentrated wealth and his transatlantic political networks; after all, nothing says “grass-roots insurgency” quite like cultivating the approval of billionaires. His affinity with Donald Trump is well documented: the Associated Press has described Reform UK’s strategy as echoing Trump’s political playbook, while reporting in 2026 counted numerous appearances by Farage at Trump-linked events. However, to be fair, identifying these figures as his “American mentors”, would imply a formal relationship which the evidence does not establish, yet; “influential friends with unusually deep pockets” is safer, if rather less romantic. Nor does this arrangement vindicate trickle-down economics, many within his circle often applauded, unless the trickle is meant to resemble the last reluctant drop from a gold-plated tap.
A body of research evidence – OECD etc – has found that wider income inequality continually appears to weaken any subsequent societal growth, particularly when poorer households fall behind. Britain’s wealth distribution provides an admirably bleak demonstration: the Office for National Statistics estimates that, in 2020–22, the wealthiest 10 per cent of households held 41 per cent of total household wealth, while the wealthiest half held 91 per cent—leaving the poorer half to divide the remaining 9 per cent, presumably in the spirit of national togetherness. A division that continues to grow. The Equality Trust separately estimated that the UK’s 50 richest families held £468 billion in 2025, slightly more than the poorest half of the population combined. Apparently, the wealth does trickle down; it simply pauses indefinitely near the top.
Whilst Farage and his like are gorging on oysters, ‘ordinary’ people who like the sound of his politics – and lifestyle but sadly often believe his rhetoric – are often in receipt of DWP payouts and collecting their next meal from their local foodbank. How can this be appropriate, let alone be viewed as acceptable?
Our Agnotology Pandemic
Agnotology may be an unfamiliar term, but the deliberate production and spread of ignorance is now commonplace, further eroding already fragile empathy and social cohesion.
Derived from Greek roots meaning “not knowing” and “study”, agnotology examines how ignorance is deliberately created and maintained. The American tobacco industry provided the classic example: internal documents showed companies cultivating doubt about the established link between smoking and disease—captured in the 1969 phrase “Doubt is our product”—instead of proving cigarettes safe.
Research has since found similar tactics in the fossil-fuel, coal, sugar, pesticide and ultra-processed-food industries, including funding favourable studies, attacking critics, cherry-picking evidence and continually raising the standard of proof. In American politics, Steve Bannon described a comparable strategy in 2018: “the real opposition is the media”, and the way to defeat it is to “flood the zone with shit”—overwhelming debate until separating fact from fiction becomes exhausting.
Britain has seen similar effects. After the 2024 Southport murders, false claims about the attacker’s identity spread rapidly online; a 2025 House of Commons committee concluded that misleading and hateful messages, amplified by recommendation algorithms, helped fuel violence against Muslim and migrant communities. Agnotology therefore need not persuade everyone of a single lie. It succeeds by creating enough confusion, distrust and information overload to make reliable evidence easier to dismiss. And not least here in the UK.
We now live in a society where some confidently mistake black for white, up for down and correlation for causation—as if statistical literacy were an optional extra. It is not. Yet ignorance is still applauded and, apparently, rewarded.
Migration
To be absolutely clear, I do not support unrestricted migration or unlawful entry into the UK, or any other sovereign state for that matter. But I also cannot support methods of opposing migration that treat lawful migrants, asylum seekers and people entering without permission as though they were a single category, or that disregard democratic and legal safeguards. Migration is a longstanding feature of British history, and the Office for National Statistics notes that its causes are varied: war and displacement, changes in transport and living standards, and opportunities for work have all shaped movement to and from the UK.
Contemporary UK data likewise identify work, study, family and protection as the principal reasons people migrate. These distinctions matter: refugees are people who flee conflict, violence or persecution and seek safety elsewhere, whereas many other migrants move for employment, education or improvements to their family life. Any serious debate should therefore distinguish between the scale, legal status and reasons for migration rather than collapsing them into a single political slogan.
And, with all that said, you rarely hear many “foreigners” protesting when their countries are “invaded” by beer-swilling, cocaine-sniffing British bigots looking to settle in Dubai. Or those in the process of buying their new villa with an affinity pool on the Costa del Crime; shouting loudly from their Union Flag draped sunbeds – “more beer Garçon!” – whilst being totally oblivious to the fact that their ignorant choice of language is actually being applied in the wrong fucking country.
Immigration: Debunking Populist Narratives
Whatever the merits of current immigration policies—or the measures which are used to promote or restrict them—and whether they benefit us or serve Britain’s “greater good”, every perspective should probably remain open to ongoing civilised debate for the foreseeable future. Simply because prevailing circumstances – and our society – exist within a constant state of flux.
Consider the documented contribution made by the Windrush Generation to post-war Britain. Records show how the UK recruited workers from the Caribbean and wider Commonwealth, to ease labour shortages after the Second World War; many worked in construction, public transport, manufacturing and [at that time] the newly established NHS. Their contribution has always been integral to Britain’s history and “our” identity; despite the persistent discrimination they faced, or any political convenience more recently obtained from minimising or forgetting these historical facts.
Decades later, lawful residents were wrongly denied work, housing, healthcare and other services because, through no fault of their own, they could not prove their right to remain. This grave injustice – possibly at least in part born in the bigotry and xenophobia of some – was later acknowledged through the Windrush Compensation Scheme. Yet our NHS still depends heavily on an internationally recruited ethnically diverse workforce—one that some politicians continue to vilify to this day. Moreover, a 2024 analysis also found continued growth in the proportion of staff from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds, an essential source of skills and labour. Although the evidence does not resolve any ‘legitimate’ concerns about NHS performance or current immigration policy, it does show that migration has long been—and remains—valuable to British public services, even if some continually dispute its wider contribution to our society. A viewpoint often born in their own racism.
An observation that feels particularly poignant at this moment… “We are living in a time where some people are proud of what they should be ashamed of…!” (Unknown, Social Media)
However, those challenging the prevailing narratives on either side of these increasingly vitriolic and violent debates should also choose their perceived “enemies” more carefully. Direct your criticism and anger at the politicians responsible for failing to secure our borders—and keep the pressure on them. Public anger should not be aimed at “illegal” migrants, most of whom are unwitting commodities in organised criminals’ profit-making ventures. A significant proportion of these fellow human beings are sadly being weaponised by nefarious actors, unscrupulous politicians and self-serving billionaires, all hoping to stoke and inflame cultural fear and advance further divisive narratives.
Yet the evidence suggests that small-boat crossings, while serious and highly visible, are often misunderstood in scale and character. Whilst the populist narratives are continually inflamed by digitally driven public opinion. Government figures show that about 33,000 people arrived by this route in the year ending June 2026—around 88% of detected unauthorised arrivals, but far below total lawful immigration figures. Moreover, Oxford’s Migration Observatory reports that 62% of asylum applications from small-boat arrivals between 2018 and 2025 were granted, indicating that many were ultimately recognised as needing protection. And yes, I know, people will be yelling; “but that’s still too many!”
Two familiar populist narratives deserve closer scrutiny: that the government manipulates the figures and that migrants are disproportionately criminal. Some statistics appear, at face-value, to justify some concern: non-UK citizens accounted for 13.1% of cautions and convictions in 2024 and 12.1% of prisoners in June 2025, with higher representation for some drug offences and substantial variation by nationality. Yet those headline shares were broadly comparable to non-citizens’ estimated proportion of the adult population. After adjusting for age and sex, non-citizens were underrepresented in prison and less represented in violent offences. The evidence also remains incomplete: the ONS does not record crime by asylum-seeker or migrant status, so claims specifically linking criminality to small-boat arrivals cannot be reliably proved or disproved.
All available data indicates that violent and misogynistic offending, including VAWG, is more prevalent among indigenous white men than among non-white immigrants, regardless of their immigration status. A factor that appears constantly reinforced by the background checks of those “patriots” who have been arrested or charged for “defending our British values”.
The defensible conclusion is not that migrants never commit crimes, but that sweeping claims portraying all migrants as violent criminals or child abusers go far beyond what the evidence supports. But I wouldn’t expect any “knuckle-dragging neanderthal racist” to even read this, let alone understand much of the content. Moreover, it doesn’t fit within their preferred and preconceived narratives.
Scapegoats for Xenophobes
Dominant narratives often enlist carefully chosen messengers to make claims rooted largely in xenophobic prejudice. When challenged, activists simply redirect their anger towards new scapegoats, aided once again by malign actors skilled in manufacturing ignorance. Their latest target is the RNLI.
[Satire] A man who regularly tweets #AllLivesMatter whenever anyone calls for help for a particularly vulnerable sub-group of our society, has today decided that the way to stop migrants crossing the channel is to prevent the RNLI from helping them. (News Thump)
I find it absolutely astonishing that anyone, however ill-informed, could turn hostility towards RNLI volunteers and crews into a ‘legitimate’ cause célèbre. For centuries, people unknown to most of us have risked—and sometimes lost—their lives rescuing others in the worst of conditions. This charity-funded organisation does so every day without seeking praise. That alone deserves respect. The balaclava-clad, black-shirted “patriots” need to give their fucking heads a wobble, though I doubt they will; most would probably cry if the bathwater turned cold—assuming they wash.
A balaclava on a British street is a small declaration: I do not want you to know who I am. …But Westminster should be interested in something beyond the spectacle: why do these men believe they need to hide their faces in the first place? (Christopher Kennedy-Barnard, The Spectator, 9th Sept 2026)
A recent Spectator article, The curious case of balaclavas on Britain’s streets, spoke directly to the social malaise spreading from Channel ports and beaches into communities nationwide. I suspect—and we have already seen—that members of the familiar “whataboutery” Klan defend their clothing as protection from state control and surveillance, citing “personal safety”. After all, nothing says “PPE” like a thick black balaclava—recently dubbed a “nonce bonnet” on a Scottish social-media page—paired with a black hoodie, shorts and sturdy black boots. How could anyone find that intimidating? It is merely a fashion statement: an expression of individuality and self-worth (self-indulgence), surely? Almost de rigueur for every qualified, card-carrying bigot and professional social anarchist. Sorry, activist.
Many seem unsure what—or whom—they are fighting for. Instead, they seek the relevance, status and notoriety that manufactured ignorance provides, recalling nostalgia for the “rucks” of 1980s football hooliganism. Tommy Robinson came from that world: a convicted criminal and prominent far-right activist who co-founded the English Defence League, belonged to the British National Party and participated in The MIGs, a Luton Town FC hooligan firm. He has since built a lucrative public profile around confrontation. What a waste of time, energy and studious endeavour, which could possibly have offered him something a little more socially acceptable, but perhaps not sufficient for funding his apparent lifestyle choices. I find that sad.
Thankfully, however, most people who value an inclusive, cohesive and supportive society remain appalled by the contempt directed at the RNLI. Long may that continue; our society has already sunk far enough. Who will be targeted next: firefighters rescuing a black mother and child from a burning building, or paramedics treating an apparently Asian Deliveroo rider knocked from his bike by some white city-slicker twat in a BMW? Even if those who currently share my views ever become a minority, I will not change mine.
They volunteer, they put their lives on the line and do their utmost to save lives no matter the age, the religion, the colour of skin or the nationality of those in danger. Now the Far Right ‘Blackshorts’ are picketing the lifeboat stations calling them scum. What is happening to this country where a slick city boy like Farage can so easily con the poor into thinking their lives are shit because of immigrants when their lives have actually been damaged by people like himself? (Mike Harding, Comedic Author and Social Bard)
Sociopolitical Solutions
On this point, I do have a quick question or two for those politicians who are now emerging from under their fluffy comfort blankets in The City of Westminster, to condemn balaclava-clad thugs and defend the RNLI: where the fuck have you been? Where were you last week, last month—or even last year? Were you sitting in an audiologist’s waiting room with your earmuffs on, reading a social-media influencer’s self-help book about “digital leverage” while waiting for the next emergency appointment?
While you waited to see which way the political winds would blow—or booked yet another Specsavers appointment because you still could not read the room—you ignored signs that had long been glaringly obvious to most ordinary people who are grateful for their 20:20 vision.
Heed the warnings now, not next week or whenever your self-promotional schedule allows. Get your heads out of your self-important arses, learn from RNLI crews and show the courage of your supposed convictions: launch when it is right, not only when it is easy or the shipping forecast promises a light zephyr, fluffy clouds and a following breeze. No wonder so many of us are pissed off with politicians, while some increasingly see “mobilising” as their only ‘reasonable’ course of action, to minimise or control what they do not understand. I ask you again, is it any real wonder?
The “flag-shaggers” will not quieten down while foreign-funded, algorithm-driven platforms amplify and reward their insidious, divisive rhetoric, and nefarious actors keep powering their megaphones while feeding themselves more oysters. Wake the fuck up, Westminster. Do not simply impose another knee-jerk law—new, irrelevant and largely unenforceable—to appease the electorate. That option vanished long ago in a puff of smoke above the smouldering remains of a budget hotel in a deprived neighbourhood far from Surrey or the Cotswolds.
New Clarion Call for Flag-Shaggers
In case you were unaware, the prominent voice rallying the balaclava-clad black-shirt “patriots” in Dover and Portsmouth—whose actions later led to RNLI crew members being targeted—is Daniel Thomas, also known as “Danny Tommo”. He is another British far-right activist, another convicted criminal and the founder of the Patriot Platform. He previously served as a bodyguard for “Tommy Robinson” and was a longstanding member of the “patriotic” Raise the Colours group, whose members are often coarsely dubbed “flag-shaggers”. However, despite his apparent “good education” or perhaps his slightly more eloquent preparation of his hateful bluster, it appears that Thomas isn’t actually as bright as he thinks he is.
The Searchlight Magazine – who have been documenting and challenging fascism for decades – has recently revealed; “Danny Tommo wants the Daily Mail to buy his mum a new house after claiming it doxxed her by revealing her address — while overlooking the rather awkward fact that he did it himself.” Once again we see another example of those on the far-right of politics playing their victim cards.
I can partly understand “Tommy”: he is a small man drawing on a lifetime of unresolved grievances, possible substance misuse and his happy days of football thuggery. But what drives “Tommo”? I suspect he probably has fewer grievances than his idol and has instead been slightly quicker at recognising and pursuing the lucrative grifting opportunity—his share of the action. I may be wrong, and I will admit it if the evidence proves otherwise. For now, let us wait and see.
Anarchy 101
Yet “Tommo” has clearly been studying the same playbook as “Tommy” (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon)—assuming either possesses the literacy and critical-thinking skills needed to read, let alone understand, a book. Still, putting disparaging assumptions aside (for now), I do not recall The Dummies Guide to Activism: the GOAT guide for effective monetisation of anarchy in the 21st Century appearing on any of my sociology reading lists. Perhaps it is required reading only in criminology—or available as yet another one of those now popular downloadable self-help eBooks, so favoured by the ever-growing Klan of “influencers” and entrepreneurial content creators.
Most of the material you encountered bore no relation to the real world—not even the limited connection found in a direct lie. (George Orwell, 1984)
However, both men are dangerous because they use many of the tactics they claim to oppose. After years of fuelling division across British communities, I suspect “Tommy”—not to be confused with “Tommo”—is deeply uneasy about the growing scrutiny of his finances and backers. However, “Tommo” may also now be feeling similarly nervous.
Over the past year, Channel 4 has investigated the sources and use Robinson’s money, raising serious questions about the hateful rhetoric and familiar tropes promoted to far-right supporters. Robinson – and many within his “Klan” – often dismiss such scrutiny, because it threatens their ability to “earn” and accumulate more money. I suspect that “Tommo” will be developing a nervous twitch, assuming he’s not already shaking like a defecating puppy-dog.
If you’ve handed over your hard-earned money because you believed you were funding a cause or helping someone in need, surely you deserve to know what they found. (Channel 4, Dispatches)
The most disturbing part of the Dispatches investigation, Tommy Robinson: Where’s the Money Gone?, showed a vulnerable grooming-gang survivor describing how she was pursued and filmed, leaving her feeling victimised again for the sake of a far-right narrative. Whatever Robinson claims about supporting survivors, the footage suggested otherwise. He and his “Klan” plainly do not—or they need the same sensory checks our politicians are supposedly still awaiting. Absolutely despicable!
Problematic Theories
When people like me challenge far-right hatred, the “whataboutery” brigade predictably responds with “yes, but” and “you simply don’t understand”. Before the familiar claim appears—that migration is part of a wider Great Replacement agenda—it should be stated plainly: this is a conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence of any coordinated plot. Popularised by French writer Renaud Camus, it has been adopted by identitarian and extreme-right movements to portray ordinary demographic change as deliberate ethnic substitution. Demographic change is real, and immigration policy is open to legitimate criticism; neither proves that governments or international institutions are secretly replacing white Europeans.
Additionally, the alleged “Kalergi Plan”—a supposed scheme by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi to replace white Europeans through immigration and racial mixing—is equally unsupported. Kalergi advocated a peaceful, politically united Europe; fact-checkers have traced the supposed plan to decontextualised passages from his 1920s writings and subsequent Nazi and neo-Nazi fabrications. No credible archival evidence, policy document or implementation mechanism shows that such a programme ever existed. Put bluntly, the claim is pure “pish”: prediction and political philosophy recast as an invented blueprint to support a predetermined narrative.
I can already hear the incoming challenges; “yes, but you would say that, wouldn’t you? Coz people like you are part of the problem, you make me sick!” And all that tripe!
Societal Decline: Digital Drivers
A substantial and growing body of evidence suggests that social media is accelerating and intensifying social decline. I have examined this issue several times before, notably and most recently in Enshittification: Algorithmic Empowered Racism and Confronting the Digital Stupidity Epidemic. And don’t disregard Agnotology (see above) which is rife and exacerbating our problems.
A 2021 peer-reviewed Science Advances study analysed 12.7 million tweets from 7,331 users and conducted two behavioural experiments. It found that positive social feedback made users more likely to express moral outrage again and encouraged them to adopt the language of their online networks. The evidence therefore supports a narrower claim: social media does not cause social decline by itself, but engagement systems can reward, normalise and amplify outrage over time.
More recently (at the time of writing this), “Tommo” again fuelled online division. On 15 September 2026, the i Paper reported that “anti-migrant vigilante Danny Tommo” had led another black-shirted protest near the Commons Speaker’s home (see here). Social-media reactions were predictably split between “he’s not a vigilante, he’s our hero” and accusations about “black-shirt thuggery”. Sensational headlines often deepen that division rather than clarify it.
When “Tommo” posts “PORTSMOUTH RAISES THE CRUSADER FLAG! CHRISTIANITY IS BACK AT THE FRONT OF THE FIGHT #ChristIsKing ✝️” on his “Operation Overlord” YouTube channel, and it subsequently draws about 4,500 views in 40 minutes and attracts supportive xenophobic and Christian-fundamentalist comments, politicians and the public should pay closer attention. A channel with 193,000 subscribers and more than 400 videos probably shouldn’t be dismissed as the fringe ramblings of a random, deluded activist. Even if he is.
As someone who is a profound Humanist, I also find Tommo’s self-description unsettling: “a proud Englishman, guardian of my faith, and relentless defender of our homeland. Trust in Jesus Christ, Our Saviour—Redemption for all who seek it.” History offers ample reason for caution when political activism is driven by Christian nationalist fundamentalism and imposed on unwilling communities.
So no, “hero” is far too generous. Yet when politicians ignore public concerns for long enough, the backlash is hardly surprising. Tommo filmed the latest protest for his YouTube audience while warning that “something is about to go down” which would send “shivers down the spines” of those he blames for weak immigration policy. Such rhetoric is alarming and highlights the need to confront digital incitement rather than tolerate violence, threats or intimidation after the event.
Political Drivers: Self-Promotion and Self-Interest
Some may wonder why I repeatedly use the term “sociopolitical” within my musings. The answer is relatively simple: society and politics cannot be placed in separate, convenient boxes. Political choices shape public services, human rights and social conditions, while social attitudes influence elections and policy. Most Parliamentary research likewise treats political trust and public engagement as interconnected, noting that declining trust can reduce participation and weaken democratic resilience.
“I don’t do politics” may be as familiar as “I don’t trust politicians”, but disengagement has broader consequences. In the ONS Trust in Government Survey, about two-thirds of respondents had little or no confidence that they could influence government decisions. Separate official figures show that only 34% of adults in England participated in civic activity in 2024/25, down from 41% in 2019/20. Anyone who values a peaceful, inclusive and safe society therefore has reason to scrutinise political claims, challenge those in power and speak out when appropriate. Politicians, in turn, must listen, act transparently and serve their constituents rather than their own status or wealth. I would like to think most of us share those aims, although the evidence on trust and participation makes that assumption increasingly difficult to sustain.
Nefarious Actors
Politicians such as Nigel Farage and, more recently, Rupert Lowe (see below) have repeatedly used divisive rhetoric, particularly on immigration and national identity. Yet the wider problem is measurable and more complex than simple ignorance. King’s College London research identified strong “affective polarisation” around Brexit identities: opposing groups increasingly distrusted and disliked one another, even when their policy differences were smaller than they assumed. This division has continued to deepen. Parliamentary research also found that the proportion of people expressing little or no trust in MPs rose from 54% in 2014 to 76% in 2024, with scant evidence of improvement. In such an environment, emotionally charged, algorithmically amplified narratives can intensify hostility, reinforce misconceptions and reward politicians who turn legitimate grievances into tribal conflict.
“Peaceful protest can play an important role, and it must be peaceful. From what I understand, today’s protest was exactly that. These are ordinary Brits who are pissed off. I agree. I’m pissed off too.” (Rupert Lowe)
Hate disguised as Discourse
To me, this shows why politicians must moderate their rhetoric and use inclusive language that neither provokes nor inflames anger or hatred. Yet I doubt most will: whether through inability or intent, they repeatedly fail, and I suspect their intent – fuelled by wealth – is the main cause. Too much of our normal – and arguably often valid – political discourse has now turned into visceral Hatred; what happened? Why are we witnessing the apparently ever-growing “pure, cold rage” taking hold of our country; and further afield?
One answer is that influential figures have repeatedly legitimised anger as a political response. Nigel Farage, for example, urged the public to respond with “pure, cold rage”; the BBC later apologised after a presenter incorrectly rendered this as “white cold rage”, a correction that matters because the original wording should be judged accurately. Even so, evidence from the Southport disorder (2024) shows how inflammatory claims can move rapidly from online platforms into the real world: false anti-migrant narratives reached millions of users before violence targeted mosques and accommodation housing asylum seekers. Parliamentary evidence has also linked platform algorithms, weak moderation and engagement-driven business models to the amplification of xenophobic disinformation. This does not mean rhetoric alone causes violence, but it does show how repeated emotional appeals, misinformation and double standards can normalise hostility until conduct once considered unacceptable becomes easier to excuse. That is the real “boiled frog” danger: gradual desensitisation to escalating political hatred until its cumulative effects become impossible to ignore.
Consider what happened when a young woman heckled Nigel Farage at Reform UK’s 2026 Birmingham conference. In a civilised society, security staff would remove a disruptive attendee promptly and proportionately, as they routinely do at many party conferences. Instead, several attendees formed a mob: they pulled her hair, forced fingers into her mouth, struck her with a walking stick and “manhandled” her from the auditorium. It was shocking not because the attackers were masked extremists, but because they appeared to be ordinary (mostly but not exclusively male) people—someone’s relatives or neighbours—acting with openly normalised hostility and, as it has so far transpired… impunity.
The politicians’ subsequent defence of the assault was telling. Had it happened at a left-leaning party conference, the right-wing would likely have denounced the “political thuggery” and “two-tier” double standards. Yet when Reform supporters assaulted a young woman, what did their leaders do and say?
- Nigel Farage giggled from the stage while the assault was taking place, before rushing off to devour another gob full of oysters no doubt..
- Lee Anderson made jokes about “having a whip-round” to buy the attacker a new cane, whilst sneering at anyone who dares to challenge him.
- Robert Jenrick took to the airwaves to mock the victim, dismissing it with a “boohoo” and claiming a pensioner just “knocked her on the head” because she stood on a chair. A big bully wannabe wearing little boy’s pants.
This is all nothing less than straightforward victim-blaming. It also signals to supporters that physical assault is now, in some way, an acceptable response to irritation or dissent. Those who claim they would like to be in a position to uphold law and order in our country are instead helping to normalise criminal behaviour.
The online reaction I have seen from Reform supporters (so far) has also been similarly dismissive and hostile. Stripped of its rhetoric, the message from Reform and others on the far right is clear: this conduct is acceptable. A woman voiced her disagreement, caused a disruption and was therefore treated as deserving of assault and ridicule, mostly by men. I am sorry, but I hope most people in this country agree that such behaviour is not acceptable and must never be normalised. But remember what they continually espouse; “we’re protecting our women and children!” Yeah right.
How Did we Get Here?
How do ordinary people, often older and yet seemingly familiar—someone’s mum or grandad—come to applaud violence against a young woman?
As with the “boat-people”, collective dehumanisation and moral disengagement can make cruelty feel legitimate. Online echo chambers are not universal—UK research suggests that only a small minority inhabit exclusively partisan news spaces—but among highly committed groups, repeated exposure to like-minded grievance can intensify polarisation and recast opponents as existential threats. Laboratory research has also found that politically aggrieved participants who discussed issues only with like-minded peers adopted more extreme views and became more willing to condone political violence. Once an opponent is treated as monstrous, assault can be reframed not as criminal conduct but as deserved punishment.
Performative rage thrives because it delivers attention, status and group belonging. Research across major social platforms shows that moral-emotional and out-group-focused language attracts more sharing and reaction, while users often engage most strongly with political content that provokes outrage. The “nefarious actors” know this, and they subsequently use this phenomenon for their own political and personal advantage. Yet these incentives do not prove that every accusation is insincere however, they reward – and reinforce – increasingly extreme claims. This effect is in turn reinforced from the top down: when political leaders laugh at violence, minimise victim-blaming or use inflammatory language, supporters receive a powerful cue that hostility is acceptable and may even be applauded.
That logic is dangerous and deeply disturbing. Evidence does not support a simple claim that rhetoric inevitably causes violence, but it does show that echo chambers, outrage-driven engagement and permissive political cues can increase acceptance of aggression. When hatred and assault become open, celebrated and politically excused, the issue is no longer merely partisan: it is a threat to “our” public safety and many of “our” democratic and societal norms.
Who or What can we Blame?
Regardless of all that I’ve written above, this particular dilemma troubles me. Because any rigorous inquiry often gives way to one of my “WTAF?” moments. Or I find myself screaming at the news feed; “What is fucking wrong with people?” Such outbursts help to stop me from throwing something at the television, but they also serve to explain nothing. Stoicism offers me my comforting escape of “not my monkey, not my circus” and I’m often reminded of my favourite four-word mantra, “not my fucking problem”. All of which provide a modicum of welcomed light relief.
Yet it is my problem—and ours. We must address it before more people are injured or killed; we owe that to our society and to humanity. Yet trite individualism, wilful ignorance and a Laissez-faire attitude remains at the forefront of our combined thoughts and inactions. In short, ‘we’ are to blame, ‘we’ have let all this shit happen… in ‘our’ country… and it is ‘our’ fault. We all carry that joint responsibility, regardless of the degree of slope apparent on our shoulders.
Mitigation and Repair: where’s Harry Potter when you need him?
I am not wise enough to offer every answer, let alone any definitive solution. Even if I possessed a magic wand, any spell I cast would take decades to unravel all the historic shit, never mind produce any meaningful changes now. But we must still try to make a start.
Five recurring themes emerge from this sociopolitical puzzle: America, culture, individualism, money and technology. I list them alphabetically, not by importance; they overlap and interact with many lesser influences. America is especially difficult to separate because it often underpins the other four. That is personally regrettable, as I know several thoroughly pleasant Americans. I am not blaming the United States or its people alone, merely noting its influence.
Rather than one culprit, the evidence points to several connected causes. In Britain, the “Special Relationship” and our habit of clinging to Uncle Sam’s coattails have often served us poorly, but we cannot avoid our own share of responsibility. Attempts to import a British version of the cultural and financial “American Dream” have also produced damaging consequences and may have accelerated our cultural and economic decline. At present, the outlook for Britain and the wider world is hardly encouraging—and much of that influence can again be traced back across the Atlantic.
Conclusion
Now, perhaps more than ever, I believe each of us must do what we can. After nearly fifty years of confronting the consequences of other people’s behaviour, I have found one consistently useful starting point: try to understand their perspective. If agreement is impossible, at least recognise the experiences and pressures that may have shaped their views and actions. Then accept what you cannot personally change and, when necessary, step back from the fallout.
Two things now seem increasingly clear to me: hatred will never solve our problems, and, for the time being, far more still unites us than some would have us believe. My hope is that each of us can help to repair our societal damage—and soon.
* Noun British Slang: Vulgar. (1) the glans, penis. (2) a stupid, ridiculous, or annoying person, especially a man. “What kind of bellend thinks being a racist will sit OK with other people?”
Dave's Bankside Babble 