I am puzzled by the reporting of far-right activism in the Guardian and other media outlets. A single phrase is repeated constantly, and I do not understand why. “Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon” is the fixed phrase used to describe Britain’s foremost activist, and the remainder of the article invariably goes on to refer to him as “Robinson”.

Surely this is simply amplifying his own invented persona, with its echoes of a first world war working-class hero? The phrase is so ubiquitous and consistent that I feel it must have been selected in an editorial meeting at some point in history because the alternatives were somehow risky. The man is now well-known enough that we no longer need to use his pseudonym. I would very much like to see a pivot to using the phrase “Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who calls himself Tommy Robinson”.

Of course, a more radical approach would be to include some explanation of the origins of his nom de guerre in the new phrasing as a way of subtly undermining the cult of personality he has created.
Brian Davison
Edinburgh