Boris

[Bodd]

Not an expression I have ever used.

You do understand though that the term yank does not mean all, or even most, Americans ?

No hence why the southerners may get offended being called Yanks

 

[SammyInnit]

For the sake of leaving out 1 sentence there would be no argument.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Are you sure BJ didn't incite violence or hatred, and therefore threatened? If he had just omitted the reference to postbox or bank robbers there would be no argument would there?

It comes back to the same issue, at what point does rudeness become offensive or threatening? Is it ok to lightly insult a stranger? Is it ok to insult strangers because you always have done in the past? Or is it ok to put it in writing rather than aloud in the street?

For the sake of leaving out 1 sentence there would be no argument. So to say it (in written word), and to not apologise, does that pander to people who want their leaders to speak out against certain people?

It is just as easy to be polite, so why not ? A reason? Yes, of course, it was BJ. A buffoon definitely, but he isn't stupid (education wise), and understands what effect his article had!

Has he offended me with those comments ? No. Am I offended on behalf of other people? No. Do I want a calmer friendlier society? Yes. I don't see how anatagonising a certain section of people is good for that aim.

As EFL put it so succinctly:

There is no right not to be offended.

Are you sure BJ didn't incite violence or hatred, and therefore threatened? If he had just omitted the reference to postbox or bank robbers there would be no argument would there?

If this society has come to a point where someone saying that they resembled a bank robber or a postbox means there will be an increase in violence and hatred then this country is completely buggered. I do not think this is the case.

 

[Yafo]

As EFL put it so succinctly:



If this society has come to a point where someone saying that they resembled a bank robber or a postbox means there will be an increase in violence and hatred then this country is completely buggered. I do not think this is the case.

You are, conveniently, or by not understanding the significance, of the meaning of what he said, missing the point of why it is offensive, and therefore possible to trigger problems.

It was deliberate, its obvious. Even many Tories are saying the same thing.

Corbyn gets slammed for a lot less, but you think BJ is ok ?

 

[sodthisforfun]

You are, conveniently, or by not understanding the significance, of the meaning of what he said, missing the point of why it is offensive, and therefore possible to trigger problems.

It was deliberate, its obvious. Even many Tories are saying the same thing.

Corbyn gets slammed for a lot less, but you think BJ is ok ?

Possible.
Does that mean it's going to? Or not going to?


I never said Boris is ok.

So why don't you tell me why it is offensive and why you think that it will trigger more hatred and violence.

 

[SammyInnit]

You are, conveniently, or by not understanding the significance, of the meaning of what he said, missing the point of why it is offensive, and therefore possible to trigger problems.

It was deliberate, its obvious. Even many Tories are saying the same thing.

Corbyn gets slammed for a lot less, but you think BJ is ok ?

I seem to see and hear a lot of politicians taking offence more than I hear of anyone else taking offence. The typical point scoring and one upmanship we can expect from the commons.

Watching the evening lies/news, the majority of those asked on the street in his constituency suggest he's simply saying what many think.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is there any doubt that it is a ridiculous garment?
(There are lots of ridiculous garments associated with religion. Do you think the Archbishop of Canterbury looks sensible?)

Does it look like a letter box and/or bank robber?

If it does, then it does. End of. Why may it not be said?
If it doesn't then he was wrong. Call him an idiot as has been done may times.

 

[noseall]

Why may it not be said

A prominent public figure makes announcements like that to stir feelings and garner interest. He is using bigotry (or other peoples') to further his career - no secret there. Some think Bozza is being a **** - as usual.

I personally hate the garment and make no secret of it. My complaints will go not much further than a few disinterested ears.

There lies the difference.

 

[Bodd]

I personally hate the garment and make no secret of it. My complaints will go not much further than a few disinterested ears.

I accept there are women who choose to wear the Garment. There are also an awful lot of women oppressed and forced into wearing it. More so in Muslim / Islamic states but very much in the UK as well.

There is nothing right about it but for the rights of these women it should be banned above any other good reason.

Maybe you need to be heard.

 

[ellal]

I accept there are women who choose to wear the Garment. There are also an awful lot of women oppressed and forced into wearing it.

There is nothing right about it but for the rights of these women it should be banned above any other good reason.

So you would force women not to wear something they want to in order to stop the oppression of those who don't?

That kind of makes you an oppressor yourself!

And how would you enforce it?

Instruct the police to whip off every 'offending garment' worn in public?

 

[motorbiking]

There was an argument made by one of Bojo's critics that it is no different to a christian wearing a cross. That is utter rubbish. It is a ridiculous garment and it is, when you consider its purpose (to prevent my sexed crazed male eyes getting off on the sight of their uncovered flesh) - condescending and discourteous. They should be free to dress as stupidly as they like.

I do agree that our harassment laws and hate crime laws in general are heading/have headed in a direction that is too vague and open to abuse. The fact that few prosecutions have been made isn't really relevant. A piece of questionable law was introduced in to both the anti terrorism legislation and road traffic law, which wasn't "abused" until 5-10 years later.

 

[ellal]

They should be free to dress as stupidly as they like.

Indeed.

Otherwise where do you stop?

Young boys (from the age of three) in a extreme branch of another religion are forced to have side 'dreadlocks' and wear a silly hat.
Is that 'oppression'?

Personally I find the fact that schools in the UK (one of only a couple of countries in Europe I believe) force pupils to wear a uniform 'oppressive'.
And that is on a much larger scale!

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Noseall's comment is succinct and to the point.
Let us, for the discussion, ignore the item that is under discussion, and concentrate on the general principle, whether it be choice of dress style or wearing of a religious symbol.

Even if Noseall wrote to some prominent newspapers and his opinion was expressed (no pun intended) in the 'letters' page, his comment would still not be adopted or repeated, in order to further hatred and division.

If a prominent MP, such as Ken Clarke, et al, expressed an opinion without resorting to offensive insults, it would still be just an opinion.
However when a prominent, outspoken MP discusses his opinion and resorts to offensive terms, there are several repercussions: 1. he demonstrates that he is happy to resort to bigoted insult to further his career, despite his inability to discuss an issue without resorting to insult, (which makes him guilty of whatever appropriate offence is incurred) 2. his gullible supporters will emboldened to repeat his comments, possibly within earshot, or directed at individuals or groups of people, (potentially causing division and unrest, not to mention furthering whatever offence was trying to be curtailed) 3. the original argument is lost in the furore caused by the offensive comments, 4. his comments alone generate division in society and in his political party (rather than generating harmony) due to the ensuing argument about his conduct.

Let us accept that BJ is an outspoken MP, known for his use of offensive language and behaviour. Just because he is known for his gaffes, does it make his comments acceptable (Boris is being Boris)? Or is there a time when his colleagues should stop his use of offensive comments?

Gaffes were made along the way but it was just Boris being Boris – even when he made howlers as foreign secretary they were largely laughed off and forgiven (remember when the British ambassador had to stop him reciting Kipling’s ‘The Road to Mandalay’ on a visit to Myanmar?).

The row caused by his remarks about women who wear burqas and niqabs is surely different, showing as it does a clear degree of deliberation – and a purposeful desire to play the politics of division.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...muslim-women-niqab-conservative-a8482191.html

The Turkish president and the goat
The EU, Hitler, Napoleon…
Cannibalism and chief-killing
African offense
Assad ally?
A game of wiff waff, anyone?
The part-Kenyan president
A sadistic nurse in a mental hospital
Taking on Trump
Child’s play
Liverpool’s victim status

https://www.politico.eu/article/11-boris-johnson-diplomatic-gaffes/

 

[Notch7]

Personally I find the fact that schools in the UK (one of only a couple of countries in Europe I believe) force pupils to wear a uniform 'oppressive'.
And that is on a much larger scale!

Parents generally support school uniform.

You've only added that point to suit your anti UK narrative.

Why do you do it? If you hate the UK and everything about it, you must live a thoroughly miserable life living here. Seems to me you have been forced to live here and you resent it.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

You've only added that point to suit your anti UK narrative.

Ad hominem attack.
Zero contribution to the discussion.

. Seems to me you have been forced to live here and you resent it.

IF that is true, he may well not be the only one judging by the rapid decline in the value of sterling.