Boris Johnson is a liability.

Bromley boy · 17 Aug 2018

furnessvale said:
Satire that totally misses its target so it does not "form an effective rebuttal etc."

Indeed. It just wasn’t very good, was it!?

RailUK Forums

AlterEgo · 17 Aug 2018

The satire doesn’t work unless you actually believe that women who wear niqabs are more likely to commit crime, at the same time as you believe women who wear them are oppressed.

I haven’t seen anyone ever suggest Muslim women who wear niqabs commit more crime.

The article misses the point.

bnm · 17 Aug 2018

The responses to the satirical article all miss the point of it.

Brilliant! It's doing its job perfectly.

AlterEgo · 17 Aug 2018

bnm said:
The responses to the satirical article all miss the point of it.

Brilliant! It's doing its job perfectly.

You’ll have to use your massive brain to explain it to us thickies then.

Bromley boy · 18 Aug 2018

AlterEgo said:
You’ll have to use your massive brain to explain it to us thickies then.

EDIT: the above GIF shows a tumbleweed blowing across a desert.

najaB · 18 Aug 2018

AlterEgo said:
You’ll have to use your massive brain to explain it to us thickies then.

To (mid)quote Boris: "They look like bank robbers."

NSEFAN · 18 Aug 2018

najaB said:
To (mid)quote Boris: "They look like bank robbers."

To be fair to Boris (even people like him deserve fairness...), I don't think that he actually say they posed a bank-robber threat.

AlterEgo · 18 Aug 2018

najaB said:
To (mid)quote Boris: "They look like bank robbers."

That’s not the same as thinking that the person in the niqab is *actually a bank robber*.

He was being a plonker by ridiculing the women who wear them. He wasn’t saying they were going to commit more crime.

That’s why the satire doesn’t work.

najaB · 18 Aug 2018

AlterEgo said:
That’s why the satire doesn’t work.

It's not the best piece ever, but it makes the point that, much like Schroeder's cat, full-face covers exist in a nether state of instrument of oppression/tool of the criminal class until an observer tries to describe them.

EM2 · 18 Aug 2018

^^^
'Schrödinger's'.
It reminds me of an earlier satirical piece about Schrödinger's Immigrant, stealing all the jobs *and* lazing around sponging off the welfare state, at the same time.

najaB · 18 Aug 2018

EM2 said:
^^^
'Schrödinger's'.

Damned autocorrect! Thanks.

AlterEgo · 18 Aug 2018

najaB said:
It's not the best piece ever, but it makes the point that, much like Schroeder's cat, full-face covers exist in a nether state of instrument of oppression/tool of the criminal class until an observer tries to describe them.

But they can be both, to different people at different times.

yorkie · 19 Aug 2018

AM9 said:
Well that's not really a valid comparison. Try walking along the street with the IS emblem on a tea shirt (in black and white of course) is a relevant comparison. A burqa is just an item of clothing, and has no political or military inference. If you want to read some meaning into it, that's your perogative, but outside of any security/identity considerations, the problem is all yours and others' with similar issues.

Quite, but that's exactly why an invalid comparison was made; the intention appears to be to fool people. Worryingly a small proportion of the population are fooled when arguments are made on the basis of invalid comparisons.

bnm · 19 Aug 2018

Like flies round a turd.

Boris Johnson’s Facebook page 'littered with hundreds of racists posts' from supporters

Hundreds of racist and Islamophobic comments have been left on Boris Johnson's Facebook page in the wake of his comments about the burqa.

A Sunday Times investigation into online abuse found hundreds of racist and Islamophobic posts have been made in the comment sections of Mr Johnson’s Facebook feed.

Under posts made by the former foreign secretary and his staff, supporters called for Muslims to be banned from joining the police or army, and blocked from holding any position in Governm
Another user wrote that it was “crazy to trust them. They are just waiting for the Jihad signal to turn on us #islamophobicandproud”.

A further post called on the former foreign secretary to deport Muslims, saying: “Come on Boris, you had the bottle to start getting rid of these bloody muslims, just like Enoch [Powell] wanted to rid us of all yer bloody c**ns!”

The Prime Minister urged Mr Johnson to apologise after he described women who wear the burqa as looking like “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”.

A senior government minister told the paper that the former foreign secretary’s remarks had given the go-ahead for people to express Islamophobic views.

“It’s always the risk when you start to mock Islam”, they said.

While the posts have yet to be deleted from his page, a source close to Mr Johnson said that he “totally condemns the hateful views posted by a small minority on these Facebook pages, brought to light by the Sunday Times”.

The paper found that 10 private Facebook pages run unofficially by supporters of Mr Johnson and powerful backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg were also filled with thousands of Islamophobic posts including descriptions of Muslims as “devil worshippers”, “sand rats” and “lepers”.

One user posted a picture of a large Muslim funeral under which someone commented: “I see that and I think Napalm.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is not linked to any of the unofficial groups, said that he was supporting new legislation that seeks to make social media companies responsible for the content they host, but added: “Boris Johnson’s comments do not validate these types of responses.

“What he said was perfectly within the bounds of debate, and people who have these types of views should take no solace in using his comments as an excuse to take this approach.”

The revelations come amid calls from the Muslim Council of Britain to have the police investigate the comments and for the Conservative party to launch a “full and transparent” investigation into Islamophobia in the party.

A spokesperson for the group hit out at Mr Johnson, saying that his comments about the burqa had “clearly inflamed tensions” and added that they “shone light on a simmering underbelly of ugly Islamophobia within the Conservative party”.

A Conservative party spokesperson said: “These Facebook groups are not affiliated to the Conservative Party, and the party has nothing to do with the content posted on them. We have consistently condemned online abuse and introduced measures to help clamp down on it.”

https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...s/97659/boris-johnsons-facebook-page-littered

AM9 · 20 Aug 2018

bnm said:
Like flies round a turd.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...s/97659/boris-johnsons-facebook-page-littered

When I started this thread I tried to point out that I wasn't expressing a view for or against the banning/permitting of the burqa or niqab and I don't really have a firm view on it, - it's a too controversial subject clouded with so much entrenched hatred to expect much more than bigoted religous/racial invective being posted, and it seems that I was right.
The article was, (as one might expect from a privileged education such a Johnson had) well put and a valid point of view, although I don't really have a view either way on whether those garments should be banned or not. However, I did take exception to the deliberate use of potentially insulting comparisons (the Pillar Box and Bankrobber comments) from an MP who has recently held senior office in the UK. Even worse is that it was as foreign secretary, - a post that requires sensitivity in such matters. Apart from trivialising the matter, predictably his words have unleashed the dregs of society to post hate messages (many of which are probably liable to result in prosecutions) and are almost certain to fire up retaliation from those who seek to defend their interpretation of religious culture with more than words. Time will tell but because of those two odious comments, we may live to regret this antagonistic article even if it was just intended to be playing to the baying mob. I suggest that the Conservative party inquiry may well have this in mind.

61653 HTAFC · 29 Aug 2018

Apologies for digging up this rather divisive thread, but here's a YouTube video from a (male) ex-Muslim discussing whether the hijab is a choice or not, according to the Koran.

Disclaimer: as with all interpretations of ancient fairytales, interpretations and translations can vary.

Groningen · 29 Aug 2018

it was quiet for 9 days. Has Boris done something recently or is he on holiday?

AM9 · 29 Aug 2018

Groningen said:
it was quiet for 9 days. Has Boris done something recently or is he on holiday?

He's lying low whilst the standards committee consider his abuse of religious headgear wearers' appearance.

AlterEgo · 29 Aug 2018

AM9 said:
He's lying low whilst the standards committee consider his abuse of religious headgear wearers' appearance.

More like plotting his next move.

Bromley boy · 29 Aug 2018

61653 HTAFC said:
Apologies for digging up this rather divisive thread, but here's a YouTube video from a (male) ex-Muslim discussing whether the hijab is a choice or not, according to the Koran.

Disclaimer: as with all interpretations of ancient fairytales, interpretations and translations can vary.

He’s brave.

I wonder how many death threats he’s received for airing perfectly valid and well reasoned opinions which are critical of Islam.

61653 HTAFC · 29 Aug 2018

Bromley boy said:
He’s brave.

I wonder how many death threats he’s received for airing perfectly valid and well reasoned opinions which are critical of Islam.

I've only just discovered his channel, but I gather he's received many and continues to do so.

fowler9 · 29 Aug 2018

That clip was very interesting but the quotes were all very open to interpretation. Also the veil predates Islam. As for the what Johnson said he is a politician very much in the public eye and shouldn't be making pretty poor jokes about what some women are forced to or choose to wear in their own minds like he is a pretty poor stand up comedian.

61653 HTAFC · 31 Aug 2018

fowler9 said:
That clip was very interesting but the quotes were all very open to interpretation. Also the veil predates Islam. As for the what Johnson said he is a politician very much in the public eye and shouldn't be making pretty poor jokes about what some women are forced to or choose to wear in their own minds like he is a pretty poor stand up comedian.

Most of the stuff in Islam predates Islam, just as most of the stuff in Christianity predates Christianity. It is interesting that many of the loudest voices crying "Islamophobia" are not Muslims themselves.

On Johnson's remarks, they may have been crass, unfunny and even a bit dog-whistle-y, and they may well harm (or indeed help) his political ambitions... but as he didn't advocate or encourage violence against others he had every right to say them without fear of legal reproach. I didn't like what he wrote but I'm not protected by law from reading things I don't like, nor should I be.

Bromley boy · 31 Aug 2018

61653 HTAFC said:
Most of the stuff in Islam predates Islam, just as most of the stuff in Christianity predates Christianity. It is interesting that many of the loudest voices crying "Islamophobia" are not Muslims themselves.

On Johnson's remarks, they may have been crass, unfunny and even a bit dog-whistle-y, and they may well harm (or indeed help) his political ambitions... but as he didn't advocate or encourage violence against others he had every right to say them without fear of legal reproach. I didn't like what he wrote but I'm not protected by law from reading things I don't like, nor should I be.

A very good post indeed.

WelshBluebird · 31 Aug 2018

61653 HTAFC said:
Most of the stuff in Islam predates Islam, just as most of the stuff in Christianity predates Christianity. It is interesting that many of the loudest voices crying "Islamophobia" are not Muslims themselves.

On Johnson's remarks, they may have been crass, unfunny and even a bit dog-whistle-y, and they may well harm (or indeed help) his political ambitions... but as he didn't advocate or encourage violence against others he had every right to say them without fear of legal reproach. I didn't like what he wrote but I'm not protected by law from reading things I don't like, nor should I be.

In terms of the law, totally correct. And that is perfectly right and fair.

However that doesn't mean the rest of cannot judge him based on his comments.
Certainly I don't think there should be a legal case for him to answer, but I do think there is a moral one, added together with the general principle that someone who has just been foreign secretary and is obviously trying to manoeuvre himself to end up as prime minister just shouldn't be making such crass comments.

Tbh the whole dialogue about "free speech" that is currently going on is a bit silly.
Free speech does not mean what a lot of people think it does.
It does not mean being able to say what you want without consequence.
It does not mean being able to incite violence or hate.
It does not mean being free of being judged by the rest of society.
It does not mean being able to freely break the law.
It does not mean people can't call you you being able to be a bit of a jerk / being offensive to people (often for no other purpose other than to wind them up / incite your "supporters").
It does not mean being able to say some controversial things whilst in the public eye and not look pretty silly in some cases (aka in public office you kind of expect better).
And in any case, we have never really had free speech (as in America) here.

Bromley boy · 31 Aug 2018

WelshBluebird said:
However that doesn't mean the rest of cannot judge him based on his comments.
Certainly I don't think there should be a legal case for him to answer, but I do think there is a moral one, added together with the general principle that someone who has just been foreign secretary and is obviously trying to manoeuvre himself to end up as prime minister just shouldn't be making such crass comments.

Trouble is these days there seems to be more and more “no platforming” on the basis of “causing offence”. Nobody has the right not to be offended. The ability to mock and criticise religion is an extremely important element of a free society and the criticism of one particular (regressive and unpleasant) religion seems to be becoming a no go area.

Comedian Rowan Atkinson has spoken out on this point several times before and is bang on the money.

WelshBluebird · 31 Aug 2018

Bromley boy said:
Trouble is these days there seems to be more and more “no platforming” on the basis of “causing offence”. Nobody has the right not to be offended. The ability to mock and criticise religion is an extremely important element of a free society and the criticism of one particular (regressive and unpleasant) religion seems to be becoming a no go area.

Comedian Rowan Atkinson has spoken out on this point several times before and is bang on the money.

On the other hand, nobody has a right to perform / talk / present in a university lecture theatre or community hall of whatever either.

For the rest of your post, again nothing to do with the law here, but morally surely it must depend on your intentions?
Basically there is a difference between being horrible to / about people just because you can (and because it will further your political career) and making jokes about things.
If someone is being a jerk, why can't others call them out on it?

61653 HTAFC · 31 Aug 2018

WelshBluebird said:
In terms of the law, totally correct. And that is perfectly right and fair.

However that doesn't mean the rest of cannot judge him based on his comments.
Certainly I don't think there should be a legal case for him to answer, but I do think there is a moral one, added together with the general principle that someone who has just been foreign secretary and is obviously trying to manoeuvre himself to end up as prime minister just shouldn't be making such crass comments.

Tbh the whole dialogue about "free speech" that is currently going on is a bit silly.
Free speech does not mean what a lot of people think it does.
It does not mean being able to say what you want without consequence.
It does not mean being able to incite violence or hate.
It does not mean being free of being judged by the rest of society.
It does not mean being able to freely break the law.
It does not mean people can't call you you being able to be a bit of a jerk / being offensive to people (often for no other purpose other than to wind them up / incite your "supporters").
It does not mean being able to say some controversial things whilst in the public eye and not look pretty silly in some cases (aka in public office you kind of expect better).
And in any case, we have never really had free speech (as in America) here.

I think you'll find we actually agree on the free-speech thing... though when it comes down to consequences of saying something controversial, if those are to the person's reputation then that is subjective. The post-box remarks alone will have probably gained Johnson as many supporters as detractors (whether or not they'd be the one's he'd choose). Because humour is subjective and offensiveness is equally subjective, any legislation dealing with speech should be limited to threats of (or encouragement to) violence and harm.

Again, if someone holds opinions I consider abhorrent I'd rather they feel free to express those opinions so they can be challenged. Restricting speech (beyond threats of violence or the old "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" example) doesn't make anyone safer.

fowler9 · 31 Aug 2018

61653 HTAFC said:
Most of the stuff in Islam predates Islam, just as most of the stuff in Christianity predates Christianity. It is interesting that many of the loudest voices crying "Islamophobia" are not Muslims themselves.

On Johnson's remarks, they may have been crass, unfunny and even a bit dog-whistle-y, and they may well harm (or indeed help) his political ambitions... but as he didn't advocate or encourage violence against others he had every right to say them without fear of legal reproach. I didn't like what he wrote but I'm not protected by law from reading things I don't like, nor should I be.

If I can clarify one thing it is that I do not think anyone has the right not to be offended. Being in to extreme metal I often wear t shirts that some, indeed many, would find extremely offensive. I do not wear them for work and would expect to be censored if I did in the sense of getting sent home to get changed. I am, however, not a prominent member of the Conservative party. He is constantly in the public eye and there is a damn good reason Boris Johnson is no longer foreign minister, not because he broke the law but because he is a liability.

433N · 1 Sep 2018

In response to Johnson's comments, what are the veil-wearing, Muslim women writing op-ed pieces for the Torygraph saying ?

Surely they can't all be upper-class, white twits who write for that rag.

Boris Johnson is a liability.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Guest