The Politics Thread 2019

[Anon]

12 minutes ago, ramesses said:

I’ve just read that article for the first time.

Yes, it was clear that he didn’t support an ‘outright ban’ on something ‘only a tiny, tiny minority of women’ wear. However it was also clear that he was deliberately and repetitively using negative (and mocking) language and comparisons.

The main thrust of the article was to criticize and mock and I find it hard to believe that anyone reading that article would come away thinking that Johnson’s main focus was ‘defending people’s right to wear them’…

Oh no. He made fun of a ridiculous item of religious dress whilst defending people's right to wear it. Where's the fainting couch?

[GboroRam]

55 minutes ago, Curtains said:

That was in 2015. 

 

A leopard never changes it’s spots 

I see Thornberry is now suing a fellow former Labour MP now 

 

Is that Les Dawson? 

[Sith Happens]

27 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Diana Abbot been a 'racist' is not important. Doubt any white person has ever suffered slightly from the stupid comments she made.

Johnson using Letterboxes, Watermelon Smiles and Bum Boys is important. It gives idiots the green light to use such words to mock Johnson targets. He would be severely disciplined for using such language in the workplace. If you don't agree, get a few colleagues to stand around a black person at work and get them all to laugh at the "watermelon smile". Or point at a muslim customer and tell her she looks like a letterbox.

Lots of people, irrespective of colour of their skin, have been hurt as a result of the actions taken by terrorists which she openly applauded though.

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, Uptherams said:

I can't believe the lineup of candidates for next Labour leader. Boris will be PM for 10 years. 

Nah. He’ll have heart attack on the job or die leaping from Laura Kuenssberg’s window or something. 

[ramesses]

22 minutes ago, Anon said:

Oh no. He made fun of a ridiculous item of religious dress whilst defending people's right to wear it. Where's the fainting couch?

Thanks for posting up the link to the article. I thought people might be overreacting to a bit of mild humour or some loose language - but they weren’t. The use of language and the mocking was all quite deliberate wasn't it. 

And Johnson not supporting an outright ban really does not constitute a defence of ‘people’s rights to wear it’.

[Norman]

4 minutes ago, ramesses said:

And Johnson not supporting an outright ban really does not constitute a defence of ‘people’s rights to wear it’.

Well, he is the Prime Minister who doesn't support a ban and has no plans to introduce a ban. 

So I think that does constitute the right to wear it. 

[Anon]

7 minutes ago, ramesses said:

Thanks for posting up the link to the article. I thought people might be overreacting to a bit of mild humour or some loose language - but they weren’t. The use of language and the mocking was all quite deliberate wasn't it. 

And Johnson not supporting an outright ban really does not constitute a defence of ‘people’s rights to wear it’.

I imagine it was deliberate. I'd be surprised if he managed to write and publish an article by accident. I don't care if he wants to mock religious dress. The niqab is a ridiculous garment.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

Diana Abbot been a 'racist' is not important. Doubt any white person has ever suffered slightly from the stupid comments she made.

Johnson using Letterboxes, Watermelon Smiles and Bum Boys is important. It gives idiots the green light to use such words to mock Johnson targets. He would be severely disciplined for using such language in the workplace. If you don't agree, get a few colleagues to stand around a black person at work and get them all to laugh at the "watermelon smile". Or point at a muslim customer and tell her she looks like a letterbox.

And there is your problem right there.

Wont bother trying to explain why it is important because you wont be interested anyway.

[G STAR RAM]

4 hours ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Cornwall, Yorkshire, Scotland.

Finally a qualifying group they might win.

Let's not exaggerate. 

They certainly should be looking at a top 3 finish though.

[FindernRam]

3 hours ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

find a back street pub in East Kilbride, there are some with opaque windows.

Pop in, state the above view, and then gather their feedback.

Many moons ago up there I was the intended victim of a street mugging, but a "Glasgow kiss" and showing him how to kick a ball took care of that, the copper that happened by said if I'd kicked him harder he "wud nae be makin s'much row". Different times.

Actually most Scots I know (I have family connections) are very nice people, do not want to split and don't really like the SNP due to their incompetence with things they can control!

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

Diana Abbot been a 'racist' is not important. Doubt any white person has ever suffered slightly from the stupid comments she made.

Johnson using Letterboxes, Watermelon Smiles and Bum Boys is important. It gives idiots the green light to use such words to mock Johnson targets. He would be severely disciplined for using such language in the workplace. If you don't agree, get a few colleagues to stand around a black person at work and get them all to laugh at the "watermelon smile". Or point at a muslim customer and tell her she looks like a letterbox.

Ridiculous post, you should be ashamed of yourself. 

[ariotofmyown]

20 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Ridiculous post, you should be ashamed of yourself. 

Ok, I want to see video evidence tomorrow of you and @G STAR RAM at work laughing along with colleagues whilst you mock different minorities using the same language as our esteemed leader. You have nothing to worry about as it's perfectly fine to say these things.

[Norman]

Just now, ariotofmyown said:

Ok, I want to see video evidence tomorrow of you and @G STAR RAM at work laughing along with colleagues whilst you mock different minorities using the same language as our esteemed leader. You have nothing to worry about as it's perfectly fine to say these things.

I think you have missed the point because your eyes are smeared with hypocrisy. 

[ariotofmyown]

45 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

And there is your problem right there.

Wont bother trying to explain why it is important because you wont be interested anyway.

Is it important because white people were enslaved by black people for years? I'm so sick of been controlled by the blacks. How many more white criminals must be locked up before we get justice!

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, ariotofmyown said:

Is it important because white people were enslaved by black people for years? I'm so sick of been controlled by the blacks. How many more white criminals must be locked up before we get justice!

So black people get free reign to do anything they want against white people because their ancestors were kept as slaves?

I assume you have no problem with me abusing Germans given what they tried to do to my ancestors?

 

[ariotofmyown]

Just now, Norman said:

I think you have missed the point because your eyes are smeared with hypocrisy. 

Or you have to do is say you think it's cool to say Watermelon Smile when describing a black person. Or ok to laugh at a Muslim women by calling her a letterbox. Or use bum boys when arguing that section 28 shouldn't have been repealed and gays should not be allowed in the military.

And before you say whataboutevilracistdianneabbot, yes she said some racist things, she apologised and almost certainly no white people suffered any ill effects.

[Norman]

10 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Or you have to do is say you think it's cool to say Watermelon Smile when describing a black person. Or ok to laugh at a Muslim women by calling her a letterbox. Or use bum boys when arguing that section 28 shouldn't have been repealed and gays should not be allowed in the military.

And before you say whataboutevilracistdianneabbot, yes she said some racist things, she apologised and almost certainly no white people suffered any ill effects.

Has anyone said it was? You have the missed the point. You're too busy getting tangled in race again. He is pointing out the hypocrisy. 

Oh, and something else. It's annoying me. 

Not 'been'. 

[Uptherams]

1 hour ago, Norman said:

Well, he is the Prime Minister who doesn't support a ban and has no plans to introduce a ban. 

So I think that does constitute the right to wear it. 

Just looked at all the countries in Europe it is already banned in. It's a political symbol, not religious. The argument for it is utterly ridiculous. Next up, why honour killings should carry shorter sentences than murder.  I'd prefer no ban but it will be inevitable soon to preserve actual freedom in the UK. 

I only view the thing in a negative way. Can someone actually give me some real positives for them and no their husbands letting them out of the house if they wear one is not a positive. 

[ramesses]

1 hour ago, Anon said:

I imagine it was deliberate. I'd be surprised if he managed to write and publish an article by accident. I don't care if he wants to mock religious dress. The niqab is a ridiculous garment.

Thanks again for posting the article; I’d not have read it otherwise.

I think we now agree that its main purpose was to deliberately criticize and mock and that it was not written with the intent of being some kind of defence of ‘people’s right to wear it’.

[Anon]

26 minutes ago, ramesses said:

Thanks again for posting the article; I’d not have read it otherwise.

I think we now agree that its main purpose was to deliberately criticize and mock and that it was not written with the intent of being some kind of defence of ‘people’s right to wear it’.

I don't see how mockery of the garment and defence of the right to wear it are mutually exclusive.