I've been suggesting this thread for many, many weeks now but nobody has started it so I'm going to go ahead and start it myself.

This is the thread to post allegations of "Islamophobia" in the Conservative Party.

Let's start off with the incident from the debate last night where a Muslim iman questioned the current candidates to be Conservative leader on Islamophobia.

It has since emerged that, despite being deputy head master of a school, he has posted anti-semitic tweets. He has since been suspended from his role.

Daily Mail's take on the story:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ailymailUK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BBC's take on the same story, defending having the iman as a guest:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48687744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ill give this 10 mins before its taken down.

Rowls wrote: It has since emerged that, despite being deputy head master of a school, he has posted anti-semitic tweets. He has since been suspended from his role.

Daily Mail's take on the story:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ailymailUK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BBC's take on the same story, defending having the iman as a guest:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48687744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This has nothing to do with Islamophobia in the Conservative Party. It’s almost as if that wasn’t what you wanted to talk about at all.

Well, it's been here 10 minutes already.

And it is a thread that many people have been requesting (on the Anti-semitism thread) for a long time.

So I'm hopeful there will be a few who want to contribute.

One thing for sure, when it is on the BBC and aimed at the Tories, not much is going to offend those easily offended on other certain topics.

Rob Burley, a political editor at the BBC, has just tweeted to claim that apparently the iman's twitter account was de-activated before he was invited on the show so the BBC were unable to reference his tweets and perform checks on his suitability before he was allowed to question the Conservative leadership candidates on the subject of Islamophobia.

I'll play...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/m ... lamophobia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ia-bigotry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-17/dos ... y-members/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48083415" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... y-14716386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or use google, its easier...

Classic Rowls

I'm slowly realising that whatever we've done as a country over the centuries, nothing can compare to our shame in producing Rowls.

Rick_Muller wrote:I'll play...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/m ... lamophobia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ia-bigotry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-17/dos ... y-members/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48083415" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... y-14716386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or use google, its easier...

Thanks Rick.

All of these links do appear to reference the same story, apart from the second which is much more general.

Essentially, a leak from Conservative head office has claimed that the party are investigating up to 110 (IRO 100) complaints of "Islamophobia".

However, despite all this we have no details of any specific instances or specific allegations.

We can discuss anything about allegations of "Islamophobia" in the Conservative Party so your links are fair game but unfortunately as they don't contain details of any specific allegations, all we can say is that some people have accused the Conservative Party of "Islamophobia".

For the sake of contrast, whenever I linked an article of an allegation of anti-semitism in the anti-semitism thread it referred to specific allegation. I also think it will be best to limit posts linking the same story to two. Iit's good to have a different perspective but four on the same story is a bit much.

One of the people who has accused the Conservative Party of "Islamophobia" has written the second article which you linked. It contains no allegations of instances of "Islamophobia"; it simply lists a number of figures from polls etc.

It is written by Miqdaad Versi who is assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Given the lack of specific allegations and the complete lack of any specific instance, it might be difficult to debate what significance these articles have other than some people (mainly Baroness Warsi and the Muslim Council of Britain) have accused the Conservative Party of harbouring people with "Islamophobic" beliefs.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Classic Rowls

I'm slowly realising that whatever we've done as a country over the centuries, nothing can compare to our shame in producing Rowls.

Yet another considered and carefully chosen opinion Lancaster?

Yup

its evidence based as well.

You should really give that approach a try

I see nothing wrong with being phobic or anti any faith-based culture.

Rowls wrote:I've been suggesting this thread for many, many weeks now but nobody has started it so I'm going to go ahead and start it myself.

This is the thread to post allegations of "Islamophobia" in the Conservative Party.

Let's start off with the incident from the debate last night where a Muslim iman questioned the current candidates to be Conservative leader on Islamophobia.

It has since emerged that, despite being deputy head master of a school, he has posted anti-semitic tweets. He has since been suspended from his role.

Daily Mail's take on the story:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ailymailUK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BBC's take on the same story, defending having the iman as a guest:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48687744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It has since emerged that, despite being deputy head master of a school, he has posted anti-semitic tweets. He has since been suspended from his role.

If you wanted to post highlighting incidents of antisemitism in deputy head masters then you need to post a thread titled Anti-semitism in deputy headmasters, this thread is for Islamophobia in the Tory Party. Come on Rowls, surely you know your own rules.

I quite like Rory's take on the racism argument, listen from 1:47:30ish on this link https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00061wh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's some specific examples for you though:

We have the story on the conservatives not being willing to adopt the working definition of Islamophobia (I'm not convinced that this is Islamophobia but if the labour equivalent was anti-semitism then I guess it would be classed as such). These 14 members (not high profile politicians) who were suspended suggest it's a bit more widespread https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lamophobia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , or these 40 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... tory-posts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; these 15 who were reinstated https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... reinstated" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; etc.

I don't think many who followed it at the time (including conservatives http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... -khan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) would deny that Goldsmith ran a negative campaign with a large emphasis on Khan being a Muslim and why that was bad (entertainingly he'd have had a pretty good chance of winning if his campaigning tactics hadn't been so transparent).

aggi wrote:If you wanted to post highlighting incidents of antisemitism in deputy head masters then you need to post a thread titled Anti-semitism in deputy headmasters, this thread is for Islamophobia in the Tory Party. Come on Rowls, surely you know your own rules.

It is relevant here because the anti-semitic tweets were made by the man who posed the questions about "Islamophobia".

I thought the link was evident but I'll spell it out to you - it raises the question of whether there is a link between questioning (or accusing) the Conservative Party of "Islamophobia" and making actual anti-semitic tweets.

If the Conservative Party is festering with "Islamophobia" (as the Muslim Council of Britain alleges) it would harm the fight against what might be true Islamophobia if the debate is taken primarily up be known anti-semites, wouldn't you agree?

The under 21's lost to a very late own goal against France yesterday.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Classic Rowls

I'm slowly realising that whatever we've done as a country over the centuries, nothing can compare to our shame in producing Rowls.

A proud British tory living abroad.

"This has nothing to do with Islamophobia in the Conservative Party. It’s almost as if that wasn’t what you wanted to talk about at all."

Surely not.

aggi wrote:Here's some specific examples for you though:

We have the story on the conservatives not being willing to adopt the working definition of Islamophobia (I'm not convinced that this is Islamophobia but if the labour equivalent was anti-semitism then I guess it would be classed as such). These 14 members (not high profile politicians) who were suspended suggest it's a bit more widespread https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lamophobia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , or these 40 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... tory-posts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; these 15 who were reinstated https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... reinstated" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; etc.

I don't think many who followed it at the time (including conservatives http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... -khan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) would deny that Goldsmith ran a negative campaign with a large emphasis on Khan being a Muslim and why that was bad (entertainingly he'd have had a pretty good chance of winning if his campaigning tactics hadn't been so transparent).

Hi aggi

I can find two concrete examples within your first two links (which appears to be pretty much the same story) and both Conservative members were suspended.

There's no more word on specific instances that may relate to Conservative members. There are plenty of quotes (some of which are undoubtedly Islamophobic) but they are unattributed and one is assigned to a "Conservative supporter" which implies strongly that this is not a person who is actually a member of the party or else they would have been described so.

There is no further mention of what outcome any investigation may have reached, or even if it is ongoing.

There's a lot of vagueness in the accusations unfortunately. It seems that the Guardian haven't been as effective in capturing, for example, screenshots of of these comments, as has been possible in many of the allegations of anti-semitism in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party.

As for the Conservative's refusal to accept the Muslim Council of Britain's definition of "Islamophobia" I think we can discount this as a red herring. The definition of anti-semitism which Labour refused to accept is globally accepted. The MCB definition of "Islamophobia" is brand new, not an internationally recognized definition and has come under intense criticism for conflating condemnation of abusive religious practices with "Islamophobia".

As for for Goldsmith's campaign, it was undoubtedly "negative" but almost all political campaigns have negative elements. Was it unreasonable to highlight the fact that Saddiq Khan has shared platforms with extremist Islamists? I think it is a legitimate debating point. Khan stated that sharing a platform with these people did not equate to agreeing with them; in fact he went so far as to say that he shared the platform in order to disagree with them publicly.

Would it be fair game to highlight, for example, a Conservative MP who shared a platform with the BNP in order to publicly disagree with them? Yes, I think it would.

Finally, there's a quote from one of the Guardian articles that I find particularly good. It comes from the chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, Mohammed Amin:

The article quotes:"Amin said his party had historically been slow in “coming to terms with the way our country had changed over the last 60s years”. “There is a problem, in my view, particularly at grassroots level, with far too many people who have absorbed anti-Muslim bigotry, because there is quite a lot of it around,” he said.

“In terms of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam – 9/11, 7/7 etc – it’s quite easy to see where these anti-Muslim ideas come from. But the party as a whole, in my view, hasn’t succeeded in getting to grips with that.”

“There is one fundamental change that is required,” Amin said. “There needs to be a more transparent process, much clearer criteria, which are published. Not just criteria for suspending people but criteria for unsuspending people.

“I personally don’t necessarily have a problem with unsuspending people who have apologised and undergone diversity training, for example. But what we need is a clear published rule book.” "

Tricky Trevor wrote:A proud British tory living abroad.

Cheers Trevor, though I fail to see the relevance.

Particularly to this thread subject.

'Islamaphobia' really is an Oxymoron isn't it?

I don't think there's any irrational thought in having a fear of Islam...

Would you want to live in an orthadox Islamic Caliphate?.... Because I certainly wouldn't want to.

martin_p wrote:This has nothing to do with Islamophobia in the Conservative Party. It’s almost as if that wasn’t what you wanted to talk about at all.

It wasn't. We both know what Rowls wants to talk about. Just wait, he'll out himself.

Rowls wrote: If the Conservative Party is festering with "Islamophobia" (as the Muslim Council of Britain alleges) it would harm the fight against what might be true Islamophobia if the debate is taken primarily up be known anti-semites, wouldn't you agree?

It’s certainly hugely hypocritical to be talking about islamophobia on the one hand and making anti Semitic comments on the other, but that shouldn’t stop the accusations being taken seriously.

Would you want the views of a Brit enjoying the benefits of EU membership while living abroad who argues for leaving the EU to be ignored? It’s similar in it’s hypocritical nature.

martin_p wrote:This has nothing to do with Islamophobia in the Conservative Party. It’s almost as if that wasn’t what you wanted to talk about at all.

Hi martin

Sorry I missed your post!

It has a lot to do with alleged "Islamophobia" in the Conservative Party: The man in question (who has posted anti-semitic tweets) was the man who the BBC publicly chose to question the Conservative leadership candidates on the subject of alleged "Islamophobia" in the Conservative Party.

If we're discussing alleged "Islamophobia" in the Conservative Party then it is fair game to discuss whether there is a link between anti-semites and these accusations against the Conservative Party.

Allegations of Islamophobia should be treated seriously and it is vital that the fight against Islamophobia should not be hi-jacked by anti-semites who may have an anti-Jewish agenda. I hope you agree. What good is fighting racism if those fighting racism are simply racist in a different way?

Don't you imgaine that the BBC are kicking themselves today for having had the misfortune to pick an open anti-semite as the man they chose to raise the issue?

It's a rotten coincidence and plenty of BBC staff are either explaining or openly apologizing for having given airtime to this man.

martin_p wrote:It’s certainly hugely hypocritical to be talking about islamophobia on the one hand and making anti Semitic comments on the other, but that shouldn’t stop the accusations being taken seriously.

Would you want the views of a Brit enjoying the benefits of EU membership while living abroad who argues for leaving the EU to be ignored? It’s similar in it’s hypocritical nature.

I've answered your first point above. Apart from it being a misfortunate coincidence for the BBC, the fact that it was an open anti-semite should not stop the accusation being taken seriously but it will undermine any accusation that comes from him. After all, what motivates people who are openly anti-semitic?

Do you think we should take the words of openly racist people on face value? I hope not.

As for your childish second point which is evidently referring to me - you have the same EU citizenship benefits as I do and are (and have been) free to do exactly as I have. Your analogy simply doesn't work. Are you implying that moving to France made me an anti-semite like the iman in question? Or are you imply that Euro-scepticism / Supporting the EU is the same dichotomy as anti-semitic / not anti-semitic? If you want to try and explain it again and you can make it about something which is on topic then go ahead. It's a very confused point and doesn't appear to have any basis in logic.

However if you want to be churlish about off topic matters start a new thread.

11 times in this thread (12 if you include the title) Rowls has used "Conservative Party" in his posts and not once has he referred to is at "Theresa May's Conservative Party"

And yet in the anti-semitism thread is seems like literally every single time he mention's the Labour Party it's always "Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party".

Is anyone really under the illusion that rowls gives a **** about racism?

It's funny, because in this thread he concern trolls about how it would be damaging to the arguments of those who oppose Islamophobia in the Conservative Party if they embrace the argument made by someone who is demonstrably anti-semitic, yet here he is, demonstrably partisan in how he argues against racism and thus damaging the arguments against racism by being a hypocrite.


The fight against racism would love more conservative voices to join it, but the hypocritical ones can **** off. That's you, Rowls.

Hi Turtle

We all know how you enjoy links and "facts" that back up what you have to say.

So can you find anything -anything at all- to link these allegations of "Islamophobia" to Theresa May in the same way that the allegations of anti-semitism in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party centre around his supporters and the man himself?

Rowls wrote:Hi Turtle

We all know how you enjoy links and "facts" that back up what you have to say.

So can you find anything -anything at all- to link these allegations of "Islamophobia" to Theresa May in the same way that the allegations of anti-semitism in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party centre around his supporters and the man himself?

And now we're back to Rowls arguing that you are responsibly for the actions of, nay - allegations faced by your supporters - if you're a lefty.

It's just hypocrisy all the way down with him.

Imploding Turtle wrote:11 times in this thread (12 if you include the title) Rowls has used "Conservative Party" in his posts and not once has he referred to is at "Theresa May's Conservative Party"

And yet in the anti-semitism thread is seems like literally every single time he mention's the Labour Party it's always "Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party".

Is anyone really under the illusion that rowls gives a **** about racism?

It's funny, because in this thread he concern trolls about how it would be damaging to the arguments of those who oppose Islamophobia in the Conservative Party if they embrace the argument made by someone who is demonstrably anti-semitic, yet here he is, demonstrably partisan in how he argues against racism and thus damaging the arguments against racism by being a hypocrite.


The fight against racism would love more conservative voices to join it, but the hypocritical ones can **** off. That's you, Rowls.

Yep

I also noticed how on this threads it's all about "Allegations of 'Islamophobia' " (in scare quotes), yet the other thread is all about "anti-semitism", full-stop.

It's incredibly transparent.

Your regular reminder that Rowls doesn't give a toss about racism unless he can use it as a stick to beat the Labour party (sorry - "Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party") with :-

Greenmile wrote:Of course Rowls wants us to call out the horrific everyday racism against white men, but funny how he seems a bit more equivocal (to be generous) when it comes to calling out racism against black people, as demonstrated by his contributions to the following threads.

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... =2&t=20819" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... =2&t=19545" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... =2&t=15439" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greenmile wrote:This morning I searched your posts for the word "racism". I've just tried doing the same for the word "racist". Here's what I came up with...

Rowls throwing the racist epithet "Japs" around with wild abandon (and calling out anti-white racism in the same thread).

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... st#p655610" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rowls defending racist comments from a Labour MP (whilst still managing to have a go at Labour)

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... st#p562346" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rowls claiming the Daily Mail isn't racist

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... st#p418898" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's just from the first page (along with the three threads linked earlier).

I did also find a comment condemning Le Front National as racists, to be fair, but only in an effort to defend Brexit.

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... st#p392319" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am weary of making this point, but what the imam said was not racist, at least in the statements quoted in the Daily Mail. It may have been offensive and it may have offended many Jews, but it includes no racial slurs against Jews as a race.

I feel very strongly about this because I am deeply critical of the racism and brutality endemic in Israel's abuse of the Palestinian people it has subdued through acts of war, but I am not a racist. Just the opposite, my criticism of Israel is in part due to my hatred of racism.

Rowls wrote:It is relevant here because the anti-semitic tweets were made by the man who posed the questions about "Islamophobia".

I thought the link was evident but I'll spell it out to you - it raises the question of whether there is a link between questioning (or accusing) the Conservative Party of "Islamophobia" and making actual anti-semitic tweets.

If the Conservative Party is festering with "Islamophobia" (as the Muslim Council of Britain alleges) it would harm the fight against what might be true Islamophobia if the debate is taken primarily up be known anti-semites, wouldn't you agree?

I don't think anyone (except possibly you, I can't really tell) is suggesting those doing the accusing are primarily anti-semites. One individual doesn't really mean much either way, or are you suggesting that the Muslim Council of Britain are known anti-semites, your point isn't really clear.

Rowls wrote:Hi aggi

I can find two concrete examples within your first two links (which appears to be pretty much the same story) and both Conservative members were suspended.

There's no more word on specific instances that may relate to Conservative members. There are plenty of quotes (some of which are undoubtedly Islamophobic) but they are unattributed and one is assigned to a "Conservative supporter" which implies strongly that this is not a person who is actually a member of the party or else they would have been described so.

There is no further mention of what outcome any investigation may have reached, or even if it is ongoing.

There's a lot of vagueness in the accusations unfortunately. It seems that the Guardian haven't been as effective in capturing, for example, screenshots of of these comments, as has been possible in many of the allegations of anti-semitism in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party.

As for the Conservative's refusal to accept the Muslim Council of Britain's definition of "Islamophobia" I think we can discount this as a red herring. The definition of anti-semitism which Labour refused to accept is globally accepted. The MCB definition of "Islamophobia" is brand new, not an internationally recognized definition and has come under intense criticism for conflating condemnation of abusive religious practices with "Islamophobia".

As for for Goldsmith's campaign, it was undoubtedly "negative" but almost all political campaigns have negative elements. Was it unreasonable to highlight the fact that Saddiq Khan has shared platforms with extremist Islamists? I think it is a legitimate debating point. Khan stated that sharing a platform with these people did not equate to agreeing with them; in fact he went so far as to say that he shared the platform in order to disagree with them publicly.

Would it be fair game to highlight, for example, a Conservative MP who shared a platform with the BNP in order to publicly disagree with them? Yes, I think it would.

Finally, there's a quote from one of the Guardian articles that I find particularly good. It comes from the chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, Mohammed Amin:

The article quotes:"Amin said his party had historically been slow in “coming to terms with the way our country had changed over the last 60s years”. “There is a problem, in my view, particularly at grassroots level, with far too many people who have absorbed anti-Muslim bigotry, because there is quite a lot of it around,” he said.

“In terms of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam – 9/11, 7/7 etc – it’s quite easy to see where these anti-Muslim ideas come from. But the party as a whole, in my view, hasn’t succeeded in getting to grips with that.”

“There is one fundamental change that is required,” Amin said. “There needs to be a more transparent process, much clearer criteria, which are published. Not just criteria for suspending people but criteria for unsuspending people.

“I personally don’t necessarily have a problem with unsuspending people who have apologised and undergone diversity training, for example. But what we need is a clear published rule book.” "

I guess I could just say that I'm not passing comment on the examples either - I'm just posting them for people to examine and consider for the themselves but that would be a cop out.

There were some captured screenshots you'll be glad to know:



Or a few more:
https://twitter.com/MatesJacob/status/1 ... 6068381696" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/th ... s-who-made" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/to ... slim-memes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... e-16204308" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c39f ... 3f81256d20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And obviously you're very keen on Jeremy Corbyn taking responsbility for his anti-semitic followers so I assume you'll have the same view re: Johnson
https://twitter.com/MatesJacob/status/1 ... 9190470656" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the Conservative's refusal to accept the Muslim Council of Britain's definition of "Islamophobia" This wasn't a MCB definition. It was the definition of Islamophobia produced by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims which was produced after consultation with legal experts, MPs, and Muslim groups.

Finally, there's a quote from one of the Guardian articles that I find particularly good.. It's good that you do acknowledge that the Tory Party has a problem with Islamophobia, you seemed to have been denying it for a while.

Was this the guy in Bristol?

The only thing that I found slightly irritating about his question was that it was deliberately aimed at one of the 5 contenders in a way that was pretty much designed to put the guy in a disadvantageous position and hence didn't really stick to any remit of being fair and independent.

From recollection, there wasn't anything anti-Semitic about the question, that cropped in the way that one of the contenders answered the question - and I don't suppose that anti-Semitism was what was on the questioner's mind. That was concentrated on all the dickish and racist things that Mr. Johnson has said in the past that are, of course, not important because silly old Boris was just being so funny. See multiple other threads. I suppose the real question will be whether the 160,000 also see this as Boris being silly and funny - and a fair proportion of them probably will because they are, unfortunately, of a like mind.

timshorts wrote:Was this the guy in Bristol?

The only thing that I found slightly irritating about his question was that it was deliberately aimed at one of the 5 contenders in a way that was pretty much designed to put the guy in a disadvantageous position and hence didn't really stick to any remit of being fair and independent.

From recollection, there wasn't anything anti-Semitic about the question, that cropped in the way that one of the contenders answered the question - and I don't suppose that anti-Semitism was what was on the questioner's mind. That was concentrated on all the dickish and racist things that Mr. Johnson has said in the past that are, of course, not important because silly old Boris was just being so funny. See multiple other threads. I suppose the real question will be whether the 160,000 also see this as Boris being silly and funny - and a fair proportion of them probably will because they are, unfortunately, of a like mind.

HE's not really being silly and funny though. It's a front. It's calculated.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/my-boris-story/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Definitely seems like there is some kind of issue with Islamophobia in the Tory Party
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... bers-would" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Obviously I understand that for Rowls this isn't evidence as it doesn't individually name each person surveyed.)

So Labour don't like Judaism and the Tories don't like Islam?

How have the Catholics/Christians got away with being liked for so long?

Rowls has absolutely ruined the usual suspects on these two threads, it has to be said

Imploding Turtle wrote:11 times in this thread (12 if you include the title) Rowls has used "Conservative Party" in his posts and not once has he referred to is at "Theresa May's Conservative Party"

I suspect that's for the same reason that he hasn't described it as "William Hague's Conservative Party", or "Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party", or "Benjamin Disraeli's Conservative Party". You don't use the names of former leaders as a descriptor.

dsr wrote:I suspect that's for the same reason that he hasn't described it as "William Hague's Conservative Party", or "Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party", or "Benjamin Disraeli's Conservative Party". You don't use the names of former leaders as a descriptor.

You don't suspect that at all. You're just providing a convenient explanation that Rowls wasn't able to think of because we all know what his reason is.

We'll see how long he lasts calling it Boris Johnson's or Jeremy Hunt's Conservative party before he forgets to maintain the pretence, or just doesn't want to.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You don't suspect that at all.

Actually, you're right. I really suspect that you had completely forgotten about Theresa May resigning on 7th June, but unlike [some people] I choose to be a bit more subtle about telling you so.

Are you a civilised person if you are not critical of 1st Century thinking and practices?

I don't see the point of the thread, Rowls. It's just bitcherama.

Sort the problem.

I don't fear having four wives

dsr wrote:Actually, you're right. I really suspect that you had completely forgotten about Theresa May resigning on 7th June, but unlike [some people] I choose to be a bit more subtle about telling you so.

Then let me clarify the facts for you. At the time of posting it i had forgotten that she was no longer leader. I had remembered a few minutes after posting while trying to imagine what defence Rowls would put up to explain the apparent hypocrisy. That defence would have been a fair one, although i personally wouldn't have believed him and just assumed that it was a defence created after the fact, but i'd have had no way to prove it so i'd have let it be.

Unfortunately though Rowls didn't offer that explanation, which means he hadn't have thought of it, which in turn means it wasn't a factor when making his repeated references to the Conservative Party.

And of course, just because a party is currently leaderless, or even if it had a new leader, there would be nothing preventing Rowls from referring to them as Theresa May's Conservative Party since it wad been her party between 2016 and 2019, so any Islamophobia discovered during that time would naturally be islamophobia in Theresa May's Conservative Party. But, like I said, he hadn't thought of it because it's not why he wasn't calling it Theresa May's Conservative Party. The reason he wasn't calling it that is because, like so many of you, he is a hypocrite who doesn't give a **** about racism unless he can use it against people whose opinions he doesn't like.

Rowls wrote: Let's start off with the incident from the debate last night where a Muslim iman questioned the current candidates to be Conservative leader on Islamophobia.

It has since emerged that, despite being deputy head master of a school, he has posted anti-semitic tweets. He has since been suspended from his role.

Crikey, an anti Semitic Muslim. Whatever next, an Islamophobic Jew?

You're a Tory and and hate the Labour party, by your logic that means you shouldn't be able to question their policies because you're anti-Labour.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Then let me clarify the facts for you. At the time of posting it i had forgotten that she was no longer leader. I had remembered a few minutes after posting while trying to imagine what defence Rowls would put up to explain the apparent hypocrisy. That defence would have been a fair one, although i personally wouldn't have believed him and just assumed that it was a defence created after the fact, but i'd have had no way to prove it so i'd have let it be.

Unfortunately though Rowls didn't offer that explanation, which means he hadn't have thought of it, which in turn means it wasn't a factor when making his repeated references to the Conservative Party.

And of course, just because a party is currently leaderless, or even if it had a new leader, there would be nothing preventing Rowls from referring to them as Theresa May's Conservative Party since it wad been her party between 2016 and 2019, so any Islamophobia discovered during that time would naturally be islamophobia in Theresa May's Conservative Party. But, like I said, he hadn't thought of it because it's not why he wasn't calling it Theresa May's Conservative Party. The reason he wasn't calling it that is because, like so many of you, he is a hypocrite who doesn't give a **** about racism unless he can use it against people whose opinions he doesn't like.

You might think that people who talk about "Frank Lampard's Derby County" but note "Tony Mowbray's Blackburn Rovers" are inconsistent. You might even think they're a bit odd. But hypocritical? You must have a very, very low threshhold for what constitutes hypocrisy.

Pstotto wrote:I don't see the point of the thread, Rowls. It's just bitcherama.

Sort the problem.

I don't fear having four wives

I've had one - you should fear four Pete...!!!

Maybe I'll have somebody else's instead then....