Prime minister Boris

[burnleymik]

Read the Labour manifesto rather than getting your misinformation from Tory rags. Like I said no other politician in the U.K. is lied about as much.

Manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on. That goes for all parties. Absolutely worthless.

[Imploding Turtle]

Providing of course that any substance is actually deemed to exist.

Then criticise the lack of substance. But that's not what they do, they attack the poster.

[Imploding Turtle]

Of course some people like to prevent themselves from being presented with opposing points of view that they can't refute by blocking what they post.
That's another way that people on here often combat opposing arguments.

Can't believe turtle posted that.. Haha. My irony meter just exploded.

[Jakubclaret]

Then criticise the lack of substance. But that's not what they do, they attack the poster.

I'm not sure about that I haven't commented on the trump thread (no interest) pretty sure I haven't, if it's anything like the Brexit threads I'm surmising it's a similar theme in the context pattern of posting, if you've been unfairly attacked I'm certainly not responsible.

[Imploding Turtle]

I'm not sure about that I haven't commented on the trump thread (no interest) pretty sure I haven't, if it's anything like the Brexit threads I'm surmising it's a similar theme in the context pattern of posting, if you've been unfairly attacked I'm certainly not responsible.

I don't believe i accused you of being responsible.

[Jakubclaret]

I don't believe i accused you of being responsible.

You hadn't I never said you had, stop being so defensive & take onboard what the other person counters you may be approached more
amIably without any unnecessary hostility. Just my advice take it or leave it, I'm not bothered.

[dsr]

Come off it, mate. I've a lot of sympathy for those women who are clearly being held back by an archaic, anachronistic, conservative, patriarchal set of cultural and religious values, but the article Johnson wrote is nothing more than a dog-whistle on two accounts: the implied assumption of inherent criminality ("bank robbers") in muslims, and the dehumanising comparison to a letter box; racism for dummies lesson 1: turn the subject into an object. You can try to create context all you want, one which uses supposed liberal values to add a veneer of respectability to subtly racist worldview, but it doesn't change the fact that Johnson is pandering to the worst elements of our person.

The dehumanising comparison is probably deliberate. And probably fair and accurate. What would you call it when a human being is forced to dress from head to foot in shapeless black clothes so that none of her hair, face, or figure can be seen; when she is not allowed any opinion other than her husband's; when she is, as AndrewJB puts it, voiceless. The idea is surely to emphasise that she is not an individual human being, but that she is only a woman. One hundred years ago, women were granted the vote for the first time. How about adapting Obama's slogan, "no woman left behind"?

There may not be very many of them - is anyone counting? - but it isn't right to write them off and say they don't matter.

And before anyone asks, there are three groups who wear the burka or nikab:

1. Those who genuinely want to;
2. Those who don't want to but feel that their society would treat them too badly to be worth the effort of casting it off;
3. Those who are forced into it by some sort of abusive family relationship.

2 and 3 need to be put a stop to.

One more thought. Seventy or eighty years ago it was pretty much a cultural necessity that women should wear hats in church. A woman who turned up to church without a hat would be a pariah. That was unreasonable, and wrong, albeit biblically based (on the words of St Paul, not Jesus) and has been dropped - and it is now seen as a pointless and meaningless custom. And that was an hour or two per week, and was just a hat. How much more pointless and meaningless is the pillar box outfit?

[Imploding Turtle]

You hadn't I never said you had, stop being so defensive & take onboard what the other person counters you may be approached more
amIably without any unnecessary hostility. Just my advice take it or leave it, I'm not bothered.

I wasn't being defensive. I was making a point in response to your defensive declaration that you weren't responsible.

[AndrewJB]

Manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on. That goes for all parties. Absolutely worthless.

You won't believe anything in a party manifesto, but you believe a Corbyn related article in the Express?

[Jakubclaret]

I wasn't being defensive. I was making a point in response to your defensive declaration that you weren't responsible.

You're a clearly a headstrong sort of person with regards to posting, rightly or wrongly I'm not the judge, sometimes you need to take step back & digest the opposing view & then counter with more articulate force & meaning to reinforce the reply. I can see why certain posters attack (rightly or wrongly again). Step back analyse the reply & act accordingly. You're not getting a argument from me tonight or any more replies, I'm signing out, night.

[Imploding Turtle]

You're a clearly a headstrong sort of person with regards to posting, rightly or wrongly I'm not the judge, sometimes you need to take step back & digest the opposing view & then counter with more articulate force & meaning to reinforce the reply. I can see why certain posters attack (rightly or wrongly again). Step back analyse the reply & act accordingly. You're not getting a argument from me tonight or any more replies, I'm signing out, night.

So, you can post a comment suggesting I did something. I'll point out that what is being suggested wasn't something I did. You'll then accuse me of being defensive. I'll issue a denial. And now you're accusing me of posting without thinking.

I think you should get some sleep.

[AndrewJB]

The dehumanising comparison is probably deliberate. And probably fair and accurate. What would you call it when a human being is forced to dress from head to foot in shapeless black clothes so that none of her hair, face, or figure can be seen; when she is not allowed any opinion other than her husband's; when she is, as AndrewJB puts it, voiceless. The idea is surely to emphasise that she is not an individual human being, but that she is only a woman. One hundred years ago, women were granted the vote for the first time. How about adapting Obama's slogan, "no woman left behind"?

There may not be very many of them - is anyone counting? - but it isn't right to write them off and say they don't matter.

And before anyone asks, there are three groups who wear the burka or nikab:

1. Those who genuinely want to;
2. Those who don't want to but feel that their society would treat them too badly to be worth the effort of casting it off;
3. Those who are forced into it by some sort of abusive family relationship.

2 and 3 need to be put a stop to.

One more thought. Seventy or eighty years ago it was pretty much a cultural necessity that women should wear hats in church. A woman who turned up to church without a hat would be a pariah. That was unreasonable, and wrong, albeit biblically based (on the words of St Paul, not Jesus) and has been dropped - and it is now seen as a pointless and meaningless custom. And that was an hour or two per week, and was just a hat. How much more pointless and meaningless is the pillar box outfit?

I think your desire to see more gender equality is entirely laudable, although as I've said I don't think that was the point of Johnson's article at all. If we're looking at numbers, by far the most put upon women are those who are forced by their employers to wear heels, makeup, and outfits that accentuate their sexuality. Ending this is possible through legislation.

[ontario claret]

This would be great news for Canada. Lots of bright, educated people coming our way.

[burnleymik]

You won't believe anything in a party manifesto, but you believe a Corbyn related article in the Express?

Yes. Most newspaper articles have an element of truth in them, unlike manifestos.

[Imploding Turtle]

It's remarkable how certain types of people are only interested in gender equality when it comes to how Muslim women in this country choose to dress. A Venn diagram of those people and people only concerned with animal welfare when it comes to halal meat would basically just be a circle.

[IanMcL]

Quite pathetic. Your r-a-c-i-s-t-m keys must be well worn out.

You spelt that wrong!

[Imploding Turtle]

You spelt that wrong!

You're a racistm.

[Imploding Turtle]

Yes. Most newspaper articles have an element of truth in them, unlike manifestos, or anything i've ever said.

fyp

[Imploding Turtle]

I'm looking forward to Boris' inevitable pro-Russia turn. I expect him to come out with opinions or policies that just happen to be really convenient for Russia.

[ontario claret]

Never trust a man who can never find a barber. Why does he affect that style? Does it make him feel more "of the people"?

[dsr]

It's remarkable how certain types of people are only interested in gender equality when it comes to how Muslim women in this country choose to dress. A Venn diagram of those people and people only concerned with animal welfare when it comes to halal meat would basically just be a circle.

I'm interested in gender equality in the sense that men and women have (or should have) equal rights. Don't confuse my views that men and women are different, with my views that their rights are not different. In the unlikely event that I ever get married, it would certainly be on the basis that my wife and I are equal partners - even if (or especially if) we mutually decided that we would not be doing the same jobs.

This burka/nijab stuff is in my opinion a statement that women are inferior - not that they are different.

[Spiral]

I'm interested in gender equality in the sense that men and women have (or should have) equal rights. Don't confuse my views that men and women are different, with my views that their rights are not different. In the unlikely event that I ever get married, it would certainly be on the basis that my wife and I are equal partners - even if (or especially if) we mutually decided that we would not be doing the same jobs.

This burka/nijab stuff is in my opinion a statement that women are inferior - not that they are different.

If you (or Johnson) were to argue the point that a conservative reading of Islam is inherently patriarchal and oppressive towards women, you'd have few, if any, on here, disagreeing with you. For entirely obvious and predictable reasons, however, you're deliberately choosing not to engage with the argument being made about Johnson's purposeful choice of language, brazen cynicism, dog-whistle politicking, and lack of basic concern for the women under the veils as evidenced by him using a national newspaper column not to raise concern for muslim women-as his apologists are now attempting to retcon-but to raise suspicion of muslim women.

[Likeavydra]

those things are ridiculous though and dangerous in my opinion when driving cars

[ontario claret]

Makes it easier for the getaway, however.

[dsr]

Well, I'm not going to complain about the choice of language, because I've said myself that they look like they're dressed up as pillar boxes. Which they do. Statement of fact. (Barring the colour, of course.)

The question is, I suppose, whether it is permissible to make mild jokes about Moslem women? I know there is quite a large school of thought that says Moslems are different and it is inappropriate to treat them like other people; it's not an attitude I like. Moslems are people too. They can be laughed at, they can be laughed with, they can be encouraged or discouraged, they can be lauded or criticised. What they should not be is treated as a different sort of human being. There's only one race, and that's human - we're all in it together. Including the women.

But if this whole burka/nijab issue can be boiled down to a debate about whether it's fair and reasonable to make accurate but pejorative descriptions of certain types of clothing, then so be it. Hard luck on the subjugated women, but there it is.

[AndrewJB]

I'm interested in gender equality in the sense that men and women have (or should have) equal rights. Don't confuse my views that men and women are different, with my views that their rights are not different. In the unlikely event that I ever get married, it would certainly be on the basis that my wife and I are equal partners - even if (or especially if) we mutually decided that we would not be doing the same jobs.

This burka/nijab stuff is in my opinion a statement that women are inferior - not that they are different.

Forcing women to wear heels, makeup, and pushup bras in the workplace is also a means by which our society forces women to be inferior. I humbly suggest your focus is misplaced if you're not considering this in your grand scheme of equality.

[dsr]

Forcing women to wear heels, makeup, and pushup bras in the workplace is also a means by which our society forces women to be inferior. I humbly suggest your focus is misplaced if you're not considering this in your grand scheme of equality.

Who said I wasn't considering it? Though I understand that as long as the men are forced to wear the same, there's no legal issue involved.

[Spiral]

Well, I'm not going to complain about the choice of language, because I've said myself that they look like they're dressed up as pillar boxes. Which they do. Statement of fact. (Barring the colour, of course.)

The question is, I suppose, whether it is permissible to make mild jokes about Moslem women? I know there is quite a large school of thought that says Moslems are different and it is inappropriate to treat them like other people; it's not an attitude I like. Moslems are people too. They can be laughed at, they can be laughed with, they can be encouraged or discouraged, they can be lauded or criticised. What they should not be is treated as a different sort of human being. There's only one race, and that's human - we're all in it together. Including the women.

But if this whole burka/nijab issue can be boiled down to a debate about whether it's fair and reasonable to make accurate but pejorative descriptions of certain types of clothing, then so be it. Hard luck on the subjugated women, but there it is.

'We're all the same, really...(except those ones over there, who might be criminals, nudge nudge wink wink)'

You're bastardising ideals relating to equality and cynically using (misusing, abusing) the virtue of 'colourblindness' (in a racial/religious catch-all sense) in the hope that the conversation disappears, using it as an escape hatch from having to confront the awkward realisation that there's a power imbalance at play, that a minority group is being used-essentially thrown under a bus with no regard for consequences-by a man holding elected office (who, completely coincidentally, I'm sure, is also telling you exactly what you want to hear) for no other reasons than to advance his own political ambitions. You're an apologist for a man who is lazily grabbing for the low hanging fruit by inflaming the exact same suspicion of 'the other' to divide people in a way practised by every despicable despot in human history.

[AndrewJB]

Yes. Most newspaper articles have an element of truth in them, unlike manifestos.

I have presented you with an academic report detailing the press smears and outright lies against Corbyn, and you prefer to trust a newspaper citing an unnamed source over the words of the man himself? You've indicated your dislike of being called 'stupid' - let's see you prove you're not.

[ClaretDiver]

I am sure he still wants the Burka banned in banks etc

Mind you so do I

I agree with this....last winter I 'attempted' to walk into the bank with a scarf around the lower part of my face and a beanie on.....I was told 'not so very' politely by security staff to remove both my scarf and hat.....for 'security reasons'!

[mikeS]

If you want a prime minister who cares only about himself and what he wants then vote for Boris.

[quoonbeatz]

Surely it will only be proof if he is elected a third time? Not if he stands for a second term, if he stands for a sencond term it means nothing but if he is elected for a second term he is as "popular" as Boris, long wait so at this time when the original comment was made, it is proof Boris is more popular right now
y

what?

johnson had two terms, khan hasn't finished one yet. if khan is elected again he's 'as popular' as johnson.

you can't yet measure popularity by how many terms they both served, which is what you did, because the khan's first term hasn't finished yet. thats how it works.

[dsr]

'We're all the same, really...(except those ones over there, who might be criminals, nudge nudge wink wink)'

You're bastardising ideals relating to equality and cynically using (misusing, abusing) the virtue of 'colourblindness' (in a racial/religious catch-all sense) in the hope that the conversation disappears, using it as an escape hatch from having to confront the awkward realisation that there's a power imbalance at play, that a minority group is being used-essentially thrown under a bus with no regard for consequences-by a man holding elected office (who, completely coincidentally, I'm sure, is also telling you exactly what you want to hear) for no other reasons than to advance his own political ambitions. You're an apologist for a man who is lazily grabbing for the low hanging fruit by inflaming the exact same suspicion of 'the other' to divide people in a way practised by every despicable despot in human history.

But surely you can see there are problems doing it your way too - we've been through suggestions that Moslems should not be criticised because the differences are cultural and religious differences, and it resulted in tragedy in Rotherham and others. Questionable practices need to be questioned. Trying to side track the questions by complaining about the words pillar box and bank robbers does not help.

I nail my colours to the mast - the occasional Moslem practice (outlawed in some Moslem countries) of forcing a woman to obey her husband and to dress up like a pillar box, is wrong.

[Devils_Advocate]

I agree with this....last winter I 'attempted' to walk into the bank with a scarf around the lower part of my face and a beanie on.....I was told 'not so very' politely by security staff to remove both my scarf and hat.....for 'security reasons'!

I don't get this ban the burka in banks things. A bank or a post office or a shop is a commercial property and they can and should be allowed to set the rules on what people wear in their premises. If a bank is concerned that wearing a bike helmet or a balaclava is a commercial risk that outweighs the risk to loss of revenues by not allowing them to be worn but don't see a Burka as that then surely that is their choice

Where the law should be equal is around what you can and cannot wear out in public but the amount of times I see people state you should not be able to wear a Burka (in public) because I cant wear a motorbike helmet in a bank is laughable and just shows the complete lack of intelligence of a lot of people driven by some kind on unfounded dislike for people just because they are brown muslims

[Imploding Turtle]

But surely you can see there are problems doing it your way too - we've been through suggestions that Moslems should not be criticised because the differences are cultural and religious differences, and it resulted in tragedy in Rotherham and others. Questionable practices need to be questioned. Trying to side track the questions by complaining about the words pillar box and bank robbers does not help.

I nail my colours to the mast - the occasional Moslem practice (outlawed in some Moslem countries) of forcing a woman to obey her husband and to dress up like a pillar box, is wrong.

Yes. It is wrong for men to oppress women. But how does banning the burka fix that? Even if it was true that the women who wear the burka in the UK were all doing so because men are oppressing them all you'd be doing by banning the burka would be to hide the public symbol of their oppression. They'll still be being oppressed but at least now you don't have to see it.

But I don't think this is even about women being oppressed, or hiding that oppression from your sensitive eyes. It's just about sticking it the the Muslims and you're making an illogical argument about it being to protect women's rights to try to hide the real reason which is to make Muslims feel unwelcome.

It's already illegal to force one person into doing something in this country. Enforce that law.

[burnleymik]

Corbyn - Supporting terrorism. Leads an Anti-Semetic party. Backed by the far-left and toxic Momentum.

vs

Boris -Sly, idiot.

I know which one sounds more threatening to the UK IMO. Between a rock and a hard place in reality.

[dsr]

Yes. It is wrong for men to oppress women. But how does banning the burka fix that?

Johnson's article that started this whole thing was opposed to banning the burka. That's one reason why all this oppobrium is so misplaced.

[Devils_Advocate]

Corbyn - Supporting terrorism. Leads an Anti-Semetic party. Backed by the far-left and toxic Momentum.

vs

Boris -Sly, idiot.

I know which one sounds more threatening to the UK IMO. Between a rock and a hard place in reality.

Boris - Selling Arms to regimes such as Afghanistan, Burma, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Somalia, Zimbabwe etc etc

vs

Corbyn - opening dialogue with terror groups to try and prevent terrorism and bring peace

I know which one sounds more threatening to the human race IMO. A no brainer for any intelligent humanitarian thinkers

[Imploding Turtle]

Johnson's article that started this whole thing was opposed to banning the burka. That's one reason why all this oppobrium is so misplaced.

I'm aware. But you have to be a special kind of naive to think his comments weren't intended to excite the ban-the-burka crowd.

[Imploding Turtle]

Boris - Selling Arms to regimes such as Afghanistan, Burma, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Somalia, Zimbabwe etc etc

vs

Corbyn - opening dialogue with terror groups to try and prevent terrorism and bring peace

I know which one sounds more threatening to the human race IMO. A no brainer for any intelligent humanitarian thinkers

The problem i have with Corbyn's approach is that opening dialogue and negotiating usually means acquiescing in some areas. I'm not sure i'm going to be content with doing that with people who think it should be OK to crucify gay people.
However i suppose it's better than selling arms to those people.

I don't think we should be doing either. We shouldn't sacrifice our entire nation's principles just because they kill some of us every now and then. We're supposed to stand up to bullies, not give them things to make them stop.

[ClaretDiver]

I don't get this ban the burka in banks things. A bank or a post office or a shop is a commercial property and they can and should be allowed to set the rules on what people wear in their premises. If a bank is concerned that wearing a bike helmet or a balaclava is a commercial risk that outweighs the risk to loss of revenues by not allowing them to be worn but don't see a Burka as that then surely that is their choice

Where the law should be equal is around what you can and cannot wear out in public but the amount of times I see people state you should not be able to wear a Burka (in public) because I cant wear a motorbike helmet in a bank is laughable and just shows the complete lack of intelligence of a lot of people driven by some kind on unfounded dislike for people just because they are brown muslims

I was 'informed# it was down to security and they needed the CCTV to be able to film me on the bank premises.....hmmm.....

[burnleymik]

I think any face coverings in public spaces, such as shopping areas etc should be stopped. Whether it be helmets, Burkas, hoodies, masks, whatever. People being able to hide their identity will always be exploited by scumbags.

[Imploding Turtle]

I think any face coverings in public spaces, such as shopping areas etc should be stopped. Whether it be helmets, Burkas, hoodies, masks, whatever. People being able to hide their identity will always be exploited by scumbags.

Almost like how scumbags will exploit people's fear of crime to further oppress them.

[Devils_Advocate]

I was 'informed# it was down to security and they needed the CCTV to be able to film me on the bank premises.....hmmm.....

I'm guessing the person who 'informed' you that you needed to remove the scarf wasn't the person who set the policy so its quite possible they were just guessing a little and may not have been correct. If you're really bothered write to them and find out what the policy is

Anyway its their choice and if you don't like their policy take your customer elsewhere. When I was younger I didn't like it when bars and clubs told me what I had to wear so I went somewhere else to drink

[CrosspoolClarets]

When I have a quick skim at this and other threads, I “get” why so many detest the Tories, and Boris. What I don’t “get” is why so many love Corbyn, now it is so clear what he stands for and what he believes in. That conundrum is probably the biggest problem our country faces, because if he was ever in power, due to his foreign office views, our international reputation would become a laughing stock and we would be totally sidelined. He would have people like Diane Abbott in a great office of state who has stated (on This Week some years ago) that Chairman Mao had redeeming features that exceeded the downsides of tens of millions of murders. Domestically, I fear he would cause a recession 10 times worse than any temporary hard Brexit impact, but our overseas partners would simply take full advantage, grabbing our businesses. I’d rather have Denis Skinner in No 10 - Corbyn is simply as far from unsuitable as any MP gets.

I suspect people like him due to those people opposing power in all its forms, especially big countries, rich countries, big businesses, rich people. I suspect both envy and lack of trust play a part (understandably in one sense). Whatever, it is highly dangerous.

Whatever the reason, it makes it impossible to debate these topics. Boris makes comments about nijabs and burkas that are simple common sense, with the odd joke thrown in for effect, and it is a bigger news item than Corbyn commiserating the Munich terrorists. It says to me that the rich and powerful have indeed been allowed to go too far, it has totally alienated millions, and we need to address it so people start seeing sense.

[If it be your will]

.

[JohnMcGreal]

our international reputation would become a laughing stock and we would be totally sidelined.

[If it be your will]

.

[Imploding Turtle]

I'd be very disappointed if Corbyn acquiesed on the subject of crucifying gay people! I get what you're saying, but surely the hope is that by talking to them you might persuade them that gay crucifixion isn't acceptable, and if you can't persuade them of that, then by all means break off the talks. But that's no reason not to talk to them at all.

I'm not saying don't talk to them, just don't compromise on fundamental human rights and our most important values just to stop them hitting us.

[AndrewJB]

I'm not saying don't talk to them, just don't compromise on fundamental human rights and our most important values just to stop them hitting us.

Fundamental principles are probably the last thing Corbyn would compromise. On the subject of foreign policy, he’s been on the right side of many issues. Iraq War anyone?