The Words of Wisdom of Boris Johnson - Foreign Secretary

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Well I guess there's going to be a ban on the Scots who wear a kilt which has been the butt of jokes for decades, because it might be aimed at the wearer.

C'mon wise up its a storm that's now being whipped up purely for political mileage

Why is Johnson not simply apologising for upsetting wearers of the niqab. Why is he not saying Sorry - that it was an off-the-cuff jokey comment that he agrees on reflection is insensitive to those who wear the niqab out of personal choice and/or of a personal reflection of their faith. Why is he not saying that? Why did he say it immediately before going off on holiday? How convenient.

No. This was premeditated and can only therefore be construed as being deliberately divisive. And idious man that he is - he has succeeded.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Oh dear
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/06/burqa-bashing-mohammed-ahmed-mohamed-image.


Looks like old Johnson was not even original in his thinking/'joke'.

Note the date 2013.

 

[MegaSteve]

Why is Johnson not simply apologising for upsetting wearers of the niqab. Why is he not saying Sorry - that it was an off-the-cuff jokey comment that he agrees on reflection is insensitive to those who wear the niqab out of personal choice and/or of a personal reflection of their faith. Why is he not saying that? Why did he say it immediately before going off on holiday? How convenient.

No. This was premeditated and can only therefore be construed as being deliberately divisive. And idious man that he is - he has succeeded.

Damned if he does... Damned if he doesn't...

 

[bobmac]

Why is Johnson not simply apologising for upsetting wearers of the niqab. Why is he not saying Sorry - that it was an off-the-cuff jokey comment that he agrees on reflection is insensitive to those who wear the niqab out of personal choice and/or of a personal reflection of their faith. Why is he not saying that? Why did he say it immediately before going off on holiday? How convenient.

No. This was premeditated and can only therefore be construed as being deliberately divisive. And idious man that he is - he has succeeded.

Maybe he just doesn't believe in religious dogma.

 

[Hobbit]

No. This was premeditated and can only therefore be construed as being deliberately divisive. And idious man that he is - he has succeeded.

Was it? You know this for sure?

Unless he has owned up to it being deliberate you are, once again, making an assumption.

Yes he's not a nice individual at all, and certainly not on my Christmas list but I find it difficult to believe he is that conniving.

 

[SocketRocket]

The nightmare dream team Farage & Johnson.

Surely you mean Corbyn and Sturgeon.

 

[SocketRocket]

Why is Johnson not simply apologising for upsetting wearers of the niqab. Why is he not saying Sorry - that it was an off-the-cuff jokey comment that he agrees on reflection is insensitive to those who wear the niqab out of personal choice and/or of a personal reflection of their faith. Why is he not saying that? Why did he say it immediately before going off on holiday? How convenient.

No. This was premeditated and can only therefore be construed as being deliberately divisive. And idious man that he is - he has succeeded.

Maybe because he thinks they look like letterboxes.

 

[hors limite]

Was it? You know this for sure?

Unless he has owned up to it being deliberate you are, once again, making an assumption.

Yes he's not a nice individual at all, and certainly not on my Christmas list but I find it difficult to believe he is that conniving.

You are an avowed remainer but you are the first to take up the cudgels against a post which criticizes the "Brexit project. You don't like Boris Johnson, but you don't like SLH making assumptions about his motives. I've concluded that you like to take a contrarian position or in old fashioned terms, you like arguing for the sake of arguing. This might, of course, be an unfair assumption:rofl:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Maybe he just doesn't believe in religious dogma.

He can say that he doesn't particularly like the niqab and such forms of attire and that it makes him feel uncomfortable (I can put myself in that camp) - but he made it personal and about the women who wear the niqab. He upset some of them - he should simply have apologised and this fuss would I suggest have been less extended.

But he did not apologise and now refuses to (why? if it was just a poor joke) - and the longer this has gone on it has got mangled up with the rights and wrongs of wearing these forms of clothing and debate on religious dogma is pulled in - when all he needed to say was Sorry - for making a poor joke and needlessly upsetting some women. But of course that is most probably what he set out to achieve - the Bannon way.

This is no mistake - this is deliberate and divisive - he knew where discussion on what he wrote would go - and he knew that many would side with him - even forgetting that what he wrote he was against a ban - and it would not surprise me that before long Johnson flips to the other side of that argument - the side where those who have sided with him sit with wanting a ban.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Was it? You know this for sure?

Unless he has owned up to it being deliberate you are, once again, making an assumption.

Yes he's not a nice individual at all, and certainly not on my Christmas list but I find it difficult to believe he is that conniving.

Of course it was premeditated - he wrote the article and would have had it reviewed. The editor or sub-editor would have asked if he really wanted the 'jokey' observation to remain - and he would have said yes. They would have pointed out that the observations would upset some people. He would have said - so be it.

Before the article was published Johnson knew exactly what he was doing and knew the very likely response - therefore it was premeditated. The fact that he has not apologised for what he could have said was a silly misjudgement - that he has said he will not apologise - and that he has run away on holiday whilst this continues and destabilises further Mrs May surely tells us all.

 

[Foxholer]

Was it? You know this for sure?

Unless he has owned up to it being deliberate you are, once again, making an assumption.
...

You missed out SILH's reasoning! His conclusion may (or may not) be wrong and there may be a presumption (a better description imo) on his part, but...

Yes he's not a nice individual at all, and certainly not on my Christmas list but I find it difficult to believe he is that conniving.

I'm inclined to believe he is!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You missed out SILH's reasoning! His conclusion may (or may not) be wrong and there may be a presumption (a better description imo) on his part, but...


I'm inclined to believe he is!

As is Iain Dale (respected journalist on the right of politics; political commentator; LBC presenter, erstwhile Conservative candidate; and firm supporter of Brexit). Just read his commentary piece in today's i newspaper (very good value at 80p) - in which he says

'Boris's latest Telegraph column...was completely undermined by his ridicule of Muslim women who wear the garment....arguably relatively harmless stuff - but in reality quite dangerous. I don't believe these words were written in error. They were deliberate. They may or may not have been influenced by the odious Steve Bannon with whom (Johnson) has apparently been talking and texting...if it's true, it ought to preclude him from ever holding high office again.

Individually none of these (Johnson's historic) comments can be said to be definitively racist, when put in context. But put together, they raise the question as to whether we have a putative Conservative leadership candidate who is deliberately blowing the kind of dog whistle that appeals to the darker nether regions of the party. If this strategy is deliberate, it is not only disgraceful, but a huge miscalculation'

Because - Dale suggests - MPs will never support Johnson in a leadership contest in sufficient numbers to get him through to the membership vote. And btw Dale thinks exactly the same about Jacob Rees-Mogg.

And Dale concludes his article.

'It's unfair to say that Boris is a politician without conviction. He has one: that he will become the prime minister'

Ouch!

 

[Foxholer]

...
Because - Dale suggests - MPs will never support Johnson in a leadership contest in sufficient numbers to get him through to the membership vote. And btw Dale thinks exactly the same about Jacob Rees-Mogg.
...

I'm pretty certain that Jacob Rees-Mogg has no intention of competing for PM - and that, with his 'old-style Tory' condescending attitude to any argument/point of view that doesn't match his own, it would be a mistake for the Tories to even consider him as a candidate! He is, however, as a 'single issue' spokesman, he's an extremely capable advocate for Brexit!

And an 'interesting' article by the Independent here https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-5-million-house-downing-street-a8371821.html

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'm pretty certain that Jacob Rees-Mogg has no intention of competing for PM - and that, with his 'old-style Tory' condescending attitude to any argument/point of view that doesn't match his own, it would be a mistake for the Tories to even consider him as a candidate! He is, however, as a 'single issue' spokesman, he's an extremely capable advocate for Brexit!

And an 'interesting' article by the Independent here https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-5-million-house-downing-street-a8371821.html

Dale is very clear about Rees-Mogg - especially when he takes calls from Rees-Moggies - desperate for him to become PM. He says that Rees-Mogg hasn't a chance - that those who might want Rees-Mogg as PM are just whistling in the wind and should forget it.

I might suggest that he only sounds a capable advocate of Brexit - he talks posh, uses big words, and so must know what he is talking about. It's a pretty sad throw-back to times when one doffed one's cap to the aristocracy - to whom you were subservient and dependent - and who always knew what was best for you.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Of course it was premeditated - he wrote the article and would have had it reviewed. The editor or sub-editor would have asked if he really wanted the 'jokey' observation to remain - and he would have said yes. They would have pointed out that the observations would upset some people. He would have said - so be it.

Before the article was published Johnson knew exactly what he was doing and knew the very likely response - therefore it was premeditated. The fact that he has not apologised for what he could have said was a silly misjudgement - that he has said he will not apologise - and that he has run away on holiday whilst this continues and destabilises further Mrs May surely tells us all.

I can't believe you actually had to write that explanation of how newspapers work.
Some folk must live in a bubble

Perhaps the editor played Johnson for the fool that he is and printed with the certain knowledge that his/her paper would receive massive publicity.

 

[Hobbit]

You are an avowed remainer but you are the first to take up the cudgels against a post which criticizes the "Brexit project. You don't like Boris Johnson, but you don't like SLH making assumptions about his motives. I've concluded that you like to take a contrarian position or in old fashioned terms, you like arguing for the sake of arguing. This might, of course, be an unfair assumption:rofl:

If you say so Richard.

There are extreme Remainers and extreme Leavers, and then there's those that looked for a balanced argument somewhere in the middle. I don't believe the sky will fall down, nor do I believe in the land of milk and honey outside the EU.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I can't believe you actually had to write that explanation of how newspapers work.
Some folk must live in a bubble

Perhaps the editor played Johnson for the fool that he is and printed with the certain knowledge that his/her paper would receive massive publicity.

I just don't know - from where I stand we are in times of complete and utter madness. I can only hope and pray we come to ours senses...somehow - before the country is plunged into post Brexit confusion and anger with divisive politicians like Johnson and Corbyn holding sway - with their every word treated as the truth regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary.

 

[Hobbit]

Of course it was premeditated - he wrote the article and would have had it reviewed. The editor or sub-editor would have asked if he really wanted the 'jokey' observation to remain - and he would have said yes. They would have pointed out that the observations would upset some people. He would have said - so be it.

Before the article was published Johnson knew exactly what he was doing and knew the very likely response - therefore it was premeditated. The fact that he has not apologised for what he could have said was a silly misjudgement - that he has said he will not apologise - and that he has run away on holiday whilst this continues and destabilises further Mrs May surely tells us all.

He may well have penned every part of it but he may have included the "letterbox" description as a tongue in cheek joke. Its a joke that's been doing the rounds for years, though in poor taste. You assume its there for maximum effect, and I don't assume it is - we could both be wrong.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I just don't know - from where I stand we are in times of complete and utter madness. I can only hope and pray we come to ours senses...somehow - before the country is plunged into post Brexit confusion and anger with divisive politicians like Johnson and Corbyn holding sway - with their every word treated as the truth regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary.

Great cartoon in the Scottish press this morning with May, Corbyn and Davidson cowering behind the castle walls whilst Sturgeon stands proudly on the battlements saying 'Next Question Please'.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

He may well have penned every part of it but he may have included the "letterbox" description as a tongue in cheek joke. Its a joke that's been doing the rounds for years, though in poor taste. You assume its there for maximum effect, and I don't assume it is - we could both be wrong.

Sorry - just no way Brian - it was not a mistake and the risk that it could be interpreted as ridicule of Muslim women (quoting Iain Dale) would have been pointed out to him. But publish and be damned - he have said - knowing full well that in the darker nether regions of the party as well as that same part of the wider electorate - it would have been welcomed and praised - as indeed it has been.

It's almost as if the main thrust of his article has been ignored and that he is advocating an anti-naqib/burka position. And so the man builds and strengthens his position and popularity making it even harder for May or the Tory Party to castigate or censure him.

If he meant it he should never have a prominent lead role in the government of this country. If he did not mean it - then by his incompetence and insensitivity - he should never have a prominent lead role in the government of this country.