Jesus fvcking Christ! What is fvcking wrong with this country?

[Burney]

The actual Commissioner of the Met tried to set her 'Hate crime' unit on Boris for mildly taking the p1ss out of how some people dress. Have a fvcking think about that for a fvcking second.

We are totally fvcked, aren't we? :-(

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/09/met-commissioner-accused-diverting-resources-asked-hate-crime/

[Ash]

She is a complete Dick, tbh.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

:nod: She is a bit of a Rich

[Burney]

She is a complete Dick, tbh.

I can't even raise a smile at the idiotic cvnt's name, a. It's too depressing. England's gone. :-(

[Monty92]

The actual Commissioner of the Met tried to set her 'Hate crime' unit on Boris for mildly taking the p1ss out of how some people dress. Have a fvcking think about that for a fvcking second.

We are totally fvcked, aren't we? :-(

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/09/met-commissioner-accused-diverting-resources-asked-hate-crime/

The annoying thing for me, though, is that Boris could have created the same effect without using the puerile language that has made it hard to defend him without appearing to condone the mockery of women who wear burkas

Say he'd have condemned the burka with the same language that you used yourself - "a disgusting abomination utterly incompatible with a modern society".

The same cast of characters would have come out and condemned him, but the focus would have been on the substance of his point, rather than his use of childish, offensive language.

Surely that would have been a more effective tactic?

[Burney]

The annoying thing for me, though, is that Boris could have created the same effect without using the puerile language that has made it hard to defend him without appearing to condone the mockery of women who wear burkas

Say he'd have condemned the burka with the same language that you used yourself - "a disgusting abomination utterly incompatible with a modern society".

The same cast of characters would have come out and condemned him, but the focus would have been on the substance of his point, rather than his use of childish, offensive language.

Surely that would have been a more effective tactic?

What's wrong with mocking an item of clothing women (we are told) wear voluntarily?

By saying what he's said, he's shown just how thoroughly people will over-react to the mildest possible mockery of Islam. Had he condemned it in the rather pious terms I did, it wouldn't have shown up the insane disparity between the comments and the reaction anywhere near as effectively.

The reaction is the whole point. I doubt Boris gives a flying one about Burkas per se. He's interested in showing just how insane Number 10 and the left-wing tories will go if the sacred cow of Islam is even mildly laughed at.

[WES]

What's wrong with mocking an item of clothing women (we are told) wear voluntarily?

By saying what he's said, he's shown just how thoroughly people will over-react to the mildest possible mockery of Islam. Had he condemned it in the rather pious terms I did, it wouldn't have shown up the insane disparity between the comments and the reaction anywhere near as effectively.

The reaction is the whole point. I doubt Boris gives a flying one about Burkas per se. He's interested in showing just how insane Number 10 and the left-wing tories will go if the sacred cow of Islam is even mildly laughed at.

Had Corbyn mocked the appearance of Hasidic Jews in the same way that Boris mocked women who wear the burka you and many others would have accused him of anti-Semitism.

Monty is right, it was really stupid. Using your criticism would have been much more effective and would generated just as much of a reaction. The people who want someone like Boris in No. 10 would have been much happier with a debate over the burka and what it represents than a debate over how much of an idiot Boris has been, I think.

[7sisters]

Had Corbyn mocked the appearance of Hasidic Jews in the same way that Boris mocked women who wear the burka you and many others would have accused him of anti-Semitism.

Monty is right, it was really stupid. Using your criticism would have been much more effective and would generated just as much of a reaction. The people who want someone like Boris in No. 10 would have been much happier with a debate over the burka and what it represents than a debate over how much of an idiot Boris has been, I think.

There is a broader point here in that this country has completely lost it's sense of humour over the last twenty years.

Humour has its many of its roots in the p1ss taking of others. There's a line of course but this obsession with offense has, in many cases gone beyond. The absurdity is that people still think and react the same way. I also find it odd that the people most outraged are the white middle classes.
Likening a burkha to a pillar box is mildly amusing. I'm sorry but there it is. Should I choose to parade about up and down my local high street wearing a pink wig and then deem it offensive because I over hear someone ripping it out of me, should I then go running to report a hate crime. Where does it end. :shrug:
It's the gingers I feel sorry for because it still appears ok to rip it out them.

[Burney]

Had Corbyn mocked the appearance of Hasidic Jews in the same way that Boris mocked women who wear the burka you and many others would have accused him of anti-Semitism.

Monty is right, it was really stupid. Using your criticism would have been much more effective and would generated just as much of a reaction. The people who want someone like Boris in No. 10 would have been much happier with a debate over the burka and what it represents than a debate over how much of an idiot Boris has been, I think.

:sigh: No, it wouldn’t have provoked the same reaction.

The whole point of the mocking comments was that they were the bait. He was relying on his opponents being stupid enough to seize upon them, thinking it could be a way to stop him. Instead, they’ve put themselves at odds with the membership and public, turned Boris into the de facto champion of the grassroots and made themselves look like PC, multi-culti, Islam-loving opportunists into the bargain. And all just before Conference. :clap:

The best thing about Boris’s plan is that it relied on Number 10’s endless capacity to do the wrong thing in any given situation- which it duly has.

Oh, and the Corbyn comparison is nonsense. Corbyn has a track record of anti-semitism as long as your arm, so of course such comments would be seen as antisemitic. No such history or context exists with Boris and muslims.

[WES]

:sigh: No, it wouldn’t have provoked the same reaction.

The whole point of the mocking comments was that they were the bait. He was relying on his opponents being stupid enough to seize upon them, thinking it could be a way to stop him. Instead, they’ve put themselves at odds with the membership and public, turned Boris into the de facto champion of the grassroots and made themselves look like PC, multi-culti, Islam-loving opportunists into the bargain. And all just before Conference. :clap:

The best thing about Boris’s plan is that it relied on Number 10’s endless capacity to do the wrong thing in any given situation- which it duly has.

Oh, and the Corbyn comparison is nonsense. Corbyn has a track record of anti-semitism as long as your arm, so of course such comments would be seen as antisemitic. No such history or context exists with Boris and muslims.

You're assuming that the same sort of public sentiment that resulted in Trump being elected is beginning to manifest itself in the UK.

I am unconvinced. I think politicians still need to be taken seriously over here, I don't think the public is quite that ready to thumb its nose at traditional politics and traditional politicians in the way that the Americans were.

Boris isn't going to be elected PM by turning himself into a mini-Trump.

[barrybueno]

The actual Commissioner of the Met tried to set her 'Hate crime' unit on Boris for mildly taking the p1ss out of how some people dress. Have a fvcking think about that for a fvcking second.

We are totally fvcked, aren't we? :-(

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/09/met-commissioner-accused-diverting-resources-asked-hate-crime/

:nod: It's times like these that make you wish Hitler had won.

[Pokster]

:nod: It's times like these that make you wish Hitler had won.

I thought he did only have won?

[barrybueno]

I thought he did only have won?

haha, on Berni's own thread as well, pwopa nawty

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The actual Commissioner of the Met tried to set her 'Hate crime' unit on Boris for mildly taking the p1ss out of how some people dress. Have a fvcking think about that for a fvcking second.

We are totally fvcked, aren't we? :-(

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/09/met-commissioner-accused-diverting-resources-asked-hate-crime/

His language was completely out of order. {Yeah, say it in private but not public. We all saw a couple of attacks after Brexit. It could encourage some fückwit.}

But some imam writing in the Times today says he agrees 100% and Boris didn't go far enough. It should be banned cos it's pre-Islamic and non-Koranic and is therefore more infidel than jeans and a bikini top which were actually at least invented after Mo {pbuh}.

He says we should ban the burka and all those bits cos they lead to an extremist mis-interpretation of Islam which paves the way for terrorism.

But as a liberal lefty, I think it is for such a man {who is a respected Kornaic expert type} to say such things.

It is not for a fat Tory ex-cabinet minister to use such insulting language* simply to position himself as the poundshop Trump candidate for whenever they plunge the knife into May.

*It doesn't matter whether they look like a letter box or a Coco Channel haute couture piece. It's about the patriarchal oppression as the imam says in the Times.

I obv hate Johnson, but if they nick him, I hope the imam hands himself in. Love to see some fückwitted copper trying to argue Koranic theory with an imam with a PhD. I'd pay to watch that.

As you know, I'm of the Vedic persuasion and don't really have time for all that Abrahamic nonsense, but this imam seems a good chap.

We need more of him. Hope the Times gives him occasional columns.

[Burney]

You're assuming that the same sort of public sentiment that resulted in Trump being elected is beginning to manifest itself in the UK.

I am unconvinced. I think politicians still need to be taken seriously over here, I don't think the public is quite that ready to thumb its nose at traditional politics and traditional politicians in the way that the Americans were.

Boris isn't going to be elected PM by turning himself into a mini-Trump.


'Traditional' politics is already toast. The only people who haven't caught on to that yet are traditional politicians.

[Monty92]

You're assuming that the same sort of public sentiment that resulted in Trump being elected is beginning to manifest itself in the UK.

I am unconvinced. I think politicians still need to be taken seriously over here, I don't think the public is quite that ready to thumb its nose at traditional politics and traditional politicians in the way that the Americans were.

Boris isn't going to be elected PM by turning himself into a mini-Trump.

A mini-Trump? Calm down now. Boris' overall comments on the burka were straight out of the progressive feminist playbook - he blamed the patriarchy for ****s sake! And then said he didn't actually support it being banned because that would be authoritarian.

In other words, Trump's position would be the precise opposite.

[Sir C]

His language was completely out of order. {Yeah, say it in private but not public. We all saw a couple of attacks after Brexit. It could encourage some fückwit.}

But some imam writing in the Times today says he agrees 100% and Boris didn't go far enough. It should be banned cos it's pre-Islamic and non-Koranic and is therefore more infidel than jeans and a bikini top which were actually at least invented after Mo {pbuh}.

He says we should ban the burka and all those bits cos they lead to an extremist mis-interpretation of Islam which paves the way for terrorism.

But as a liberal lefty, I think it is for such a man {who is a respected Kornaic expert type} to say such things.

It is not for a fat Tory ex-cabinet minister to use such insulting language* simply to position himself as the poundshop Trump candidate for whenever they plunge the knife into May.

*It doesn't matter whether they look like a letter box or a Coco Channel haute couture piece. It's about the patriarchal oppression as the imam says in the Times.

I obv hate Johnson, but if they nick him, I hope the imam hands himself in. Love to see some fückwitted copper trying to argue Koranic theory with an imam with a PhD. I'd pay to watch that.

As you know, I'm of the Vedic persuasion and don't really have time for all that Abrahamic nonsense, but this imam seems a good chap.

We need more of him. Hope the Times gives him occasional columns.

He's not fat, his chest has just slipped a bit.

Was it Imam Tawhidi? He's excellent, that bloke, but if he were white he'd be described as virulently Islamophobic.

[Ash]

You're assuming that the same sort of public sentiment that resulted in Trump being elected is beginning to manifest itself in the UK.

I am unconvinced. I think politicians still need to be taken seriously over here, I don't think the public is quite that ready to thumb its nose at traditional politics and traditional politicians in the way that the Americans were.


I think you'll find that this has already happened.

[Burney]

His language was completely out of order. {Yeah, say it in private but not public. We all saw a couple of attacks after Brexit. It could encourage some fückwit.}

But some imam writing in the Times today says he agrees 100% and Boris didn't go far enough. It should be banned cos it's pre-Islamic and non-Koranic and is therefore more infidel than jeans and a bikini top which were actually at least invented after Mo {pbuh}.

He says we should ban the burka and all those bits cos they lead to an extremist mis-interpretation of Islam which paves the way for terrorism.

But as a liberal lefty, I think it is for such a man {who is a respected Kornaic expert type} to say such things.

It is not for a fat Tory ex-cabinet minister to use such insulting language* simply to position himself as the poundshop Trump candidate for whenever they plunge the knife into May.

*It doesn't matter whether they look like a letter box or a Coco Channel haute couture piece. It's about the patriarchal oppression as the imam says in the Times.

I obv hate Johnson, but if they nick him, I hope the imam hands himself in. Love to see some fückwitted copper trying to argue Koranic theory with an imam with a PhD. I'd pay to watch that.

As you know, I'm of the Vedic persuasion and don't really have time for all that Abrahamic nonsense, but this imam seems a good chap.

We need more of him. Hope the Times gives him occasional columns.

No. 'We' didn't see 'a couple of attacks after Brexit'. There were attacks the media and the left ascribed to Brexit at the time that subsequently turned out to have nothing to do with Brexit.

[Burney]

He's not fat, his chest has just slipped a bit.

Was it Imam Tawhidi? He's excellent, that bloke, but if he were white he'd be described as virulently Islamophobic.

He regularly receives death threats from his chums in the 'religion of peace', of course.

They love a death threat, do the muzzies. Indeed, they love a death.

[Burney]

I think you'll find that this has already happened.

:nod: I'm not quite sure what planet WES has been living on for the last three years if he thinks the public is yearning for traditional politics.

[Ash]

:nod: It's times like these that make you wish Hitler had won.

It might make you think that, Barry. And Floyd, perhaps.

Though I gather Hitler was quite positive towards Islam. A religion he could do business with. And did, of course.

[Sir C]

It might make you think that, Barry. And Floyd, perhaps.

Though I gather Hitler was quite positive towards Islam. A religion he could do business with. And did, of course.

If only dear Ken were here to tell us how Hitler was a friend to both jews and Muslims and could have brought about everlasting peace in the middle east if he hadn't gone mad and, well, you know the rest...

[Burney]

If only dear Ken were here to tell us how Hitler was a friend to both jews and Muslims and could have brought about everlasting peace in the middle east if he hadn't gone mad and, well, you know the rest...

Poor old Ken, sitting at home moaning and dribbling about how the Jews have brought him down. :-(

[WES]

A mini-Trump? Calm down now. Boris' overall comments on the burka were straight out of the progressive feminist playbook - he blamed the patriarchy for ****s sake! And then said he didn't actually support it being banned because that would be authoritarian.

In other words, Trump's position would be the precise opposite.

The mini-Trump bit was a reference to the 'letterbox' comment, which was very Trumpish. And Burney's point seemed to be that that was exactly what he intended.

[WES]

:nod: I'm not quite sure what planet WES has been living on for the last three years if he thinks the public is yearning for traditional politics.

I didn't say that the public was. I understand some of the dissatisfaction and you can see evidence of it. The point I made was that I don't think that it is as extreme as it was in America. I don't think the UK is ready to elect a mini-Trump because he is one.

Britain just hasn't gone that far yet.

[Burney]

I didn't say that the public was. I understand some of the dissatisfaction and you can see evidence of it. The point I made was that I don't think that it is as extreme as it was in America. I don't think the UK is ready to elect a mini-Trump because he is one.

Britain just hasn't gone that far yet.

WES, a communist anti-semite who has spent his entire career cosying up with this country's enemies is currently the leader of the Labour Party against a minority Tory government and is polling neck-and-neck with them on 38%.

Do you think that's business as usual, for fvck's sake?

[WES]

WES, a communist anti-semite who has spent his entire career cosying up with this country's enemies is currently the leader of the Labour Party against a minority Tory government and is polling neck-and-neck with them on 38%.

Do you think that's business as usual, for fvck's sake?

You think that all of that is due to the public being fed up with traditional politics and politicians? As opposed to Labour changing the way that their leaders are elected, the left wing part of the Labour party being tired of the centrist policy of the Blair years, the incompetence of the Oxford educated Theresa May Tory government and the circumstance created by Cameron and the Brexit vote and the subsequent election decision taken by the Tories?

We should ignore all that and just conclude that this is a result of the public being fed up with traditional politics?

Blimey.

[Burney]

You think that all of that is due to the public being fed up with traditional politics and politicians? As opposed to Labour changing the way that their leaders are elected, the left wing part of the Labour party being tired of the centrist policy of the Blair years, the incompetence of the Oxford educated Theresa May Tory government and the circumstance created by Cameron and the Brexit vote and the subsequent election decision taken by the Tories?

We should ignore all that and just conclude that this is a result of the public being fed up with traditional politics?

Blimey.

I would say that these things (and, of course - y'know -Brexit) are obviously symptomatic of a wider desire for political change and a radical restructuring of the existing order, yes. The status quo ante is no longer an option. Boris's popularity in the tory party membership and Corbyn's in Labour's would seem obvious symptoms of that fact to me, but clearly you think this is just a blip.

You strike me as a man determined to imagine the status quo ante is going to return any minute if you just keep ignoring all this turmoil. I don't think it's going to happen, mate.

[Sir C]

I would say that these things (and, of course - y'know -Brexit) are obviously symptomatic of a wider desire for political change and a radical restructuring of the existing order, yes. The status quo ante is no longer an option. Boris's popularity in the tory party membership and Corbyn's in Labour's would seem obvious symptoms of that fact to me, but clearly you think this is just a blip.

You strike me as a man determined to imagine the status quo ante is going to return any minute if you just keep ignoring all this turmoil. I don't think it's going to happen, mate.

Even if it does, it won't be the same without Rick Parfitt :-(

[Burney]

Even if it does, it won't be the same without Rick Parfitt :-(

What does Francis Rossi find to do with himself these days? Does he just headbang on his own? :-(

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

The actual Commissioner of the Met tried to set her 'Hate crime' unit on Boris for mildly taking the p1ss out of how some people dress. Have a fvcking think about that for a fvcking second.

We are totally fvcked, aren't we? :-(

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/09/met-commissioner-accused-diverting-resources-asked-hate-crime/


Modern attention seeking at its "finest"

[WES]

I would say that these things (and, of course - y'know -Brexit) are obviously symptomatic of a wider desire for political change and a radical restructuring of the existing order, yes. The status quo ante is no longer an option. Boris's popularity in the tory party membership and Corbyn's in Labour's would seem obvious symptoms of that fact to me, but clearly you think this is just a blip.

You strike me as a man determined to imagine the status quo ante is going to return any minute if you just keep ignoring all this turmoil. I don't think it's going to happen, mate.

I think Corbyn is a blip, what Cameron did was incredibly stupid (from a political perspective, I mean) and the Tories are as incompetent as I can ever remember. Not sure I see a dissatisfaction with traditional politics in there anywhere. Jaysus, was there ever a time when you couldn't find bucket loads of people who would tell you they hated politicians and politics?

Brexit is an interesting one. You think the over 55s who voted overwhelmingly for it are tired of traditional politics but the 55 and unders who voted to Remain are quite happy with it?

[Burney]

I think Corbyn is a blip, what Cameron did was incredibly stupid (from a political perspective, I mean) and the Tories are as incompetent as I can ever remember. Not sure I see a dissatisfaction with traditional politics in there anywhere. Jaysus, was there ever a time when you couldn't find bucket loads of people who would tell you they hated politicians and politics?

Brexit is an interesting one. You think the over 55s who voted overwhelmingly for it are tired of traditional politics but the 55 and unders who voted to Remain are quite happy with it?

I think those are very simplistic ways to interpret the votes. Just because a majority in a given group voted one way, that doesn't mean they all did. If only over-55s had voted to Leave, Leave would have lost. However, there was a critical mass of voters in other groups that meant we voted overall for a huge change. These things aren't always about majorities - they often just require that critical mass.

What Cameron did was forced on him by a groundswell of anti-EU sentiment that threatened to topple the Tory government. Calling his actions 'stupid' ignores the fact that he really didn't have any political choice other than to offer a referendum or lose an election. Equally, there was sufficient of a movement for change in the Labour Party to elect Corbyn that (however much I may disagree with them) again speaks of a much wider phenomenon. Equally, while I agree the current Tory government is incompetent, a large part of that has been forced on them by the vote for Brexit.

To be quite honest, I simply don't see how you can look at the last few years and NOT perceive a groundswell of discontent that has changed things hugely.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

He regularly receives death threats from his chums in the 'religion of peace', of course.

They love a death threat, do the muzzies. Indeed, they love a death.


You are using the term mussie is it?

[Burney]

You are using the term mussie is it?

Well I like to ring the changes

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

:sigh: No, it wouldn’t have provoked the same reaction.

The whole point of the mocking comments was that they were the bait. He was relying on his opponents being stupid enough to seize upon them, thinking it could be a way to stop him. Instead, they’ve put themselves at odds with the membership and public, turned Boris into the de facto champion of the grassroots and made themselves look like PC, multi-culti, Islam-loving opportunists into the bargain. And all just before Conference. :clap:

The best thing about Boris’s plan is that it relied on Number 10’s endless capacity to do the wrong thing in any given situation- which it duly has.

Oh, and the Corbyn comparison is nonsense. Corbyn has a track record of anti-semitism as long as your arm, so of course such comments would be seen as antisemitic. No such history or context exists with Boris and muslims.

No. He's generally had a go at other darkies - piccaninnies with watermelon smiles or whatever.

So he does have a track record of racism, just like Jez does of anti-sem.

Pair of cünts, imo.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

He's not fat, his chest has just slipped a bit.

Was it Imam Tawhidi? He's excellent, that bloke, but if he were white he'd be described as virulently Islamophobic.

Imam Dr Taj Hargey or something, C. Excellent letter. As a multi-cult lefty, I agree 100%. {And I think India should annex back our homeland so am not that well disposed to the 'Stani flavour of Muzzie. Though Kashmir should remain free as it was never part of British India. Both Ind and Pak should get out.}

Sir, Boris Johnson should not apologise for telling the truth. His evocative analogy is unfortunate but he is justified in reminding everyone that the Wahhabi/Salafi-inspired fad of female facial masking has no Koranic legitimacy. It is, however, a nefarious component of a trendy gateway theology for religious extremism and militant Islam.

The burka and niqab are hideous tribal ninja-like garments that are pre-Islamic, non-Koranic and therefore un-Muslim. Although this deliberate identity-concealing contraption is banned at the Kaaba in Mecca it is permitted in Britain, thus precipitating security risks, accelerating vitamin D deficiency, endorsing gender-inequality and inhibiting community cohesion.

The retrogressive Islamic clergy has succeeded in persuading ill-informed Muslims through suspect secondary sources that God wants women to cover their faces, when in reality it is a toxic patriarchy controlling women. Is it any wonder that many younger women have internalised this poisonous chauvinism by asserting that it is their human right to hide their faces? Johnson did not go far enough. If Britain is to become a fully integrated society then it is incumbent that cultural practices, personal preferences and communal customs that aggravate social division should be firmly resisted. For this reason Britain must emulate France, Belgium, Austria, Bulgaria and Denmark in banning the burka.
Dr Taj Hargey
Imam, Oxford Islamic Congregation

[Burney]

No. He's generally had a go at other darkies - piccaninnies with watermelon smiles or whatever.

So he does have a track record of racism, just like Jez does of anti-sem.

Pair of cünts, imo.

That quote is taken out of context. In fact it was written to mock the neo-colonial behaviour and expectations of Tony Blair when undertaking a progress to Africa. The use of such anachronistic language and imagery was entirely deliberate and made perfect sense in that context.

I realise context is of no interest to people these days just as long as they get to scream 'RACISM!', but I thought I'd mention it.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

No. 'We' didn't see 'a couple of attacks after Brexit'. There were attacks the media and the left ascribed to Brexit at the time that subsequently turned out to have nothing to do with Brexit.

No. There was one of a Pole that had nothing to do with it, despite what was claimed at the time.

But there were other, less serious incidents, which were Brexit related. Screaming "Go home because we voted out" at some swarthy type had nothing to do with Brexit then?

Do you remember the old days, B? Before the internet? When people like you and me could meet in a pub or student common room, and have an intelligent discussion despite our political differences without the need to try and make stuff up to religiously defend our side of the argument? When people could admit they saw the other person's point? What happened to those days, eh?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

That quote is taken out of context. In fact it was written to mock the neo-colonial behaviour and expectations of Tony Blair when undertaking a progress to Africa. The use of such anachronistic language and imagery was entirely deliberate and made perfect sense in that context.

I realise context is of no interest to people these days just as long as they get to scream 'RACISM!', but I thought I'd mention it.

Bøllocks, B. Here is the quote. It's about Commonwealth crowds cheering HMQ.

"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness."

Again, B, stop making stuff up.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I hate them all. Basically, they should make me and my missus dictator cos everyone else is a cünt.

[Burney]

No. There was one of a Pole that had nothing to do with it, despite what was claimed at the time.

But there were other, less serious incidents, which were Brexit related. Screaming "Go home because we voted out" at some swarthy type had nothing to do with Brexit then?

Do you remember the old days, B? Before the internet? When people like you and me could meet in a pub or student common room, and have an intelligent discussion despite our political differences without the need to try and make stuff up to religiously defend our side of the argument? When people could admit they saw the other person's point? What happened to those days, eh?

Sorry, but there really isn't any evidence for this.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/hate-crime-is-up-but-its-not-fair-to-blame-brexit/

[Burney]

Bøllocks, B. Here is the quote. It's about Commonwealth crowds cheering HMQ.

"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness."

Again, B, stop making stuff up.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I hate them all. Basically, they should make me and my missus dictator cos everyone else is a cünt.

You clearly missed the 'It is said...' part of the quote.

In other words, he is framing it in the way that the Queen (in this representation of her) is supposed to perceive and think of these people.

And the next paragraph goes on to do exactly what I described.

"They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."

The language that is used is very deliberately designed to be anachronistic and deliberately harks back to the language and attitudes of the colonial era in order to mock both them and Blair for apparently revelling in them - 'big white chief', 'big white bird', etc.

It's clumsily done and probably ill-advised, but it doesn't make the writer a racist.

Context, nuance, intent - none of these things matter when all you want to do is have a go at someone, though, do they?

That makes you a bit of a cünt, too, I'm afraid. I'm sure your missus is very nice, though. :-(

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Sorry, but there really isn't any evidence for this.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/hate-crime-is-up-but-its-not-fair-to-blame-brexit/

Depends whether you believe the Speccie or my first uni. Ya pays yer money and takes ya choice.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/19/hate-crime-did-spike-after-the-referendum-even-allowing-for-other-factors/

Now care to say the piccaninnie bit was out of context, B? I posted it. Please do explain how it wasn't racist.

[Burney]

Depends whether you believe the Speccie or my first uni. Ya pays yer money and takes ya choice.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/19/hate-crime-did-spike-after-the-referendum-even-allowing-for-other-factors/

Now care to say the piccaninnie bit was out of context, B? I posted it. Please do explain how it wasn't racist.

See above.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

See above.

You said it was a dig at the neo-colonialism of St Tone. It wasn't. It was clearly a comment about all those swarthy chaps the Queens gets on with at the commonwealth.

[Burney]

You said it was a dig at the neo-colonialism of St Tone. It wasn't. It was clearly a comment about all those swarthy chaps the Queens gets on with at the commonwealth.

The second paragraph shows that it was a dig at the neo-colonialism of Blair. It was framed in deliberately provocative language first to mock the reductive sneering of right-on lefty anti-monarchists and then to turn it back on them in relation their chum Tone.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The second paragraph shows that it was a dig at the neo-colonialism of Blair. It was framed in deliberately provocative language first to mock the reductive sneering of right-on lefty anti-monarchists and then to turn it back on them in relation their chum Tone.

I don't give a fück about the 2nd paragraph. The sentence it was used in explicitly references the Commonwealth groupies and politicians that meet the queen. You brought up context. Let's speak about the sentence it was used in.

He may or may not be a racist, but he is prepared to use casually racist terms for humour.

Fair play, I do the same in the privacy of my home, but it is not something I would do in public because it's offensive, and certainly not if I was in a position of power and had a potential audience (via shares, reposts etc) of millions.

[Burney]

I don't give a fück about the 2nd paragraph. The sentence it was used in explicitly references the Commonwealth groupies and politicians that meet the queen. You brought up context. Let's speak about the sentence it was used in.

He may or may not be a racist, but he is prepared to use casually racist terms for humour.

Fair play, I do the same in the privacy of my home, but it is not something I would do in public because it's offensive, and certainly not if I was in a position of power and had a potential audience (via shares, reposts etc) of millions.

You're effectively admitting you are happy to ignore the context of what he's written, though. To take a paragraph in isolation without reference to the paragraph that follows it is absurd. :shrug:

And writing a word in a published article is hardly 'casual'. It's done deliberately and with cognisance of the potential impact. If you consider the mere use of a word to be verboten regardless of context then we're all in trouble. And the fact that someone may find it offensive is not a good reason not to use it.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

You're effectively admitting you are happy to ignore the context of what he's written, though. To take a paragraph in isolation without reference to the paragraph that follows it is absurd. :shrug:

And writing a word in a published article is hardly 'casual'. It's done deliberately and with cognisance of the potential impact. If you consider the mere use of a word to be verboten regardless of context then we're all in trouble. And the fact that someone may find it offensive is not a good reason not to use it.

I'm just telling you that wasn't my reading.

I read the article with an open mind. I may be a lefty but given my lifestyle I hate victimhood and identity politics and a fücking large chunk of my own party.*

I read the parts about Blair, his travels, the trains etc.

And the following sentence.

But I thought that sentence specifically referred to the poor types HMQ has to meet.

Just saying it could well be read like that. Perhaps you Torygraph readers think that's fine, but the Times would never publish something like that.

Have you considered that you are not approaching this with an open mind cos you want him to be exonerated cos it will annoy those you dislike?

Just sayin', B, if I was writing a post-grad history essay on AWIMB, you as a primary source would be analysed very strongly through the prism of your online persona. Fra more than many others. {Though poss less than my old mate Jorge.}

Try to see yourself as others see you, Monkey, then you will better help Tripitakka on his Vedic quest.

{btw, was Tripitakka a man or women. Monks are meant to be male but I really fancied him/her when I was about 8.}


*Indeed, when we one the student category of the OWM award in 2012, when presented it in the Guardian building on stage, Jon Snow said the thing that most impressed the jury was that we were the only people who made a film in the 3rd world where they were shown as humans not victims. It's our calling card.

[Burney]

I'm just telling you that wasn't my reading.

I read the article with an open mind. I may be a lefty but given my lifestyle I hate victimhood and identity politics and a fücking large chunk of my own party.*

I read the parts about Blair, his travels, the trains etc.

And the following sentence.

But I thought that sentence specifically referred to the poor types HMQ has to meet.

Just saying it could well be read like that. Perhaps you Torygraph readers think that's fine, but the Times would never publish something like that.

Have you considered that you are not approaching this with an open mind cos you want him to be exonerated cos it will annoy those you dislike?

Just sayin', B, if I was writing a post-grad history essay on AWIMB, you as a primary source would be analysed very strongly through the prism of your online persona. Fra more than many others. {Though poss less than my old mate Jorge.}

Try to see yourself as others see you, Monkey, then you will better help Tripitakka on his Vedic quest.

{btw, was Tripitakka a man or women. Monks are meant to be male but I really fancied him/her when I was about 8.}


*Indeed, when we one the student category of the OWM award in 2012, when presented it in the Guardian building on stage, Jon Snow said the thing that most impressed the jury was that we were the only people who made a film in the 3rd world where they were shown as humans not victims. It's our calling card.

“They” :hehe:

And if I were still in the business of textual analysis (as opposed to textual commoditisation, which pays better), I would refer you to your hilariously unconscious othering and innate neo-colonialist attitude to ‘they’.

Because, however sympathetically you choose to objectify your fellow humans, you’re still objectifying them. Because that’s what they really are to you: objects. You’re no less a product of your upbringing, learned prejudices and tribe than I am, mate.

However hard you want not to be, you’re still just a tourist. Why? Because you have the option to walk away.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Well I like to ring the changes


Mussie is it..... FFS I'm wasted on this board.

[Sir C]

Mussie is it..... FFS I'm wasted on this board.

I get it a. Pearls before swine it is.

[AFC East]

The actual Commissioner of the Met tried to set her 'Hate crime' unit on Boris for mildly taking the p1ss out of how some people dress. Have a fvcking think about that for a fvcking second.

We are totally fvcked, aren't we? :-(

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/09/met-commissioner-accused-diverting-resources-asked-hate-crime/

I'm rather encouraged by the amount of support he is receiving. I think Boris is an inferior version of Trump in every way imaginable (even the hair), but he has started a decent discussion.

Be hopeful. At some point we have to be able to tell the difference between, "kick that Muslim's teeth in" and "haha Mohammed, loved to **** letterboxes".

Hopefully that correction will happen soon.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

“They” :hehe:

And if I were still in the business of textual analysis (as opposed to textual commoditisation, which pays better), I would refer you to your hilariously unconscious othering and innate neo-colonialist attitude to ‘they’.

Because, however sympathetically you choose to objectify your fellow humans, you’re still objectifying them. Because that’s what they really are to you: objects. You’re no less a product of your upbringing, learned prejudices and tribe than I am, mate.

However hard you want not to be, you’re still just a tourist. Why? Because you have the option to walk away.

Think you've totally missed the meaning of the word, B.

I'm talking about documentaries my beloved and I make. They is the pronoun which clearly stands in place of the noun "the subjects of our documentary."

You know that travelling rave film I linked? I would have used the term 'they' had I written 'they were a bugger to film cos they were all off their heads on K" or somesuch.

Read it again, B. The they only referred to the subjects in my film, not the other people in the shantytown in the Manila cemetery where we made the doc, not the rest of the Philippines, nor Asia or the 3rd world in general.

So I'm not objectifying my subjects. We're still in contact with the old man, Hamie's, grandson on facebook.

Here's the film if you have ten mins. As I said, they (the 5 or 6 subjects in the film) won us an award.

https://vimeo.com/35466653

I'm afraid this says rather more about you than I, B. It's you who would consider it as first world "us" and third world "them."

Likewise the film we made about our mates among the streetkids in Paharganj, New Delhi. Unfortunately, out of the maybe 15 who have been really close mates over the last 20 years, 6 of them have died on the streets, including about the best mate I'll ever have, Mukhesh.

However, we're still in contact with two or three of them by phone and facebook. We've just sent one of them, Monu, £30 so he can go on a pilgrimage to Rishikesh. Indeed, I took him to the mountains with me last year, to stay with an old mate there, and when we came back down, I got him his ID card, meaning that he could come to Kerala with me, as he could now check in to a hotel. Because of a train problem, and because he now had ID, I ended up sticking him on a plane with me on the way back, so he flew for the first time. Spent the whole 4 hrs looking out the window, amazed to see the clouds from above.

Another one of them, AJ, had an article written about him so he sent it to us on fb, and we've shared it and had a whip round for him. One of my mates in Goa - a Bengali Hindu Gooner called DJ who works down there, has also been helping him since we did that.

And another one of them, Manisha, is being sorted out by this Aussie academic we met who's helping her try and move to Aus.

But yeah, B, I'm really a neo-colonialist racist who's subconsciously othering some of the best mates I have and have had. I'll be taking a French mate out to see them in a few weeks, Ganpati willing, and we'll take a couple of them, Monu and Badal, wherever we choose to go - mountains and Goa, and hopefully Varanasi too, Ganpati willing.

So no, B, I am not objectifying my mates, I am using the 3rd person plural pronoun to refer to the subjects of that specific documentary and my mates among the Delhi street kids, many of whom were subjects of, and/or helped us to make, the Tales from Paharganj documentary. Indeed, a couple of them, also helped us on another doc where they came to Rajasthan and helped us translate.

I don't wish to be rude, B, but you Britisher goras are racially inferior to my mates among the Indian street kids.

"
However hard you want not to be, you’re still just a tourist. Why? Because you have the option to walk away. "

No, B. While we are all aware that at the end of the day, I go into my hotel where I'm not allowed to bring them when in Delhi while they stay on the street, when I took Monu up the mountains last year, my old mates there knew nothing of his background. They treated us as equals. All they made clear was you, Monu, can see that GG is an old and beloved mate of ours, so please treat us differently yo all the other natives here, just like we will treat you differently to all the other white and Punjabi tourists as you, like us, are clearly one of GG's mates.

Yes, we all know that I fly back to a welfare state while they stay on the street, but the times we are together we are just best mates who will at times put ourselves squarely in each other's hands.

I'm afraid it's simply a situation you are unable to comprehend because you haven't experienced anything like it so are trying to guess how it works.

Despite the fact that I will always have options denied them, true love and friendship means that when we are together, we are just mates, just equals. When you have watched some of the kids grow up over 20 years you have a relationship which isn't one any tourist would ever have.