Boris.

Boris has not been a member of HMGs Goverment since he resigned as FS last month and he is probably enjoying his new found freedom as a back bencher.

I was okay with the reference to'letter boxes ' in a newspaper column but not so with the perjorative use of 'bank robbers'. He is astute to know he is pushing on the boundary of what is acceptable as would his Editor.

I think the opportunity for him to lead the Tories passed when TM got the job so perhaps he has resigned himself to a life in journalism.

Ray

This was not an off-the-cuff remark made in an interview or after-dinner speech. It was an article in a national newspaper. That suggests to me that careful and deliberate thought went into what was said.  We can speculate about the intent but unless and until BJ explains his intent we won't know for sure.

That said, I'm pretty confident that his intention was not to distract the media's attention away from Labour's difficulty with anti-Semitism, but that seems to have been the effect. I suspect many Tories will not thank BJ for that.  

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

I think it is a subtle and interesting argument, I know it was debated when the hate speech laws came in and various comedians campaigned against these restrictions (such as Rowan Atkinson) as a risk to their right to be freely insulting to all and everyone (not quite how it was put but you get my point!).

I think it comes down to intent. If the purpose of a statement is to directly insult, or to incite hatred etc then that statement is quite correctly seen as inappropriate. I also think (as per Boris) that the way it is presented matters. Statements that are clearly in an entertainment context have different 'rules' to those made in apparently serious debate.

Bruce

Sounds all well reasoned and academic as if coming from one of your 'language police' or 'hate speech' boards commissions?

The problem is that the world is already full of self-appointed arbiters who believe they know someone else's intent.  To further complicate the hypocrisy, the interpretation of intent and the coming judgement depends on who is saying it.  Two comedians can say the same thing and one will get away with it (a left leaning progressive) and the other will be destroyed for it (a right wing conservative) in most cases.  Different 'rules' is an understatement.

Furthermore, why is it that in many posts here (not yours, Bruce) I find the language and character of the post far more offensive than anything Boris Johnson said in jest.  The only problem (if you can call it that) is that his comment involved a so called protected group (muslim or any 'ism' etc).  Replace this with any other form and most would laugh and see the humor in the imagery.

So, definitely, suggesting there should be two rules for select groups is just ludicrous.  In reality, this is what is occurring anyway because the louder mouthed 'baiters' are looking for blood constantly.

UK law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ious_Hatred_Act_2006

It has always seemed clunky to me and challenges liberal principles of free expression. However I think few people would argue that is has been abused by the state since it was enacted. Note it was introduced by Labour, perhaps rather contrary to left/right wing assumptions. Although where Blair sat on that spectrum is of course debatable!

Florestan; I have no idea what you mean by  'one of your 'language police' or 'hate speech' boards commissions?'  Have you been reading 1984 again?

Bruce

It strikes me that the so called 'Alt Right', led by racist propaganda and ultra right wing media outlets such as Breitbart and increasingly supported by media organisations such as Fox News (which has over the past few years has shamefully ceased to be simply a right leaning news channel), is redefining politics in a particular way which has nothing to do with the conventional distinction between left and right wing policies, certainly within the UK.

The tactic that they promote, so evident in recent American politics, and which has been adopted by a number of right wing politicians world wide is to make, and repeat as often as possible, deliberately offensive comments, outrageous claims and downright lies. Many of these comments and claims are initially viewed by all but the die-hard alt-right, bigots and racists as shocking and offensive. However, by repeating these comments and claims time and time again, they believe that over time a growing number of people will become numbed to them, and that these offensive comments and views that once upon a time simply would not have been deemed acceptable eventually become to be seen as the norm. Astonishingly, in the US under the current Administration, they have been proven to be right. Far right politicians and supporters now feel empowered to continue their assault on the truth and simple decency. Political opponents such as the Democratic party, which in most countries in the world (including the UK) would be considered to populate the centre or centre right of politics, are branded as being on the far left. Respected media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the BBC (to mention just a few) are demonised as portrayers of 'fake news' by the very media outlets who themselves specialise in and prosper by the use of fake news. Again, astonishingly it appears that it is not just the politically illiterate or the borderline racists and xenophobes who seem to buy into this agenda.  

As I mentioned earlier, this thankfully in the main has little to do with the division of left and right wing politics in the UK, and the Brexit Leave/Remain split is very much across both main parties. However, in my opinion a number of British politicians and political columnists, one of whom is Boris Johnson, appear to be adopting the tactics of the alt-right in their attempts to garner support from the less attractive elements of the electoral base in the UK. Boris Johnson often comes across as a comical but likable buffoon, and he obviously cultivates this tag. A number of people have come to his defence over his comments about the Burka and those who wear it. Now, I can understand why some people feel rather uncomfortable about the subject of the Burka itself, and of course the vast majority of Muslim women in the UK (and the US) do not wear the garment. I personally cannot help but feel that it is virtually impossible for anyone who chooses to wear the garment to integrate fully, or sometimes even partially into British society, which in my view cannot be a good thing. I also cannot help but feel that in some circumstances the garment could potentially be used as some as a means of subjugation. However, I equally understand that some Muslim women feel very strongly about the Burka and freely choose to wear it. The wishes and rights of these people have to be respected by all of us even if we personally have some reservations in respect of the subject.

The connection between this and Boris Johnson's column?

If Johnson had simply chosen to argue in his column that he opposed a ban on the wearing of the Burka, despite having some personal reservations about is use, then that would have been relatively uncontroversial and relatively un-newsworthy. If he had made an off the cuff remark about the Burka on camera in which he compared wearers of the Burka to bank robbers, then the remark would probably have made the news, but then filed away as just another stupid gaffe by the likeable buffoon but something that wasn't intended to be offensive. However, it was neither of these things. Johnson isn't quite as daft as he sometimes likes people to think he is. Johnson made these comments in a newspaper column that was almost certainly very carefully crafted to have specifically the very impact that it subsequently proved to have. In my opinion, Johnson wrote this column with the calculated aim of offending, creating headlines and attracting personal support from those on the borderline racist far right of the political scene in the UK. This formula has worked very well in the USA, Italy and a number of other countries in recent years. I believe that Johnson has decided that this may be the way to advance his own particular political ambitions. He has been reported as having had a number of meetings very recently with Stephen Bannon, the self defined anarchist and arch architect of the alt-right and 'populist' movement in the US. Is this a coincidence? Probably not.                                     

Hmack posted:

It strikes me that the so called 'Alt Right', led by racist propaganda and ultra right wing media outlets such as Breitbart and increasingly supported by media organisations such as Fox News (which has over the past few years has shamefully ceased to be simply a right leaning news channel), is redefining politics in a particular way which has nothing to do with the conventional distinction between left and right wing policies, certainly within the UK.

The tactic that they promote, so evident in recent American politics, and which has been adopted by a number of right wing politicians world wide is to make, and repeat as often as possible, deliberately offensive comments, outrageous claims and downright lies. Many of these comments and claims are initially viewed by all but the die-hard alt-right, bigots and racists as shocking and offensive. However, by repeating these comments and claims time and time again, they believe that over time a growing number of people will become numbed to them, and that these offensive comments and views that once upon a time simply would not have been deemed acceptable eventually become to be seen as the norm. Astonishingly, in the US under the current Administration, they have been proven to be right. Far right politicians and supporters now feel empowered to continue their assault on the truth and simple decency. Political opponents such as the Democratic party, which in most countries in the world (including the UK) would be considered to populate the centre or centre right of politics, are branded as being on the far left. Respected media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the BBC (to mention just a few) are demonised as portrayers of 'fake news' by the very media outlets who themselves specialise in and prosper by the use of fake news. Again, astonishingly it appears that it is not just the politically illiterate or the borderline racists and xenophobes who seem to buy into this agenda.  

As I mentioned earlier, this thankfully in the main has little to do with the division of left and right wing politics in the UK, and the Brexit Leave/Remain split is very much across both main parties. However, in my opinion a number of British politicians and political columnists, one of whom is Boris Johnson, appear to be adopting the tactics of the alt-right in their attempts to garner support from the less attractive elements of the electoral base in the UK. Boris Johnson often comes across as a comical but likable buffoon, and he obviously cultivates this tag. A number of people have come to his defence over his comments about the Burka and those who wear it. Now, I can understand why some people feel rather uncomfortable about the subject of the Burka itself, and of course the vast majority of Muslim women in the UK (and the US) do not wear the garment. I personally cannot help but feel that it is virtually impossible for anyone who chooses to wear the garment to integrate fully, or sometimes even partially into British society, which in my view cannot be a good thing. I also cannot help but feel that in some circumstances the garment could potentially be used as some as a means of subjugation. However, I equally understand that some Muslim women feel very strongly about the Burka and freely choose to wear it. The wishes and rights of these people have to be respected by all of us even if we personally have some reservations in respect of the subject.

The connection between this and Boris Johnson's column?

If Johnson had simply chosen to argue in his column that he opposed a ban on the wearing of the Burka, despite having some personal reservations about is use, then that would have been relatively uncontroversial and relatively un-newsworthy. If he had made an off the cuff remark about the Burka on camera in which he compared wearers of the Burka to bank robbers, then the remark would probably have made the news, but then filed away as just another stupid gaffe by the likeable buffoon but something that wasn't intended to be offensive. However, it was neither of these things. Johnson isn't quite as daft as he sometimes likes people to think he is. Johnson made these comments in a newspaper column that was almost certainly very carefully crafted to have specifically the very impact that it subsequently proved to have. In my opinion, Johnson wrote this column with the calculated aim of offending, creating headlines and attracting personal support from those on the borderline racist far right of the political scene in the UK. This formula has worked very well in the USA, Italy and a number of other countries in recent years. I believe that Johnson has decided that this may be the way to advance his own particular political ambitions. He has been reported as having had a number of meetings very recently with Stephen Bannon, the self defined anarchist and arch architect of the alt-right and 'populist' movement in the US. Is this a coincidence? Probably not.                                     

I understand your argument but I think their is another way of looking at it. I believe the success of Trump, and perhaps UKIP and (who knows what next) is due to their ability to say and represent what a lot of people already thought much of the time; opinions and views that a lot of people felt were never represented by 'conventional' politicians.

I'm not sure they have shaped or altered opinions that much.

(Sorry used the 'T' word. I shall not do so again!)

Bruce

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Thinking about Have I Got news for You is an good example (is that still running?). That is an entertainment show that has a political element. it seems Ok for me for people to poke fun in various ways in that format compared to appearing on Question Time.

Do you agree?

Bruce

Bizarrely, while having a look around t’net about this, I see references have been made to the very same Atkinson, Allen and Pythons.

HIGNFY, Private Eye and The Establishment Club would I feel all fall into the same  ‘club’ and at it's simplest level is calling out hypocrisy. Especially within The Establishment be that Politics, Religion or The Judiciary.

What people sometimes choose to believe and Organised Religion are strange and funny things. And as Rowan Atkinson said, if you tell a religious joke, someone is bound to be offended, so there is no point apologising for it. Though I’m not so sure of his comment that this is a funny joke, but then we’re all different aren’t we?

”Consider the Lilly...”

Have you heard the one about an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman................

No wonder the Welsh feel so left out of things.

Telling jokes is a funny old business. And changes with time. Try re-running Alf Garnet on prime time TV. Even though the butt of the joke is Garnet himself, very few people would find the programmes acceptable today.

Try the Benny Hill show these days and you won't be able to find the remote quick enough.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

"I understand your argument but I think their is another way of looking at it. I believe the success of Trump, and perhaps UKIP and (who knows what next) is due to their ability to say and represent what a lot of people already thought much of the time; opinions and views that a lot of people felt were never represented by 'conventional' politicians".

Certainly the case in some instances, and reality probably sits right down the middle.

However, if your perspective is indeed true, then it's even more disturbing. The world has become a much more divisive and nastier place as a result.   

Nah. The world has always been a nasty and divisive place, or at least the people in it. Usually because we’re designed to be scared of uncertainty.

The ancient Egyptians weren’t very tolerant by all accounts and The Romans would nail you to stuff if you said nice things to people.

I think as time moves on and communication gets wider and easier, The World can be a smaller place and in many respects more tolerant and open minded, which is why the interweb is censored in various parts of the planet I guess. Those in charge of China, Iran and North Korea for example are not very tolerant I believe. And if there is less overt censorship then the cry of ‘Fake News’ is the propaganda weapon of choice instead.

Unfortunately I guess easier comms also makes it easier to spread divisive messages.

Its all about control still. And we do need some form of control. And the choice to shout out against it.

Hmack posted:

It strikes me that the so called 'Alt Right', led by racist propaganda and ultra right wing media outlets such as Breitbart and increasingly supported by media organisations such as Fox News (which has over the past few years has shamefully ceased to be simply a right leaning news channel), is redefining politics in a particular way which has nothing to do with the conventional distinction between left and right wing policies, certainly within the UK.

The tactic that they promote, so evident in recent American politics, and which has been adopted by a number of right wing politicians world wide is to make, and repeat as often as possible, deliberately offensive comments, outrageous claims and downright lies. Many of these comments and claims are initially viewed by all but the die-hard alt-right, bigots and racists as shocking and offensive. However, by repeating these comments and claims time and time again, they believe that over time a growing number of people will become numbed to them, and that these offensive comments and views that once upon a time simply would not have been deemed acceptable eventually become to be seen as the norm. Astonishingly, in the US under the current Administration, they have been proven to be right. Far right politicians and supporters now feel empowered to continue their assault on the truth and simple decency. Political opponents such as the Democratic party, which in most countries in the world (including the UK) would be considered to populate the centre or centre right of politics, are branded as being on the far left. Respected media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the BBC (to mention just a few) are demonised as portrayers of 'fake news' by the very media outlets who themselves specialise in and prosper by the use of fake news. Again, astonishingly it appears that it is not just the politically illiterate or the borderline racists and xenophobes who seem to buy into this agenda.  

As I mentioned earlier, this thankfully in the main has little to do with the division of left and right wing politics in the UK, and the Brexit Leave/Remain split is very much across both main parties. However, in my opinion a number of British politicians and political columnists, one of whom is Boris Johnson, appear to be adopting the tactics of the alt-right in their attempts to garner support from the less attractive elements of the electoral base in the UK. Boris Johnson often comes across as a comical but likable buffoon, and he obviously cultivates this tag. A number of people have come to his defence over his comments about the Burka and those who wear it. Now, I can understand why some people feel rather uncomfortable about the subject of the Burka itself, and of course the vast majority of Muslim women in the UK (and the US) do not wear the garment. I personally cannot help but feel that it is virtually impossible for anyone who chooses to wear the garment to integrate fully, or sometimes even partially into British society, which in my view cannot be a good thing. I also cannot help but feel that in some circumstances the garment could potentially be used as some as a means of subjugation. However, I equally understand that some Muslim women feel very strongly about the Burka and freely choose to wear it. The wishes and rights of these people have to be respected by all of us even if we personally have some reservations in respect of the subject.

The connection between this and Boris Johnson's column?

If Johnson had simply chosen to argue in his column that he opposed a ban on the wearing of the Burka, despite having some personal reservations about is use, then that would have been relatively uncontroversial and relatively un-newsworthy. If he had made an off the cuff remark about the Burka on camera in which he compared wearers of the Burka to bank robbers, then the remark would probably have made the news, but then filed away as just another stupid gaffe by the likeable buffoon but something that wasn't intended to be offensive. However, it was neither of these things. Johnson isn't quite as daft as he sometimes likes people to think he is. Johnson made these comments in a newspaper column that was almost certainly very carefully crafted to have specifically the very impact that it subsequently proved to have. In my opinion, Johnson wrote this column with the calculated aim of offending, creating headlines and attracting personal support from those on the borderline racist far right of the political scene in the UK. This formula has worked very well in the USA, Italy and a number of other countries in recent years. I believe that Johnson has decided that this may be the way to advance his own particular political ambitions. He has been reported as having had a number of meetings very recently with Stephen Bannon, the self defined anarchist and arch architect of the alt-right and 'populist' movement in the US. Is this a coincidence? Probably not.                                     

Hmack, I would like to think that you are simply confused and just repeat the party line like a robot, powerless to think for yourself.  Right on script you are.  An unpaid mouthpiece for a sick agenda and a sick cause.  The truth probably is that you might actually believe all the kooky babble you produce?

For the sake of truth, honesty, and some accountability you need to clarify some of 'your' positions.  I hear words like 'alt right' constantly from all of the highly esteemed organizations you listed (NYT, WP, CNN, BBC) so I am not in the least surprised to hear you move your lips in the same fashion.

Please tell us what you mean by the 'alt right?" 

And don't tell me that it is everyone who simply disagrees with your views (or those of CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WP, BBC etc).  Or maybe, don't tell me (or Boris or DT or blah blah blah) that I am 'alt right' for disagreeing with you and the everyone on the right is simply a bigot, racist, nazi, white supremacist, a Christian etc.  I know this is all you have and is the first response from any 'kooky' left winger but seriously - do you really have any valid arguments or even credible fact that people with views that differ from your good self are what you call 'alt right?'   

The obvious reason you and your ilk spew this kind of stuff is because it is a pejorative of the worst kind.  It is just another word in your arsenal to brand someone or a group of people as very bad.  Deplorable even.   Thinking back on most everything you write, yes, you can draw a line connecting your ideology of linking nazis through Christians.  Quite a broad swath but you simply repeat what you are being fed by your so called respected journalistic institutions.

You claim Fox, for instance, is repeating lies, offensive comments etc.  Name one.

You list the New York Times as one of the 'respected' class of journalistic integrity.  Do you back them in their recent hiring of Sarah Jeong to their editorial board?

How do you defend her inappropriate tweets about her vile hatred of "Whites" and other targeted groups/people?  I guess this is not something people like you would EVER speak up about and tell the NYT's this is not acceptable.  But then again, who among your kind spoke up against the Holocaust denying New York Times?  If you would come across as someone who is seeking the truth I would be behind you.  But you make all kinds of fallacious claims apparently because you have no clue on how to separate fact from fiction.

You are entitled to your opinion but it is quite laughable to read your views of the so called 'mainstream media' vs. the dangerous 'alt right.'  It exposes your ignorance of facts, for one, and your inability to understand how foolish you are.  I mean, do you actually watch and read those organizations and what they come up with day after day?  And you could, with a straight face, tell me you have some sort of intellectual edge to defend them and spew garbage on their behalf?  Sad.

Wasn't this thread about Boris Johnson?

MDS posted:

Wasn't this thread about Boris Johnson?

Who's Boris Johnson ? Never heard of him.

TOBYJUG posted:

MDS posted:

Wasn't this thread about Boris Johnson?

Who's Boris Johnson ? Never heard of him.

Some bloke that claims to be a bit of expert on letter-boxes, I think. But I might be wrong

Florestan,

Your post is so utterly ludicrous and in truth so very disturbing, that I am not going to respond to it other than in one respect which may surprise you. 

I actually detest labels such as 'alt-right' and 'liberal-elite' which are really  meaningless and used by some (including myself in this instance) as a lazy way to group together people who may hold certain values. I was guilty on this occasion, but in my defence the label 'alt-right' was coined by those on the far right of politics and continues to be worn proudly by those who subscribe to far right media organisations run by individuals such as Stephen Bannon.

Back to Johnson. He doesn't fall into this category just yet, but in courting Bannon (if that is what he is doing) he is getting dangerously close to the edge.   

Back on topic...

There are some funny people round here...

Florestan posted:

Back on topic...

Excellent and visionary idea for next DIY cylindrical subwoofer project

No need to rob any bank financing this old scrapped iron

Upper horisontal hole might even fit a EMIT tweeter

Place the thing outside might be a WAF advantage too

Put a plant up top to complete astetics

Om rainy days cover it by an old Burka

Nsub days are finally counted