What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Nigel Foremain bar his views on Brexit is a Tory as are you, Philip Thompson isn't
He's more of a classical liberal, yes, but I'm happy to have him in the same party.
We agree on most things, although not everything.
Thank you Casino.
Its worth remembering that the Conservative Party wasn't just founded by Tories, it also has repeatedly and deliberately absorbed Liberals. The Liberal Unionist Party merged into the Conservative Party over a century ago.
The idea of the Conservatives as the home of "true Tories" only hasn't been the case for centuries. Because the old differences between Tories and Whigs from centuries ago have largely been settled now and the real difference nowadays is between Conservatives and Labour and on the real big issues we are on the same side.
An atheist who believes in the free market and wants low taxes (like myself) belongs in the Conservative Party more than an Anglican Socialist does. Religion is not a 21st century dividing line in politics and HYUFD is a relic in thinking it is.
You could equally be a free marketeer and believe in low taxes and be in Ed Davey's Liberal Democratic party, neither principle alone makes you a Tory.
You're right I could. If I trusted Ed Davey's Liberal Democrat Party to never go into coalition with Labour, or implement electoral reform that I oppose etc then I could be tempted.
There is a reason the Conservative/LD coalition worked well. There isn't much difference between free marketeer Liberals and free marketeer Conservatives.
The Conservatives win elections by getting right wing liberals to vote for them as an integral part of the party. But yes, if someone like you was Tory leader I'd certainly be tempted to vote for the Lib Dems instead.
Sorry Philip I can't promise your requirements for joining the LDs.
Precisely.
We will just have to keep working on you.
I managed to convert a raving right wing Brexiteer friend to a raving namby pamby Remainer liberal friend.
Beverley?
No. I do have to keep on top of it though. Without ongoing indoctrination he starts slipping back to his old beliefs.
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Nigel Foremain bar his views on Brexit is a Tory as are you, Philip Thompson isn't
He's more of a classical liberal, yes, but I'm happy to have him in the same party.
We agree on most things, although not everything.
Thank you Casino.
Its worth remembering that the Conservative Party wasn't just founded by Tories, it also has repeatedly and deliberately absorbed Liberals. The Liberal Unionist Party merged into the Conservative Party over a century ago.
The idea of the Conservatives as the home of "true Tories" only hasn't been the case for centuries. Because the old differences between Tories and Whigs from centuries ago have largely been settled now and the real difference nowadays is between Conservatives and Labour and on the real big issues we are on the same side.
An atheist who believes in the free market and wants low taxes (like myself) belongs in the Conservative Party more than an Anglican Socialist does. Religion is not a 21st century dividing line in politics and HYUFD is a relic in thinking it is.
You could equally be a free marketeer and believe in low taxes and be in Ed Davey's Liberal Democratic party, neither principle alone makes you a Tory.
You're right I could. If I trusted Ed Davey's Liberal Democrat Party to never go into coalition with Labour, or implement electoral reform that I oppose etc then I could be tempted.
There is a reason the Conservative/LD coalition worked well. There isn't much difference between free marketeer Liberals and free marketeer Conservatives.
The Conservatives win elections by getting right wing liberals to vote for them as an integral part of the party. But yes, if someone like you was Tory leader I'd certainly be tempted to vote for the Lib Dems instead.
Sorry Philip I can't promise your requirements for joining the LDs.
Precisely.
We will just have to keep working on you.
I managed to convert a raving right wing Brexiteer friend to a raving namby pamby Remainer liberal friend.
Beverley?
No. I do have to keep on top of it though. Without ongoing indoctrination he starts slipping back to his old beliefs.
Indoctrination?
Hmm.
Yes I'm from the Fascist wing of the LDs. We have to keep the sandal wearers in check.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I think lawyers are essential in a free society. However I agree we've got the balance of law and politics in addressing public policy problems incorrect.
To the extent there's a political problem I suspect it may be that certain types of law (particularly immigration and human rights work) attract those who are already dress quite Left on those issues and aren't going to want to be very imaginative in helping a Government that wants to qualify those rights and close some of the loopholes.
Both sides should dial down the temperature and be willing to work together in a spirit of professional neutrality to work out how best to influence and shape difficult public policy problems.
I assume that everyone who thinks there are too many immigrants from Muslim countries coming to Europe will refuse to take the Pfizer vaccine as a matter of principle, since it was invented by children of Turkish immigrants in Germany.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
Mr. HYUFD, ironic, after the EU's cackhanded and thoroughly cretinous VATmess led to microbusinesses and small businesses closing their own shops and shifting sales to marketplace websites - such as Amazon.
I think lawyers are essential in a free society. However I agree we've got the balance of law and politics in addressing public policy problems incorrect.
To the extent there's a political problem I suspect it may be that certain types of law (particularly immigration and human rights work) attract those who are already dress quite Left on those issues and aren't going to want to be very imaginative in helping a Government that wants to qualify those rights and close some of the loopholes.
Both sides should dial down the temperature and be willing to work together in a spirit of professional neutrality to work out how best to influence and shape difficult public policy problems.
Who do you think the home office employs (at great cost) to fight these immigration cases?
I assume that everyone who thinks there are too many immigrants from Muslim countries coming to Europe will refuse to take the Pfizer vaccine as a matter of principle, since it was invented by children of Turkish immigrants in Germany.
Been a bad 48 hours for Faraege and his anti lockdown/herd immunity party.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Nigel Foremain bar his views on Brexit is a Tory as are you, Philip Thompson isn't
He's more of a classical liberal, yes, but I'm happy to have him in the same party.
We agree on most things, although not everything.
Thank you Casino.
Its worth remembering that the Conservative Party wasn't just founded by Tories, it also has repeatedly and deliberately absorbed Liberals. The Liberal Unionist Party merged into the Conservative Party over a century ago.
The idea of the Conservatives as the home of "true Tories" only hasn't been the case for centuries. Because the old differences between Tories and Whigs from centuries ago have largely been settled now and the real difference nowadays is between Conservatives and Labour and on the real big issues we are on the same side.
An atheist who believes in the free market and wants low taxes (like myself) belongs in the Conservative Party more than an Anglican Socialist does. Religion is not a 21st century dividing line in politics and HYUFD is a relic in thinking it is.
You could equally be a free marketeer and believe in low taxes and be in Ed Davey's Liberal Democratic party, neither principle alone makes you a Tory.
You're right I could. If I trusted Ed Davey's Liberal Democrat Party to never go into coalition with Labour, or implement electoral reform that I oppose etc then I could be tempted.
There is a reason the Conservative/LD coalition worked well. There isn't much difference between free marketeer Liberals and free marketeer Conservatives.
The Conservatives win elections by getting right wing liberals to vote for them as an integral part of the party. But yes, if someone like you was Tory leader I'd certainly be tempted to vote for the Lib Dems instead.
Sorry Philip I can't promise your requirements for joining the LDs.
Precisely.
We will just have to keep working on you.
I managed to convert a raving right wing Brexiteer friend to a raving namby pamby Remainer liberal friend.
Beverley?
No. I do have to keep on top of it though. Without ongoing indoctrination he starts slipping back to his old beliefs.
Indoctrination?
Hmm.
Yes I'm from the Fascist wing of the LDs.
Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Kristallnacht?
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really think you need to take a good hard look at the way you're acting CR. That's beyond patronising to him.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Nigel Foremain bar his views on Brexit is a Tory as are you, Philip Thompson isn't
He's more of a classical liberal, yes, but I'm happy to have him in the same party.
We agree on most things, although not everything.
Thank you Casino.
Its worth remembering that the Conservative Party wasn't just founded by Tories, it also has repeatedly and deliberately absorbed Liberals. The Liberal Unionist Party merged into the Conservative Party over a century ago.
The idea of the Conservatives as the home of "true Tories" only hasn't been the case for centuries. Because the old differences between Tories and Whigs from centuries ago have largely been settled now and the real difference nowadays is between Conservatives and Labour and on the real big issues we are on the same side.
An atheist who believes in the free market and wants low taxes (like myself) belongs in the Conservative Party more than an Anglican Socialist does. Religion is not a 21st century dividing line in politics and HYUFD is a relic in thinking it is.
You could equally be a free marketeer and believe in low taxes and be in Ed Davey's Liberal Democratic party, neither principle alone makes you a Tory.
You're right I could. If I trusted Ed Davey's Liberal Democrat Party to never go into coalition with Labour, or implement electoral reform that I oppose etc then I could be tempted.
There is a reason the Conservative/LD coalition worked well. There isn't much difference between free marketeer Liberals and free marketeer Conservatives.
The Conservatives win elections by getting right wing liberals to vote for them as an integral part of the party. But yes, if someone like you was Tory leader I'd certainly be tempted to vote for the Lib Dems instead.
Sorry Philip I can't promise your requirements for joining the LDs.
Precisely.
We will just have to keep working on you.
I managed to convert a raving right wing Brexiteer friend to a raving namby pamby Remainer liberal friend.
Beverley?
No. I do have to keep on top of it though. Without ongoing indoctrination he starts slipping back to his old beliefs.
Indoctrination?
Hmm.
Yes I'm from the Fascist wing of the LDs.
Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Kristallnacht?
I would propose a simple solution to the most pressing issue of our time, and prohibit Queen's Counsel from opining on any legal dispute on which they are not instructed, and doubly so if that opinion would be given on Twitter.
The current outsider in USPE 2020 has been backed in from over 30 a few days ago to 11. What's going on? How much further can he come in before Betfair pay out on his opponent?
Hello Hubert,
It's because (and not for the 1st time) lots of people are getting sucked into Donald Trump's bullshit and not thinking straight.
In particular atm they are taking Republican noises of support for him as evidence that he has a ghost of a chance of overturning the election result. He doesn't. The courts - not even the hack that is Brett Kavanaugh - will not do such a thing without overwhelming evidence and there is NO evidence. Neither will states won by Biden instruct their EC electors to vote for Trump. That ends US democracy and kicks off civil war. It is - literally - unthinkable unless you've lost your perspective.
But this is why Trump is into 11 on Betfair. Take a deep breath and a step back and it's clear that he should be 1000.
If I run into an impecunious widow this afternoon - and I might - I will have no hesitation in advising her to withdraw her life savings (the money saved up over many years for a decent funeral with a bit left over for the grandkids) from the Halifax and stick it all on Biden at the currently available 1.09.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
The more I read comments like this, the more it becomes obvious I can never be a Tory.
The behaviour of the Bluekippers are persuading me that Scotland and N Ireland are best served by leaving the UK.
BTW - I have the atheist bit all sorted out
As for the monarchy - a historic relic that still poisons English society by providing a framework for the wretched "Class system" and its associated attitudes. It needs to go.
Yes, you're yet another one who wants to blow up the whole ship because you've been driven mad by Brexit, and sense it will drive mad in turn those who advocated for it.
I remember when you were posting on here regularly as a "Better Off Out" poster.
Your arguments and style were embarrassing then and are no less embarrassing now.
The problem was that in my BOO days I had not really considered the problem and why would I? There was no prospect of leaving at that time.
Then everything changed.
When I looked at the argument in depth, it became clear that BOO was not going to work well and I changed my position (as per the quote from J M Keynes).
I have not been driven mad by Brexit - why should I? I am immune to Brexit thanks to my Irish citizenship. It is the Leavers who are going mad because their pet project is not going to plan. They are the ones running around blaming anyone and anything.
Leavers: Remainers have been driven mad by Brexit!
Also Leavers: You must have a permit to drive into Kent!
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really think you need to take a good hard look at the way you're acting CR. That's beyond patronising to him.
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really don't care how you have justified your actions to yourself. Merely pointing out that your actions appear to onlookers to be, to borrow a phrase, 'bonkers'.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really think you need to take a good hard look at the way you're acting CR. That's beyond patronising to him.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
One thing that has certainly gone off the radar is any worries about women with their faces covered as now we all do it.
Minders have told him it was all a bad dream and the election is a week today? Maybe they can do him a Truman-show alternative reality in which he wins bigly next week and is able to live in happiness and leave everyone else in peace.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really don't care how you have justified your actions to yourself. Merely pointing out that your actions appear to onlookers to be, to borrow a phrase, 'bonkers'.
Not bonkers at all I'm just smarter and have much more intelligence and foresight than you.
It's ok though, you shouldn't feel bad about being stupid. Lots of people are.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
He was not talking about Jack Straw, that was just an aside, can't you read you moron? "I should feel fully entitled" (As if citing Jack Straw gives him some kind of cover!)
A moslem woman has the courage to approach her MP with an issue, and for whatever reason does not want to take her veil off. That is entirely reasonable. To insist she take it off shows, at best, a total lack of human empathy.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
Obviously, he;s referencing The Great Gatsby, /After four years of his presidency, the return to American greatness is still in the future, receding as it's chased. In a way, much like the green light at the end of Daisy's dock.
But don;t worry, Tomorrow, we'll run faster, tweet harder, etc. etc.
Charitably, he could be referring to preliminary results from another of the candidate vaccines and that 'we' will win against Covid. But, somehow, I doubt it.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Context here did he yes he did
In a response to erdogan going to court to get a comedian silenced for a skit he found offensive.
He did not call him that because he is a muslim. Unless you are claiming we can never insult anyone muslim for anything they actually say or do because they happen to be muslim, I would fully support anyone calling Netanyahu or anyone else similar names if it is related to something they actually did rather than purely because of creed or ancestry or sexuality.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
So he should get a career as a shit poet, then. He's currently pretending to be a shit prime minister unfortunately.
The "It was in a poetry competition" defence.
It's pathetic.
You sound just like the defenders of anti-semites in the Labour Party.
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really don't care how you have justified your actions to yourself. Merely pointing out that your actions appear to onlookers to be, to borrow a phrase, 'bonkers'.
Not bonkers at all I'm just smarter and have much more intelligence and foresight than you.
It's ok though, you shouldn't feel bad about being stupid. Lots of people are.
Reaction formation is a defense mechanism in which emotions and impulses which are anxiety-producing or perceived to be unacceptable are mastered by exaggeration of the directly opposing tendency.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
He was not talking about Jack Straw, that was just an aside, can't you read you moron? "I should feel fully entitled" (As if citing Jack Straw gives him some kind of cover!)
A moslem woman has the courage to approach her MP with an issue, and for whatever reason does not want to take her veil off. That is entirely reasonable. To insist she take it off shows, at best, a total lack of human empathy.
He never said he would insist it be taken off.
On the other hand Macron did. On the other hand Merkel did.
The countries where it is insisted upon removing it in Europe are: Germany, Austria, Denmark, France, Belgium, Latvia and Bulgaria.
Are you calling Merkel an Islamophobe?
Incidentally once again if you had taken a scintilla of effort into reading the article yourself you would have learnt the fact he was arguing against banning it, not in favour of it. 🤦🏻♂️
I suppose actually reading something for yourself is just too damn difficult for you.
The current outsider in USPE 2020 has been backed in from over 30 a few days ago to 11. What's going on? How much further can he come in before Betfair pay out on his opponent?
Hello Hubert,
It's because (and not for the 1st time) lots of people are getting sucked into Donald Trump's bullshit and not thinking straight.
In particular atm they are taking Republican noises of support for him as evidence that he has a ghost of a chance of overturning the election result. He doesn't. The courts - not even the hack that is Brett Kavanaugh - will not do such a thing without overwhelming evidence and there is NO evidence. Neither will states won by Biden instruct their EC electors to vote for Trump. That ends US democracy and kicks off civil war. It is - literally - unthinkable unless you've lost your perspective.
But this is why Trump is into 11 on Betfair. Take a deep breath and a step back and it's clear that he should be 1000.
If I run into an impecunious widow this afternoon - and I might - I will have no hesitation in advising her to withdraw her life savings (the money saved up over many years for a decent funeral with a bit left over for the grandkids) from the Halifax and stick it all on Biden at the currently available 1.09.
Hi Kinabalu,
I agree Trump hasn't got a hope in hell in the electoral college and is totally busted. Nor would he be able to raise an army to fight in a civil war. But if enough people get sucked in, and given the right kind of reporting about legal dramas, I was thinking maybe his price might come in further within the next week or two before it disappears off out.
The impecunious widow might do better to use her savings to lay Trump rather than back Biden. Joe is 77 and although he has been sensible about minimising his risk of being infected by the virus, things can go wrong.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
So he should get a career as a shit poet, then. He's currently pretending to be a shit prime minister unfortunately.
The "It was in a poetry competition" defence.
It's pathetic.
You sound just like the defenders of anti-semites in the Labour Party.
You haven't posted a single bit of evidence of Islamophobia.
So far your "evidence" if you actually read what he wrote for yourself is:
1: He (with Bianca) condemned the west letting Muslims be massacred in Srebenica. 2: He said that the burqa ban being adopted in France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and more should not be adopted in the UK. 3: He defended free speech after a comedian was arrested in Germany for insulting an increasingly dictatorial Head of State.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
That's horrendous. Given the special delivery tag and stamps I assume it was posted in an actual post office and so the perpetrator will hopefully be caught quite easily - will have recorded post office and time*, I assume all post offices have CCTV (could have been posted out of area, but it looks as if the perpetrator wasn't super-smart). Probably also possible to see what IP addresses accessed the tracking link (prior to the number being posted on Twitter!) if Royal Mail keep that level of log.
*In fact, High View Post Office [CR0 4NH] 3.22pm on 3 November
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
So he should get a career as a shit poet, then. He's currently pretending to be a shit prime minister unfortunately.
The "It was in a poetry competition" defence.
It's pathetic.
You sound just like the defenders of anti-semites in the Labour Party.
You haven't posted a single bit of evidence of Islamophobia.
So far your "evidence" if you actually read what he wrote for yourself is:
1: He (with Bianca) condemned the west letting Muslims be massacred in Srebenica. 2: He said that the burqa ban being adopted in France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and more should not be adopted in the UK. 3: He defended free speech after a comedian was arrested in Germany for insulting an increasingly dictatorial Head of State.
That is your lot? It is pathetic.
While as most by now have gathered I think Boris is a complete twat so hate to defend him I do wonder why Kamski is here lecturing us on how islamaphobic he is in stead of on a german forum lambasting his own government for their burqa ban
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
Jack Straw was (I remember thinking at the time) probably going deaf and relying increasingly on lipreading to complement his failing hearing, but didn't want to admit it whether to anyone else or himself (or hadn't admitted it to himself). Very different from other interpretations of the affair.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
So he should get a career as a shit poet, then. He's currently pretending to be a shit prime minister unfortunately.
The "It was in a poetry competition" defence.
It's pathetic.
You sound just like the defenders of anti-semites in the Labour Party.
You haven't posted a single bit of evidence of Islamophobia.
So far your "evidence" if you actually read what he wrote for yourself is:
1: He (with Bianca) condemned the west letting Muslims be massacred in Srebenica. 2: He said that the burqa ban being adopted in France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and more should not be adopted in the UK. 3: He defended free speech after a comedian was arrested in Germany for insulting an increasingly dictatorial Head of State.
That is your lot? It is pathetic.
While as most by now have gathered I think Boris is a complete twat so hate to defend him I do wonder why Kamski is here lecturing us on how islamaphobic he is in stead of on a german forum lambasting his own government for their burqa ban
Indeed, very weird isn't it.
Its literally a legal requirement to remove it where he lives. Boris objected to it becoming a legal requirement to remove it in the UK.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
Jack Straw was (I remember thinking at the time) probably going deaf and relying increasingly on lipreading to complement his failing hearing, but didn't want to admit it whether to anyone else or himself (or hadn't admitted it to himself). Very different from other interpretations of the affair.
And you don't think Boris would be vain enough to have the same problem?
Actually, given his usual hairstyle and deshelled state, perhaps not.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
Jack Straw was (I remember thinking at the time) probably going deaf and relying increasingly on lipreading to complement his failing hearing, but didn't want to admit it whether to anyone else or himself (or hadn't admitted it to himself). Very different from other interpretations of the affair.
While that is true and understandable most psychologists estimate the non verbal communication during a conversation to be between 70 and 93%
The current outsider in USPE 2020 has been backed in from over 30 a few days ago to 11. What's going on? How much further can he come in before Betfair pay out on his opponent?
Hello Hubert,
It's because (and not for the 1st time) lots of people are getting sucked into Donald Trump's bullshit and not thinking straight.
In particular atm they are taking Republican noises of support for him as evidence that he has a ghost of a chance of overturning the election result. He doesn't. The courts - not even the hack that is Brett Kavanaugh - will not do such a thing without overwhelming evidence and there is NO evidence. Neither will states won by Biden instruct their EC electors to vote for Trump. That ends US democracy and kicks off civil war. It is - literally - unthinkable unless you've lost your perspective.
But this is why Trump is into 11 on Betfair. Take a deep breath and a step back and it's clear that he should be 1000.
If I run into an impecunious widow this afternoon - and I might - I will have no hesitation in advising her to withdraw her life savings (the money saved up over many years for a decent funeral with a bit left over for the grandkids) from the Halifax and stick it all on Biden at the currently available 1.09.
Hi Kinabalu,
I agree Trump hasn't got a hope in hell in the electoral college and is totally busted. Nor would he be able to raise an army to fight in a civil war. But if enough people get sucked in, and given the right kind of reporting about legal dramas, I was thinking maybe his price might come in further within the next week or two before it disappears off out.
The impecunious widow might do better to use her savings to lay Trump rather than back Biden. Joe is 77 and although he has been sensible about minimising his risk of getting infected by the virus, things can go wrong.
Laying Trump IS better. Less scope for something bizarre. And I personally don't think he'll shorten much from here - but I haven't been great thus far at reading Betfair sentiment on this election so perhaps you're right and he will.
The current outsider in USPE 2020 has been backed in from over 30 a few days ago to 11. What's going on? How much further can he come in before Betfair pay out on his opponent?
Hello Hubert,
It's because (and not for the 1st time) lots of people are getting sucked into Donald Trump's bullshit and not thinking straight.
In particular atm they are taking Republican noises of support for him as evidence that he has a ghost of a chance of overturning the election result. He doesn't. The courts - not even the hack that is Brett Kavanaugh - will not do such a thing without overwhelming evidence and there is NO evidence. Neither will states won by Biden instruct their EC electors to vote for Trump. That ends US democracy and kicks off civil war. It is - literally - unthinkable unless you've lost your perspective.
But this is why Trump is into 11 on Betfair. Take a deep breath and a step back and it's clear that he should be 1000.
If I run into an impecunious widow this afternoon - and I might - I will have no hesitation in advising her to withdraw her life savings (the money saved up over many years for a decent funeral with a bit left over for the grandkids) from the Halifax and stick it all on Biden at the currently available 1.09.
In addition, Betfair rules suggest that in the unlikely event of the SC doing Trump's bidding they may well pay out on the ECV resullts as confirmed by each of the States. An alternative would perhaps be to void the market but I think they'd run with the official results as returned.
If the SC does somehow find for Trump, how would it actually work out? Would they award the ECV to the GoP? Would they void the elections and insist on a rerun, either nationally or in the contested States? What happens to the Presidency meanwhile?
It would be mayhem if not widespread civil unrest. Inconceivable.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
Jack Straw was (I remember thinking at the time) probably going deaf and relying increasingly on lipreading to complement his failing hearing, but didn't want to admit it whether to anyone else or himself (or hadn't admitted it to himself). Very different from other interpretations of the affair.
And you don't think Boris would be vain enough to have the same problem?
Actually, given his usual hairstyle and deshelled state, perhaps not.
It was more to do with the Straw affair itself and how others might be using it invalidly ikn their arguments.
But now you mention Mr J, we all of us pride ourselves on different things - so I'd keep an open mind.It's one thing however to look like a haystack, more or less artistically, and quite another to be deaf. Above all for a politician.
Is there any cause to wonder about his hearing, even before Covid? He's not terribly responsive to questions put to him, one can fairly say, and his preference for the monkey-house style of background noise can't help anyone's hearing.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
Jack Straw was (I remember thinking at the time) probably going deaf and relying increasingly on lipreading to complement his failing hearing, but didn't want to admit it whether to anyone else or himself (or hadn't admitted it to himself). Very different from other interpretations of the affair.
And you don't think Boris would be vain enough to have the same problem?
Actually, given his usual hairstyle and deshelled state, perhaps not.
He may well be going deaf, he talks very loudly which can be a sign. On the topic, I don't like face coverings personally but I can't imagine telling someone else what to wear. It just seems a bit rude.
To throw some more law into the ring, this is a tweet from a thread which links to a whole series of articles on the attempt to get the Supreme Court to dismantle Obamacare.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
Jack Straw was (I remember thinking at the time) probably going deaf and relying increasingly on lipreading to complement his failing hearing, but didn't want to admit it whether to anyone else or himself (or hadn't admitted it to himself). Very different from other interpretations of the affair.
And you don't think Boris would be vain enough to have the same problem?
Actually, given his usual hairstyle and deshelled state, perhaps not.
It was more to do with the Straw affair itself and how others might be using it invalidly ikn their arguments.
But now you mention Mr J, we all of us pride ourselves on different things - so I'd keep an open mind.It's one thing however to look like a haystack, more or less artistically, and quite another to be deaf. Above all for a politician.
Is there any cause to wonder about his hearing, even before Covid? He's not terribly responsive to questions put to him, one can fairly say, and his preference for the monkey-house style of background noise can't help anyone's hearing.
Deafness also creeps up on you. I'm probably someone who should get my hearing tested (my students all seem to mumble these days) but at home I can just turn up the volume a bit and ignore it.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
He was not talking about Jack Straw, that was just an aside, can't you read you moron? "I should feel fully entitled" (As if citing Jack Straw gives him some kind of cover!)
A moslem woman has the courage to approach her MP with an issue, and for whatever reason does not want to take her veil off. That is entirely reasonable. To insist she take it off shows, at best, a total lack of human empathy.
He never said he would insist it be taken off.
On the other hand Macron did. On the other hand Merkel did.
The countries where it is insisted upon removing it in Europe are: Germany, Austria, Denmark, France, Belgium, Latvia and Bulgaria.
Are you calling Merkel an Islamophobe?
Incidentally once again if you had taken a scintilla of effort into reading the article yourself you would have learnt the fact he was arguing against banning it, not in favour of it. 🤦🏻♂️
I suppose actually reading something for yourself is just too damn difficult for you.
I actually did read the article at the time- which you obviously hadn't because you were unfamiliar with it.
Merkel calling for the banning of moslem face-coverings is of course islamophobic.
Here's some context for you: I have lived the last four years 200 metres from the largest mosque in germany. I don't think I have ever seen a woman wearing a burqa or veil, in all that time (and no there is no general ban here).
I think even you would admit that some of the bans on islamic clothing in Germany are islamophobic. For example, teachers in some states are not allowed to wear moslem headscarves, but are allowed to wear nun's habits, or other christian symbols.
On the subject of covering up your face, I thought it rather amusing when I passed a swanky jewellers in Bond Street a couple of weeks ago and saw that the bouncer and staff were all wearing masks. Normally you'd expect it to be the robbers who wore masks in a place like that.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
Jack Straw was (I remember thinking at the time) probably going deaf and relying increasingly on lipreading to complement his failing hearing, but didn't want to admit it whether to anyone else or himself (or hadn't admitted it to himself). Very different from other interpretations of the affair.
And you don't think Boris would be vain enough to have the same problem?
Actually, given his usual hairstyle and deshelled state, perhaps not.
He may well be going deaf, he talks very loudly which can be a sign. On the topic, I don't like face coverings personally but I can't imagine telling someone else what to wear. It just seems a bit rude.
I have had a few meetings with parents where I couldn't hear what was being said in that situation, but I wouldn't dare ask anyone to take it off. Now I'd be more likely to ask someone to put a mask on I suppose.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
Do you endlessly have to clog up the site with this?
Are there isolated instances or racism in all parties? Yes. My old MP in Bradford was an anit-semite - notably reflecting the openly discussed wishes for Muslims in the area to annihililate Israel
But really until it gets so serious that the leadership of another party are involved, or the EHRC are investigating another party cant we just accept it - some people are racist, and some of them join political parties.
Ugh, I hope that person can be tracked down by the authorities. Really not on to treat anyone, but especially elected officials like this unless they are literally Hitler. And I'm no fan of Johnny Mercer, but he's really not.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
Neither a turban nor bare arms impede communication. A face covering your facial expression very much does. Body language and facial expression are known to play a big part in communication.
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
Yes he did. In an award winning poem lauded by the Guardian as a principled defence of free speech after Erdogan cracked down on free speech and the German's helped facilitate it.
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
So he should get a career as a shit poet, then. He's currently pretending to be a shit prime minister unfortunately.
The "It was in a poetry competition" defence.
It's pathetic.
You sound just like the defenders of anti-semites in the Labour Party.
You haven't posted a single bit of evidence of Islamophobia.
So far your "evidence" if you actually read what he wrote for yourself is:
1: He (with Bianca) condemned the west letting Muslims be massacred in Srebenica. 2: He said that the burqa ban being adopted in France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and more should not be adopted in the UK. 3: He defended free speech after a comedian was arrested in Germany for insulting an increasingly dictatorial Head of State.
That is your lot? It is pathetic.
While as most by now have gathered I think Boris is a complete twat so hate to defend him I do wonder why Kamski is here lecturing us on how islamaphobic he is in stead of on a german forum lambasting his own government for their burqa ban
Indeed, very weird isn't it.
Its literally a legal requirement to remove it where he lives. Boris objected to it becoming a legal requirement to remove it in the UK.
Bizarre thing for him to complain about. 🤷🏻♂️
Are you really down to the "you can't complain about this thing unless you also complain about that thing" defence?
Proclaim that something is going to happen (the virus will disappear, a healthcare plan will come out, etc.) very loudly. Forget about it. Repeat.
This way keeps his supporters riled up. And then he moves on to the next thing.
There is no evidence.
Has the challenge to the late postals in PA been ruled on yet? From memory there were about 30k. Apologies if I have missed it.
"Pennsylvania election officials have not yet provided a statewide tally of late-arriving ballots. Still, based on estimates from a number of counties, the total may not exceed 10,000."
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really don't care how you have justified your actions to yourself. Merely pointing out that your actions appear to onlookers to be, to borrow a phrase, 'bonkers'.
Not bonkers at all I'm just smarter and have much more intelligence and foresight than you.
It's ok though, you shouldn't feel bad about being stupid. Lots of people are.
Reaction formation is a defense mechanism in which emotions and impulses which are anxiety-producing or perceived to be unacceptable are mastered by exaggeration of the directly opposing tendency.
I love the way you're now trying to use big words to make me think you're smart.
Some centrist and centre-left commentators are starting to question aspects of Woke now - even on here. In recent weeks a number of established non-white journalists have criticized aspects of it including India Knight, Matthew Syed, Trevor Phillips and even Craig Charles.
You need to do a bit more research and thinking for yourself rather than trying to pick on those who admit they don't believe in the dogma or you're going to look rather silly once the tide goes out.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Link 1: A Councillor nobody has heard of. Can't really comment its a nobody and I know nothing of this person, but you're clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel to lead with this. Where's the MPs? Link 2: Warsi is an extremist herself. Link 3: Johnson was entirely 100% correct in what he said. Try reading his actual damn article and critiquing it point by point if you think he was wrong. It was a very well written, considered article. Srebenica quote: It was sarcasm you fool, entirely within context of the article which you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read that article either.
So you have no leg to stand on.
Sounds very familiar. But I think you are actually worse than the defenders of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Or had you "heard of" Labour councillors/activists (for example) before their anti-semitic tweets came to light?
And if that's satire, Johnson should go back to being a third-rate comedian which is all he is good for. Sounds like the defences of Trump's shit: "it was a joke"
Its not satire you idiot, it was a piece making a very strong political point.
Do you know what the point was? Have you bothered to read the article?
Johnson was saying the opposite of what you think he was saying. You just clearly don't know that as you've clearly copied and pasted that from someone else and not put any thought into it whatsoever. What Johnson was writing was attacking non-intervention and attacking letting the Muslims in Srebenica die. He set up the straw man in an interview for that straw man to be demolished. Those were not his thoughts, they were clearly a question being asked giving a platform to reply, it is an interview technique not a joke.
The guy said he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil.
I'm not aware of that one, given that everything else you've claimed he said so far was saying the opposite of what you were saying you claimed he was saying I'd like to see the full context on what he actually said for that. What is the full context please?
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
I'm surprised it's his infamous Telegraph "bank robber" article. The exact quote is ""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban? Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
So why am I not surprised. He never said as you claimed that "he would refuse to see women coming to his MP's surgery if they wore a veil" - that was a lie you invented.
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
He was not talking about Jack Straw, that was just an aside, can't you read you moron? "I should feel fully entitled" (As if citing Jack Straw gives him some kind of cover!)
A moslem woman has the courage to approach her MP with an issue, and for whatever reason does not want to take her veil off. That is entirely reasonable. To insist she take it off shows, at best, a total lack of human empathy.
He never said he would insist it be taken off.
On the other hand Macron did. On the other hand Merkel did.
The countries where it is insisted upon removing it in Europe are: Germany, Austria, Denmark, France, Belgium, Latvia and Bulgaria.
Are you calling Merkel an Islamophobe?
Incidentally once again if you had taken a scintilla of effort into reading the article yourself you would have learnt the fact he was arguing against banning it, not in favour of it. 🤦🏻♂️
I suppose actually reading something for yourself is just too damn difficult for you.
I actually did read the article at the time- which you obviously hadn't because you were unfamiliar with it.
Merkel calling for the banning of moslem face-coverings is of course islamophobic.
Here's some context for you: I have lived the last four years 200 metres from the largest mosque in germany. I don't think I have ever seen a woman wearing a burqa or veil, in all that time (and no there is no general ban here).
I think even you would admit that some of the bans on islamic clothing in Germany are islamophobic. For example, teachers in some states are not allowed to wear moslem headscarves, but are allowed to wear nun's habits, or other christian symbols.
You are aware of course the burqa is not mandated by islam so its not precisely islamaphobic. It tends to be a cultural artifact of certain countries that happen to be mainly muslim and is by no means endemic in the moslem world.
Colman is excellent until she gives us one of her trademark toothy smiles, at which point her monarchical authority evaporates like a Martini in front of Princess Margaret and we're left with a jolly soul from an Enid Blyton book....
....As for Gillian Anderson's Margaret Thatcher, well… She was terrific in Sex Education and very good in The X-Files. But she flounders badly as the Iron Lady, a role in which she appears to have been directed to mimic the head movements of a turtle. She's forever craning her neck from side-to-side as if scanning for a tasty lettuce leaf, while over-egging her Thatcher impression to such an extent she is close to unwatchable at times.
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
So it could be neither you nor the Secretary of State for Scotland are bigoted, or you're both bigoted. Oooh, let me think about that for 38 milliseconds.
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really don't care how you have justified your actions to yourself. Merely pointing out that your actions appear to onlookers to be, to borrow a phrase, 'bonkers'.
Not bonkers at all I'm just smarter and have much more intelligence and foresight than you.
It's ok though, you shouldn't feel bad about being stupid. Lots of people are.
Reaction formation is a defense mechanism in which emotions and impulses which are anxiety-producing or perceived to be unacceptable are mastered by exaggeration of the directly opposing tendency.
I love the way you're now trying to use big words to make me think you're smart.
Some centrist and centre-left commentators are starting to question aspects of Woke now - even on here. In recent weeks a number of established non-white journalists have criticized aspects of it including India Knight, Matthew Syed, Trevor Phillips and even Craig Charles.
You need to do a bit more research and thinking for yourself rather than trying to pick on those who admit they don't believe in the dogma or you're going to look rather silly once the tide goes out.
Not quite as embarrassing as cancelling your membership of the National Trust on the say so of Toby Young I would have thought.
Yup, that was me and I did it based on reading its hatchet-job report in full and then I took my own decision as a consequence.
People are gradually coming round to my way of thinking on this Woke nonsense, including a high number of minorities - my wife's Sikh boss at Siemens went on a rant about how ludicrous it all was on her team meeting this morning.
I expect to be mocked for it relentlessly and then, once the zeitgeist is up, the same people will argue they really agreed with me all along.
Those who are able to demonstrate they have their own independent minds with the courage of their convictions will win my respect.
driven bonkers by wokeness....
You know I'm right and will come round one day.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
I really don't care how you have justified your actions to yourself. Merely pointing out that your actions appear to onlookers to be, to borrow a phrase, 'bonkers'.
Not bonkers at all I'm just smarter and have much more intelligence and foresight than you.
It's ok though, you shouldn't feel bad about being stupid. Lots of people are.
Reaction formation is a defense mechanism in which emotions and impulses which are anxiety-producing or perceived to be unacceptable are mastered by exaggeration of the directly opposing tendency.
I love the way you're now trying to use big words to make me think you're smart.
Some centrist and centre-left commentators are starting to question aspects of Woke now - even on here. In recent weeks a number of established non-white journalists have criticized aspects of it including India Knight, Matthew Syed, Trevor Phillips and even Craig Charles.
You need to do a bit more research and thinking for yourself rather than trying to pick on those who admit they don't believe in the dogma or you're going to look rather silly once the tide goes out.
I love the way you keep biting....
I love the way you keep needing to have the last word even though you have no answer to the substance.
Obviously, he;s referencing The Great Gatsby, /After four years of his presidency, the return to American greatness is still in the future, receding as it's chased. In a way, much like the green light at the end of Daisy's dock.
But don;t worry, Tomorrow, we'll run faster, tweet harder, etc. etc.
Colman is excellent until she gives us one of her trademark toothy smiles, at which point her monarchical authority evaporates like a Martini in front of Princess Margaret and we're left with a jolly soul from an Enid Blyton book....
....As for Gillian Anderson's Margaret Thatcher, well… She was terrific in Sex Education and very good in The X-Files. But she flounders badly as the Iron Lady, a role in which she appears to have been directed to mimic the head movements of a turtle. She's forever craning her neck from side-to-side as if scanning for a tasty lettuce leaf, while over-egging her Thatcher impression to such an extent she is close to unwatchable at times.
Anderson did strike me as very mannered in the trailer....."This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Please do not mention The Crown.
On The Times Saturday Review front page Olivia Coleman (who, sadly perhaps for her just like Meryl Streep always playing Meryl Streep, will always only be able to play Olivia Coleman) was dressed in a Grenadier tunic with Welsh Guards' hackle.
Comments
Hmm.
Skid marks in front of the skunk.
(Taken from a John Grisham film I think)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54887650
I think lawyers are essential in a free society. However I agree we've got the balance of law and politics in addressing public policy problems incorrect.
To the extent there's a political problem I suspect it may be that certain types of law (particularly immigration and human rights work) attract those who are already dress quite Left on those issues and aren't going to want to be very imaginative in helping a Government that wants to qualify those rights and close some of the loopholes.
Both sides should dial down the temperature and be willing to work together in a spirit of professional neutrality to work out how best to influence and shape difficult public policy problems.
Have you actually bothered to read that Srebenica article yet? You're clearly just trying to Google things to take offence by rather than actually having a solid point to make, since you're having to warp things to the opposite of what they meant.
In the meantime, you will make yourself feel better about your pedestrian intellectual ability by throwing out barbs.
G'day.
A great day to be alive!!
It's because (and not for the 1st time) lots of people are getting sucked into Donald Trump's bullshit and not thinking straight.
In particular atm they are taking Republican noises of support for him as evidence that he has a ghost of a chance of overturning the election result. He doesn't. The courts - not even the hack that is Brett Kavanaugh - will not do such a thing without overwhelming evidence and there is NO evidence. Neither will states won by Biden instruct their EC electors to vote for Trump. That ends US democracy and kicks off civil war. It is - literally - unthinkable unless you've lost your perspective.
But this is why Trump is into 11 on Betfair. Take a deep breath and a step back and it's clear that he should be 1000.
If I run into an impecunious widow this afternoon - and I might - I will have no hesitation in advising her to withdraw her life savings (the money saved up over many years for a decent funeral with a bit left over for the grandkids) from the Halifax and stick it all on Biden at the currently available 1.09.
""If a constituent came to my MP's surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled — like Jack Straw — to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly"
Would he ask a Sikh to remove a turban?
Would it be OK for a male Moslem MP to ask women to, say, cover their arms if they want to come to his surgery?
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1326158760826560515?s=21
Also Leavers: You must have a permit to drive into Kent!
I'm not taking that lying down.
Do you consider Merkel an islamophobe?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38226081
WE WON'T WIN
Instead he defended [Labour] Jack Straw's right to "ask" someone to remove a face covering to that he could talk to her properly.
Pre-covid that was absolutely entirely reasonable! And in the context he was writing in defending women's rights to wear those veils which were being made illegal across much of liberal western Europe.
What exactly is your issue with that?
He called the president of Turkey a goat-fucker. Now Erdogan is an arsehole, but imagine Corbyn had called Netanyahu a goat-fucker.
GA - Biden now +12.5k
It's ok though, you shouldn't feel bad about being stupid. Lots of people are.
A moslem woman has the courage to approach her MP with an issue, and for whatever reason does not want to take her veil off. That is entirely reasonable. To insist she take it off shows, at best, a total lack of human empathy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/19/boris-johnson-wins-most-offensive-erdogan-poem-competition
You have an issue with that? Or again are you infamiliar with the concept of context and drawing these from a list someone else wrote.
Next time you bullshit us with something can you please be so kind as to provide the context yourself? Because all this bullshit is transparently out of context.
But don;t worry, Tomorrow, we'll run faster, tweet harder, etc. etc.
This is the DJT way.
Proclaim that something is going to happen (the virus will disappear, a healthcare plan will come out, etc.) very loudly. Forget about it. Repeat.
This way keeps his supporters riled up. And then he moves on to the next thing.
There is no evidence.
In a response to erdogan going to court to get a comedian silenced for a skit he found offensive.
He did not call him that because he is a muslim. Unless you are claiming we can never insult anyone muslim for anything they actually say or do because they happen to be muslim, I would fully support anyone calling Netanyahu or anyone else similar names if it is related to something they actually did rather than purely because of creed or ancestry or sexuality.
The "It was in a poetry competition" defence.
It's pathetic.
You sound just like the defenders of anti-semites in the Labour Party.
On the other hand Macron did.
On the other hand Merkel did.
The countries where it is insisted upon removing it in Europe are: Germany, Austria, Denmark, France, Belgium, Latvia and Bulgaria.
Are you calling Merkel an Islamophobe?
Incidentally once again if you had taken a scintilla of effort into reading the article yourself you would have learnt the fact he was arguing against banning it, not in favour of it. 🤦🏻♂️
I suppose actually reading something for yourself is just too damn difficult for you.
I agree Trump hasn't got a hope in hell in the electoral college and is totally busted. Nor would he be able to raise an army to fight in a civil war. But if enough people get sucked in, and given the right kind of reporting about legal dramas, I was thinking maybe his price might come in further within the next week or two before it disappears off out.
The impecunious widow might do better to use her savings to lay Trump rather than back Biden. Joe is 77 and although he has been sensible about minimising his risk of being infected by the virus, things can go wrong.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1326169083121967104?s=19
So far your "evidence" if you actually read what he wrote for yourself is:
1: He (with Bianca) condemned the west letting Muslims be massacred in Srebenica.
2: He said that the burqa ban being adopted in France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and more should not be adopted in the UK.
3: He defended free speech after a comedian was arrested in Germany for insulting an increasingly dictatorial Head of State.
That is your lot? It is pathetic.
*In fact, High View Post Office [CR0 4NH] 3.22pm on 3 November
Its literally a legal requirement to remove it where he lives.
Boris objected to it becoming a legal requirement to remove it in the UK.
Bizarre thing for him to complain about. 🤷🏻♂️
Actually, given his usual hairstyle and deshelled state, perhaps not.
source
https://www.lifesize.com/en/video-conferencing-blog/speaking-without-words#:~:text=However, most experts agree that,communication was led by Dr.
A face covering therefore removes a high proportion of non verbal data from us
They also haven't been counted yet.
If the SC does somehow find for Trump, how would it actually work out? Would they award the ECV to the GoP? Would they void the elections and insist on a rerun, either nationally or in the contested States? What happens to the Presidency meanwhile?
It would be mayhem if not widespread civil unrest. Inconceivable.
But now you mention Mr J, we all of us pride ourselves on different things - so I'd keep an open mind.It's one thing however to look like a haystack, more or less artistically, and quite another to be deaf. Above all for a politician.
Is there any cause to wonder about his hearing, even before Covid? He's not terribly responsive to questions put to him, one can fairly say, and his preference for the monkey-house style of background noise can't help anyone's hearing.
On the topic, I don't like face coverings personally but I can't imagine telling someone else what to wear. It just seems a bit rude.
To throw some more law into the ring, this is a tweet from a thread which links to a whole series of articles on the attempt to get the Supreme Court to dismantle Obamacare.
https://twitter.com/nicholas_bagley/status/1326151997653999617
Merkel calling for the banning of moslem face-coverings is of course islamophobic.
Here's some context for you: I have lived the last four years 200 metres from the largest mosque in germany. I don't think I have ever seen a woman wearing a burqa or veil, in all that time (and no there is no general ban here).
I think even you would admit that some of the bans on islamic clothing in Germany are islamophobic.
For example, teachers in some states are not allowed to wear moslem headscarves, but are allowed to wear nun's habits, or other christian symbols.
Now I'd be more likely to ask someone to put a mask on I suppose.
Some centrist and centre-left commentators are starting to question aspects of Woke now - even on here. In recent weeks a number of established non-white journalists have criticized aspects of it including India Knight, Matthew Syed, Trevor Phillips and even Craig Charles.
You need to do a bit more research and thinking for yourself rather than trying to pick on those who admit they don't believe in the dogma or you're going to look rather silly once the tide goes out.
*should have been is not mandated*
Colman is excellent until she gives us one of her trademark toothy smiles, at which point her monarchical authority evaporates like a Martini in front of Princess Margaret and we're left with a jolly soul from an Enid Blyton book....
....As for Gillian Anderson's Margaret Thatcher, well…
She was terrific in Sex Education and very good in The X-Files.
But she flounders badly as the Iron Lady, a role in which she appears to have been directed to mimic the head movements of a turtle. She's forever craning her neck from side-to-side as if scanning for a tasty lettuce leaf, while over-egging her Thatcher impression to such an extent she is close to unwatchable at times.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54799488
Anderson did strike me as very mannered in the trailer....."This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
On The Times Saturday Review front page Olivia Coleman (who, sadly perhaps for her just like Meryl Streep always playing Meryl Streep, will always only be able to play Olivia Coleman) was dressed in a Grenadier tunic with Welsh Guards' hackle.
I mean I fucking ask you.