Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Should Boris apologise for writing this?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Should Boris apologise for writing this?

Old 12th Aug 2018, 06:38
  #121 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 930
Originally Posted by flash8 View Post
Straight, from mouth, horses

Context? It's the Leading Paragraph!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on.afghanistan

And Polly even goes further naturally, foot in mouth style....




Note: I hate the Tories, so that isn't where I'm coming from, and I'm 3,000 Km away! I also detest Polly Toynbee as somebody who had tried to take down Corbyn assiduously over the years before switching sides (for the moment).
First, thank you, seriously, for providing the link and even more so when it dates back to 2001......

Context next, and the carefully edited and extracted quotes. Having now read the article, which also contains references to Christianity, now there's Guardian pragmatism for you, there appears to my uneducated mind to be two strands to this piece.

One is the is the not so little matter of Afghanistan and whom the saviours of this beleaguered nation should align themselves with......and we know how that worked out despite a few centuries of history exemplifying why it would never be a good idea in the first place to dust off the puttees and pith helmets for a reprise .

The second, is the articles stance on the status of women per se . This is possibly not surprising as it reflects the long term Guardian stance , which is probably another reason why the paper isn't overly welcome here on JB.

Thus the context, as inferred by the quotes, is far from being offensive unlike, for example, say the sentiments expressed by.......Boris perhaps ?

Today's ST has suitably lurid headlines and, albeit in a rag closely aligned to the Mail ( it's the second choice for the readers should stocks have sold out, or been pulped to absorb the rain ) but then..... enter the Excess with headlines very similar to those predicted earlier !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-45159128

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 12th Aug 2018 at 06:53.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 08:47
  #122 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,069
KnC vainly attempts to explain black is white. Nothing unusual there.

Meanwhile, in The Sunday Times: Boris Johnson burqa row sparks cabinet war

“.....
The Sunday Times has spoken to four cabinet ministers who back Johnson and who criticised their own party leadership for its “cack-handed” investigation into his comments.

The prime minister put her own reputation on the line by demanding Johnson defuse the row by apologising for claiming women wearing the burqa looked like “letter boxes” or “bank robbers”. Last night the row escalated as Johnson flew back home from a holiday in Italy amid claims that more backbenchers were preparing to submit letters to the Commons 1922 committee, demanding a vote of no confidence in the prime minister.......

The decision by Brandon Lewis, the Conservative Party chairman, to launch disciplinary proceedings against Johnson has triggered anger among backbenchers that is spreading to the cabinet. The cabinet ministers who spoke to The Sunday Times expressed fury and frustration at the leadership’s handling of the affair, which they said had let Jeremy Corbyn off the hook over his handling of the Labour Party’s anti-semitism row.

The first minister said: “It’s been so cack-handed. Boris is a backbencher. What he said wasn’t that outrageous; a lot of people have said worse and a lot of the party happens to agree with him. The sooner the party throws this investigation out, the better. Lots of people both on the front and back benches are really p***** off.” The second said: “It’s been a total cockup from start to finish. What started out as something and nothing has been whipped up into a storm. It would have soon blown over, but in their willingness to see Boris punished, all they’ve done is hurt themselves.”

Cabinet minister three said: “It’s probably not been the best week.” The fourth said: “They have managed to engineer a total disaster. There is not a serious political brain in or around Downing Street. Trying to silence Boris is stupid, especially when the majority of people agree with him.”

Last night friends of Johnson said he had been buoyed by the messages of support he had received from MPs and senior political figures.

Andrew Bridgen, Tory MP for North West Leicestershire, said: “If Boris is suspended as a result of the code of conduct investigation, it will be open warfare in the Conservative Party. And if Theresa May dares to engineer a leadership contest while Boris is suspended, it will be World War III.”.......”




ORAC is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 10:06
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 322
So the Tory Party, already rent apart over Brexit, are now having a further split over Boris.

Can someone please bang their selfish heads together and remind them that there is a country to be run?

"Those who the gods wish to destroy... "
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 10:18
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
So the Tory Party, already rent apart over Brexit, are now having a further split over Boris.

Can someone please bang their selfish heads together and remind them that there is a country to be run?

"Those who the gods wish to destroy... "
You may have hit the nail on the head there.

Whilst the media is whipping up Burkagate, no one is asking any awkward questions about what actually did happen in Salisbury...
BehindBlueEyes is online now  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 15:51
  #125 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Christine Hamilton axed over burka tweet.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 18:18
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 1
[QUOTE=WingNut60;10221167]Six pages on, perhaps it's best if the OP just renames the thread.
It would be more appropriate at this stage to label it "WILL Boris apologise........"
And then he can close the thread.[/QUOTE]

Couldn’t agree more.

The distress and hurt hurt felt by some of our fellow posters after revelations that Polly T - high priestess of the right on guadianistas - is, (by their, often stated, standards) just another common-or-garden Islamaphob, must be severe.

It would be a kindness to close this thread lest further revelations push them over the edge.
Dutystude is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 18:45
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Yes.
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by G-CPTN View Post
More imbecilic behaviour from the P.C brigade. Christine is correct in her tweet questioning. Can't have it both ways can we?
Dan_Brown is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 19:23
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 451
It's almost like powerful people don't want a Brexit supporter running the Tory party.
MG23 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 21:30
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 126
In the end who would be served in the bank, the person wearing the crash helmet, the person in the burka or the the person in the balaclava. We all know who it would be because two have are not accepted. Where is the logic. Boris stood up for the law as it is and is being castigated for it because he said something that a lot of people in UK still agree with. In 50years when I am dead you will be saying the same thing about Boris as people say about a former politician who we are not allowed to mention, but has proved correct.
DON T is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 21:46
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Godforsakencountry
Posts: 263
as people say about a former politician who we are not allowed to mention
Nonsense, there is no prohibition about mentioning Enoch Powell.
Argonautical is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 21:52
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 69
Posts: 110
​​​​​​​Ignoring BJ's comments for a moment, those of you who think wearing the burka is acceptable in the UK - do you agree that the same right of a woman to wear what she wants should apply in Saudi Arabia, for example ? If not, why not ?
Yet again, on tv I've heard someone described as a "hate preacher". Could someone explain why, if that is a correct description, the powers-that-be do not take action - just singing a sectarian song at a football match can land you in the dock nowadays.
off watch is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 21:52
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 67
Posts: 898
If Muslim leaders were to level a fraction of the outrage they have devoted to Boris, against their own people who blow young kids to pieces, they might get a hearing. Until then, they should STFU.
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 22:15
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,903
Boris owes no apology to burka wearers; he was after all arguing AGAINST outlawing them. But he does owe a very large apology to his party for being a self-serving twerp, creating needless division and distraction and for letting Corbyn, unrepentantly mired in anti-semitism, entirely off the hook.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2018, 23:20
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 81
Posts: 699
If you argue against the right to cover any parts of your body that you wish, for whatever reasons, then we should all go around naked.
I don't want to expose my testicles in public and I have a right to cover them if I wish. If it is acceptable for a woman to want to cover her breasts in public then why is it wrong to want to cover her nose.
I was told off once when I went into a church for wearing a hat and told to take it off (did I? - no)
Many christian churches demand that women cover their heads when they enter a church.
It goes on. Wear what we like, how we like.
There are places where, for security reasons, facial visibility is required, in that case I would suggest we would all comply. But other than that....
funfly is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2018, 00:44
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 67
Posts: 519
I know that what follows will be construed by some to be either racist, anti-Islamist or both, but it is not intended to be and I, the author, do not think that it is.
I believe it to be true.

I believe that, as in the expression "the human face of..", humans rely heavily on facial recognition for establishing relationships, including threat level, with the organism which they are assessing.
Throw a slotted blanket over a dog and you may have a rough idea what is under the blanket but without being able to look him in the face you will never feel confident that he is both friendly and nor does he / she / it not pose a threat.
Take the blanket off and the assessment is made that much more confidently; albeit it may still be wrong.

I believe that EXACTLY the same applies when confronted by a person wearing a burqua.
Without the face-to-face contact their is no opportunity to establish a relationship, any innate feeling of "human-ness" or to assess a threat level.
I believe that this is what causes a deep feeling of apprehension in so many when approached by a burqua-clad person.

It would also drive the same feeling of apprehension if approached by a hooded member of the Ku Klux Klan or a person wearing a full-face helmet in a context other than having just hopped off a motorcycle.

More than just establishing eye contact, humans, and possibly other species, like to see faces.
On first contact we model individuals by their appearance. We then modify that stereotype by facial recognition.and later by interaction.
Confronted by a burqua, we just have the stereotype. I used the word "confronted" intentionally in this case.

I believe the above to be true.
It describes what I believe to be the human reaction to unknown or unquantified threat.
It does NOT compare muslim women to dogs. Though I am sure there would be many who, not knowing me or my principles, would nevertheless want to interpret it that way.

And so, NO, I do not intend to apologise or withdraw my statement of my belief.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2018, 10:22
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
I know that what follows will be construed by some to be either racist, anti-Islamist or both, but it is not intended to be and I, the author, do not think that it is.
I believe it to be true.

I believe that, as in the expression "the human face of..", humans rely heavily on facial recognition for establishing relationships, including threat level, with the organism which they are assessing.
Throw a slotted blanket over a dog and you may have a rough idea what is under the blanket but without being able to look him in the face you will never feel confident that he is both friendly and nor does he / she / it not pose a threat.
Take the blanket off and the assessment is made that much more confidently; albeit it may still be wrong.

I believe that EXACTLY the same applies when confronted by a person wearing a burqua.
Without the face-to-face contact their is no opportunity to establish a relationship, any innate feeling of "human-ness" or to assess a threat level.
I believe that this is what causes a deep feeling of apprehension in so many when approached by a burqua-clad person.

It would also drive the same feeling of apprehension if approached by a hooded member of the Ku Klux Klan or a person wearing a full-face helmet in a context other than having just hopped off a motorcycle.

More than just establishing eye contact, humans, and possibly other species, like to see faces.
On first contact we model individuals by their appearance. We then modify that stereotype by facial recognition.and later by interaction.
Confronted by a burqua, we just have the stereotype. I used the word "confronted" intentionally in this case.

I believe the above to be true.
It describes what I believe to be the human reaction to unknown or unquantified threat.
It does NOT compare muslim women to dogs. Though I am sure there would be many who, not knowing me or my principles, would nevertheless want to interpret it that way.

And so, NO, I do not intend to apologise or withdraw my statement of my belief.
Well said and seconded here.

Without sounding fluffy, itís also a courtesy in western culture - a surgeon takes of his mask to talk to patients, one automatically takes off a scarf wrapped around your face to hold a conversation. How often have we said to youngsters, ďLook at me when Iím talking to you.Ē When Iím introduced to someone, particularly for the first time, if Iím wearing sunglasses,I take them off automatically as I think itís important to establish eye contact which helps to establish trust.

in fact, I think thatís why weíre uncomfortable with the burka - it comes across as evasive, shifty and actually rather sinister.
BehindBlueEyes is online now  
Old 13th Aug 2018, 10:57
  #137 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 930
Originally Posted by BehindBlueEyes View Post


Well said and seconded here.

Without sounding fluffy, itís also a courtesy in western culture - a surgeon takes of his mask to talk to patients, one automatically takes off a scarf wrapped around your face to hold a conversation. How often have we said to youngsters, ďLook at me when Iím talking to you.Ē When Iím introduced to someone, particularly for the first time, if Iím wearing sunglasses,I take them off automatically as I think itís important to establish eye contact which helps to establish trust.

in fact, I think thatís why weíre uncomfortable with the burka - it comes across as evasive, shifty and actually rather sinister.
Only in the minds of those with pre-conceived misconceptions and conscious bias

On the subject of covering up however, the recent warm weather induced the male of the species here in the UK to divest their upper garments. Had, in many cases, these sights been of a photographic nature, they would have contravened the Obscene Publications Act.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2018, 12:58
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
Only in the minds of those with pre-conceived misconceptions and conscious bias
I think I'm seeing some common themes here:
Many on the left here are supporting the burka and trying to claim that those who might criticise it have an anti-Islamic 'bias' (see above);
The Islamic population in Britain has been shown by a study to be four times more anti-semitic than the general population in Britain;
Labour has a known problem with anti-semitism.
Those three all tie in together to explain why those on the left have been so vocal to criticise anyone who might want to criticise the burka.

Of course there's the hypocrisy of the left banging on about 'rights' and then being very supportive of something, like the burka, that is a symbol of subjugation. But then hypocrisy and the 'left' go so comfortably hand-in-hand.

I agree totally with WingNut60
Trossie is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2018, 14:37
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 76
Historically, devout followers in western religions have also covered their bodies - monks, nuns, priests (note BOTH genders!) - no problem with that. Itís the female face covering I really have an issue with, for two reasons 1) As myself and others have already mentioned, the lack of visual and facial interaction and 2) The total hypocrisy of the religion and subjugation of the female race. Do we see any male Muslims covering their faces for religious sensitivities?

Will we ever see a sisterhood rise as quickly and as strongly as the #MeToo campaign in support of these women and the encouragement of them to come out?
BehindBlueEyes is online now  
Old 13th Aug 2018, 17:09
  #140 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 930
Originally Posted by Trossie View Post
I think I'm seeing some common themes here:
Many on the left here are supporting the burka and trying to claim that those who might criticise it have an anti-Islamic 'bias' (see above);
The Islamic population in Britain has been shown by a study to be four times more anti-semitic than the general population in Britain;
Labour has a known problem with anti-semitism.
Those three all tie in together to explain why those on the left have been so vocal to criticise anyone who might want to criticise the burka.

Of course there's the hypocrisy of the left banging on about 'rights' and then being very supportive of something, like the burka, that is a symbol of subjugation. But then hypocrisy and the 'left' go so comfortably hand-in-hand.

I agree totally with WingNut60
Lets start with your opening line, albeit politely discarding the bit about thinking, because from what follows it appears you have ventured into the realms of the surreal...possibly associated with the side effects of the hallucinations induced by a half empty glass regarding the economy...who knows, and as I'm not a medic it would be inappropriate to speculate.

Then there's mention of a "study " by way of correlation .......a link to this "study " would help here but unfortunately, the world renowned JB Geopolitical and Religious Advanced Bigotry in Social / Political Sciences does not constitute a bona fide study.

It is unsurprising you agree with the contributor named.......kindred spirits always boost morale after all.

" Historically, devout followers in western religions have also covered their bodies - monks, nuns, priests (note BOTH genders!) - no problem with that. It’s the female face covering I really have an issue with, for two reasons 1) As myself and others have already mentioned, the lack of visual and facial interaction and 2) The total hypocrisy of the religion and subjugation of the female race. Do we see any male Muslims covering their faces for religious sensitivities?

Will we ever see a sisterhood rise as quickly and as strongly as the #MeToo campaign in support of these women and the encouragement of them to come out?


That's one of the best disclaimers ever seen on here, far superior to the usual "I'm not a ( insert as required )..but " offering .

However, there's just a couple of problems here. One is trying to compare "like for like " with religions and, strangely they are all different as to how they represent the faith concerned and another is trying to relate different global cultures to those of the so called civilised Western world. The veneer of being civilised is wafer thin really but there is one factor which does unite humanity.......lets call it conformity........ and our obsession with imposing it.
Krystal n chips is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.