I'm with you on this - I'm an antitheist in the vein of Christopher Hitchens (but nowhere near as clever or well read,) so I'm quite happy to see any religious symbolism mocked or lampooned - and I think that any god who was so sensitive as to prohibit that, can't be much of a god at all. If I was the supreme creator of the universe, I could probably overlook a bit of satire.

Boris Johnson, quite deliberately, didn't do that - he wasn't discussing the beliefs or the symbolism, he was attacking the women; they're a soft target, and he knew exactly what he was doing - playing to the gallery to gain some traction for his leadership bid - which appears to have worked; the MSM and many Tories are playing down the sinister elements of what he said, and straight out of the Bannon playbook, now positioning Johnson himself a "victim" - of the PC, anti-free speech brigade.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this will embolden those people who hold similar views, and will make veiled women more vulnerable; in the next week or so, we'll see reports of women being attacked in the street, called letterboxes, or having their headgear torn off, and Mr Johnson won't give it a second thought.

Your problem with it is therefore a political one. So what if it's an insult? Grow a thicker skin. He's said nothing illegal. If he's stoking up support that's his business. If someone uses it to express hate views they probably held those views anyway.

In what way, shape or form is any part of Islam an "easy & usually silent target"?? Utter nonsense.


It doesn't matter how many support or oppose him, he has the right to say it. If some folk don't agree, tough.

Measuring offence (what a stupid term) should certainly not be judged by those offended. Otherwise before we know it no-one would be able to say anything about anyone, ever. Someone, somewhere is offended at everything. Mind you we've been heading that way for the last 20 years.

It already happens. The difference is in the next week we'll see it highlighted in the press.

I think we should hold our elected officials to a higher standard than, "he said nothing illegal."

If Boris Johnson wanted to contribute to a genuine debate about liberal values and the centuries old use of religion (by men) to oppress women, he could have done so without name-calling and playground insults, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's classic dog-whistle politics, and he has form for it:

President Obama was "part Kenyan, with an ancestral dislike of Britain"
Africans - "Picaninnies with watermelon smiles"
Compared the EU project with Hitler
Papua New Guinea - "orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing"
Hillsborough - enough said
Referred to gay people as "tank-topped bum-boys."

He's a turgid, horrible man, unfit to hold public office. I don't know what they teach these people at Eton, but it is proving to have quite a track record of churning our very clever but deeply unpleasant people, with a total disregard for the people they believe they are entitled to rule.

The voters will decide. While I doubt I'd ever vote for Boris, I'd sooner have someone willing to speak their mind and defend their views rather than crawl on their knees to the weakest sensitivities and faux outrage. 99% of 'apologies' in politics are meaningless, hollow statements.

And what are those quotes supposed to prove? Are they supposed to be shocking? This may come as a surprise but hardly anyone cares. Your sterile, PC, left-wing snowflake-led social media nirvana only exists in sections of the media and on social media, where folk desperately seek out their viral outrage. Out on the streets most people couldn't give a shiny sh*t for snowflake sensitivities or if someone might take offence. Similarly, most people don't want the standards of others forced upon them.

The odd thing with the quotes you've chosen is that Obama IS part Kenyan and anecdotal evidence is that he doesn't hold much love for the UK, or at least its colonial past. PNG does have a history of cannibalism. The EU project...well you know my views on that. There are indeed people who feel Liverpool fans should bear some responsibility for Hillsborough and that there's a 'victim' culture in Liverpool. And plenty of people quite simply don't want to accept homosexuality or being told they're 'not allowed' to use certain words to describe other races. BTW the 'bum-boy' quote is from 1998, when such language was hardly uncommon. I personally don't hold the same views but I'll defend the right to hold them within the law.

Furthermore, many millions of people across the UK share those views. Some might vocalise them, others might use them online and others might only ever think them - but they are out there. The Left have yet to understand why their cause continually loses elections - let me tell you, decades of enforcing your standards on everyone else is a big part of it.

Being offended has become the new 'crying wolf'. People are tired of hearing it every 2 minutes.

Interesting those who were so gleeful about the Trump baby blimp or can't wait to sling the new trendy 'gammon' insult at every opportunity are up in arms about Boris Johnson. Either you're allowed to offend or you're not.

And there he goes.

There he goes, indeed,speaking the truth something the left wing snowflake movement can never contemplate.

The beautiful irony of the right-wing lording the UK's labour & environment laws when they have opposed at every step of the way, using the capitalist cretin media to do their dirty work, had trade unionists, environmentalists & socialists sacked & imprisoned, while sucking up to big, dirty business.

Let's get this right - he's offended at the sight of what other people are wearing.

And the people saying, "you can wear what you want", and without being abused for it, are the "snowflakes"

you have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

Is it really ok for a wannabe Prime Minister to "mock" a section of the electorate using the language that Boris chose to use ?

Calling some Muslim women Ninjas or Letterboxes seems more like the language that we would normally expect to see on a BNP leaflet, telling us of some kind of "invasion" and the response of his supporters is to dismiss his comments, which were made as part of a newspaper article, which would certainly have been proof read and checked prior to publication.

Therefore, lets be clear. This shouldn't be laughed off as "banter" or an accidental slip of the tongue, it was deliberately written to provoke a response, either to gain personal support from the right of his party or, to provoke a larger debate in the wider public.

If he was trying to provoke debate, there wasn't any need to use the language that he did, therefore we are probably looking at him wanting to stoke up support for himself, which given his past record, is really no surprise at all.

Although Boris may be a loose cannon and prone to the odd gaffe, I do believe that he's an extremely bright individual and should not be quite so easily forgiven for his "mistake".

I dont think that senior politicians should be using this type of "colourful" language and had one of the politicians used those same words, there would, quite rightly be outrage in both the left wing and right wing press.

What garbage. The continuous faux outrage of the capitalist & Nazi supporting media has created the racism & xenophobia that has led to Brexit, fear of & attacks on forriners.

Was it the so called Nazi right wing mob who vandalised Jacob Rees moggs house. Was it the so called Nazi right wing mob who exploded the Manchester arena bomb?.

That's all very well, but what you don't understand is that most people really don't care about something so insignificant as saying they look like letterboxes (he didn't say ninjas, that was me

). All you're doing here is trying to stoke up outrage where there is in fact very little. Mind you, that's pretty commonplace these days.

Holding politicians (and indeed everyone) up to the sterile snowflake (yes I used it again) social media-driven standards of the left is not only practically impossible, but undesired by most. The almost daily race to be the most offended at any minor slight is beyond tiresome. YOU may not think politicians should say things like that, but you're probably in the minority. It's a bit naughty but really, who cares.

I watched an Imam this morning telling a ninja there is no requirement for the burka in Islam and that Boris Johnson is correct in his description. He called her 'face mask lady' - I thought the BBC presenter was going to faint.

Yes, your right, he refereed to them as "letterboxes" and "bank robbers" so, that makes it ok


The snowflake comment always makes me chuckle, after being on the planet for over 50 years, I didnt think it could apply but, some people love to throw it in just to try and belittle the people that they are in discussion with, as though it strengthens their argument.

When we are discussing his remarks on a "Brexit" thread, where racism and immigration were probably no 1 on the agenda, the issue does become a little more sensitive and "you" seem to have become a Boris apologist, which I believe may be a melted snowflake, perhaps just a "puddle" or should that be poodle, lapping up the Tory rhetoric.

As I said, there does need to be some discussion / debate as we risk having a society with double standards and when this is caused by religious division, we need to address some of the issues.

The point with this is that we are happy to allow all religions to segregate their "own", for educational purposes, when we really ought not, but , this would become extremely difficult when if try to move the goalposts for C of E, Catholic, Jewish and other faiths, who, for many years have been happy to exclude their own children from mainstream education etc and perhaps we should adopt the French model of secular society.

Lots of words, very little meaning. All you've done here is demonstrate a lack of understanding.

The policies of Bliar and the creeping enforcement of an unrealistic culture of political correctness are a major reason for the upsurge in 'populism' (oddly, a word now used in a negative context) and resentment in society that has been shouted down for decades. Continually and aggressively telling people what they can and can't do, say and think has backfired.

If anyone dared whisper 'immigration' ten years ago they were shouted down as 'racist or xenophobe'....oh look, entirely coincidentally of course, at your post.

A fair amount of people have criticized Johnson for his remarks ,without reading the article in which he made the comment. It was in The Daily Telegraph, the main point was relevant to Denmark who are in the process of banning the burka. Johnson said Denmark was a free and tolerant society but he did not agree with a total ban on the burka . He then went on to make the remarks about post boxes etc. As per normal the usual suspects surfaced and started howling, conveniently forgetting that Toynbee and others have a track record of criticism against the burka. What made my day was red ken Livingston calling for Johnson to be kicked out of the Tory party. You would need a heart of stone not to laugh at dear old ken.

I know a snowflake like you when I see one.

And now Christine Hamilton (former Tory now with UKIP) has entered the debate, likening the hijab to a KKK mask but, clearly no hint of racism, just a bit of fun !

Give it up lad. If you think I get offended at anything, you're well wide of the mark.

Except your blind stupidity. That offends me.



Figured out what everyone's talking about yet?

I agree with some of what Johnson said. I actually do not like the burka & think it is unhealthy & can be used to repress women. But banning it is illiberal. But cheap, easy jokes are unnecessary &, in Johnson's case, carefully chosen to cause faux outrage & further his position with the alt-right. A position I do not think Johnson naturally fits in. Neither do I think he is a natural Brexiter. They just fit his plan to become PM by any means necessary.

You're right about Boris not being a natural Brexitier, it wasn't so long ago that he wanted to "remain".
I think it's called political ambition, although, two faced b'stard may be more applicable, a fairly common trait among many politicians.

"No deal" is getting quite a kicking isn't it. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/statu ... 4656548865

"No deal" is getting quite a kicking isn't it. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/statu ... 4656548865

Democracy failed when Hitler was elected and nothing has changed since. One less layer of politicians is a godsend.

Don't think Hitler ever got a majority in the Reichstag. He was invited to take over, not elected.