2019 European Elections

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
562
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Perhaps we should spend less time looking at the man and a little more time looking at the policies of the Labour party.
After all if we select out party leaders based only on their past record you would have to conclude that the Tories have completely lost the plot. They are about to elect Johnson as their new leader/Prime Minister, a man who is a serial adulterer, was dismissed from his job on the Times for printing completely made up quotes from his own Godfather, openly lied to his own party leader, referred to Muslim women as "letter boxes" and "bank robbers", snorted cocaine, was willing to help a friend of his get information to have another journalist beaten up, referred to some African people as "Pickaninnies" and whilst serving as Foreign Secretary managed to make the position of a poor British woman imprisoned in Iran far worse by simply not being properly briefed on her position . He seems to have no interest in anyone but himself and has likened becoming Prime Minister as "making up for the pony I didn't get as a child but always wanted."

PS. I'm not a big fan of Alexander "Boris" Johnson!!!
Correction, he said that Muslim women who wear the Burka look like Letter Boxes and Bank Robbers, and he is right, though it doesn't mean it is the correct thing to say. Not to mention that the Burka has nothing to do with Islam to begin with.
 

mistral

Contributor
Messages
36
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Correction, he said that Muslim women who wear the Burka look like Letter Boxes and Bank Robbers, and he is right, though it doesn't mean it is the correct thing to say. Not to mention that the Burka has nothing to do with Islam to begin with.
Oh well that makes it perfectly alright then. Anyway his is not right at all, no human being looks like a letter box and there is no particular look for a bank robber. Stop making excuses for him, these a racist comments, end off.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
562
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Oh well that makes it perfectly alright then. Anyway his is not right at all, no human being looks like a letter box and there is no particular look for a bank robber. Stop making excuses for him, these a racist comments, end off.
I never said it made it perfectly alright, if you read the comment I also go on to mention that it doesn't mean it is the correct thing to say. However it is not Racism as Islam is a Religion, not a Race, or rather, not a single Race, Religions are made up of many Races.
 
Last edited:

mistral

Contributor
Messages
36
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I never said it made it perfectly alright, if you read the comment I also go on to mention that it doesn't mean it is the correct thing to say. However it is not Racism as Islam is a Religion, not a Race, or rather, not a single Race, Religions are made up of many Races.
"It's not the correct thing to say" is fine for your average Joe Soap in the street. This man is a former foreign secretary and odds on to be the next Prime Minister! By the way, this wasn't some throw away remark overheard in the pub, he wrote this in a newspaper article. It is an outrageous, vile and disgusting thing for a senior politician to write. It just incites hatred against a group of innocent people who, just like everyone else in the UK, can dress however they damn well please. Johnson is a nasty piece of work dressed up as a bumbling, upper class clown. The fact he can get anywhere near No 10 is a very sad indictment of current politics.
The whole "its not racist" thing is pure semantics, it boils down to the same thing, hating on people just because they happen to belong to a particular group.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
562
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
"It's not the correct thing to say" is fine for your average Joe Soap in the street. This man is a former foreign secretary and odds on to be the next Prime Minister! By the way, this wasn't some throw away remark overheard in the pub, he wrote this in a newspaper article. It is an outrageous, vile and disgusting thing for a senior politician to write. It just incites hatred against a group of innocent people who, just like everyone else in the UK, can dress however they damn well please. Johnson is a nasty piece of work dressed up as a bumbling, upper class clown. The fact he can get anywhere near No 10 is a very sad indictment of current politics.
The whole "its not racist" thing is pure semantics, it boils down to the same thing, hating on people just because they happen to belong to a particular group.
This is the UK, the Burqa is a completely inappropriate attire for a country that isn't in the middle of a Desert. Also it does provide a security risk, since you won't actually know who the other person is behind the Burqa.

And Politicians have gotten away with far worse comments than what BoJo said. And no, at the end of the day it is not semantics, as there is a clear line between what defines a race and what defines a religion.
 

Lewis Badger

Est. Contributor
Messages
203
Role
Diaper Lover, Little
Significant = Noteworthy, at the end of the day it doesn't matter about the percentage but the amount, and if we were getting good value from it then we would be profiting from it, which we are not. Plus how many nurses and doctors do you think we can employ with 60-80 Million GBP? *

I don't think it is blown out of proportion, we already know that Corbyn has, on many occasions, ignored, or simply swept under the rug the issues surrounding Anti-Semitism in his own party. Plus there is his allegiance with groups that are against the Israelis not as a country, but as a people, simply because they do not hold the same religion as they do, such as Hamas controlled Gaza strip. Blown out of proportion? Not at all. Also Corbyn hasn't at any point condemned the actions of the IRA, and has defended several of the members of that group, including his attendance at the funeral for one its members. However it was Labour who dragged us into the war based on information that was known to be completely inaccurate, why do you think Britain gets the reputation of just being a puppet state for the USA?

Right, that is why they are currently trying to campaign against Brexit, making them undemocratic by default as they do not accept the result of the June 2016 referendum, the single largest democratic vote in the UK per turnout, and to be Liberal you must accept democracy as well as opinions, even if you disagree with them.

Edit: * - For context, a doctor gets £55000 to £84000 annually, a Nurse can expect to get between £23000 and £39220 per year.
Corbyn and issued a public statement condemning the actions of the IRA and explicitly called their bombing acts of terror, just google it.

By your definition, almost any amount of money is significant, I probably waste a couple of quid through inefficiency and laziness every day, however, I do not feel that I lose significant amount of money everyday, but in some places that could be someone entire day's, or entire month's pay! How could I be so throughtless? Something must be done!

That's just an example of what perspective means, also, in terms of good value, 60-80m is good value, by your definition again, that amount could be 1 million, or 500,000, it really doesn't matter, you're essentially saying that this number should be 0, but that would require a much better understanding of where that number comes from, who they treat, and what alternatives we have, which may well end up costing more money.

Accepting the result of the referendum does not mean you will now sit and do nothing about it from now on, even the current push for a people's vote is needed precisely because it's the only democratic thing to do, with the leadership as they as now, it's looking dangerously likely that we'd leave without a deal, which we had been promised won't happen by the leave campaign, and that's without mentioning that every major leave campaigner talked about access to the single market, Norway, Sweden, frictionless trade etc etc

If a decision cannot be verified once ambiguously made based on false promises and misinformation, then it's not democracy.
 

Lewis Badger

Est. Contributor
Messages
203
Role
Diaper Lover, Little
As a Labour Party member and Corbyn supporter I would argue some of the smears he receives are out of fear, Corbyn himself defied the whip regarding the Iraq war, we are a different party now than we were under Neo Liberal Captalist Blairism. There is no longer a rizla between the Tories and Labour but an ocean
Good point on the Iraq war, it seems that SgtOddBall, who cared so much about the Iraq war, couldn't reconcile with the fact that Corbyn was courageous enough to vote against it, when his favourite part followed merrily along.

Not that following merrily along at the time was wrong, I did at the time, albeit based on the misinformation that have been shared. I wonder if similar sentiment would arise if the Brexit shitshow follows through, I really wasn't very aware of general news back when the Iraq war broke out.
 

mistral

Contributor
Messages
36
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
This is the UK, the Burqa is a completely inappropriate attire for a country that isn't in the middle of a Desert. Also it does provide a security risk, since you won't actually know who the other person is behind the Burqa.

And Politicians have gotten away with far worse comments than what BoJo said. And no, at the end of the day it is not semantics, as there is a clear line between what defines a race and what defines a religion.
This is the UK, in winter the mini skirt is a completely inappropriate attire for a country that isn't hot. Do you want to ban the mini skirt? What a woman wears is up to her and absolutely non of anybody else's business.
If the Burka is such a security risk please provide evidence of when this item of clothing has been used in crime. Actual examples not just some vague Daily Mail style bullshit. Please also consider the number of times criminals have used huddies during crimes to mask their identity, if you want to ban the Burka for security reasons then logically we should also "ban the huddie".
Please list the senior politicians who have become Prime Minister AFTER committing even half of the transgressions of Johnson.
Do you think it's okay to incite hatred against a minority based on their religion? If it makes you feel better let's call it Islamophobia but at the end of the day it's all the same ignorant bigotry.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
562
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Good point on the Iraq war, it seems that SgtOddBall, who cared so much about the Iraq war, couldn't reconcile with the fact that Corbyn was courageous enough to vote against it, when his favourite part followed merrily along.

Not that following merrily along at the time was wrong, I did at the time, albeit based on the misinformation that have been shared. I wonder if similar sentiment would arise if the Brexit shitshow follows through, I really wasn't very aware of general news back when the Iraq war broke out.
Because it wasn't Corbyn who took into Iraq, it was still the Labour party however.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
562
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
This is the UK, in winter the mini skirt is a completely inappropriate attire for a country that isn't hot. Do you want to ban the mini skirt? What a woman wears is up to her and absolutely non of anybody else's business.
If the Burka is such a security risk please provide evidence of when this item of clothing has been used in crime. Actual examples not just some vague Daily Mail style bullshit. Please also consider the number of times criminals have used huddies during crimes to mask their identity, if you want to ban the Burka for security reasons then logically we should also "ban the huddie".
Please list the senior politicians who have become Prime Minister AFTER committing even half of the transgressions of Johnson.
Do you think it's okay to incite hatred against a minority based on their religion? If it makes you feel better let's call it Islamophobia but at the end of the day it's all the same ignorant bigotry.
So we are going to compare apples and oranges now are we?
And my pleasure:
And again you compare Apples with Oranges by the way, however in quite a few establishments you will be requested to take the hood off.
And although I cannot provide any politician coming out with offenses comments that became a Prime Minister, I can provide you with the closest possible from everyone's favourite Mathematician.




And Bigotry exists on all sides of the fence, not just on the right but on the left also as the above pictures prove.
 
Last edited:

Lewis Badger

Est. Contributor
Messages
203
Role
Diaper Lover, Little
Because it wasn't Corbyn who took into Iraq, it was still the Labour party however.
Who is the current labour party leader, whereas the likely future conservative PM, Boris, voted consistently for the Iraq war, still Labour be damned.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
562
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Who is the current labour party leader, whereas the likely future conservative PM, Boris, voted consistently for the Iraq war, still Labour be damned.
It was Labour who knew that the report they were bringing into Parliament was using information that they knew was likely false. And whom the current Labour leader may or maynot be is immaterial.
 

Lewis Badger

Est. Contributor
Messages
203
Role
Diaper Lover, Little
So we are going to compare apples and oranges now are we?
And my pleasure:
And again you compare Apples with Oranges by the way, however in quite a few establishments you will be requested to take the hood off.
And although I cannot provide any politician coming out with offenses comments that became a Prime Minister, I can provide you with the closest possible from everyone's favourite Mathematician.




And Bigotry exists on all sides of the fence, not just on the right but on the left also as the above pictures prove.
This isn't about apples or oranges, proposal to ban clothing choices is a recipe for disaster, especially when it's religiously driven, at best I can see a blanket ban for clothes or accessories that obscures identity, e.g. if you wear hat and sun glasses at the same time, but pretty much everyone would be up in arms and the law would likely be unenforceable.

Having said that, the obsured face rule, whilst unenforceable by law, can probably be implemented by individual establishment, and while they'd get some bad press, if they can show that they apply the rules consistently it might be up for argument.
 
Last edited:

Lewis Badger

Est. Contributor
Messages
203
Role
Diaper Lover, Little
It was Labour who knew that the report they were bringing into Parliament was using information that they knew was likely false. And whom the current Labour leader may or maynot be is immaterial.
The opposition would have had just as much information, if you're suggesting that the Conservatives was somehow lied into supporting the Iraq war when Labour had the correct information, them I'm sorry, that's just not how the government works, Boris knew as much as Corbyn or most any other MP did at the time, and he chose war to support the powers that be across the pond.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
562
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
The opposition would have had just as much information, if you're suggesting that the Conservatives was somehow lied into supporting the Iraq war when Labour had the correct information, them I'm sorry, that's just not how the government works, Boris knew as much as Corbyn or most any other MP did at the time, and he chose war to support the powers that be across the pond.
The opposition would indeed yes, however it was Prime Minister Tony Blair who bought it upto to parliament despite know full well that information was inaccurate and not complete, and just because the opposition may know just as much does not mean that everyone on the opposition knows, if you believe that then you do not have a good grasp of politics.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
562
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
This isn't about apples or oranges, proposal to ban clothing choices is a recipe for disaster, especially when it's religiously driven, at best I can see a blanket ban for clothes or accessories that obscures identity, e.g. if you wear hat and sun glasses at the same time, but pretty much everyone would be up in arms and the law would likely be unenforceable.

Having said that, the obsured face rule, whilst unenforceable by law, can probably be implemented by individual establishment, and while they'd get some bad press, if they can show that they apply the rules consistently it might be up for argument.
You are right, this isn't about apples and oranges, and a ban on this type of clothing would not be a disaster, for one, not everyone woman in the UK that dons the Burqa is wearing through their own free will, and no the clothing is not religiously driven either, it was not mandatory to woman until the mid 1900s and was traditionally worn in Saudi Arabia. However I do not see a Blanket ban as necessary as if your identity is obscured to by a Balaclava it can be requested of you to remove it, refusal can see you removed from the premisses of a shop or building, and you are required to take off a motorcycle helmet also such as Petrol Stations for the same reason.
 
Last edited:

Lewis Badger

Est. Contributor
Messages
203
Role
Diaper Lover, Little
The opposition would indeed yes, however it was Prime Minister Tony Blair who bought it upto to parliament despite know full well that information was inaccurate and not complete, and just because the opposition may know just as much does not mean that everyone on the opposition knows, if you believe that then you do not have a good grasp of politics.
I specifically said that Boris would have known as much as 'most any other MP', I'm well aware that not everyone can know the same thing, not just in politics but life generally, it's just curious that when Iraq war seemed like such a thorny issue for you, you're fine with supporting an MP who had supported the war to be PM than one who hasn't, though I guess that's in part because Corbyn doesn't always come out right away and condemn terrorist in the harshest possible term, instead choosing to say that he condemns but see why they may feel like they need to take actions, or his ambition to re-nationalise industries.

I guess it's just curious to me that you can hold such strong opinion when at least some of those views are in confict.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
562
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
I specifically said that Boris would have known as much as 'most any other MP', I'm well aware that not everyone can know the same thing, not just in politics but life generally, it's just curious that when Iraq war seemed like such a thorny issue for you, you're fine with supporting an MP who had supported the war to be PM than one who hasn't, though I guess that's in part because Corbyn doesn't always come out right away and condemn terrorist in the harshest possible term, instead choosing to say that he condemns but see why they may feel like they need to take actions, or his ambition to re-nationalise industries.

I guess it's just curious to me that you can hold such strong opinion when at least some of those views are in confict.
You think I actually support Boris Johnson? Laughable as it may seem, but I'm more for backing Sajid Javid than BoJo. As for Corbyn not coming out right away, no he doesn't come out at all, I mean let us be honest here, when was the last time he actually, full heartedly, condemned a terrorist act? And look at his history also, he has been in full support of the IRA from the start of the troubles in Ireland, he considers folks from Hamas and Hezbollah as friends, he has even been seen at the memorial service alongside the first female Plane Hijacker, you really think that he would condemn a terrorist act? No he wouldn't. And although there are industries that do need renationalising, it would actually cost us a lot of money in order to do so.

And none of my views are in conflict thanks.
 

Lewis Badger

Est. Contributor
Messages
203
Role
Diaper Lover, Little
You are right, this isn't about apples and oranges, and a ban on this type of clothing would not be a disaster, for one, not everyone woman in the UK that dons the Burqa is wearing through their own free will, and no the clothing is not religiously driven either, it was not mandatory to woman until the mid 1900s and was traditionally worn in Saudi Arabia. However I do not see a Blanket ban as necessary as if your identity is obscured to by a Balaclava it can be requested of you to remove it, refusal can see you removed from the premisses of a shop or building, and you are required to take off a motorcycle helmet also such as Petrol Stations for the same reason.
You're right, it's an interpretation of religious text that has happened more recently, however, that doesn't stop it from being a custom derived from religious (similar to the Amish). I'm also with you where no one should be forced to wear particular clothes against their free will. My issue is in banning clothes on the basis that it obscures the face but then only apply it to the clothes worn by one specific group, as I said, it ought to be all or nothing, they shouldn't ban specific clothing, they should ban the result.

Another caveat, whilst I'd be appalled to learn that a government would ban (or in other places, enforce) the burqua, you're unlikely to find me out on the street protesting against it.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
562
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
You're right, it's an interpretation of religious text that has happened more recently, however, that doesn't stop it from being a custom derived from religious (similar to the Amish). I'm also with you where no one should be forced to wear particular clothes against their free will. My issue is in banning clothes on the basis that it obscures the face but then only apply it to the clothes worn by one specific group, as I said, it ought to be all or nothing, they shouldn't ban specific clothing, they should ban the result.

Another caveat, whilst I'd be appalled to learn that a government would ban (or in other places, enforce) the burqua, you're unlikely to find me out on the street protesting against it.
Actually it was never interpreted from religious text, perhaps it is better for you to do some actual study on the origins of the burqa, its full history etc. So no it wasn't derived from religious custom either. And yes this ban would end up targeting one specific group, there would be no need for a blanket ban, as said above if you wear clothing that does obscure your identity you can be asked to remove it, such as hoodies, balaclavas, motorcycle helmets etc.

Same can be said about me and abortion, I disagree with it, I find it abhorrent, but you won't find me protesting against it on the streets.
 
Last edited:
Top