Thread: Boris, you complete prick. Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005682
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Boris Johnson - the foreign minister of the Tory government - has managed one of his "gaffes" and offended an entire religion by promoting cheaper whisky in a Sikh temple.
Of course, this is not headline news, as he is a Tory, but really should be. He has refused to apologise too.
Of course the real threat to the country is Dianne Abbot getting her figures confused, not an idiotic buffoon making offensive remarks and alienating entire swathes of people.
Next thing he will be talking about a trade deal with Israel, so the cost of Jesus body will be cheaper.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Only a Tory government bent on ridding England of foreigners could have a minister called Boris.
Clearly a tool of Putin.
(Or should that be 'fool'? Anyway, he's a disgrace to the country).
IJ
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
TBH, I'd take more offense in how he said it:
"when we go to Mumbai we have to bring clinky clinky in our luggage"
Which speaks volumes about which fucking century the Tories think they are in.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
TBH, I'd take more offense in how he said it:
"when we go to Mumbai we have to bring clinky clinky in our luggage"
Which speaks volumes about which fucking century the Tories think they are in.
With the Duke of Edinburgh taking leave of public duties it looks like Boris has stepped up.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
The wall against which these egregious idiots are eventually going to be lined up will have to be a looooooooong one.
How's that wall between you and Mexico going, Mr. Pussygrabber?
IJ
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The wall against which these egregious idiots are eventually going to be lined up will have to be a looooooooong one.
Advocating execution for people who say something someone finds offensive. Nice.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Who's advocating? Predicting isn't the same thing.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
One only dreads what's next. Maybe he'll give a speech about pork markets at an Islamic/Jewish interfaith meeting. Or he'll decide to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the start of the reformation at a catholic church.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The wall against which these egregious idiots are eventually going to be lined up will have to be a looooooooong one.
Advocating execution for people who say something someone finds offensive. Nice.
He's just exercising his freedom of speech. Suck it up, snowflake.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
This is all bollocks. Some Sikhs are teetotal, some aren't. Last count, 28% of Sikhs drink alcohol at least once a week.
It just sounds like a particularly religious woman took exception to talking about alcohol inside the temple, like a Christian teetotaler might take exception with it in a church. God knows, I know Christians who would take exception to filming in a church, to talking about buying anything in a church, in having a blond ex-Eton schoolboy opening his gob in a church.
He did it. Some old woman was offended. Big deal. Get over it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
One only dreads what's next. Maybe he'll give a speech about pork markets at an Islamic/Jewish interfaith meeting. Or he'll decide to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the start of the reformation at a catholic church.
Oh shut up. I mean, really.
As if we haven't got enough to talk about regarding the Tories and their bullshit ideas for screwing around with the poorest and weakest in our society, we have to invent things to get offended by that they haven't even done yet.
Stick with the programme, attack the policy not the fool who tried to answer a daft question in a slightly-less-than-favourable religious building.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The wall against which these egregious idiots are eventually going to be lined up will have to be a looooooooong one.
Really. What the actual fuck is this supposed to mean?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
My understanding is that different sects of Sikhism have different ideas about alcohol. Does anyone happen to know what the teachings of this temple are?
I know there is a Sikh woman claiming to be offended by what he said, but the posted article merely said she was angry about alcohol being promoted in "a place of worship".
Plus, I'm also familiar with the phenomenon of one person from a group loudly claiming to be speaking on behalf of the whole group, when in fact, they have no such standing in the community they claim to represent.
If the temple has no teaching against alcohol, I don't see why a political speechmaker shouldn't mention it as an item in a trade agreement. That would be like saying you shouldn't discuss health-care spending in a Baptist church, because Christian Scientists don't believe in that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some old woman was offended.
Woah.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
My understanding is that different sects of Sikhism have different ideas about alcohol. Does anyone happen to know what the teachings of this temple are?
I know there is a Sikh woman claiming to be offended by what he said, but the posted article merely said she was angry about alcohol being promoted in "a place of worship".
Plus, I'm also familiar with the phenomenon of one person from a group loudly claiming to be speaking on behalf of the whole group, when in fact, they have no such standing in the community they claim to represent.
If the temple has no teaching against alcohol, I don't see why a political speechmaker shouldn't mention it as an item in a trade agreement. That would be like saying you shouldn't discuss health-care spending in a Baptist church, because Christian Scientists don't believe in that.
It's not as if he would have checked, though, is it? Frankly we're lucky he didn't come out with it in a mosque.
Besides which, I am not entirely sure of the salience of "Brexit is great because we can flog the Indians whisky and we won't have to bring our own stuff with us when we visit." Unless Johnny Walker have a Sikh Temple attached to the premises and these were all employees.
Boris' whole shtick is "don't worry about Brexit because we'll still have access to the finer things in life." Which is making me channel my inner Tonto. What's this "we" business, white man. We know the likes of Boris will be absolutely tickety-boo whatever happens, but a lot of other people won't be. In any event, in some corner of the afterlife, Samuel Hoare and Selwyn Lloyd have stopped arguing over who was the worst Foreign Secretary in British history and are beginning to look rather smug.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Boris' whole shtick is "don't worry about Brexit because we'll still have access to the finer things in life." Which is making me channel my inner Tonto. What's this "we" business, white man. We know the likes of Boris will be absolutely tickety-boo whatever happens, but a lot of other people won't be.
Yes. The content of what he said and the attitude it expressed were ridiculous. The very idea that he associated being in a Sikh temple with alcohol in India is nauseating.
Castigate him for that, not for daring to mention alcohol in a Sikh place of worship.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's not as if he would have checked, though, is it? Frankly we're lucky he didn't come out with it in a mosque.
It looks like a case of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' - he has Sikh inlaws and just assumed they were normative.
Rather like if, on the basis of my acquaintanceship with clergy who are alumni of St Stephen's House, I assumed that Nicky Gumbell would find it hilarious to be called Edith the Cruel ...
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
stetson: quote:
I know there is a Sikh woman claiming to be offended by what he said...
What are you suggesting - that you don't think she had any right to be offended (because she's a woman? because she's a teetotaler?), or that you think she was lying about being offended?
I wasn't there, but from the various things I've read about the way BoJo the Clown behaved I am surprised only one person complained. I'd have found his behaviour annoying, and I am neither Sikh nor Indian.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
stetson: quote:
I know there is a Sikh woman claiming to be offended by what he said...
What are you suggesting - that you don't think she had any right to be offended (because she's a woman? because she's a teetotaler?), or that you think she was lying about being offended?
Or maybe just that the fact that she was offended doesn't actually matter?
It's inevitable that someone would get offended were a politician to, say, be positive about same-sex marriage during an election speech in a cathedral. Would that make the politician a "threat to the country"?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Marvin: quote:
Or maybe just that the fact that she was offended doesn't actually matter?
Every time I think my opinion of you can't get any lower, you prove me wrong.
I didn't say that I considered BoJo a threat to the country, but since you have brought the subject up yourself I think his behaviour as Foreign Secretary has seriously damaged our international reputation (what's left of it). In that sense you are correct; the fact that one elderly Sikh woman said publicly that she was offended by his remarks doesn't matter. It is, however, symptomatic of a wider problem, and I have seen no evidence yet that he takes greater care not to offend people with the power to refuse all these post-Brexit trade deals that are going to make us rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Every time I think my opinion of you can't get any lower, you prove me wrong.
I didn't say that I considered BoJo a threat to the country, but since you have brought the subject up yourself I think his behaviour as Foreign Secretary has seriously damaged our international reputation (what's left of it). In that sense you are correct; the fact that one elderly Sikh woman said publicly that she was offended by his remarks doesn't matter. It is, however, symptomatic of a wider problem, and I have seen no evidence yet that he takes greater care not to offend people with the power to refuse all these post-Brexit trade deals that are going to make us rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
Please explain why the offense felt by an elderly Sikh woman is so serious, given that plenty of other Sikhs are not bothered about this particular issue. Surely you understand that someone is almost always going to be offended about something that any politician says at any time?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Conversely, UK politicians visit places of worship regularly - they frequently host hustings, but incidents like this are in fact very rare.
I guarantee all the party leaders and most of the candidates have visited places of worship in the last twelve months - how many have ended up in this situation ?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Conversely, UK politicians visit places of worship regularly - they frequently host hustings, but incidents like this are in fact very rare.
I guarantee all the party leaders and most of the candidates have visited places of worship in the last twelve months - how many have ended up in this situation ?
I have personally witnessed people getting offended by the theology of candidates at a husting in a church. It never reached the news.
So I suspect that in practice this happens a lot. Usually it isn't news.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Good points made. Do people have the right not to be offended? Does it matter if it was in a house of worship? Is this Boris guy the type that if he was told by the offended woman or someone else that he's offended her someone who would apologise or someone who'd say eff off? Does he get more votes by saying eff off or by apologising?
And finally, does he have to wear a turban? and is orange the only colour?
Myself, I think there is no right not to be offended, that polite people say sorry in many circumstances of causing offence. I'm not knowledgeable about Boris except that would not apologising might appeal to the anti-brown people bloc of voters.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
stetson: quote:
I know there is a Sikh woman claiming to be offended by what he said...
What are you suggesting - that you don't think she had any right to be offended (because she's a woman? because she's a teetotaler?), or that you think she was lying about being offended?
No, she was probably sincerely offended by what he said. The phenomenon of someone lying about being offended in order to advance some sort of agenda or other(usually political) is certainly not unknown, but I have no reason to think that's what happened here.
So let me re-work that...
There is a woman who was offended, and it trying to claim that she speaks for all Sikhs in being offended. ("It's at the core of our religion etc")
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
And finally, does he have to wear a turban? and is orange the only colour?
Headgear is requested for all in at least one Temple and car park.
Unfortunately the writing is too small to read until you've breached the perimeter to read the sign fascinated by the more legible request against horse drawn carriages and some kind of band. Leading to a Jayemm desperately trying to find a respectful&apologetic&acknowledging posture to any witnesses (a turbanned person entering the temple afterwards did wave, so I think my rudeness was acknowledged as ignorance, and it wasn't the one in our town-so I'll never see them again anyway).
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I think she might have had a right to be very, very angry. Considering that under the Tories military advice and planning was provided to support the Golden Temple attack in 1984. That didn't turn out very well for Sihk's and if memory serves, the whole thing was denied (at least in part) until a few years ago. In fact I think there was even an official enquiry, so the Tories have a lot of work to do with Sihk's and sadly Boris aint the one to be let out of his cage of an afternoon to do it.
The video of the incident is available pretty much everywhere on the internet at present. She is not ranting and she's barely raising her voice above what is necessary to be heard. She is concise, reasoned and direct and had every right to say what she did. Boris made an idiotic gaff. It isn't the first and won't be the last. He instantly tries to dismiss her with repeated injunctions that he is sorry she feels that way about it, despite the fact that she has patiently explained that this is a matter of belief for Sihk's. If you watch the video, the very second he begins to mention 'clinky, clinky' you can see everyone looking at one another, slightly unsettled. The fact that he persists is even more cringe worthy. He's an utter fool who should have been ditched at the first opportunity.
Next week we'll probably hear how he trots off to some Mosque to do the same thing again there.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
He's an utter fool who should have been ditched at the first opportunity.
Can anyone name a politician or few who aren't fools, deformed of personality, up to the trough like little piggies joined by their corporate piggy friends?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
He's an utter fool who should have been ditched at the first opportunity.
Can anyone name a politician or few who aren't fools, deformed of personality, up to the trough like little piggies joined by their corporate piggy friends?
Above all others in my time, John Smith, British Labour leader in the 1990's until his untimely death.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Ah yes, the best Prime Minister we never had...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I expect there are/were others, but none spring directly to mind!
I know one or two local politicians who do a really good job for their constituents.
IJ
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
He's an utter fool who should have been ditched at the first opportunity.
Can anyone name a politician or few who aren't fools, deformed of personality, up to the trough like little piggies joined by their corporate piggy friends?
I don't think ours is in the trough proper. Proclaimed some barbaric views, I presume sincerely, but not seen any evidence of scandal.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh please. One person was unhappy, he apologised. How is this news?
It's only news because these days filling web pages is a major requirement and the supply of tea cups that need to have storms in them is never ending.
There's no sign that she spoke for all Sikhs or even claimed to do so. Nope. It's a report that one member of an audience was unhappy.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's no sign that she spoke for all Sikhs or even claimed to do so. Nope. It's a report that one member of an audience was unhappy.
And a neat illustration that a principal minister in Her Majesty's Government can't open his mouth without putting his foot in it. Moreover "I'm very sorry if you think alcohol is a bad thing, I understand your point of view." isn't an apology: it's an poor attempt to excuse hamfistedness. Genuine apologies don't have "if" in them.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
You are setting a ridiculously low bar if your requirement is that no one anywhere is unhappy with a statement. Seriously, you're reducing political conversation to nothing more than meaningless inane platitudes.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You are setting a ridiculously low bar if your requirement is that no one anywhere is unhappy with a statement. Seriously, you're reducing political conversation to nothing more than meaningless inane platitudes.
I'm getting worried. You seem to have had an intellect disposal. Try reading for comprehension rather than sticking to an opinion you have since your schooldays.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
You think I had an opinion about British politicians in my schooldays?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
It's only through this thread that I became aware that Sikhs forbid the consumption of alcohol, and would not be surprised if Boris had not known that either despite the much larger numbers of Sikhs in the UK. But one of his staffers should have done a quick check and alerted him to comments to avoid/not make.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It's only through this thread that I became aware that Sikhs forbid the consumption of alcohol
If you were reading it carefully you would have become aware that some Sikhs forbid it.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Based on my extensive experience of five minutes on Google, I can't find any evidence of any Sikh school of thought that doesn't forbid alcohol.
Some individual Sikhs drink alcohol, yes, but so do some Muslims.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I agree. But individuals are people too. "Sikhs" are not pieces of writing but living human beings.
So is Boris just in trouble for airing a dirty secret?
[ 20. May 2017, 07:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Conversely, UK politicians visit places of worship regularly - they frequently host hustings, but incidents like this are in fact very rare.
I guarantee all the party leaders and most of the candidates have visited places of worship in the last twelve months - how many have ended up in this situation ?
I have personally witnessed people getting offended by the theology of candidates at a husting in a church. It never reached the news.
So I suspect that in practice this happens a lot. Usually it isn't news.
Theological disagreement is a different matter from breach of custom in a place of worship. There's a big difference between taking part in a debate and stating you disagree about x, or are an atheist, versus - say - wandering around a mosque with your shoes on, or using a votive candle to light your fag.
Boris was being careless and ignorant - this and his monumental tactlessness are a problem. On various occasions he's been obliged to apologise to entire cities - this is part of a pattern of arrogant indifference.
[ 20. May 2017, 08:04: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
He's an utter fool who should have been ditched at the first opportunity.
Can anyone name a politician or few who aren't fools, deformed of personality, up to the trough like little piggies joined by their corporate piggy friends?
I think Jeremy Corbyn claimed Minimal prliamentary expenses last year.
http://www.mpsexpenses.info/#!/mp/226/2015
[ 20. May 2017, 08:08: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
There's a big difference between taking part in a debate and stating you disagree about x, or are an atheist, versus - say - wandering around a mosque with your shoes on, or using a votive candle to light your fag.
Oh FFS, you'd think he'd taken a bottle of wine with him and swigged from it.
Seriously, you just made a comparison where, on one side, you have debate and policy, and on the other you have actions. And yet you still look as if you're trying to place Boris on the naughty side of your comparison.
He made a statement about policy. It's there in the article. He made a statement about what a future Conservative government would do. In which case he clearly belongs on the GOOD side of the comparison that you yourself set up.
I don't really give a damn about the man or his policies, but I do give a damn about the rampant bias that is showing in this conversation.
If you accept a person in a church stating in a debate that they disagree with a church policy, then exactly the same logic applies to stating in a Sikh temple that your policy is contrary in some way to a Sikh teaching.
The only reason for not treating those two situations the same is the kind of fetishistic treatment of other religions and cultures that mainstream people often engage in as they fall over themselves trying to demonstrate just how culturally sensitive they are.
[ 20. May 2017, 08:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Have you seen the whole clip, orfeo? Boris referred to alcohol as the "clinky, clinky" ("we have to bring clinky clinky in our luggage). Is that a usual way to refer to alcohol? It sounded to me as though he was speaking in pidgin English to the brown people, but perhaps "clinky, clinky" is an everyday expression in London? It's not an expression I've heard before.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I agree. But individuals are people too. "Sikhs" are not pieces of writing but living human beings.
So is Boris just in trouble for airing a dirty secret?
Possibly. ISTM he wasn't just making a general statement about the benefits of Brexit with the gurdwara as a picturesque background - he was trying to connect with his audience by suggesting that they personally could benefit from the ability to drink alcohol without import duties. Which is saying that the audience, personally, are all disobedient to the tenants of their own religion. Which, even if it might be true, is still pretty offensive.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Have you seen the whole clip, orfeo? Boris referred to alcohol as the "clinky, clinky" ("we have to bring clinky clinky in our luggage). Is that a usual way to refer to alcohol? It sounded to me as though he was speaking in pidgin English to the brown people, but perhaps "clinky, clinky" is an everyday expression in London? It's not an expression I've heard before.
But the reporting doesn't indicate that the choice of word is what caused offence. If it was, that could well be a different issue. But the reporting seems to indicate this person was offended by the mention of alcohol, not by which word he used to refer to alcohol.
Of course, the reporting could just be shit.
[ 20. May 2017, 09:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Yes; it's exactly the same as entering a synagogue and telling everyone present that now that Britain has its Brexit everyone in Israel can benefit from reduced tariffs on bacon imports.
I've said it before elsewhere on these boards; I cannot figure out if this man is wantonly racist and offensive (and uses the jester routine as a cover) or is just profoundly stupid. I'd love to be charitable and say he is just a village idiot, but when his responses to those who criticise him are manufactured to silence them and paint their opinion as irrelevant, I'm inclined to think the worst.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He made a statement about policy. It's there in the article. He made a statement about what a future Conservative government would do.
Yes, he made a statement of policy. And, he did so in a way that was totally inappropriate in the circumstances he was in.
There is nothing wrong with opening trade with India (though, personally, I consider it utmost stupidity to put up barriers to trade with the rest of the EU to reduce barriers to trade elsewhere). But, for that to make sense (especially given the cost of a hard Brexit in relation to European trade) then that must result in significant increases in trade between the UK and India. That is a lot more than just increasing sales of UK produced alcohol beverages to a nation where the religion of a sizable part of the population prohibits consumption of alcohol. Could Boris not come up with other examples of the benefits of improved UK-India trade? Was all he could think of "clinky clinky", and he couldn't keep his gob shut in a place of worship of a religion which prohibits consumption of alcohol?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He made a statement about policy. It's there in the article. He made a statement about what a future Conservative government would do.
Yes, he made a statement of policy. And, he did so in a way that was totally inappropriate in the circumstances he was in.
There is nothing wrong with opening trade with India (though, personally, I consider it utmost stupidity to put up barriers to trade with the rest of the EU to reduce barriers to trade elsewhere). But, for that to make sense (especially given the cost of a hard Brexit in relation to European trade) then that must result in significant increases in trade between the UK and India. That is a lot more than just increasing sales of UK produced alcohol beverages to a nation where the religion of a sizable part of the population prohibits consumption of alcohol. Could Boris not come up with other examples of the benefits of improved UK-India trade? Was all he could think of "clinky clinky", and he couldn't keep his gob shut in a place of worship of a religion which prohibits consumption of alcohol?
I've no great interest in you moving doublethink's goalposts on her behalf. My post was quite specifically directed at the framework that had been set up where policy discussion:good, breaking rules of place of worship:bad.
You want to argue a different line that says policy discussion is in fact bad if it's done badly. Which actually does have some merit as an argument.
But then you go further and say he ought to have kept his gob shut? Well why the hell do you think he was even there, if not to talk about his party's policies?
This is what is pissing me off. Not sympathy for his position or his comments, but the desire to make a mountain out of a molehill and paint it as something far more terrible than a sober assessment would warrant.
I'm left-leaning, but honestly, few things seem to show how far left the Ship leans than UK politics. People start frothing at the mouth over all sorts of things. And yes, some of them are worth a rant, but then you get threads like this one starting up in Hell and...
I end up thinking that Hell must have cooled down because the snowflakes keep visiting.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I'm not sure I can follow your train of thought. You're pissed off because some people are irritated that Boris made another gaff and the same people are a bit fed up with a long train wreck of gaffs? You're pissed off because people are talking about it now? You're pissed off because some people - namely the people his comments were directed at and the same people in front of him he was addressing; the very same grouping that the Tories have a murky and deeply unpleasant history with - were irritated by the stupidity of Boris despite probably feeling that (bearing in mind the sensitivities of such a visit by a Tory member of government) he would in all likelihood have been briefed in order to defray any 'difficult' scenes? You're pissed off because the Sihks' had the good grace to have a Tory in their Gudwara, despite the past and the fact that there is at least some responsibility for the deaths in 1984 (of which it is not unreasonable to suggest that some may be family members or friends) on the part of the party this buffoon represents, makes a thorough mess of the gesture by acting the wag yet again?
Yes....I'm sure you've a lot to be pissed off about, I just don't see it here.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
How far left the ship leans???
Ah well, must be something to do with the tilt of the world in the antipodes.
Anyway, in this case some background reading is required in order to understand what you are seeing. The relentless cozying up to Boris Johnson as a lovable buffoon, the ingrained privilege of his education, the unthinking belittling of anyone and everyone who disagreed with him, his complete failure to treat the mayoralty of London as anything more than an egofest.
Any given single outburst from him may not sound heinous, but it has to be read in context, particularly of the persist spin in his favour that makes the suspicious lift every single grain of sand in search for a lurking monster, which means that the gaslighting that generally goes on in his favour makes us look mad.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
No, sorry, the Sikhs must have known what came with having a politician to visit during an election campaign.
I'm sure it is unfortunate that someone was offended and possibly Boris might have not mentioned it if he'd been a bit more clued up - but it is hardly a major problem even within Sikhism given that so many people drink.
It is absolutely like a reporter asking a politician about what they'd like to focus on with regard to EU trade deals whilst visiting a Synagogue during an election campaign and him/her talking about meat exports including beef, lamb and pork.
A Jew might have got offended he mentioned pork, just like a Christian I know got offended when a politician was talking (IIRC) about condoms during a hustings in a church.
It was a gaff. It wasn't a very important one and isn't really something to be blowing up into a massive deal.
[ 20. May 2017, 11:04: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You want to argue a different line that says policy discussion is in fact bad if it's done badly. Which actually does have some merit as an argument.
But then you go further and say he ought to have kept his gob shut? Well why the hell do you think he was even there, if not to talk about his party's policies?
Of course he was there to talk about his parties policies. And, in a Sikh temple it was natural that that included potential for future trade deals with India. But, at the end of the day he did it very badly, because his example of the benefits of UK-Indian trade was one that wouldn't resonate with the people he was addressing - and, more than that would be offensive to some. If the example you can think of is going to piss off your audience (or at best leave them cold) then, yes, he'd have done better to keep his gob shut. Better yet, do a wee bit of homework and find the examples which will appeal to your audience and talk about them. If he wants to promote the benefits of such a deal on sales of "clinky clinky" hold off that example until he visits a local brewery, or a distillery in Scotland.
Though I despise the bloke for his policies, and especially for willfully driving around the country in a bus displaying an outrageous lie even after the lie was clear to all, that's not really why I get worked up by this sort of thing. The reason this sort of thing gets people worked up so much is that he's the fucking Foreign Secretary, this buffoon who seems happy to revel in his ignorance of other cultures is supposed to be representing my country to other countries. He's supposed to be trying to present the UK as somewhere to do business, even after we sever our ties to the EU which has been one of the big selling points for the UK as a place to trade and do business. So, what do we present? A business like professionalism? No, we have a bumbling idiot who thinks it's good to talk about "clinky clinky", and even worse to do so in a place of worship for a religion which prohibits drinking alcohol.
If he was a magazine editor and frequent HIGNFY panelist we'd roll our eyes and move on. If he was just some back-bencher we'd do barely any more. But, he isn't. He holds one of the most important positions in the Cabinet. This bumbling buffoon is a disgrace to our nation, possibly more so than the rest of the shower who are set on doing all they can on making this country so much less than it is.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:
No, sorry, the Sikhs must have known what came with having a politician to visit during an election campaign.
Oh, I see; everyone should just put up and shut up because its an election.
No, I don't think so. Surely politicians should take account of where they are and who they are talking to? I thought that was all part and parcel of politics, but perhaps all bets are off when they're in the midst of the dirty foreigners. Boris doesn't represent UKIP, but perhaps he'd be better suited to them.
I'm amazed at the blind willingness to continue giving this idiot a fool's pardon over and over and over and over and over and........
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm amazed at the blind willingness to continue giving this idiot a fool's pardon over and over and over and over and over and........
I'm not giving anyone a pardon. The Tory policies are ridiculous. I just think kicking a politician for a minor mistake is stupid.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I think you are right in thinking that any politician who makes a 'minor' mistake should;t be set upon by dogs, but that isn't Boris sadly. Boris seems to positively revel in his 'minor' mistakes, some not so minor at all, and yet oddly enough, very often directly relating to his post. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that he holds it in contempt. You see, the thing is, it isn't just one mistake, it is repeated behaviour and some are beginning to wonder if a former private school boy with extensive public and political experience can really be that stupid. f he was a fresh faced, bumbling politician on his first year outing then there might be forgiveness there, but he's not and there really is a limit to putting up with his shit. For me, he crossed that point long before this incident.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
SPAD: Boris, you're going to a Sikh temple tomorrow, and there are a few things you need to know before you go.
Boris: What what what? Indian chappies, turbans and dancing. Avoid the spicy food. That's everything, right?
SPAD: ... yes, Boris. That's everything. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm not sure I can follow your train of thought. You're pissed off because some people are irritated that Boris made another gaff and the same people are a bit fed up with a long train wreck of gaffs? You're pissed off because people are talking about it now? You're pissed off because some people - namely the people his comments were directed at and the same people in front of him he was addressing; the very same grouping that the Tories have a murky and deeply unpleasant history with - were irritated by the stupidity of Boris despite probably feeling that (bearing in mind the sensitivities of such a visit by a Tory member of government) he would in all likelihood have been briefed in order to defray any 'difficult' scenes? You're pissed off because the Sihks' had the good grace to have a Tory in their Gudwara, despite the past and the fact that there is at least some responsibility for the deaths in 1984 (of which it is not unreasonable to suggest that some may be family members or friends) on the part of the party this buffoon represents, makes a thorough mess of the gesture by acting the wag yet again?
Yes....I'm sure you've a lot to be pissed off about, I just don't see it here.
I'm pissed off because every time I look for a reason to properly resume my tending of Hell, I'm faced with squeaking twaddle.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You see, the thing is, it isn't just one mistake, it is repeated behaviour and some are beginning to wonder if a former private school boy with extensive public and political experience can really be that stupid.
I tend to think that the well-meaning public school buffoon act is entirely deliberate. Boris creates a caricature of himself. Whether presenting himself as "friendly bumbling idiot" is tactically sound or not is a question that I don't think I'm able to answer, but I think it's intentional.
Sure - his character naturally tends to public school buffoonery, but he cultivates it in order to achieve his goals.
And the evidence seems to be that he is rather more liked by the public than most politicians. His amiable buffoon act plays well among the public. I've no idea how it plays with his foreign counterparts, but it wouldn't surprise me if it worked quite well there, too.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Orfeo:
quote:
I'm pissed off because every time I look for a reason to properly resume my tending of Hell, I'm faced with squeaking twaddle.
Channeling your inner Boris?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
There's a big difference between taking part in a debate and stating you disagree about x, or are an atheist, versus - say - wandering around a mosque with your shoes on, or using a votive candle to light your fag.
Oh FFS, you'd think he'd taken a bottle of wine with him and swigged from it.
Seriously, you just made a comparison where, on one side, you have debate and policy, and on the other you have actions. And yet you still look as if you're trying to place Boris on the naughty side of your comparison.
He made a statement about policy. It's there in the article. He made a statement about what a future Conservative government would do. In which case he clearly belongs on the GOOD side of the comparison that you yourself set up.
I don't really give a damn about the man or his policies, but I do give a damn about the rampant bias that is showing in this conversation.
If you accept a person in a church stating in a debate that they disagree with a church policy, then exactly the same logic applies to stating in a Sikh temple that your policy is contrary in some way to a Sikh teaching.
The only reason for not treating those two situations the same is the kind of fetishistic treatment of other religions and cultures that mainstream people often engage in as they fall over themselves trying to demonstrate just how culturally sensitive they are.
You appear to have theology and political policy confused.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
this is part of a pattern of arrogant indifference.
Ever since I saw this clip I've been looking for a way to summarise it and this is it. The clip oozes this attitude.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
For clarity, there is no expectation for politicians to share the beliefs of a particular faith community (especially not in the UK), but you respect customs in a place of worship and you don't announce trident renewal in a Quaker meeting house, your stimulus to the brewing industry in a mosque, or your new pork subsidy in a synagogue. It's just rude, not catastrophic, but tactless.
In Boris's case it will always catch attention, because he's famous, and because he does this all the fucking time. It was less racist than the last two more high profile "gaffes", which is a blessing I suppose. (Obama's part-Kenyan ancestral hatred of the UK, some part of the EU being like Hitler. I doubt his limerick about Erdogan fucking a goat did much for international relationships either - though it was arguably more defensible.)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You appear to have theology and political policy confused.
You appear to believe they are separate categories. I think you'll find a heck of a lot of people believe they are intertwined.
In fact, isn't that the whole point of why this woman was aggrieved? The subject matter of the political policy intersected with the subject matter of her religious beliefs.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Bangs head against wall.
Can you not see the differences between debating a moral/theological question - having been invited to do so - and failing to account for blindingly obvious sensitivities in the course of a conversation that is not a theological debate ?
Normally talking to other people's 11 year olds children about sex and masturbation is not acceptable, during a sex education lesson it becomes acceptable. Outside that context - not so much. Even if you are in the same classroom where you did the lesson.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0