Discussion in 'SMB' started by Ben Gardner, Aug 9, 2018.
Johnson to face inquiry over burka comments
fucking Islamophobic buffoon.
He’s a buffoon but what he said is only what most people think and it isnt islamophobic
What sense is there in folk walking around like the Lone Ranger or wearing a sack on your head with two eye holes
Dinnar where to start with this...
some would say that is a racist comment
There's questioning the legitimacy of what many non wearers see as patriarchal and oppressive.
Then there is calling someone wearing religious dress a letter box.
The two are quite different, do you see?
Lots of people may not believe that his comments were 'racist' and in the context of the entire article weren't that serious
They were unnecessarily rude, insensitive and unbecoming of an elected official - let alone someone who has obvious ambitions to higher office.
His comments weren't islamaphobic imo like.
He's not really in a position to criticise anyone's appearance like.
Whether you take his insults as part of the article or out-of-context, they are still abhorent.
He's basically Tommy Robinson with a posh accent and an education.
Actually, the blithering bumbling racist idiot is educated way beyond his intellugence.
A sack on your head with two eye holes you say?
Agree there, although they were daft and rude.
I.e. What all of the lads I drink with say.
And the result is that the focus has been placed the insulting nature of his piece rather than any discussion of the themes he might have wanted to raise.
The insults gave his detractors leverage to have a go at him and an excuse to avoid the debate surrounding the burka.
He's achieved little to nothing. He doesn't want the burka banned but he doesn't mind just insulting those who would wear one.
He's Trump fan-boy and a bloody dummy.
I think he still thinks he is on Have I Got News For You, not elected office.
He's a slimy cretin who will do anything to advance his career. His brexit stance is going tits up for him and he comes out with this. It's calculated, he knows exactly the reaction it will get and the audience it plays to.
You're a right dramatic fucker mind
Rude? Aye. Abhorrent? Nah.
Without the gratuitous insensitivity the article itself wasn't too controversial and was actually a reasonable discussion piece. It would have gone unnoticed. Totally passed most people by, unless you read the Telegraph. It would definitely, without a scintilla of doubt, NOT have appealed to the non-telegraph reading audience who are supportive and cheering of his 'letterbox, bank robber and ridiculous' jibes.
Which makes me think it was entirely intentional, self serving, manipulatively populist and (even more) disgraceful.
inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant.
spot on, that, like.
Separate names with a comma.