Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

you will note that i did not say anything about racism

the fact of the matter is that boris's words were intentionally highly offensive and bullying ..... and that is the issue

it would have deserved a similar response had boris used such offensive words and tone of men who wear make-up in public or are heavily tattooed or ride motorcycles or of women in that last instance

freedom of speech also carries innate responsibilities

cynic

You say, "...boris was just downright and intentionally offensive and bullying, and that is not acceptable at all"

How dare you criticise what someone else has written?

What utter rubbish! Boris (notice the capital 'B') was factual. Neither was he offensive. Neither was he bullying.

I think you are using a bullying tone with your posting. Furthermore, your highly illogical reasoning in the post, coupled with that bullying, is also offensive too.

A person wearing a burka does somewhat resemble a letterbox. One has a slit for the eyes. The other has a slit for letters. They both have slits. Thus logically, they are comparable.

A person covering the majority of his/her face does not want to be seen (and/or recognised?). Neither does a bank robber. That's why a bank robber and a person wearing a burka are logically comparable.

This country is not Saudia Arabia. There are no laws about what people should or should not wear in this country and Boris (notice the capital 'B' again) agreed with that in his article and said the law should stay that way. Very reasonable of him. Not at all offensive then or bullying either!

Logically, because a person wearing a burka cannot be facially recognised, it logically follows that a person covering their face so as to be unrecognisable may be about to, or may have already, commit(ted) a crime. People covering their faces with motor cycle helmets and purchasing fuel at a filling station are (sensibly and justifiably for obvious reasons) asked to remove their helmets whilst conducting the entire transaction. They can be seen and recognised from CCTV if the need arises. Not so with someone wearing a burka, eh? And don't let's be 'sexist'. Such a person wearing a burka could be either male or female.

I think Boris (notice the capital 'B' again) is extremely literate. Since you are exactly the opposite, my £5 says you are extremely jealous of just that.

When I was at both infant and also junior school, I and may others on here were taught the necessity to use proper spelling and proper grammar too. Later on, at senior school when I was taught French (as just an example) a missing 'acute' or 'grave' accent, or the use of the wrong tense with a verb, would be judged as being an error and lose you marks when, say your written translation homework was marked by the teacher.

You are illiterate. That in itself is forgiveable. What is not forgivable, is that you do not care one jot about it. And yet, you have the utter gall to criticise one of the most literate men on the planet, namely Boris Johnson, and who one day might easily become our Prime Minister and really stand by what he says and prints.

I think, that every one of your posts is an offence to the English Language.

your post says an awful lot more about yourself than it does of me

Freedom of speech is exactly that, the freedom to say what you want and offend people.

Being offended is, in the words of RA, like children being exposed to viruses, the more you are exposed you build an immunity.

The trouble is since Political Correctness came in nobody is getting offended that often anymore, and so everyone is becoming very offended by things they should not be offended by.

We need more offensive speech......lots more of it, then we will all grow immune to it and nobody will be offended.


Sticks and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me..............was taught to kids............now its adults who need to be taught this very basic necessary bit of common sense.

Grid girls were banned because of what they wear............even though the girls were happy and wanted to wear and work in that job.

That was considered great by the lefty liberal nuts.............

Now the same people are saying you cannot tell women what to wear............nutters, they are all nutters...............

i beg to differ
i take it that you feel gratuitous abuse of anyone is perfectly acceptable

Sad state of affair when you can't laugh at yourself, people take umbrage at the most innocuous things.

Exec,

Did you enjoy posting P9355.?

"namely Boris Johnson, and who one day might easily become our Prime Minister and really stand by what he says and prints. "

Personally, I cannot see Boris ever being PM, as I think he has trivialised himself and politics too much to be trusted by the electorate, his fellow MPS and international politicians.

As for "standing by what he says and prints is concerned, I seem to have read somewhere that just before the referendum was called, he seemed to be advocating to stay in the EU and had written a speech in favour of doing so. Following which he wrote a speech advocating leaving the union.

Reportedly he “tossed a coin” as to which he would deliver.

The bounce of the coin being influenced by which course would enhance his chances of becoming the leader of the tory rabble.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Your experience of school seems similar to mine, only I had the misfortune of being dyslexic.

Science, maths and chess being my only saviours, excepting being large and able to kick a rugby ball father than the majority.

I spent my life at the bottom of the “Arts” examinations and even now, in spite of computers and word processors curse grammar and freehand writing.


-=-=-=-=

Besides being dyslexic I also have a peculiar sense of humour.

-=-=-

Pros.

Repeated virus infections can bolster your immunity to some of them, but sometimes they may overwhelm your systems and kill you.

Be careful.

2517,

You must have a good laugh every morning when you look at yourself in the mirror.

Remember all that je suis stuff about freedom of speech when far more offensive (to some) articles were published in France? Well, je suis Boris.
As for gratuitous abuse, look in the mirror C.

I think one has a right to offend or be offensive unless the action is done in order to provoke "violence".

Humour, generally is based on a distortion of "pain" to one or another.


However, unless the recipient of the "offence" understands or accepts the "humour" and/or is able to minimise any "insult" or "mockery" and put it into its rightful proportion, it is unlikely to be beneficial to the future relationship between the involved individuals.

Onlookers may think of or treat the "insults" as trivial.

The problem with Boris and the Burka is that the latter is important for some.


PS. I think recent personal attacks on Corbyn by some to be more serious, unpleasant and devious than those "attacks" on Boris.

My guess is that the "attacks" are "backfiring" on the proponents of the "attacks".

Freedom of speech is what is says on the tin.............

Its why children were taught "Sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me"

I would agree, if the speech is designed to incite violence then that crosses the line, but if it does not then its fine.

We cannot have the Liberal Lefty Lunatics (LLL) imposing their nutter policies on the majority. Luckily the majority have discovered they have the real power in how they vote............hence Brexit and Trump and Right Wing Italian government and others and many more such changes to come.

The LLL might control the media, but the people are becoming more wise to their power to vote against the LLL.

The term bigot means to be intolerant of another person's beliefs or opinions and is often used by "liberals" to shut down the argument from those that don't share their opinions. Instance: Gordon Brown calling Gillian Duffy, a Labour voter, a bigot for expressing her views on immigration. The irony is that the real bigots are the accusers since they cannot accept that people can have valid opinions different to them and resort to disparagement to please their self-centred importance. In the case of Brown v Duffy, one was in the firing line while the other lived in the Westminster bubble.

Blimey, I thought women were bad at bickering, but you boys take the biscuit.

The Liberal Loony Left control the media???

Errrm, the Currant Bun, Daily Mail, Torygraph and Daily Express have a combined daily readership of around 4 million, compared to the Grauniad's daily readership of about 150k. Those statistics suggest otherwise.

Is it as much as that? Never thought that the Guardian would attract that many. There again you do have the Mirror, "Independent", Observer, The I, Morning Star etc to help redress the balance, not forgetting Channel 4 and everyone's favourite the BBC that doesn't know if its Arthur or Martha, so everyone believes it is biased.

P 9342

Nice one Fred, and you are absolutely correct.

Cerise Noire Girl - 15 Aug 2018 08:05 - 9347 of 9350
Blimey, I thought women were bad at bickering, but you boys take the biscuit.

---

As long as it isn't any of that foreign muck.

The Guardian has Channel 4 News and The Observer is introducing a big new supplement; the Cadwalladr Apologies Section.

Cheers,
KidA

Nicked from across the road..no attribute



For two years I have advised businesses to prepare for Brexit assuming that there will be no UK/EU trade agreement. A trade deal would be the best outcome but the Chequers plan is moribund and the conventional trade agreement offered by the EU in March is unacceptable because the “Irish backstop” involves splitting the UK. It is time to recognise that “no deal” is likely and would be a good second best, making a better deal possible later.

Leaving with no trade deal with the EU has four consequences. First, we would trade with the EU on World Trade Organisation terms. As trade and industry secretary I spent ten days incarcerated in the Heysel Stadium negotiating the Uruguay Round which set up the WTO. Far from “falling off a cliff”, WTO terms are designed to provide a safety net ensuring all members can trade without discrimination. The EU will have to offer us the most favoured nation terms its other major trading partners enjoy.

The Uruguay Round also halved most tariffs. So, the average tariff the EU would levy on our exports would be 4 per cent. Non-tariff border costs add just 0.1 per cent, according to the Swiss. They are dwarfed by the 15 per cent boost to our exporters’ competitiveness from movement of the pound since the referendum. There would be winners and losers – a 10 per cent tariff on cars, higher still on food. But applying EU tariffs to our imports from Europe would yield £13 billion. Even if we slash those tariffs, as we should, it would leave enough to compensate the losers.

Some argue that tariff-free access to the EU market was worth paying for. But Britain’s £10 billion net contribution is 7 per cent of the value of our exports. Paying 7 per cent to avoid 4 per cent was not a good deal!

We will be free to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership immediately, negotiate trade deals with America and others, and slash tariffs on goods we don’t produce, especially necessities like food and clothing.

Second, without a trade deal parliament will reject any withdrawal agreement offering the EU £40 billion. The whole agreement - money, citizens’ rights, Ireland, transition - then falls. That leaves Britain £40 billion better off, and ends our annual £10 billion net contribution immediately, boosting our GDP, balance of payments and public finances.

We must guarantee unilaterally - as we should have on day one - EU citizens’ rights in Britain, shaming the EU to reciprocate. The unjustified Irish border “backstop” commitment disappears. HMRC says Britain will not “require any infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland under any circumstances” – tariffs can be collected alongside VAT returns. The previous Irish government agreed an invisible customs frontier, as will Leo Varadkar given no alternative. Then the conventional trade deal with the EU becomes possible.

The third implication of “no deal” emanates largely from Remainers’ fevered imaginations - motorways becoming lorry parks, food and drug shortages, planes grounded.

How we control imports is in our hands. Lorries laden with fresh food will not be queuing for hours at Dover since Dover sees no need for new physical checks. Tariffs would be collected electronically like excise and VAT. If some firms initially fail to complete electronic customs declarations, HMRC will avoid delays by waving lorries through. If the French slow down Calais, the Dutch and Belgian ports want the business and will offer speedier service.

We will continue to authorise medicines we currently import – the EU can either reciprocate or put their patients at risk. BA’s Willie Walsh has dismissed fears of planes being grounded and continental airlines are selling tickets way beyond March 2019. Spain would not forgo 1.5 million British tourists a month.

The hostile non-cooperation envisaged by Remainers would be not only impractical but triply illegal. It contravenes the EU’s constitution, which requires it “to establish an area of good neighbourliness” with neighbouring countries; the WTO treaty which forbids discrimination against trading partners; and the new trade facilitation treaty which commits members to facilitate trade not obstruct it.

The threat is intended to portray leaving the EU as costly. In fact it demonstrates that membership has no significant benefits. If the positive benefits of membership were significant their loss would be deterrent enough against leaving. The Berlin wall was an admission that only threats could stop people leaving East Germany because there were no positive reasons to remain. Likewise, Remainers’ threats of EU hostile non-cooperation if we leave with no deal are an admission that remaining in the EU confers no net benefit.

They seriously underestimate the British people if they think we will cave in before such threats, let alone surrender in the unlikely event it materialises.

Finally, freed from the constraints of EU membership and Article 50 we could negotiate our new relationship with the EU as equals.

Lord Lilley was trade and industry secretary 1990-92

The problem I see is how long will it take to negotiate the NEW DEALS under WTO regulations.

It sounds to me that after storming out of the EU and its rules the UK will curtsy to the new authority ie. the WTO.

Hooray.

? Cave in.

Do you mean starve?