Boris and the burka

Storm in a tea cup I'm not a fan of Boris but he voiced an opinion about a piece of clothing, I don't see what the fuss is.

It's a shame people lack the cognition to see that an opinion about a piece of clothing is not an opinion of an entire religion

It may be an opinion, but he's a sitting MP, theres a code of conduct to follow.
 
His comment was a bit inappropriate and immature, but a lot of people share his view that the full face veil looks ridiculous and doesn't have a place in Western society. There are genuine security concerns and the women who wear them aren't ever going to fully be part of society. The tradition of wearing one is one that has been created by a culture of discrimination against women by Islam.
 
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but there is the Public Order Act 1936:

The Public Order Act 1936 (1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6 c. 6) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed to control extremist political movements in the 1930s such as the British Union of Fascists (BUF).

Largely the work of Home Office civil servant Frank Newsam,[4] the Act banned the wearing of political uniforms in any public place or public meeting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1936

Bit of a stretch to include a burka, especially as everyone seems to ignore that fact that Islam is highly political.

I wonder, if people started having a very overt reaction to the burka in public it would be banned on accounnt of it could cause a breach of the peace. In the same way activists are banned from going near mosques on account that their presence may cause a breach of the peace.
 
And this one?

Following Winnie Madikizela-Mandela's death in April 2018, Shah paid tribute to her on Twitter by tweeting an image with Mandela's quote: "Together, hand in hand, with our matches and our necklaces, we shall liberate this country."[47] The practice of necklacing is the summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tyre, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire. Shah later deleted the tweet without comment

In July 2018, Shah was appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities.

Kind of puts Johnson's comment in perspective....



She is certainly not very smart and extremely gullible. IMO, removed form the Labour Party, as should Boris but Boris' comments are far worse since they are intentional, and I don;t just mean this recent childish insults but a torrid history of racist and offensive material.
 
She is certainly not very smart and extremely gullible. IMO, removed form the Labour Party, as should Boris but Boris' comments are far worse since they are intentional, and I don;t just mean this recent childish insults but a torrid history of racist and offensive material.
Boris said "I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."
Shah said "Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity."

Yet his comments are worse? :confused: :eek:
 
Boris said "I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."
Shah said "Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity."

Yet his comments are worse? :confused: :eek:
Exactly. The likes of D.P and Stryder just baffle me with their reasoning.
 
The Public Order Act 1936 (1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6 c. 6) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed to control extremist political movements in the 1930s such as the British Union of Fascists (BUF).

Largely the work of Home Office civil servant Frank Newsam,[4] the Act banned the wearing of political uniforms in any public place or public meeting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1936

I believe that law as also been used against people wearing badges too.
 
Boris said "I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."
Shah said "Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity."

Yet his comments are worse? :confused: :eek:

I don't agree with her, but i find it difficult to equate retweeting to verbal dissemination, i really don't see them as equal acts of aggressive language.

Unless of course you agree with the police focusing their efforts on clowns that spout rubbish on the likes of Twitter then?
 
I don't agree with her, but i find it difficult to equate retweeting to verbal dissemination, i really don't see them as equal acts of aggressive language.

Unless of course you agree with the police focusing their efforts on clowns that spout rubbish on the likes of Twitter then?


When the Twitterer is a high ranking member of the Labour party, who on one hand feels her mother should not have been jailed for poisoning her allegedly abusive husband, and on the other supports the notion that raped English children should keep quiet to aid the diversification of Pakistani men into the British community, then yes, I would welcome police time spent on investigating her closely. It's a pity the Labour party felt such a person a suitable candidate to be not only re-admitted, but then elevated to a Secretary of State, but with Keith Vaz still unaccountable for his drug fuelled homosexual orgy with Eastern European rent boys, little surprises me about them any more.
 
Last edited:
Boris said "I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."
Shah said "Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity."

Yet his comments are worse? :confused: :eek:

Not technically true.

she didn't say that, she liked a tweet from a twitter parody account which said it, and then said she liked/retweeted it by mistake.

Still abhorrent, but gotta stop the fake news.
 
When the Twitterer is a high ranking member of the Labour party, who on one hand feels her mother should not have been jailed for poisoning her allegedly abusive husband, and on the other supports the notion that raped English children should keep quiet to aid the diversification of Pakistani men into the British community, then yes, I would welcome police time spent on investigating her closely. It's a pity the Labour party felt such a person a suitable candidate to be not only re-admitted, but then elevated to a Secretary of State, but with Keith Vaz still unaccountable for his drug fuelled homosexual orgy with Eastern European rent boys, little surprises me about them any more.
On point today Chris
 
When the Twitterer is a high ranking member of the Labour party, who on one hand feels her mother should not have been jailed for poisoning her allegedly abusive husband, and on the other supports the notion that raped English children should keep quiet to aid the diversification of Pakistani men into the British community, then yes, I would welcome police time spent on investigating her closely. It's a pity the Labour party felt such a person a suitable candidate to be not only re-admitted, but then elevated to a Secretary of State, but with Keith Vaz still unaccountable for his drug fuelled homosexual orgy with Eastern European rent boys, little surprises me about them any more.

To be fair all parties have had members that have had sordid sexual scandals. Only a few weeks ago a tory MP had to resign over some sex text messages.

Naz Shah, well if she did post such a tweet then she should be disciplined/chucked out of the party.
 
I cant believe this has blown up so much over the last few days, considering there are far more pressing matters that should be given attention, we are giving a ridiculous amount of airtime to a buffoon, over a topic which is nothing really, its around 1% of the Muslim population that wears the sodding thing.
 
VYgwYaq.jpg.png
 
Back
Top Bottom