• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

This misses the point.. He's pushing Islamaphobic notions which are painting all Muslim's as dangerous or evil, regardless of their actual background. Got nowt to do with terrorism.. Just plain old, straight up, boldfaced racism.
Unless I've only seen a heavily trimmed version of what he's said, he's done nothing of the sort.

He said that Khan has given control of London to Islamists, to his mates or something similar. Ill advised, yes but certainly neither a racist comment (Islamists aren't a race) nor what you've claimed he's said.
 
Unless I've only seen a heavily trimmed version of what he's said, he's done nothing of the sort.

He said that Khan has given control of London to Islamists, to his mates or something similar. Ill advised, yes but certainly neither a racist comment (Islamists aren't a race) nor what you've claimed he's said.
No shame from you. Your every comment reinforces my long held view that Tories are cynics in every sense of the term.
 
Unless I've only seen a heavily trimmed version of what he's said, he's done nothing of the sort.

He said that Khan has given control of London to Islamists, to his mates or something similar. Ill advised, yes but certainly neither a racist comment (Islamists aren't a race) nor what you've claimed he's said.

What if we started rebranding Maidenhead Conservative Members Association as a 'Radical Christianists' organisation. Accused the Spiritual Lords in the HoL of embedding radical Canon Law into democracy. Put all CoE supported schools on Prevent high risk watchlists.
 
"Islamists" is commonly used as a term for more extreme Islam. Especially with the current situation in the Middle East, everyone needs to make a very clear distinction between Muslims and radical islam which is what the term Islamistists did. But it can be confusing. Lee Anderson is at best stupid and unaware of his vocabulary; or he's provocative and wishes to suggest Kahn is radical etc

Either way, he should be sacked for his incompetence. And maybe there is a case to answer for inciting racial or religious hatred
 
"Islamists" is commonly used as a term for more extreme Islam. Especially with the current situation in the Middle East, everyone needs to make a very clear distinction between Muslims and radical islam which is what the term Islamistists did. But it can be confusing. Lee Anderson is at best stupid and unaware of his vocabulary; or he's provocative and wishes to suggest Kahn is radical etc

Either way, he should be sacked for his incompetence. And maybe there is a case to answer for inciting racial or religious hatred

You have fringes in both parties that make too much noise but also yield too much power. The right wing are far worse just to be clear I wasn’t claiming they were equally as bad as each other. Just wish both parties would move to the centre. Same in America as well. Neither extreme on both ends are doing anyone any favours.
 
You have fringes in both parties that make too much noise but also yield too much power. The right wing are far worse just to be clear I wasn’t claiming they were equally as bad as each other. Just wish both parties would move to the centre. Same in America as well. Neither extreme on both ends are doing anyone any favours.

The politics is complex. Conservatives would like to attack Labour as being 'Islamist sympathisers'. It plays to Corbyn meeting Hamas and never condoning them. It plays to an element of the Labour party who in the back of their minds sympathise with Hamas. Or at least condemn Israel. This is a chink in Labours armour and the Tories will try to play it up and sow division.

But it can backfire. Remember Sunak was not elected leader initially. The die-hard Tories in their closeted commuter belts are essentially institutionally racist. Most don't even know it. They voted in Truss over Rishi, not because she was better at anything. It was obvious from the get-go how lame she was. But because of base human stereotyping, I am sad to say, they chose Truss over the more competent and capable Rishi. Now, Sunak can't be seen to be pro-Muslim as it plays too close to these deep-seated prejudices that the old and comfortable especially harbour (Conservative voters). So he is doing what he has probably done most of this life, trying to align himself with the establishment and away from the stereotypes that surround his identity. Sad indictment of the state of British politics and the news media. These are the things that capture attention.
 
Last edited:
The politics is complex. Conservatives would like to attack Labour as being 'Islamist sympathisers'. It plays to Corbyn meeting Hamas and never condoning them. It plays to an element of the Labour party who in the back of their minds sympathise with Hamas. Or at least condemn Israel. This is a chink in Labours armour and the Tories will try to play it up and sow division.

But it can backfire. Remember Sunak was not elected leader initially. The die-hard Tories in their closeted commuter belts are essentially institutionally racist. Most don't even know it. They voted in Truss over Rishi, not because she was better at anything. It was obvious from the get-go how lame she was. But because of base human stereotyping, I am sad to say, they chose Truss over the more competent and capable Rishi. Now, Sunak can't be seen to be pro-Muslim as it plays too close to these deep-seated prejudices that the old and comfortable especially harbour (Conservative voters). So he is doing what he has probably done most of this life, trying to align himself with the establishment and away from the stereotypes that surround his identity. Sad indictment of the state of British politics and the news media. These are the things that capture attention.
First time since he became PM that I’ve heard Sunak described as ‘competent and capable’.

It’s all relative, I suppose.
 
Truss is dangerous, largely because she’s so thick, but has convinced a cadre of senior Tories that she’s smart.
She's not thick, she's disingenuous and changes her allegiances at the drop of a hat.

She was a full-blown lib dem acolyte up until her 20s-30s. Advocating for the abolishment of the monarchy and legalisation of pot. Oxford reform etc.

She doesn't believe in anything, just whatever makes her most money. That's more dangerous than stupidity.
 
She's not thick, she's disingenuous and changes her allegiances at the drop of a hat.

She was a full-blown lib dem acolyte up until her 20s-30s. Advocating for the abolishment of the monarchy and legalisation of pot. Oxford reform etc.

She doesn't believe in anything, just whatever makes her most money. That's more dangerous than stupidity.

I think she is thick on top of all that.
 
She's not thick, she's disingenuous and changes her allegiances at the drop of a hat.

She was a full-blown lib dem acolyte up until her 20s-30s. Advocating for the abolishment of the monarchy and legalisation of pot. Oxford reform etc.

She doesn't believe in anything, just whatever makes her most money. That's more dangerous than stupidity.

Just like most of those arseholes in the house. I have been around a long time but the level of greed, lying, incompetence among MPs of all partys in todays commons is the worse i have seen.
 
Last edited:
She's not thick, she's disingenuous and changes her allegiances at the drop of a hat.

She was a full-blown lib dem acolyte up until her 20s-30s. Advocating for the abolishment of the monarchy and legalisation of pot. Oxford reform etc.

She doesn't believe in anything, just whatever makes her most money. That's more dangerous than stupidity.
Seems over qualified to be a Tory then...
 
She's not thick, she's disingenuous and changes her allegiances at the drop of a hat.

She was a full-blown lib dem acolyte up until her 20s-30s. Advocating for the abolishment of the monarchy and legalisation of pot. Oxford reform etc.

She doesn't believe in anything, just whatever makes her most money. That's more dangerous than stupidity.
She is guided by her Tufton St handlers. She is their tool to do with as they please.

In saying that, showing up on Bannon's show is a step into far-right extremism I didn't think even she would take. It places her in the same forum as hate-spewing white nationalist wingnuts. If she wasn't persona non grata before this because of her disastrous tenure as PM then she should most certainly be after this appearance. No credible news org should speak to her again without pointing this out
 
What is the potted history of George Gallaway? I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to him but he seems to have some notoriety.
 
Back