National News Rishi Sunak

QR said:
Don't be so naive. He would have been briefed to within an inch of his life before appearing on breakfast TV. He would have been told to say he didn't hear it because Tory HQ hadn't, at the time, worked out what it's line was going to be. Yeap, told to lie by liars. That's the Tories these days.
Click to expand...
Like anyone believes a word Grant "which of my 5 alter egos will I be today?" Shapps says. 🤣
Naive/obtuse to choose to believe he didn't know what 30p had said. Either that or Tory HQ is in even more chaos than we already thought.
 
Radical thought - maybe Lee Anderson was simply saying what a lot of people think?

What is wrong with questioning who influences politicians whether that is financially, morally or religiously?

Plenty on here speak of cronyism in terms of the Tories and their willingness to bend for ££££`s........... so what's to stop politicians like Sadiq Khan being influenced on religious grounds?
 
Essexyellows said:
Radical thought - maybe Lee Anderson was simply saying what a lot of people think?

What is wrong with questioning who influences politicians whether that is financially, morally or religiously?

Plenty on here speak of cronyism in terms of the Tories and their willingness to bend for ££££`s........... so what's to stop politicians like Sadiq Khan being influenced on religious grounds?
Click to expand...
Radical thought, perhaps politicians shouldn't make wild accusations without being able to back it up.
 
Essexyellows said:
Radical thought - maybe Lee Anderson was simply saying what a lot of people think?

What is wrong with questioning who influences politicians whether that is financially, morally or religiously?

Plenty on here speak of cronyism in terms of the Tories and their willingness to bend for ££££`s........... so what's to stop politicians like Sadiq Khan being influenced on religious grounds?
Click to expand...

Here he is back defending the indefensible

It’s ok to be a racist towards a Muslim, but you can’t say anything that could be considered in any quarter antisemitism.

This is so pathetically partisan it’s ridiculous.

At some point you will look over your posts and see how much flip flopping you do just to try and stand behind a sandcastle government.
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
Marston Road yellow said:
Here he is back defending the indefensible

It’s ok to be a racist towards a Muslim, but you can’t say anything that could be considered in any quarter antisemitism.

This is so pathetically partisan it’s ridiculous.

At some point you will look over your posts and see how much flip flopping you do just to try and stand behind a sandcastle government.
Click to expand...

Please explain how that works to us simple folk.

"Racist" towards a religion?

As for anti semitism if you "can`t say anything" then why can you, seemingly in LA case, "not say anything against Islam" ?
 
Essexyellows said:
Radical thought - maybe Lee Anderson was simply saying what a lot of people think?

What is wrong with questioning who influences politicians whether that is financially, morally or religiously?

Plenty on here speak of cronyism in terms of the Tories and their willingness to bend for ££££`s........... so what's to stop politicians like Sadiq Khan being influenced on religious grounds?
Click to expand...
i didn’t realise you held the British public in such low regard.
 
SteMerritt said:
Radical thought, perhaps politicians shouldn't make wild accusations without being able to back it up.
Click to expand...

Nope I`m sure he has never been influenced by any form of religious dogma.

Except when he worked for the Nation of Islam - an organisation that believes Allah created a coloured race of people, a scientist named Yakub then created the white race. They also claim the whites lacked inner divinity, and were intrinsically violent and that they overthrew the Tribe of Shabazz and achieved global dominance.

Now I`m not sure working for such an organisation is looking at things objectively, sensibly or considering what people may think in the future when you are Mayor of London?
 
Essexyellows said:
Please explain how that works to us simple folk.

"Racist" towards a religion?

As for anti semitism if you "can`t say anything" then why can you, seemingly in LA case, "not say anything against Islam" ?
Click to expand...

I don’t think you are simple, I think you are a troll and a Russian bot.

Yes the response is racist because Lee Anderson would not have said the same thing to a white non Muslim mayor.

He is directly accusing someone of something from from what appears to be thin air, on the basis of what he looks like and what his religion is.
 
Essexyellows said:
Nope I`m sure he has never been influenced by any form of religious dogma.

Except when he worked for the Nation of Islam - an organisation that believes Allah created a coloured race of people, a scientist named Yakub then created the white race. They also claim the whites lacked inner divinity, and were intrinsically violent and that they overthrew the Tribe of Shabazz and achieved global dominance.

Now I`m not sure working for such an organisation is looking at things objectively, sensibly or considering what people may think in the future when you are Mayor of London?
Click to expand...
Lots of words, none relevant to what I posted in the slightest.
 
What he actually said................

"I don't actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they've got control of Khan and they've got control of London... He's actually given our capital city away to his mates."

Now he, like anyone else, is allowed an opinion is he not?

Should he apologise for it?

Or should he apologise for the choice of words yet still hold the opinion? Which makes the apology, like many others these days, worthless.
 
Whether what Anderson said is irrelevant to me, I just find it incredible Khan is allowed to be a politician/mayor.

Working for the Nation of Islam, sharing platforms with Islamic extremists at events where women were segregated from men, saying white families 'do not represent real londoners' to name a few.

Imagine a white politician working with/platforming with white extremists, or said black families don't represent 'real londoners' - he'd not only be no where near politics, he'd probably be in prison.
 
SteMerritt said:
He stood for election, and won the vote. As anyone can. It is up to the Londoners to vote him out.

The 'Nation of Islam' thing has been thrown around on here a bit recently, there is a 'Fact Check' page on this for those who are interested...

fullfact.org

Sadiq Khan was a solicitor for the Nation of Islam - Full Fact

He represented the group back when he was a human rights lawyer.
fullfact.org fullfact.org
Click to expand...
So, essentially, he did work for the Nation of Islam specifically to get their leader, a notorious racist, anti-semite and homophobe into the country. In 2015 Farrakhan said "White people deserve to die".

You're right that he was elected, but my point was if a white candidate had done even half of what Khan has done he either would've been prevented from standing or denounced by the majority of society, so why hasn't Khan?

Seems to be quite the double standard.
 
MustardYellow said:
Whether what Anderson said is irrelevant to me, I just find it incredible Khan is allowed to be a politician/mayor.

Working for the Nation of Islam, sharing platforms with Islamic extremists at events where women were segregated from men, saying white families 'do not represent real londoners' to name a few.

Imagine a white politician working with/platforming with white extremists, or said black families don't represent 'real londoners' - he'd not only be no where near politics, he'd probably be in prison.
Click to expand...
Or imagine a recent Tory Prime Minister referring to Muslim Women as looking like letterboxes or referring to black people as "picanninies with watermelon smiles", or gay men as "tank-topped bum boys".

OR, on the subject of Africa "“The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more…the best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.”

Or describing Papua New Guineans as prone to “cannibalism” and “chief-killing”

Or when campaigning to become leader of the Tory party, saying "“voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3”.

Or when editor of the Spectator, allowing an article to be published that stated black people have lower IQ's.

I mean, who in their right mind would vote for someone who said all that, or even think these were OK views to hold?
 
MustardYellow said:
So, essentially, he did work for the Nation of Islam specifically to get their leader, a notorious racist, anti-semite and homophobe into the country. In 2015 Farrakhan said "White people deserve to die".

You're right that he was elected, but my point was if a white candidate had done even half of what Khan has done he either would've been prevented from standing or denounced by the majority of society, so why hasn't Khan?

Seems to be quite the double standard.
Click to expand...
Were you missing the quote from Khan in that full fact link on purpose or was it an oversight?
 
MustardYellow said:
So, essentially, he did work for the Nation of Islam specifically to get their leader, a notorious racist, anti-semite and homophobe into the country. In 2015 Farrakhan said "White people deserve to die".

You're right that he was elected, but my point was if a white candidate had done even half of what Khan has done he either would've been prevented from standing or denounced by the majority of society, so why hasn't Khan?

Seems to be quite the double standard.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not that's what lawyers do! Why do you struggle with such basics?
 
MustardYellow said:
So, essentially, he did work for the Nation of Islam specifically to get their leader, a notorious racist, anti-semite and homophobe into the country. In 2015 Farrakhan said "White people deserve to die".

You're right that he was elected, but my point was if a white candidate had done even half of what Khan has done he either would've been prevented from standing or denounced by the majority of society, so why hasn't Khan?

Seems to be quite the double standard.
Click to expand...
He's wasn't 'working' for the Nation Of Islam but represented Farrakhan in his role as a human rights lawyer. Two different things. I'm in no way personally defending Farrakhan's often abhorrent views but he, along with every person banned from entering the country or who is accused of committing a crime, has the right to representation and Khan was his lawyer.

Do you want to provide an evidential list of the 'double standards' that should prevent him standing? Perhaps you should complain to the Electoral Commission.

I don't know if you live in London, but in the 2016 Mayoral campaign the risible Zac Goldsmith allowed his dog-whistle campaign to be directed by one Lynton Crosby, who suggested he attack Khan's credentials and religion, rather than his actual mayoral record. The majority of voters voted for Khan, as they will do this time.
 
Sheik djibouti said:
Or imagine a recent Tory Prime Minister referring to Muslim Women as looking like letterboxes or referring to black people as "picanninies with watermelon smiles", or gay men as "tank-topped bum boys".

OR, on the subject of Africa "“The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more…the best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty.”

Or describing Papua New Guineans as prone to “cannibalism” and “chief-killing”

Or when campaigning to become leader of the Tory party, saying "“voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3”.

Or when editor of the Spectator, allowing an article to be published that stated black people have lower IQ's.

I mean, who in their right mind would vote for someone who said all that, or even think these were OK views to hold?
Click to expand...
So two wrongs make a right?
 
MustardYellow said:
No, apparently it just only matters when one person does it.
Click to expand...
You've still not detailed the double standards you were referring to with Khan, other than the fact he was doing his job as a human Rights lawyer, the reality of which means you sometimes have to represent assholes.

Just in the same way defending lawyers do in a court of law.

I mean, if you can find that level of abhorrent statements catalogued and attributed to Sadiq Khan as have been actually catalogued and attributed to Boris, then there might be some merit in your comment or indeed in @Wandering Yellow 's assertion of two wrongs actually being committed here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom