Search results

Based on one (****ing awful) tweet. By that rationale Johnson is a confirmed racist.

Isn't this what Johnson's supporters purport to love about him? So does Johnson, I think. Which is what makes the language he's chosen to use here cynical. Oppressed women (his words, not mine) are being used as collateral damage for his leadership ambitions. You only have to see the responses...

Where did Emily Thornberry mock their appearance here then? What Thornberry has said here is EXACTLY what Johnson's defenders are saying they want - a debate, without playground insults.

I don't have an issue with anything you've said. I agree that should the appetite be there that this is a debate worth having. However, if we have to accept cheap Islamophobic jibes from high profile politicians as part of the debate then it's a no from me.

'Denmark has got it wrong. Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous – but that's still no reason to ban it.' The title of the article.

So you feel that it is fair game to ridicule the victims of oppression (presumably your view)? I fail to see what the oppressed have done to deserve shaming in a national newspaper. You can't have it both ways, either these women are the victims of oppression and don't have agency over their...

To normalise the ridicule of an oppressed (Boris' view) group?

I didn't ask if it was fine. I asked if it was necessary to illustrate the point that he was making.

So why do you think he included it?

Do you think 'letterboxes' and 'bank robbers' were necessary to illustrate the point he was making?

The issue isn't whether you agree with Boris or not. The issue is the deliberately inflammatory language around postboxes & bank robbers. It is very easy to have this debate in a civilised fashion. And if Johnson does stridently believe what he is saying rather than using it for a bout of...