Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => Arts and Entertainment => Topic started by: spindrift on 07 December, 2008, 11:52:14 am
-
In the programme last night (which was excellent, I never knew we in the west only know about Aristotle because his works were preserved by Islamic scholars in Baghdad!) Bozza mentioned how Islam ought not be demonised as that would be simplistic, dishonest, and probably inflammatory. I wonder what he’d make of this:
“Islamaphobia is a natural reaction…it is the most viciously sectarian of religions…disgusting arrogance and condescension supported in Islamic texts…when is someobe gonna get medaeval on Islamic’s ass? ”
Oh, hang on, they’re his own words:
Boris Johnson On Islam | Anorak News (http://www.anorak.co.uk/twitterings/183780.html)
And those words appeared the day after the 7/7 bombs. Johnson’s either a racist idiot with a nasty tendency to Islamaphobia, or a hired journalistic prostitute, willing to do anything, even whip up hatred of muslims, in exchange for cash.
Boris had no idea he would become mayor of a multi-cultural city when he slagged of Islam. Rather than condemn the fanatical bombers, he maligned the entire Islam religion and claimed that muslims never condemn terrorism. He must have known that that was a gross lie, but he did his master’s work for them, then denied ever saying it in a radio broadcast.
Boris Johnson declaring that ‘Islam is the problem’ (The Spectator, 16 July 2005);
“When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?”
“The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts”
“it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform.”
How can he support such false hateful comments like that?
Surely he can not hate Muslims that much?
-
There's a difference between hating Muslims and hating their religion.
For me, hate is too strong a word, but I'll happily come out and say that I find Islam to be an iniquitous religion which in it's unreformed state, has no place in our modern, enlightened society.
“Islamaphobia is a natural reaction…it is the most viciously sectarian of religions…disgusting arrogance and condescension supported in Islamic texts…when is someobe gonna get medaeval on Islamic’s ass? ”
Though it pains me to admit it, I happen to agree with Johnson in this sentiment...
-
Whole citations please, Spinnners. ;)
To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia - fear of Islam - seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture - to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques - it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.
The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?
That's a call for reform, not an incitement to invade.
-
After 7/7 most people were able to recognise that the actions of a handful of fanatics did not represent mainstream Islam. Muslim leaders were loud and strident in their condemnations of the terrorist attacks. Boris claimed no condemnation at all took place, and slagged of the entire faith rather than the few extremists. His words were dangerous, ignorant and inflammatory and completely and utterly at variance with what he said last night in the programme. And it wasn't even unwise ranting in the heat of the moment, Boris has a long history of denigrating and attacking Islam.
I don't think Boris is racist. I'm pretty sure from reading his filth that he's happy to pander to swivel-eyed racists in exchange for cash. I'm not sure which is worse.
-
It's not at variance with what he said in the programme (or at least not incompatible with the first one in the series; I didn't see last night's.) Pointing out that Islam was in the 12th century responsible for a huge wodge of civilisation isn't at odds with pointing out that socially, it hasn't got much further and that it's due a bit of a renaissance (which we're beginning to see, incidentally, especially in Turkey).
-
Once, politicians and public figures feared that the media would selectively quote them and twist their intent. Now, Web 2.0 shows that the great global blogosphere is far more adept and spinning and twisting than mere newspapers ever were.
How many "..."s are there in the OPs quote?
-
I don't think Boris is racist. I'm pretty sure from reading his filth that he's happy to pander to swivel-eyed racists in exchange for cash. I'm not sure which is worse.
Do me a favour! I might disagree with Boris Johnson's policies, but he's not pandering to racists! And certainly not for cash.
Besides, publicly condemning Islam isn't racism. It's illegal (and rightly so) to incite religious hatred, but being publicly antipathetic towards a belief system which vindicates violence towards its opponents seems quite sensible to me.
-
In the first radio hustings on LBC radio between the three main candidates, Mr Johnson insisted he would have issued "exactly the same" kind of remarks after the bombings, which killed 52 people, as Mr Livingstone had if he had been running the city at the time.
"What Londoners want in the event of a tragedy of that kind... is someone who will speak for the city and give a voice to our defiance and our unwillingness to submit to that kind of terror and kind of cowardly attack," he said.
However, the Mayor claimed: "I know what Boris would have said because he wrote it in the Spectator the following week. Very different. I said this is a criminal act by a handful of men. It doesn't define a faith or an ideology.
"What you said, Boris, was Islam was the problem... And the Koran is inherently violent. I actually made certain that we were looking at individuals. You smeared an entire faith."
An audibly furious Mr Johnson responded: "Can I tell you what deep offence I take at that? I think you really traduce what I said.
"My view is that Islam is a religion of peace and indeed I am very proud to say I have Muslim ancestors. "
Gloves are off as Ken accuses Boris of 7/7 smear on Islam | Mayor (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23476727-details/Gloves+are+off+as+Ken+accuses+Boris+of+77+smear+on+Islam/article.do)
And yet, Boris did write:
‘Islam is the problem’ (The Spectator, 16 July 2005);
“When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?”
“The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts”
“it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform.”
So, Boris has not only wildly altered his stance on Islam, he's lied about what he said and denied saying what's there in black and white!
-
he's not pandering to racists!
My view is that if somebody dishonestly claims that muslims do not condemn terrorism, summat Boris must have known is a lie, then he is pandering to the kind of gibbering, wet-lipped racists who read The Spectator, a magazine that, under Boris's editorship, claimed that West Indians are gangster who "breed like flies".
-
His 'Islam is the problem' article said that the turrists do have a scriptural basis for their beliefs - however much Islam is a religion of peace, and however much mainstream Islam distances itself from it, you can't turn to a turrist and tell them that there is no Koranic justification for their propensity towards blowing stuff up. Because there is.
So he is right in saying it's widely supported in Koranic texts. Have you read the Koran? It's pretty clear on what should happen to the infidels.
I don't think BoJo has ever said that the majority of Muslims share the views of the turrist, er, community.
-
however much mainstream Islam distances itself from it
Cast your eye upthread. Boris not only attacked the whole of Islam, he claimed that muslims do not condemn terrorism. 1 in 7 Londoners is a muslim, would Boris's words encourage them to feel safe and welcome in the city, or, like his attacks on Scousers and gays, likely to encourage hatred, resentment, and even more radicalisation?
-
Where did he say Muslims do not condemn terrorism? I can't find that.
-
“it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform.”
Saying that The Koranic texts represent the idealogy of mainstream muslims in the UK is like saying the myths about Zeus are responsible for the sexual incontinence of ancient Greeks. Saying that muslims, all muslims, support the violence contained in the Koran is wildly inflammatory.
-
Given the fact that about half the population of the Ottoman Empire was consisted of Christians and Jews and given that it's not more than about 60 years since the Christian Europeans more or less willing colluded with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews, I find it very very difficult to conclude that Islam is somehow inherently less tolerant to others than other religions.
Those who are familiar with the life and works of Juan Goytisolo will know that not so long ago being gay was much more tolerated in Morocco than in Spain; things aren't and weren't always so easy to categorise.
That said, it should be possible to condemn the strains within Islam which does advocate violence and intolerance without being accused of racism.
-
“it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform.”
Saying that The Koranic texts represent the idealogy of mainstream muslims in the UK is like saying the myths about Zeus are responsible for the sexual incontinence of ancient Greeks. Saying that muslims, all muslims, support the violence contained in the Koran is wildly inflammatory.
But he didn't say that. He said that there aren't many clerics preaching reform.
And just out of interest, what makes you think the ancient greeks were sexually incontinent?
-
He said that there aren't many clerics preaching reform.
He said there is none. Two seconds on Google shows he's talking rot.
-
Okay, a couple of points here:
Firstly, when Ayaan Hirsi Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali) attacks Islam as a xenophobic creed of intolerance and misogyny, it's okay by us. She may be seen as an apostate by the Islamic world, but by everyone else here in the west listens to her because she's not an Oxford educated, white, upper class toff. When Bojo says exactly the same thing, he's vilified.
Secondly, Islam is the only world religion that I can think of that's not had a reformation of one kind or another. When Bojo speaks of "getting 18the century on their medieval arses" he's not talking about attaching thumbscrews to Abu Hamza, you know. He's talking about trying to see an ancient, feudal religion in the context of our enlightened modern world.
Until Islam realises that much of what is contained in the Koran is morally and ethically unacceptable in the 21st century, we're all still going to point and laugh and call their prophet a paedo.
-
we're all still going to point and laugh and call their prophet a paedo
Like Thomas Jefferson?
The irony is that Johnson claimed people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali do not speak up. Johnson claimed to have "looked in vain" for people like her.
-
If you like, yes.
People like Hirsi Ali don't tend to speak up very often. Not because they're particularly thin on the ground, but because people keep murdering them.
-
He was looking "in vain" for clerics, not individual women regarded as apostates by half the world.
-
Don't forget Irshad Manji: Irshad Manji blog and official website » home (http://www.irshadmanji.com/)
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He was looking "in vain" for clerics
It has often been claimed in the media that Muslims are "silent" and do not condemn terrorism. This page is intended to refute that claim. Muslims have not been silent. Not even close. See also How American Muslims Really Responded to September 11 for more information about the Muslim response to 9/11. And another listing is at Statements Against Terror. Also Muslim Voices Against Terrorism. Related commentary at Friedman Wrong About Muslims Again , by Juan Cole and The Myth of Muslim Condemnation of Terror by Ali Eteraz.
Muslim Leaders
A Message from the Council on American-Islamic Relations
American Muslim Leaders Condemn Attacks
American Muslims Denouncing Terrorism
American Muslims and Scholars Denounce Terrorism on Anniversary of 9/11
Australian Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attack
Bin Laden Distorts Islam, Islamic Scholars Say
Bin Laden's Idea of 'Jihad' is Out of Bounds, Islamic Scholars Say
British Muslim leaders condemn terrorism
British Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks
Canadian Muslims Condemn Terorist Attacks
Islamic Statements Against Terrorism in the Wake of the September 11 Mass Murders
Islamic World Deplores U.S. Losses
Looking for Answers in Islam's Holy Book: What Islamic Scholars Have to Say
Muslim Reactions to Sept 11
Muslim Voices Against Extremism & Terrorism - Part II - Statements by Organizations
Muslim World Condemns Attacks on U.S.
Muslim rulers condemn WTC attacks
New Zealand Muslims Condemn Terrorism
Organization of the Islamic Conference Foreign Ministers Condemn International Terrorism
Quran a Book of Peace Not War, Islamic Scholars Say
Scholars of Islam Condemn Terrorism
Some American Muslims Take a Look at Their Communities' Shortcomings
U.S. Muslim Scholars Condemn Attacks
UK Muslim Leaders Condemn 'Lunatic Fringe'
When is jihad OK? Muslim Perspectives
Specific Muslim Scholars
A Common Word Between Us and You, by 130 Islamic scholars
Attacks on Civilians: Forbidden by Islam, by Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi
Ayatollah Muhammad Husain Fadlallah of Lebanon condemns Osama Bin Laden, by Ayatollah Muhammad Husain Fadlallah
Bin Laden's Violence is a Heresy Against Islam, by AbdulHakim Murad (Tim Winter)
Defending the Civilians (a fatwa against terrorism), by Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti
Expert Says Islam Prohibits Violence Against Innocents, by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar Condemns Suicide Bombings, by Shaykh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi
High Mufti of Russian Muslims calls for Extradition of Bin Laden, by Russian Muslim leaders
Iran's Supreme Leader Condemns Attacks on U.S., by Ayatollah Ali Khamanei
Islam and the Question of Violence, by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Iranian scholar
Jihad and the Modern World, by Dr. Sherman Jackson
Jihad: Its True Meaning and Purpose, by Muzammil H. Siddiqui
Most Prominent Sunni Muslim Scholar Condemns Killing of Civilians, by Shaykh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University
Muslim Attitudes about Violence, by Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajjid
Muslim Voices Against Extremism and Terrorism - Part I - Fatwas, by various scholars
Muslim Voices Against Extremism and Terrorism - Part IV A few Quotes, by various scholars
On the Terrorist Attacks, by Imam Zaid Shakir
Prominent Pakistani Cleric Tahir ul Qadri condemns Bin Laden, by Tahir ul Qadri
Reclaiming Islam from the Terrorists, by AbdulHakim Murad, British scholar
Reflections on the National Horror of September 11, 2001, by Muzammil H. Siddiqui
Refutation of Bin Laden's Defense of Terrorism, by Moiz Amjad, Pakistani scholar
Response to a Question about Islam and Terrorism, by Moiz Amjad, Pakistani scholar
Saudi Clerics Condemn Terrorism, by Sheikh Abderrahman al-Sudayes
Saudi Grand Mufti Condemns Terrorist Attacks in U.S., by Shaikh Abdulaziz Al-Ashaikh
Scholars' Statements Regarding The Attacks In The United States, by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Aali-Shaykh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and President of the Committee of Senior Scholars, and Shaykh Saleh Al-Lehaydaan, Chief Justice Of The Saudi Arabian Judiciary, and Shaykh Dr. Saaleh Ibn Ghaanem As-Sadlaan, Pres. Higher Studies Dept. Al-Imaam Muhammd Ibn Saud Islamic University
Spanish Muslim Clerical authorities Issue Fatwa against Osamah Bin Laden, by Spanish Muslim leaders
Terrorism Is at Odds With Islamic Tradition, by Khaled Abou El Fadl
Terrorism: Not a doorway to heaven, by Jamil Abdul Razzak Hajoo, of Idriss Mosque, Seattle
So, will they be heard? Ibrahim Hooper certainly hopes so.
As communications director of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, he drafted the condemnation statement immediately after 9/11. It was published, among other places, as a full-page ad in The Washington Post. Then, Hooper spent the next three-plus years hearing angry talk that Muslims hadn't spoken out.
"It's one of the things we still hear: 'Why won't Muslims condemn terrorism?'" he was saying at week's end.
"When I go on a radio talk show, that is the first thing that I hear. That's just not true. Muslims - not only CAIR but all the groups - have been condemning terrorism for years. Some people just don't want to hear it."
So Muslims have to keep trying, he said. "Whenever we have the opportunity, we'll say it again. 'We denounce it. We denounce it.' We are hoping to be heard this time."
-
Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks (http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php)
In short, Johnson was talking dishonest, irresponsible and inflammatory crap.
-
Give up folks....
Haven't you yet learned that BoJo is the fount of all evil ? Never mind what he actually said, it's what he 'obviously thinking' that is important, you poor, misguided fools...
This posting may contain traces of sarcasm. Prepared in a area where sarcasm may have been used
-
What a spectacularly ignorant and irrelevant post. If you can't put forward a reasonable argument then invent a straw man, resort to hyperbole and a scummy /dishonest misrepresentation of what was said, eh? Muppet.
-
If you can't put forward a reasonable argument then invent a straw man, resort to hyperbole and a scummy /dishonest misrepresentation of what was said, eh?
And does that advice come direct from BorisWatch?
-
No. What are you talking about? I quoted Boris's own words, cast your eye upthread. Again.
-
Yeah, but out of context so that they appeared to say something quite different to his original meaning. Selective quoting proves nothing and makes you look foolish.
By the way, I'm still interested to know what makes you think the ancient greeks were sexually incontinent.
-
Selective quoting
I quoted the entire piece, here it is again:
This is a turning point: we have to fly the flag for Britishness again - Telegraph
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/14/do1401.xml)
And the union jack is "endlessly" quoted in racial abuse cases, is it? Shrill, hysterical rabble rousing. Why did Boris lie about what he said if he's not desperate to cover up his unwise remarks?
and:
It is time to reassert British values…That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem.
To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions.
The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? "When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ***?"
A first step towards what could be called the re-Britannification of Britain.
By the way, I'm still interested to know what makes you think the ancient greeks were sexually incontinent.
I don't.
I made the point that making sweeping remarks about races or social groups based on a book of myths is not a good idea.
It's a subtle point but I thought easy enough to understand.
-
Selective quoting
I quoted the entire piece, here it is again:
This is a turning point: we have to fly the flag for Britishness again - Telegraph
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/14/do1401.xml)
Err... no it's not. It seems that your rabid dislike of Boris Johnson means you can't even get the article you're misquoting right... ::-)
This (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/13914/part_6/just-dont-call-it-war.thtml) is the article from which you draw your selective snippets in your first post.
-
That's right , one article from The Spectator and one from The Telegraph.
As I said.
So Boris claims Islam is the enemy and makes no attempt to seperate ordinary muslims from mad bombers, then claims muslims don't condemn terrorism. In a city where 1 in 7 of us is a muslim his words were recklessly dishonest and designed to pander to the kind of muppet who thinks flying a flag has been banned. Boris pitched his journalism at the lowest common demoninator.
-
That's right , one article from The Spectator and one from The Telegraph.
As I said.
So Boris claims Islam is the enemy and makes no attempt to seperate ordinary muslims from mad bombers, then claims muslims don't condemn terrorism. In a city where 1 in 7 of us is a muslim his words were recklessly dishonest and designed to pander to the kind of muppet who thinks flying a flag has been banned. Boris pitched his journalism at the lowest common demoninator.
You seem to be spinning so fast that you don't know whether you're coming or going. Perhaps you should take a break and do some meditation or something...
All this frothing can't be good for you.
-
Personal attacks are usually the sign of a lost argument.
I have an opinion and can back it up calmly.
You lose your temper and accuse people of being mentally ill.
-
Spindrift, did we once have a discussion about Napoleon on C+? You know, the one where you put forward Napoleon as a kindly humanitarian who wanted to unite Europe so all could enjoy the benefits of the enlighted French education and judicial system.
-
Spindrift, did we once have a discussion about Napoleon on C+? You know, the one where you put forward Napoleon as a kindly humanitarian who wanted to unite Europe so all could enjoy the benefits of the enlighted French education and judicial system.
No idea. Link? Relevance?
-
To be fair, we do have enough evidene of Johnson being, at the very leat, inconsistent, and probably pandering to the specific prejudices of his audiences.
Can we have discussion on that, or will it continue to be ad hominem?
-
Top stuff spindrift, but there's a contradiction here. In your first post you quoted Boris thus:
“Islamaphobia is a natural reaction…it is the most viciously sectarian of religions…disgusting arrogance and condescension supported in Islamic texts…when is someobe gonna get medaeval on Islamic’s ass? ”
Now you're quoting him thus:
The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? "When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ***?"
The first quote is not only selectively quoted, it has had the words shifted around to give it a different meaning.
Just to pursue my interest (it's a subject close to my heart) if you don't believe the ancient greeks were sexually incontinent, why did you say that they were?
-
Phil, bear in mind that Johnson tends to use similar formulations in different articles, so it may not be as much a misquote as it seems, though I don't know that. Just worth bearing in mind.
-
It's definitely the same piece of writing - try checking spindrift's later post (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=12043.msg213357#msg213357) against the quote he posted originally.
Edit: he also says it's the same piece...
-
Spindrift, did we once have a discussion about Napoleon on C+? You know, the one where you put forward Napoleon as a kindly humanitarian who wanted to unite Europe so all could enjoy the benefits of the enlighted French education and judicial system.
No idea. Link? Relevance?
Oh, so you did participate in a discussion about Napoleon on C+, where you put forward Napoleon as a kindly humanitarian who wanted to unite Europe so all could enjoy the benefits of the enlighted French education and judicial system.
You're just not sure it was with me.
Links long gone. No relevence. Just asking. Have a nice day.
-
To be fair, we do have enough evidene of Johnson being, at the very leat, inconsistent, and probably pandering to the specific prejudices of his audiences.
Can we have discussion on that, or will it continue to be ad hominem?
Mmm.
Here's my contribution to that discussion: I wasn't hugely happy when Boris was elected; I didn't vote for him and I was very concerned that his efforts would be focused on the middle classes in suburban London and that Ken's good work on diversity, transport and entertainment would be dropped. I knew that people who live in Surbiton and Highgate can afford to entertain themselves and were grumpy at the use of their taxes to pay for things like the Rise! festival - things which as a person on a low income living in Dalston, I had really, really valued. London is expensive and free, high quality entertainment, accessed by reasonably priced, frequent buses, does encourage social inclusion - Ken's one LondON idea, I suppose.
I was also a bit concerned that Boris has outdated ideas on homosexuality, doesn't appear to have any idea at all about age prejudice, and has used racially inappropriate words in his writings.
Fortunately, I then read Boris Watch a few times and I'm beginning to quite like the man. Boris is in fact a victim of near constant misrepresentation who is unable to wipe his arse without some fanatic dribbling into the blogosphere that he uses white toilet paper, the racist git.
Boris Watch appears to be fuelled entirely by dislike for Boris, rather than by anything he's actually done - and certainly by nothing he's done since becoming Mayor.
-
So, you admit blah blah blah...
Nope.
As I said, I've no idea what you're talking about , nor why you're making up stuff I never said on other threads on different forums. PM if you have other similar queries, same to you Phil, I'll be happy to explain the concept of analogies.
Boris Watch isn't a hate-filled site, don't be daft, it calmly disects Boris's evasions and inventions, like the danger posed by bendies, for instance.
-
I think you're a bit annoyed because Bozzer hasn't really badly screwed up yet.
-
Fortunately, I then read Boris Watch a few times and I'm beginning to quite like the man. Boris is in fact a victim of near constant misrepresentation who is unable to wipe his arse without some fanatic dribbling into the blogosphere that he uses white toilet paper, the racist git.
Boris Watch appears to be fuelled entirely by dislike for Boris, rather than by anything he's actually done - and certainly by nothing he's done since becoming Mayor.
You should try Boris Johnson Facts (http://borisjohnsonfacts.com/) - they're 100% true you know... Well, they must be - they're on the interweb.
;)
-
Did you see him on T*p G**r last night?
Even got in a suggestion that HVG drivers look in their mirrors occasionally for cyclists :thumbsup:
EDIT - OOPS just noticed the other thread :hand:
-
hasn't screwed up yet
You're kidding, right? A reversal of positive thinking about transport in a city that once led Europe, the scrapping of making Parliament Square a public space, losing two aides in 8 weeks (Ken lost 1 in 8 years) handing £17m to Venezuala and £400,000 to Porsche, meddling with the legal process and facing a possible suspension, scrapping the £25 charge for the most polluting vehicles, scrapping the press conferences, refusing to answer questions from journbalists, employing Simon "Asbestos" Milton from the Westminster homes-for-votes scandal, allowing PTWs in bus lanes despite them posing twice the risk to cyclists than cars.
I could go on. ;D
-
If he's so bad, why did you have to misquote him, seriously altering his meaning in the process?
And why did you say that the ancient greeks were sexually incontinent, and then deny that that was your opinion?
-
Did you see him on T*p G**r last night?
Even got in a suggestion that HVG drivers look in their mirrors occasionally for cyclists :thumbsup:
I'm sure you have that wrong. Didn't BoJo say all cyclists are evil and it was Saint Jeremy who suggested that truck drivers use their mirrors?
How dare you suggest that I have said something else, when I clearly said the complete opposite - and you know I'm right as you can see here: Regulator is Right (http://regulatorisright.com)... You're just misquoting me... Don't you understand journalistic license...
-
Did you see him on T*p G**r last night?
Even got in a suggestion that HVG drivers look in their mirrors occasionally for cyclists :thumbsup:
I'm sure you have that wrong. Didn't BoJo say all cyclists are evil and it was Saint Jeremy who suggested that truck drivers use their mirrors?
You're right - what he (BoJo) meant was they should use their mirrors in order to time the left-hooks accurately
sorry for the confusion :)
-
And why did you say that the ancient greeks were sexually incontinent
For the third time, I didn't.
It was an analogy, I compared one silly thing (using the koran to slag off all British muslims) with another (using Zeus myths to make assertions about the sexual behaviour of ancient Greeks. Please, please, take this off thread if you want me to go over this.
The far right, and those whose intention is to whip up hatred and suspicion, use these silly myths about the union jack being banned and all muslims support terrorism.
For Boris to do this, in exchange for cash, for a right wing audience was unwise as a journalist, disastrous for the mayor of a multi cultural city.
Why do you think Boris lied about what he said if it's so innocent?
-
hasn't screwed up yet
You're kidding, right?
I said:
I think you're a bit annoyed because Bozzer hasn't really badly screwed up yet.
You really haven't got the hang of quoting people yet, have you?
Of course he's done things that you disagree with. It's in the nature of politics. For instance, I happen to think that PTWs in the bus lane is a good thing.
-
For instance, I happen to think that PTWs in the bus lane is a good thing.
Doesn't bother me, they use them on Bishopsgate with impunity anyway, but the Bristol research showed it had a disincentive effect, it discouraged novice riders. Fewer cyclists means more dangerous roads, mixing two very different modes of transport is never a good idea. It also flies in the face of Boris's promises for cyclists like the Parliament Square scheme- a Unesco World Heritage site is gonna remain a squalid, traffic-choked oasis of inaccessibl grass surrounded by roads. I'd say losing two aides in twelve weeks is pretty flipping bad for any mayor.
-
And why did you say that the ancient greeks were sexually incontinent
For the third time, I didn't.
It was an analogy, I compared one silly thing (using the koran to slag off all British muslims) with another (using Zeus myths to make assertions about the sexual behaviour of ancient Greeks. Please, please, take this off thread if you want me to go over this.
You didn't quite say that, but I'm happy to assume it's what you meant. Thanks for clearing it up.
To get back on topic, why did you misquote Boris Johnson?
-
There was no misquotation, the words left out make no difference to the tenor or central tenet, and I linked, three times, to the unexpurgated article.
Boris said Islam "is the problem" When challenged about it 3 years later he lies and says he never wrote that. That's the trouble with being a journalistic whore, you can get nasty diseases like my accusation that he's not a racist, just happy to confirm the silly prejudices of racist little Englanders. I reckon that's worse, a racist may stand by his convictions however misguided, Boris scribbling nasty, spiteful anti-Islamic tripe for an audience who laps it up puts me in mind of Boris in a shop doorway in fishnets, twirling a handbag and offering anal without.
-
For instance, I happen to think that PTWs in the bus lane is a good thing.
Doesn't bother me, they use them on Bishopsgate with impunity anyway, but the Bristol research showed it had a disincentive effect, it discouraged novice riders. Fewer cyclists means more dangerous roads, mixing two very different modes of transport is never a good idea. It also flies in the face of Boris's promises for cyclists like the Parliament Square scheme- a Unesco World Heritage site is gonna remain a squalid, traffic-choked oasis of inaccessibl grass surrounded by roads. I'd say losing two aides in twelve weeks is pretty flipping bad for any mayor.
Just a small point, but Parliament Square itself isn't a Unesco World Heritage site.
-
In your first post, you quote him as saying:
when is someobe gonna get medaeval on Islamic’s ass?
What he actually wrote was:
When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?
The first could easily be interpreted as a call for violent reprisals. The second is a call for reform.
That's a misquotation.
-
Oh, fair play, that was a mistake. Which you wouldn't have known about had I not posted the whole article with the full quote. Nobody else is politics would have dared make such inflammatory remarks and at that stage Johnson had no idea the tories would make the same desperate error they did with Archer and parachute him into the job on the back of an unprecedented smear campaign in the Standard.
That sort of talk ought to be limited to the pubs near me where malcontents desperate for a scapegoat mutter about all the gays in the BBC who have banned Christmas and the Union Jack and there's a gay muslim paedophile under your child's bed.
It's terribly easy to tap into that kind of sentiment, and terribly irresponsible.
-
For instance, I happen to think that PTWs in the bus lane is a good thing.
Doesn't bother me, they use them on Bishopsgate with impunity anyway, but the Bristol research showed it had a disincentive effect, it discouraged novice riders. Fewer cyclists means more dangerous roads, mixing two very different modes of transport is never a good idea. It also flies in the face of Boris's promises for cyclists like the Parliament Square scheme- a Unesco World Heritage site is gonna remain a squalid, traffic-choked oasis of inaccessibl grass surrounded by roads. I'd say losing two aides in twelve weeks is pretty flipping bad for any mayor.
To be fair, what actually happened was that Bristol City Council concluded that because a minority of cyclists had experienced problems with PTWs in bus lanes, there was a "measurable negative effect".
I'd say that the majority of cyclists have experienced problems with buses in bus lanes - that doesn't mean we're going to ban buses any time soon...
Source: http://www.nici.org.uk/campaining/campaining_files/ptw_bike_lanes.pdf (http://www.nici.org.uk/campaining/campaining_files/ptw_bike_lanes.pdf)
-
Oh, fair play, that was a mistake. Which you wouldn't have known about had I not posted the whole article with the full quote. Nobody else is politics would have dared make such inflammatory remarks and at that stage Johnson had no idea the tories would make the same desperate error they did with Archer and parachute him into the job on the back of an unprecedented smear campaign in the Standard.
That sort of talk ought to be limited to the pubs near me where malcontents desperate for a scapegoat mutter about all the gays in the BBC who have banned Christmas and the Union Jack and there's a gay muslim paedophile under your child's bed.
It's terribly easy to tap into that kind of sentiment, and terribly irresponsible.
Finger on problem there - what Johnson said was that it was time to get 18th century on Islam's medieval ass. Now to me, that's a very witty way of saying time for an Islamic renaissance - highlighting that Bush & chums doing their best he-man Pulp Fiction impressions isn't going to work unless the actual religion (not its practitioners, the religion itself) distances itself from those parts of the Koran which deal with murdering infidels. A fatwa on suicide bombing would do nicely.
Unfortunately, to the average pub malcontent too thick1 to appreciate the distinction, they're hearing the exact opposite of what he said, and thinking this supports their own Pulp Fiction preferences for dealing with the "threat" of the gay terrorist peedo under the bed.
And yes, Johnson should be better aware of how easily what he says could be turned on its head by such people.
1Yes, I'm an intellectual snob. Deal with it. ;)
-
I would say that removing the Western Extension; cancelling the Venezuela deal; making black cab MoTs annual; interfering with an ongoing Police investigation, and losing advisors and deputies l, r & c counts as 'really badly screwed up'.
But that's just an opinion. Electorally, he's charmed the motons, including black cab thugs drivers
-
I would say that removing the Western Extension; cancelling the Venezuela deal; making black cab MoTs annual; interfering with an ongoing Police investigation, and losing advisors and deputies l, r & c counts as 'really badly screwed up'.
IIRC he has lost two. Therefore it can't be l,r & c. Please pick two of the above.
..d
-
I think there's at least three...
-
I would say that removing the Western Extension; cancelling the Venezuela deal; making black cab MoTs annual; interfering with an ongoing Police investigation, and losing advisors and deputies l, r & c counts as 'really badly screwed up'.
But that's just an opinion.
Quite so.
Electorally, he's charmed the motons, including black cab thugs drivers
And so is that. Some might says its quite an offensive opinion.
Alternative opinions might run:
- The Western Extension is being dumped because over two thirds of Londoners and businesses responding to the consultation on the future of the zone have said they want it scrapped. The whole concept was a political nonsense imposed by Ken.
- The Venezuela deal was payola for Livingstone support for Chavez . Venezuela sending aid to the poor of London? Pah-leese.
- Boris's advisers have done the honourable thing by resigning. It certainly makes a change from Ken defending the indefensible to the death.
- Interfering with ongoing illegal police investigations, you mean. Boris might yet be the only person to come out of the whole affair with any credit.
But best not to bring Ken into it. It will only remind Londoners why they voted for Boris.
-
What proportion of Londoners were surveyed on the Western Extension please? You'll find it was less than a third of one per cent of Londoners, many fewer than those effected.
The Venezualn deal was scrapped for idealogical reasons, you are quite right, and it's cost us £17m.
When did Ken "defend the indefensible", or is it easier to make vague, unsubstantiated claims?
-
What proportion of Londoners were surveyed on the Western Extension please? You'll find it was less than a third of one per cent of Londoners, many fewer than those effected.
The Venezualn deal was scrapped for idealogical reasons, you are quite right, and it's cost us £17m.
When did Ken "defend the indefensible", or is it easier to make vague, unsubstantiated claims?
In defending Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed?! He's pretty indefensible (which yeah, Ken later acknowledged, but a bit late...)
-
What proportion of Londoners were surveyed on the Western Extension please? You'll find it was less than a third of one per cent of Londoners, many fewer than those effected.
The Venezualn deal was scrapped for idealogical reasons, you are quite right, and it's cost us £17m.
When did Ken "defend the indefensible", or is it easier to make vague, unsubstantiated claims?
In defending Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed?! He's pretty indefensible (which yeah, Ken later acknowledged, but a bit late...)
I was referring to Ken's city hall cronies but its all grist to the mill.
But lifes to short to revisit old threads...
Edit: Check the press release re: scrapping the Western Congestion Zone here (http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=19898). 28,000 responses over 5 weeks in parallel to a TfL survey seems like a pretty fair basis for action to me. It makes a change from Ken saying "I'm obliged to consult but not obliged to take any notice" whilst railroading (sic) through his own agenda.
-
I've no idea what 28k is as a proportion of a city of 8m,
Another day at the office for Johnson, his key Olympics adviser resigns in an insider dealing scandal.
-
I've no idea what 28k is as a proportion of a city of 8m,
The one thing for sure is that most of the 8 million do not live in West London. Still, its better than a constituency of 1, is it not?
Another day at the office for Johnson, his key Olympics adviser resigns in an insider dealing scandal.
Who's that then?
-
What proportion of Londoners were surveyed on the Western Extension please? You'll find it was less than a third of one per cent of Londoners, many fewer than those effected.
The Venezualn deal was scrapped for idealogical reasons, you are quite right, and it's cost us £17m.
When did Ken "defend the indefensible", or is it easier to make vague, unsubstantiated claims?
In defending Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed?! He's pretty indefensible (which yeah, Ken later acknowledged, but a bit late...)
And Chavez, despite his positives, also has quite a few negatives - many of which are fairly indefensible, such as his penchant for censorship.
-
Hmm I watched the program on Iplayer last week and found it very good.
1/ I for one want to go to the Middle East to see the beautiful countryside, the brilliant architecture and to learn more about the history.
2/ I really found that BoJo did get across that Islam is a very peaceful religion. e.g. various places that Islam moved to (yes invaded in some way, heck so did the Christians and non-Christians throughout history) but they didn't force Islam upon the "natives" and many places they lived alongside just fine.
Just look at Spain, 800 years there, but Jews and Christians lived among Muslims just fine. Like when Franco took power in Spain everyone had to convert to Catholicism. Islam also think that they are they best religion, in the way that Christians tried first and didn't get it right and then a second religion gave it a go, the Jews, but it was Islam that got it right. But they still understand that in the 2 other religions there are good and clever thinkings.
I have hear about this before elsewhere in books, net or on telly but it does not gather the headlines like the fanatics can do. BoJo did interview many people from across the Middle East form various institutes and universities, and the whole program was very good.
-
I've no idea what 28k is as a proportion of a city of 8m,
Another day at the office for Johnson, his key Olympics adviser resigns in an insider dealing scandal.
Simple maths.
28,000
------------ = 0.35%
8,000,000
however as Manotea points out, most of that 8 million are nowhere near the Western Extension.
You're also wrong regarding the resignation of David Ross (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7770668.stm). Nothing to do with insider dealing. Merely the fact that he hadn't declared to his company the fact he'd used his shares as collateral for personal loans.
-
The money raised from the Western Extension would go to public transport for ALL Londoners, therefore they should have a say.
Oh, I read it was about shares then my head started spinning round. Tory sleaze is dogging Boris, will the last sacked member of his team turn all the lights off?
-
I've got no idea what political party David Ross supports and it hasn't been mentioned anywhere if he's a Conservative, Green, or Raving Trotsky party member, as it's not relevant to the issue.
Also, I think he's only left his job at Carphone Warehouse.
-
The money raised from the Western Extension would go to public transport for ALL Londoners, therefore they should have a say.
I dont have figures but my understanding is that the only people making money out of the congestion zone charging are the operators, which is why Ken had to raise the charge from 5 to 8 pounds.
And all Londoners have had a say; they voted for Boris!
-
BORIS JOHNSON was under pressure today to sack David Ross - his key financial adviser for the 2012 Olympics.
Mr Ross was speaking to the Mayor to discuss his future as an adviser and his place on the organising committee.
The Mayor's senior team were in crisis talks to work out how to protect Mr Johnson from the fall-out from the affair.
The businessman's departure would be a major blow and would prompt further questions about the Mayor's judgment as he would be the fourth senior City Hall aide to go in recent months.
However, if he stands by MrRoss, Mr Johnson would face criticism for supporting him even though he had broken City rules.
Standard.
Two deputy mayors, chief political adviser, now his Olympics adviser.
Bozza sure can pick 'em!
-
my understanding is that the only people making money out of the congestion zone charging are the operators,
Garbage.
-
Another day at the office for Johnson, his key Olympics adviser resigns in an insider dealing scandal.
Ah, so when you posted that, you weren't actually stating that the adviser had resigned from his Olympics post, and it also turns out it was nothing to do with insider dealing or a scandal.
Anything else that you've got wrong?
-
my understanding is that the only people making money out of the congestion zone charging are the operators,
Garbage.
Facts please.
-
Google is your friend:
What is the revenue from the scheme used for?
Last year, drivers handed over £252.4m in congestion charge payments to TfL, a fractional fall on the previous 12 months and just under 10 per cent of its total income. Running the scheme cost £130.1m and, when other costs such as administration and depreciation were taken into account, TfL was left with a net income of £89.1 m from the charges.
The organisation is required by law to reinvest its "profit" into public transport in the hope it will help create a virtuous circle, tempting former drivers back on to buses. All in all, the money is a welcome fillip for the system.
Did you really think the charge didn't deliver?
-
Interestingly, of the stakeholders consulted, Kensington & Chelsea council were not in favour of withdrawing the zone (they were in favour of changes to charging but not to remove the zone).
Of the party groupings, the Green & Labour GLA groups voted against removal, the Conservatives and Liberals voted for it.
-
From Wiki "The initial operating revenues from the congestion charge did not reach the levels that were originally expected. Within six months of the start of the scheme, the reduction in traffic had been such that TfL were predicting a £65 million revenue shortfall."
The bottom line is the scheme is only solvent because a) the charge was raised from 5 to 8 pounds, b) the income from penalty fines for late payment, and c) traffic levels recoverying to pre-congestion charge levels.
This isn't a congestion charge, its a tax.
-
Hurrah! Your Google works! So, you concede revenue is raised and the Western Extension would have raised more money for public transport? Ken was derided, the Standard carried scare stories of plunging property prices and gridlock that turned out to be garbage, other world cities are set to follow London's lead, and Johnson undoes all the good work based on a survey of less than half of one per cent of Londoners.
-
Boris Johnson today faced calls to replace David Ross as his representative on the London Olympics organising committee after the multimillionaire businessman quit Carphone Warehouse following an admission that he had used a large slice of his personal holding in the company to guarantee personal loans.
Despite heavy coverage of the story, the Mayor has yet to issue a statement. This is rather embarrassing in itself, because the tawdry Tory supporter has donated £140,000 to the Party in recent years.
So, does Boris simply fear another failed appointment, or could he be waiting for a call from on high?
-
Hurrah! Your Google works! So, you concede revenue is raised and the Western Extension would have raised more money for public transport? Ken was derided, the Standard carried scare stories of plunging property prices and gridlock that turned out to be garbage, other world cities are set to follow London's lead, and Johnson undoes all the good work based on a survey of less than half of one per cent of Londoners.
What I concede is that I should have said the 'main' people making money out of the scheme were the operators, rather than the only.
Its worth noting that the scheme was originally touted as being to raise 200m. Years later we're looking at operational costs taking >50% of revenues (for running an automated turnpike?) and a profit of only 80m after a 60% price hike. I guess you can make money on anything if you have monoply powers.
To be clear, there was a case for the central congestion zone, but the case for the western extension is much weaker. The larger the congestion zone, the more people live within it and so are empowered to use their cars to drive within London. Where's the incentive to use public transport there? The western extension actually undermines the effectiveness of the central zone. Also, the more people live within the congestion zone, the more have to pay the residents charge. Like I said, its simply a tax.
-
Electorally, he's charmed the motons, including black cab thugs drivers
And so is that. Some might says its quite an offensive opinion.
[/quote]
.... and being a black cab driver but and neither a thug or a moron [as you refer to all black cab drivers in another thread, Clarion], I do find this opinion offensive
-
Electorally, he's charmed the motons, including black cab thugs drivers
And so is that. Some might says its quite an offensive opinion.
.... and being a black cab driver but and neither a thug or a moron [as you refer to all black cab drivers in another thread, Clarion], I do find this opinion offensive
[/quote]
To be fair to Clarion, psychler, my experience of black cab drivers is very similar to his. You may not be a thug or a moron - but unfortunately, it would appear to many of us that a sizeable propotion of your fellow cabbies are.
I experience moronic and thuggish behaviour by black cabs on the roads every day - whether cycling, driving or walking.
-
I accept that I probably used a very broad brush with that comment, and some cab drivers are not guilty of the sort of behaviour I mention, but I can only think of three occasions when I have had a positive experience: One cab driver anticipated well, and paused to let me out (which he should have done anyway, following HC); one cab driver talking to our ride leader on a Southwark Cyclists ride (he was a friend and also a cyclist), and a cab driver commenting favourably, and joking with us about the tandem as we were riding and keeping pace between junctions along the South Circular (he was an ex-cyclist).
On the other side of the balance, when I cycle to work, I experience the most frighteningly boorish and downright dangerous behaviour from black cabs. Yes, I get the odd bus driver being a pillock, but, in the main, they drive pretty well, considering they're piloting a house through the traffic. Van drivers? Yes, they're a very mixed bunch, with some horrendously bad driving. But Cab drivers are the ones who are pretty consistently bad, offensive when challenged, and (quite correctly) tell me there's no point in reporting them, as no action will be taken.
-
I would say that removing the Western Extension; cancelling the Venezuela deal; making black cab MoTs annual; interfering with an ongoing Police investigation, and losing advisors and deputies l, r & c counts as 'really badly screwed up'.
IIRC he has lost two. Therefore it can't be l,r & c. Please pick two of the above.
..d
OK, so at the time of writing it was two deputies and one Advisor. Looks like another Advisor now, so that'll be four
When was he elected again? That's a bit of an attrition rate...
-
I accept that I probably used a very broad brush with that comment, and some cab drivers are not guilty of the sort of behaviour I mention, but I can only think of three occasions when I have had a positive experience: One cab driver anticipated well, and paused to let me out (which he should have done anyway, following HC); one cab driver talking to our ride leader on a Southwark Cyclists ride (he was a friend and also a cyclist), and a cab driver commenting favourably, and joking with us about the tandem as we were riding and keeping pace between junctions along the South Circular (he was an ex-cyclist).
On the other side of the balance, when I cycle to work, I experience the most frighteningly boorish and downright dangerous behaviour from black cabs. Yes, I get the odd bus driver being a pillock, but, in the main, they drive pretty well, considering they're piloting a house through the traffic. Van drivers? Yes, they're a very mixed bunch, with some horrendously bad driving. But Cab drivers are the ones who are pretty consistently bad, offensive when challenged, and (quite correctly) tell me there's no point in reporting them, as no action will be taken.
In my 15 years in London, it was completely the opposite. There was the odd idiot, but in general, they were the most professional and proficient drivers on the road and compared to others, often the most courteous. I was far more likely get space for a lane change from a cab when signaling, than I would from other drivers.
Bus drivers improved dramatically over the last few years, but prior to that were far the worst drivers in London.
-
I want to know what Boris has done to Spinners to so offend him. This seems a very personal vendetta.
-
Sorry to take this thread back on topic, but I've just watched the first episode (as part of my in-bed-with-cold-and-bbc-iplayer series) and it's exceptionally good. Some of the best factual stuff I've seen from the beeb in some time.
To watch this programme and still think that Boris is a bumbling idiot takes an amazing degree of confirmation bias. He's balanced, eloquent, funny, and very sympathetic whether interviewing batty old fascists or islamic historians.
-
Which makes his record all the more sinister. He does that stuff/says those things deliberately
-
yes I agree with you, cometworm (GWS), I'm watching the second episode atm.
-
Which makes his record all the more sinister. He does that stuff/says those things deliberately
Or maybe, even more sinisterly, people choose to deliberately misrepresent/misinterpret him
Oh, I see, that's called politics....
-
yes I agree with you, cometworm (GWS), I'm watching the second episode atm.
:-) I have some proofreading to do, and then I'm starting the second episode as well.
-
I want to know what Boris has done to Spinners to so offend him. This seems a very personal vendetta.
I've listed what he's done/said that appals me. It's not personal, I think he was jolly funny on Room 101, check it out on Youtube. I don't hate Johnson. I love London.
-
I don't hate Johnson. I don't love London. But I don't think even London deserves his level of folly.
-
I want to know what Boris has done to Spinners to so offend him. This seems a very personal vendetta.
Perhaps it's homoerotic displacement?
-
I want to know what Boris has done to Spinners to so offend him. This seems a very personal vendetta.
Perhaps it's homoerotic displacement?
:sick: :sick: :sick:
-
I want to know what Boris has done to Spinners to so offend him. This seems a very personal vendetta.
Perhaps it's homoerotic displacement?
:sick: :sick: :sick:
It would explain the obsessive nature of his dislike though...
-
I think the mess Johnson is making of the city is explanation enough.
-
I think the mess Johnson is making of the city is explanation enough.
Yeah - but my explanation is far more fun!
-
Oh - no doubt of that! ;)
-
I don't hate Johnson. I don't love London. But I don't think even London deserves his level of folly.
The posters here who do not adulate Johnson seem rather more polite and circumspect than his supporters, Regulator's post above is blocked in Norwich Forum Library for being "crude and offensive".
Another sterling contribution.
-
I don't hate Johnson. I don't love London. But I don't think even London deserves his level of folly.
More on Johnson and cyclists:
Question No: 2697 / 2008
Jenny Jones
How many LCN+ borough cycling schemes put forward for 2009/10 were unfunded in the Transport for London settlement with the boroughs? What is the total number of schemes which have either gone, or are going, through the LCN+ CRISP study process, and now remain without funding?
Jenny’s strategy of embarrassing the Mayor by demonstrating that he isn’t the cyclist’s friend he claims continues. More to the point, the London Cycling Campaign aren’t happy with Boris.
And:
Question No: 2720 / 2008
Jenny Jones
Can you explain the apparent contradiction between scrapping the Victoria Embankment Garden project which was due to deliver a cycle track along Embankment and your statement in ‘Way to Go’ that it is a disgrace that there is no cycle track there?
Question No: 2756 / 2008
John Biggs
Did you consult with cyclist groups when developing this initiative? Please, if so, describe the extent of your consultation and if not why not?
See the LCC for details of how they were consulted (and ignored, in the end).
Question No: 2780 / 2008
Valerie Shawcross
How many fatal and serious accidents involving cyclists and non-articulated buses have there been each year since 2005/06?
Important question - I see what you’re trying to do there, Val. I’m aware of one fatality this year, on Park Lane, involving a 74 double decker.
-
I don't hate Johnson. I don't love London. But I don't think even London deserves his level of folly.
Finally:
Serious question again.
Question No: 2903 / 2008
Caroline Pidgeon
You claim to be very keen to get more people cycling in London, but have cut funding for cycle schemes by half. Given that the Chief Executive of the London Cycling Campaign has strongly condemned this funding cut, why have you disregarded the views of cycling organisations in London?
I am tremendously looking forward to Johnson answering that list of questions....
-
Boris is a day-in-day-out townie bike commuter and has been since before it became fashionable and compulsory for Tories.
Therefore, he can do no wrong.
-
Regulator's post above is blocked in Norwich Forum Library for being "crude and offensive".
Bloody ell! Reg's done it now! They don't like it up 'em in Norwich.
-
Boris is a day-in-day-out townie bike commuter and has been since before it became fashionable and compulsory for Tories.
Therefore, he can do no wrong.
He exploited his lovable cyclist image in the election, and has completely ignored cyclists' interests since being elected.
As the questions above demonstrate, his honesty is questionable too, he's been asked about his bendy bus lies before and refused to say why he claimed they kill cyclists...
-
Quite an amusing answer in the Houes of Lords Questions yesterday. The topic was the lack of foreign language provision in London for tourists, especially on public transport, and what's going to happen in the Olympics. This question was kicked around a bit and finally someone asked how many languages the Mayor of London could speak.
The Govt. spokesman's answer was "I have heard him speak Latin, although perhaps dog-Latin would be more appropriate, and some say that he can speak English."
-
He speaks Latin, and Esperanto, like a native.
-
Man: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, I haven't, this is my first time...
Sorry, I thought this was an Arts and Ents thread about a TV programme. I seem to have stumbled into a parallel universe where it's a London-centric political argument about the mayor of a largeish city. Ho hum.
Do carry on... ::-)
-
I was asked a question redshift, that's why I answered it.
-
Man: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, I haven't, this is my first time...
Sorry, I thought this was an Arts and Ents thread about a TV programme. I seem to have stumbled into a parallel universe where it's a London-centric political argument about the mayor of a largeish city. Ho hum.
Do carry on... ::-)
;D
-
Quite an amusing answer in the Houes of Lords Questions yesterday. The topic was the lack of foreign language provision in London for tourists, especially on public transport, and what's going to happen in the Olympics. This question was kicked around a bit and finally someone asked how many languages the Mayor of London could speak.
The Govt. spokesman's answer was "I have heard him speak Latin, although perhaps dog-Latin would be more appropriate, and some say that he can speak English."
I believe that he also speaks Classical Greek and some Aramaic...
More up to date, I understand he also can get by quite well in French, Spanish and Italian, as well as Esperanto.
-
As fluent as he is in English? ;D
-
Quite an amusing answer in the Houes of Lords Questions yesterday. The topic was the lack of foreign language provision in London for tourists, especially on public transport, and what's going to happen in the Olympics. This question was kicked around a bit and finally someone asked how many languages the Mayor of London could speak.
The Govt. spokesman's answer was "I have heard him speak Latin, although perhaps dog-Latin would be more appropriate, and some say that he can speak English."
I believe that he also speaks Classical Greek and some Aramaic...
More up to date, I understand he also can get by quite well in French, Spanish and Italian, as well as Esperanto.
Judging by the programme named in the OP he also speaks Spanish pretty well.
-
Judging by the programme named in the OP he also speaks Spanish pretty well.
Tish and piffle....
Dontcha know you're not supposed to say anything that could be construed as positive about BoJo - otherwise you're an Eton toff supporting lackey of the imperialist oppressor.
-
Boris is a day-in-day-out townie bike commuter and has been since before it became fashionable and compulsory for Tories.
Therefore, he can do no wrong.
Re. the original post
Johnson’s either a racist idiot with a nasty tendency to Islamaphobia, or a hired journalistic prostitute, willing to do anything, even whip up hatred of muslims, in exchange for cash.
He said whatever came into his head (or was suggested by someone more important).
He was, is and will always be a Wanker. It's not like anyone should be surprised. He looks like a wanker, talks like a wanker and acts like a wanker. He always did, he always does and he always will do.
What was it about anything he has ever actually done (not said he'd do) that made anyone think he wasn't a wanker?
He's a Thatcherite therefore he will do everything in his power to ensure his rich cronies do OK using whatever powers he has.
His cronies drive big cars into London and he will ensure this doesn't change.
Why would he care about hippie cyclists that most likely hate him and the Tories?
Why is anyone so surprised? He's an English George Bush, a puppet controlled by rich and powerful "friends".
I'm a Manc so it's funny to see Boris Johnson as London's pathetic, bumbling idiot of a figurehead (Londoners had a choice and they chose Boris Johnson, that's funny, tourists will think Londoners are like that) but as a Brit I find it embarrassing that he represents my capital city.
If he wrote those things then of course he's Islamaphobic. Try substituting "Christians" and "Christianity", or "Blacks" and "Africans" for "Muslims" and "Islam". Try writing the same article unsing those terms and see what happens.
If he thinks the Koran is tough on unbelievers he should check out the Bible.
Wanker (but not only for the Islam thing)
I meen ferchristssake he basically got in on a manifesto of banning some Bendy buses (that turn out not to be all that dangerous anyway)
-
If he wrote those things then of course he's Islamaphobic. Try substituting "Christians" and "Christianity", or "Blacks" and "Africans" for "Muslims" and "Islam". Try writing the same article unsing those terms and see what happens.
OK.
To any non-Christian reader of the Rapturist texts, Christianophobia - fear of Christianity - seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture - to say nothing of what is preached in the churches - it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards reality. As the killer of xyz told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Christian. - [excised as no parallel]
The trouble with this disgusting ignorance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Biblical texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Christian teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these churches and creationist schools? When is someone going to get 18th century on Christianity's mediaeval ass?
I've pretended that we're talking about Rapturism or one of the other American bible-based creationist fringe churches.
Would that be phobic? Or even offensive? It sounds like Dawkins to me - strident but not offensive.
If he thinks the Koran is tough on unbelievers he should check out the Bible.
Citation needed...
Have some help. (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unbeliever&qs_version=31)
The Bible is quite clear that unbelievers are going to hell, but there's no call for the faithful to speed them on their way.
I have a serious problem with some of BoJo's stuff, but I don't think there is any reasonable way, unless of course you chop the text up and disorder it, that you could call the citation in the OP Islamophobic.
-
Have some more helpful help... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html) ;)
-
You didn't read what I wrote. There is a lot of confirmation there that unbelievers are off to hell, but there is no direction in the NT that believers should kill unbelievers. The most you get is a direction to shun them, and even that's contradicted in Corinthians.
It's not an inclusive text - I didn't say it was. According to the NT, most people - myself included - are straight off to a fiery pit. But not even Paul, the least tolerant letter writer in the Bible, gives clear direction to go off and kill the unbelievers. It's quite clear that if there's any casting into fiery pits to be done, it's for God to do, not man.
The Koran is equally clear that the faithful are entitled to kill the unbelievers. And that's before the encounter with the fiery pits.
So Lee's suggestion that the Bible is tougher on unbelievers than the Koran is wrong.
I wasn't arguing that the Bible is sweetly sympathetic to unbelievers.
-
Boris is Islamophobic because he conveniently groups every Muslim together as one hate-filled mob.
Islam isn't a thing, Muslims aren't a type.
Christian believers have spent centuries speeding non-believers on their way.
Edit. It was a Chritian God that told George Bush and Tony Blair to go and kick Iraqi ass.
The Bible gives us permission to stone homesexual men to death (amongst others), I'm not sure why they don't get to hear God's decision.
Rules is rules though. Now get me Dale Winton and a few pointy ones (and a bag of gravel)
-
The Koran is equally clear that the faithful are entitled to kill the unbelievers. And that's before the encounter with the fiery pits.
I'm not convinced you're right in saying that, Liz. Either for kafirs or apostates.
IIRC, the Qur'an only talks about punishment in the afterlife in either case.
The most quoted Sura is Sura 109 - which is explicit in saying the rather conciliatory
"You have you your religion and I mine".
-
Intolerance in the Quran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html)
I'm really not sure there's anything in it, really. And I find it weird when Christians, whose founding figure said that nothing of the old law would be changed try to argue that only the New Testament applies.
Of course, reading the Quran, you have to remember to factor in The Bible as well.
-
Intolerance in the Quran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html)
Er, there's 530 odd references there and, while I can't be bothered to check them all, my quick scan has failed to see any that support Liz's claim that "The Koran is equally clear that the faithful are entitled to kill the unbelievers"
And I'm not sure how relevant Stay away from poets. The erring follow them
(quote number 350-or-so from your list) is to the conversation.
-
Sorry - harder to do a more refined search, and there is an awful lot of intolerance in both books.
But I agree. I can't recall any such comment, and I have read the NJ Dawood (Penguin) translation of the Quran from cover to cover, as well as using two other translations for reference.
-
Intolerance in the Quran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html)
Er, there's 530 odd references there and, while I can't be bothered to check them all, my quick scan has failed to see any that support Liz's claim that "The Koran is equally clear that the faithful are entitled to kill the unbelievers"
And I'm not sure how relevant Stay away from poets. The erring follow them
(quote number 350-or-so from your list) is to the conversation.
The "Cruelty and Violence" (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html) section is more useful. Even there, it doesn't allow a "first strike," as it were.
-
Good call. I hadn't considered that, cause in the Bible, it is very long IIRC.
-
I don't have ready reference to the Hadiths, mind you. If anyone does, perhaps we can check if there's such an injunction in there. It's certainly possible.
-
There are an awful lot of awful things in the hadiths, so quite possibly. The stoning of adulterers, for example. The Koran is not always internally consistent, & is a little vague about adultery. Suggests confining adulterous wives to the house, in one verse, & forgiveness for truly contrite adulterers in another - and I've not found anywhere that it advocates the stoning of adulterers.
Who mentioned the glimmerings of a renaissance in Turkey? The Turks have recently been working on cleaned-up Sharia law: more Koran, fewer later accretions. Lots of forensic examination of texts to see when things were added. Seems to be aimed at undercutting extremists with their own weapons. It's vastly more liberal than the Wahhabis & others who claim their versions are based on fundamentals.