Boris Johnson's Burkha Comments

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure being married is not effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Being married will eliminate many (but not all) of the reasons for people getting abortions.

I think you need to live a little more before you make sweeping statements like that. Being married changes your legal status but everything else is just social expectation. The ceremony and the certificate in themselves don't make you behave differently.

shirley_basso

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure being married is not effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Being married will eliminate many (but not all) of the reasons for people getting abortions.

I think you need to live a little more before you make sweeping statements like that. Being married changes your legal status but everything else is just social expectation.

I was also thinking this but if you think along nickice's thought process then it makes sense.

Only long term relationship couples are having sex
Then getting married
Then having kids

Last 2 could swap order but if it were the case (I don't know) that the main reason for abortion is unplanned pregnancy due to one night stands, then it does stand to reason.

Now my view is that it's utter rubbish and people should go freely shagging like it's going out of fashion, but not be reckless regarding stds and pregnancies. The problem with an abortion is it's meant to be pretty horrific even if you take the morning after pill, so why do people put themselves through it when there are so many ways to not get pregnant yet still have sex. I don't know. Mind you, a midwife was telling me the story of a woman who didn't want to give birth normally and asked to push it out her backside. Some people have no hope, I guess.

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure being married is not effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Being married will eliminate many (but not all) of the reasons for people getting abortions.

I think you need to live a little more before you make sweeping statements like that. Being married changes your legal status but everything else is just social expectation.

I was also thinking this but if you think along nickice's thought process then it makes sense.

Only long term relationship couples are having sex
Then getting married
Then having kids

Last 2 could swap order but if it were the case (I don't know) that the main reason for abortion is unplanned pregnancy due to one night stands, then it does stand to reason.

Now my view is that it's utter rubbish and people should go freely shagging like it's going out of fashion, but not be reckless regarding stds and pregnancies. The problem with an abortion is it's meant to be pretty horrific even if you take the morning after pill, so why do people put themselves through it when there are so many ways to not get pregnant yet still have sex. I don't know. Mind you, a midwife was telling me the story of a woman who didn't want to give birth normally and asked to push it out her backside. Some people have no hope, I guess.

People are idiots and rarely act in their own best interests, but we're all people.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

You've lost me there. Are you talking about the foetus? I think 24 weeks is the earliest point that a foetus may survive.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

You've lost me there. Are you talking about the foetus? I think 24 weeks is the earliest point that a foetus may survive.

advances in medical science means babies born at 22 weeks have lived.

No a moral issue for me but 20 weeks would seem to be plenty

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

You've lost me there. Are you talking about the foetus? I think 24 weeks is the earliest point that a foetus may survive.

Yes. That's what I meant.

chris_bass

I think only allowing sex after marriage makes people rush to get married and then regret it, get divorced or if that is frowned upon live resenting each other from then on. Not the best environment to raise a child. why do you think people used to get married so much younger historically?

My grandparents, for example, really don't get along, I think if they were getting married in this day and age (where divorce is more common) they wouldn't have stayed together very long. My mum has a few personality traits that I think stem from growing up in a household were it was very obvious her parents didn't like each other let alone love each other.

So just having two parents raising a child is not always good

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure being married is not effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Being married will eliminate many (but not all) of the reasons for people getting abortions.

I think you need to live a little more before you make sweeping statements like that. Being married changes your legal status but everything else is just social expectation. The ceremony and the certificate in themselves don't make you behave differently.

I have lived. I'd like to see the stats on abortions for married couples where the abortion doesn't involve any genetic abnormalities. I'd bet they're not very common.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

You've lost me there. Are you talking about the foetus? I think 24 weeks is the earliest point that a foetus may survive.

Yes. That's what I meant.

What do you mean by autonomy? There are quite a lot of people alive today who can't live autonomously and any baby that may not survive outside the womb will soon develop into a baby that can survive outside the womb.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

You've lost me there. Are you talking about the foetus? I think 24 weeks is the earliest point that a foetus may survive.

Yes. That's what I meant.

What do you mean by autonomy? There are quite a lot of people alive today who can't live autonomously and any baby that may not survive outside the womb will soon develop into a baby that can survive outside the womb.

The ability to exercise some degree of control - even if through instructions to others. I don't mean fully independent. I would agree that there are plenty of adults who are in situations where it is questionable what autonomy they have.

I'm also not convinced that merely being alive is a meaningful threshold either - lots of things are alive. But fundamentally, I believe that unless I'm the father in question it's none of my business and even then my views take second place to those of the person who is putting their health and even their life at risk by carrying the foetus.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

You've lost me there. Are you talking about the foetus? I think 24 weeks is the earliest point that a foetus may survive.

Yes. That's what I meant.

What do you mean by autonomy? There are quite a lot of people alive today who can't live autonomously and any baby that may not survive outside the womb will soon develop into a baby that can survive outside the womb.

The ability to exercise some degree of control - even if through instructions to others. I don't mean fully independent. I would agree that there are plenty of adults who are in situations where it is questionable what autonomy they have.

I'm also not convinced that merely being alive is a meaningful threshold either - lots of things are alive. But fundamentally, I believe that unless I'm the father in question it's none of my business and even then my views take second place to those of the person who is putting their health and even their life at risk by carrying the foetus.

A baby barely meets any of those requirements. And lots of things may be alive but we regard human life as more important than other life.

surrey_commuter

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

You've lost me there. Are you talking about the foetus? I think 24 weeks is the earliest point that a foetus may survive.

Yes. That's what I meant.

What do you mean by autonomy? There are quite a lot of people alive today who can't live autonomously and any baby that may not survive outside the womb will soon develop into a baby that can survive outside the womb.

That is just wrong. A quick Google will tell you the earliest a prem baby has survived and is about 22 weeks

nickice

Surrey Commuter wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

You've lost me there. Are you talking about the foetus? I think 24 weeks is the earliest point that a foetus may survive.

Yes. That's what I meant.

What do you mean by autonomy? There are quite a lot of people alive today who can't live autonomously and any baby that may not survive outside the womb will soon develop into a baby that can survive outside the womb.

That is just wrong. A quick Google will tell you the earliest a prem baby has survived and is about 22 weeks

You misunderstood my comment. If you abort a baby at, for example, 12 weeks, it would have probably developed into a baby that could survive outside the womb.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

You've lost me there. Are you talking about the foetus? I think 24 weeks is the earliest point that a foetus may survive.

Yes. That's what I meant.

What do you mean by autonomy? There are quite a lot of people alive today who can't live autonomously and any baby that may not survive outside the womb will soon develop into a baby that can survive outside the womb.

That is just wrong. A quick Google will tell you the earliest a prem baby has survived and is about 22 weeks

Survived for how long, 20 seconds, 20 years? A newborn at 9 months can't survive long unaided.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's not a reproductive right, it is autonomy over the woman's own body.

Not a debate I like to get involved in, but the rad fem position on this always puzzles me. A woman has autonomy over her body, but not after 24 weeks of pregnancy, not for the purposes of prostitution and not for purpose of kidney selling.

You could argue that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which autonomy can begin.

You've lost me there. Are you talking about the foetus? I think 24 weeks is the earliest point that a foetus may survive.

Yes. That's what I meant.

What do you mean by autonomy? There are quite a lot of people alive today who can't live autonomously and any baby that may not survive outside the womb will soon develop into a baby that can survive outside the womb.

That is just wrong. A quick Google will tell you the earliest a prem baby has survived and is about 22 weeks

Survived for how long, 20 seconds, 20 years? A newborn at 9 months can't survive long unaided.

Still alive now

DeVlaeminck

Yes!

What I meant was these limits are all a bit arbitrary. When we say a baby can survive do we mean with a huge amount of medical intervention, what if medicine advances so a foetus could survive in an artificial womb from day 1 ?

I understand why we look for logical reasons to make law on abortion but ultimately societal norms, historical power structures etc probably determine where they are actually set.

I tend to go along with it being the woman's decision up to a point in time - I'm not sure what that point in time should be - at the same time I'm sure if I saw a scan of a 20 week baby of mine in the womb and the woman was going to abort it I'd find that very hard so I understand the view that a life is being taken. It's one of those issues that has such strong arguments on both sides.

cooldad

To go back 28 pages, Boris is still a spazwangle.

robert88

cooldad wrote:

To go back 28 pages, Boris is still a spazwangle.

Exactly.

veronese68

cooldad wrote:

To go back 28 pages, Boris is still a spazwangle.

Some things will never change.

BelgianBeerGeek

Veronese68 wrote:

cooldad wrote:

To go back 28 pages, Boris is still a spazwangle.

Some things will never change.

And some still think he would make a good PM. I don’t. I think he might make a good tyrant or dictator, but Bozza for PM?
That is the world turned upside down.

BelgianBeerGeek

FishFish wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

cooldad wrote:

To go back 28 pages, Boris is still a spazwangle.

Some things will never change.

And some still think he would make a good PM. I don’t. I think he might make a good tyrant or dictator, but Bozza for PM?
That is the world turned upside down.

Well you've not expressed your point very well but to suggest that the entire world changes if a concept that you don't agree with is aired then you are an idiot.

Cheers FF. That’s made my day

robert88

One recent clear demonstration of why Johnson is unfit for any office of responsibility :

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has apologised for incorrect comments, which risked lengthening the prison sentence of a British woman incarcerated in Iran.

Mr Johnson has faced calls to resign over mistaken remarks made to MPs, where he claimed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been “teaching journalism” in Tehran when she was arrested 19 months ago – rather than visiting relatives as her family claims.

Iranian state TV seized on the comments as an “unintended confession”, prompting fears that his remarks were being used by the Iranian authorities to justify her continued imprisonment over spying allegations.

It's not as if he doesn't know Iran - one of his best friends Darius Guppy* is Iranian. More here about the pair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrqyxSYmiZk

Best bit around 2'50" in.

Don't be fooled by the buffoonery, Johnson's own personal ambition is ruthless.

*Wiki: Guppy's mother was the Iranian author and singer Shusha Guppy (1935–2008).[2] His grandfather on his mother's side was the philosopher and theologian Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammed Kazem Assar, who held the chair of philosophy at Tehran University; his maternal cousin, Hooman Majd.

ballysmate

Robert88 wrote:

One recent clear demonstration of why Johnson is unfit for any office of responsibility :

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has apologised for incorrect comments, which risked lengthening the prison sentence of a British woman incarcerated in Iran.

Mr Johnson has faced calls to resign over mistaken remarks made to MPs, where he claimed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been “teaching journalism” in Tehran when she was arrested 19 months ago – rather than visiting relatives as her family claims.

Iranian state TV seized on the comments as an “unintended confession”, prompting fears that his remarks were being used by the Iranian authorities to justify her continued imprisonment over spying allegations.

It's not as if he doesn't know Iran - one of his best friends Darius Guppy* is Iranian. More here about the pair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrqyxSYmiZk

Best bit around 2'50" in.

Don't be fooled by the buffoonery, Johnson's own personal ambition is ruthless.

*Wiki: Guppy's mother was the Iranian author and singer Shusha Guppy (1935–2008).[2] His grandfather on his mother's side was the philosopher and theologian Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammed Kazem Assar, who held the chair of philosophy at Tehran University; his maternal cousin, Hooman Majd.

Only about 10 years off the pace and having watched the clip, some of the political gravitas is lost when the presenter sniggers at someone's name like a school kid (Pythonesque?) and can barely read what is written infront of him.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 58043.html

The Indy, not known for being the most right leaning of newspapers quotes the supplier of the recording

"My own feeling is that Johnson was just going along with Guppy, humouring him, and had no intention of helping."



Which probably is about right as I don't think any assault actually took place.

BJ may well be ambitious, a buffoon, intelligent or a combination of any three depending on his audience but the sad part is that reasonably intelligent people latch onto articles which underpin their point of view, no matter how dumbed down they are. No doubt this one will be like catnip to some as the presenter targets BJ, the Tory Party and Brexit.

As for one of his university friends being of Iranian decent, I suppose he is guilty as charged, for what it's worth.

robert88

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

One recent clear demonstration of why Johnson is unfit for any office of responsibility :

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has apologised for incorrect comments, which risked lengthening the prison sentence of a British woman incarcerated in Iran.

Mr Johnson has faced calls to resign over mistaken remarks made to MPs, where he claimed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been “teaching journalism” in Tehran when she was arrested 19 months ago – rather than visiting relatives as her family claims.

Iranian state TV seized on the comments as an “unintended confession”, prompting fears that his remarks were being used by the Iranian authorities to justify her continued imprisonment over spying allegations.

It's not as if he doesn't know Iran - one of his best friends Darius Guppy* is Iranian. More here about the pair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrqyxSYmiZk

Best bit around 2'50" in.

Don't be fooled by the buffoonery, Johnson's own personal ambition is ruthless.

*Wiki: Guppy's mother was the Iranian author and singer Shusha Guppy (1935–2008).[2] His grandfather on his mother's side was the philosopher and theologian Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammed Kazem Assar, who held the chair of philosophy at Tehran University; his maternal cousin, Hooman Majd.

Only about 10 years off the pace and having watched the clip, some of the political gravitas is lost when the presenter sniggers at someone's name like a school kid (Pythonesque?) and can barely read what is written infront of him.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 58043.html

The Indy, not known for being the most right leaning of newspapers quotes the supplier of the recording

"My own feeling is that Johnson was just going along with Guppy, humouring him, and had no intention of helping."



Which probably is about right as I don't think any assault actually took place.

BJ may well be ambitious, a buffoon, intelligent or a combination of any three depending on his audience but the sad part is that reasonably intelligent people latch onto articles which underpin their point of view, no matter how dumbed down they are. No doubt this one will be like catnip to some as the presenter targets BJ, the Tory Party and Brexit.

As for one of his university friends being of Iranian decent, I suppose he is guilty as charged, for what it's worth.

..and his apparent incompetent comment regarding Nazanin? You have no view on that?

I feel that Johnson's supporters are made in the same mould* as Trump's a mix of self-interest and blind adulation (a polite way of accounting for their careless attitude towards the man's morality).

* something going rotten.

surrey_commuter

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

One recent clear demonstration of why Johnson is unfit for any office of responsibility :

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has apologised for incorrect comments, which risked lengthening the prison sentence of a British woman incarcerated in Iran.

Mr Johnson has faced calls to resign over mistaken remarks made to MPs, where he claimed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been “teaching journalism” in Tehran when she was arrested 19 months ago – rather than visiting relatives as her family claims.

Iranian state TV seized on the comments as an “unintended confession”, prompting fears that his remarks were being used by the Iranian authorities to justify her continued imprisonment over spying allegations.

It's not as if he doesn't know Iran - one of his best friends Darius Guppy* is Iranian. More here about the pair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrqyxSYmiZk

Best bit around 2'50" in.

Don't be fooled by the buffoonery, Johnson's own personal ambition is ruthless.

*Wiki: Guppy's mother was the Iranian author and singer Shusha Guppy (1935–2008).[2] His grandfather on his mother's side was the philosopher and theologian Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammed Kazem Assar, who held the chair of philosophy at Tehran University; his maternal cousin, Hooman Majd.

Only about 10 years off the pace and having watched the clip, some of the political gravitas is lost when the presenter sniggers at someone's name like a school kid (Pythonesque?) and can barely read what is written infront of him.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 58043.html

The Indy, not known for being the most right leaning of newspapers quotes the supplier of the recording

"My own feeling is that Johnson was just going along with Guppy, humouring him, and had no intention of helping."



Which probably is about right as I don't think any assault actually took place.

BJ may well be ambitious, a buffoon, intelligent or a combination of any three depending on his audience but the sad part is that reasonably intelligent people latch onto articles which underpin their point of view, no matter how dumbed down they are. No doubt this one will be like catnip to some as the presenter targets BJ, the Tory Party and Brexit.

As for one of his university friends being of Iranian decent, I suppose he is guilty as charged, for what it's worth.

..and his apparent incompetent comment regarding Nazanin? You have no view on that?

I feel that Johnson's supporters are cast from the same mold as Trump's a mix of self-interest and blind adulation (a polite way of accounting for their careless attitude towards the man's morality).

Can you 100% rule out the option that he was telling the truth? his only crime being to blurt out the exact opposite of what he was meant to say. As this is a recurring theme maybe he has a medical condition?

If you want dirt on Boris there is much better stuff than Guppy. I believe he has been fired from every job for lying or theft.

As mayor he was funny but that is the level at which he should have remained.

ballysmate

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

One recent clear demonstration of why Johnson is unfit for any office of responsibility :

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has apologised for incorrect comments, which risked lengthening the prison sentence of a British woman incarcerated in Iran.

Mr Johnson has faced calls to resign over mistaken remarks made to MPs, where he claimed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been “teaching journalism” in Tehran when she was arrested 19 months ago – rather than visiting relatives as her family claims.

Iranian state TV seized on the comments as an “unintended confession”, prompting fears that his remarks were being used by the Iranian authorities to justify her continued imprisonment over spying allegations.

It's not as if he doesn't know Iran - one of his best friends Darius Guppy* is Iranian. More here about the pair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrqyxSYmiZk

Best bit around 2'50" in.

Don't be fooled by the buffoonery, Johnson's own personal ambition is ruthless.

*Wiki: Guppy's mother was the Iranian author and singer Shusha Guppy (1935–2008).[2] His grandfather on his mother's side was the philosopher and theologian Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammed Kazem Assar, who held the chair of philosophy at Tehran University; his maternal cousin, Hooman Majd.

Only about 10 years off the pace and having watched the clip, some of the political gravitas is lost when the presenter sniggers at someone's name like a school kid (Pythonesque?) and can barely read what is written infront of him.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 58043.html

The Indy, not known for being the most right leaning of newspapers quotes the supplier of the recording

"My own feeling is that Johnson was just going along with Guppy, humouring him, and had no intention of helping."



Which probably is about right as I don't think any assault actually took place.

BJ may well be ambitious, a buffoon, intelligent or a combination of any three depending on his audience but the sad part is that reasonably intelligent people latch onto articles which underpin their point of view, no matter how dumbed down they are. No doubt this one will be like catnip to some as the presenter targets BJ, the Tory Party and Brexit.

As for one of his university friends being of Iranian decent, I suppose he is guilty as charged, for what it's worth.

..and his apparent incompetent comment regarding Nazanin? You have no view on that?

I feel that Johnson's supporters are made in the same mould* as Trump's a mix of self-interest and blind adulation (a polite way of accounting for their careless attitude towards the man's morality).

* something going rotten.

Must admit to not following the Nazanin case very much. According to the Economist, the charges against her were

They accused her of designing websites to support “the sedition”, a reference to the mass demonstrations that erupted following rigged presidential elections in 2009. They also suspected her of previously training Iranian journalists abroad, including a group from Narenji, a website specialising in new technology, who had received heavy jail terms a year earlier. She was sentenced to five years in prison for working to overthrow the regime.

As Surrey asks, can you or I be certain that BJ wasn't just telling the truth?

ballysmate

More opportunity for Cake Stoppers to take offence, I suppose.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -offended/

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

More opportunity for Cake Stoppers to take offence, I suppose.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -offended/

No responses - I think you must have offended someone