Any Tory who defended Boris's Savile smear as 'cut and thrust' should immediately recant

[noblegiraffe]

Any of the despicable lot who did the media rounds defending Boris making a far-right smear in parliament as 'political cut and thrust' should be faced with a journalist tomorrow asking whether they had reconsidered in the light of the mob surrounding Keir Starmer tonight calling him a fucking traitor, saying he should be hung, and repeating the same accusation. Their responses should be collated and published.

In recent years we have seen two MPs murdered. These mobs must be taken seriously. They should not be whipped up by the Prime Minister in the Houses of Parliament.

Boris has to accept responsibility for this, and every fucker who defended it as acceptable should be called to account.

Clav, your cut and pastes/links are getting increasingly desperate. Imagine having to resort to the Sun.

The Sun isn’t far right?

🤣

Any chance of you actually addressing the issue this thread is about?

I was - I replied to the OP - It was her post in bold text.

So we can take it that 12% of those who voted so far necessarily agree that Starmer should be physically attacked in the street just for being in opposition to a serial liar and abuser of public trust?

@ilovesooty

Anyone defending this is as empty of moral compass as Johnson himself.

Well said. And like Johnson they also can't see what everyone else can.

@DePfeffoff

Johnson avoids using the word "traitor" in Parliament simply because it's not allowed. He manages to make the accusation rather more circuitously

Yep, he’s clever/devious/manipulative (delete as applicable or not) in that way….as mentioned upthread his repetitive use of allowable words in the cut and thrust (rolls eyes) previous debates is no accident.

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-09-25/debates/AD2A07E5-9741-4EBA-997A-97776F80AA38/PrimeMinisterSUpdate

@noblegiraffe @CryingAtTheDiscotheque @thecatfromjapan

Thank you for your kind words x

It IS a national shame, imo, that Saville wasn't prosecuted. He was 'protected' by High Ups in the Royal family & the Tory party for years. I know that Starmer has acknowledged his regret that it didn't happen.

For Johnson use it as a cheap point scoring shot in Parliament (& then many of his Ministers to defend that) sends a message to ALL of us imo. That message is: don't expect justice, don't look to the UK Govt to value the protection of the vulnerable in our society, they don't matter. the safety of MP's with whom they disagree (or even simply wish to 'score points off') doesn't matter. Democracy doesnt matter.
Well, it does. It's a sad & sorry time for the 'Mother of Parliaments'.

Lisa Nandy accused Boris Johnson of calling other MPs 'traitors' after the death of Sir David Amess - in an attempt to deflect criticism of Angela Rayner

What criticism of Angela Rayner @Clavinova? Are you talking about the "scum" remark? The one that all the newspapers carried to deflect from the Tory MP making a "joke" about sending a bomb to a female opposition MP?

noblegiraffe
Gosh, I'm not sure

Lisa Nandy specifically accused Boris Johnson of calling other MPs 'traitors' after the death of Sir David Amess - why would James O'Brien retract that accusation on air if Boris Johnson had used that word?

so there's no shortage of objectionable language

Some of that language was said (or mostly written) over 20 years ago - frequently repeated now by left-wing MPs and journalists who don't seem to mind offending today's generation for political gain. Either the language is offensive or it isn't.

I don't think I even care what the likes of Clavinova come up with any more.

It's been a litmus test, really.

Either you have some sense of decency, some idea - however vague - of the U.K. as a place with norms of public life (&subscribe to those norms ... or you don't.

And if you don't subscribe to those norms, you basically don't give a stuff about those values being dragged down, trampled all over and destroyed - subtly or unsubtly.

I find I really don't have anything to say, any more, to people who just don't care about the values of U.K. public life. 🤷‍♀️

Thank yoi for this thread OP Completely agree

The definition of traitor is someone who betrays something or someone. Johnson is on recent record as having accused the opposition of betrayal. Suggesting that he is not accusing them of being traitors is ludicrous, and yet again exposes the desperation of his defenders.

Clav, to be clear, you don't think that people should repeat historical offensive remarks made by the current Prime Minister, some, unapologetically, because they are offensive?

What criticism of Angela Rayner

This criticism - October 2021
Angela Rayner is under fresh pressure to apologise for her “Tory scum” comments in the wake of Conservative MP Sir David Amess’ murder.

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sir-david-amess-angela-rayner-apologise-tory-scum-comments-b960862.html

In fact Angela Rayner twice called Tory MPs 'scum'

October 2020
Conservative MPs have faced "widespread abuse" after Labour's Angela Rayner used the word "scum" in a Parliamentary debate, the party's co-chairwoman says.

Amanda Milling has written to Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer asking if he will take action against Labour MPs "who perpetrate abuse".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54675232

A year later - September 2021

Angela Rayner has defended referring to the Conservative Government as a “bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic”.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said the comments were “not language that I would have used” and said it is a matter for Ms Rayner whether she apologised.

inews.co.uk/news/politics/angela-rayner-refuses-apologise-tories-banana-republic-etonian-scum-1218817

thecatfromjapan Good post.

I think perhaps those of us who do care should stop engaging with those who either don't care (because they will not change their mindset) or who are being provocative for the sake of it.

I won't mention the other type of posters who back up Johnson to the hilt, as that will get my post deleted. We all know what the score is there, though.

I have the misfortune to have one of the very worst offenders, Nadine Dorries, as my MP.

There seems to be no getting rid of the vile woman - she wins election after election, purely by virtue, I suspect, of keeping herself in the media spotlight.

I've written to her to express my dissatisfaction with her boss, but had no response.

Johnson and his apologists should be held personally responsible for the danger they knowingly put Kier Starmer in.

History will judge them.

The people defending Boris Johnson on this thread sum up everything that's wrong with modern politics.

We've lost the ability to say "I support your party, but I don't agree with what you've just said." It's become utterly tribal - you must support someone 100% and never, ever disagree with their stance/actions.

You can be an ardent Tory voter and still appreciate the fact that Boris' statement was unacceptable and misleading. Keir Starmer wasn't involved in the prosecution of Jimmy Saville, and wasn't the lawyer who made the decision not to prosecute. His apology was because he is willing to take responsibility for the actions of the department he was running, even if he personally was not at fault. Unlike Boris Johnson, I might add. There are now many, many people who believe - because of Boris Johnson's choice of wording - that Keir Starmer deliberately let Saville off. They aren't aware of the full facts - and Boris knows that there are lots of people who just read the headlines and don't delve further. It was a nasty, calculated point-scoring exercise that uses the actions of a paedophile to diver attention from his own corrupt actions - which are being investigated by the police.

None of that is OK. None of that are the actions of a decent politician. It's perfectly OK to say you're still a Tory voter while acknowledging the fact that this was a poorly judged and unfair attack. You can even still support Boris (if you must) - but you don't need to condone every action he takes. And this was deeply wrong.

If you can't see why this was so wrong, you're part of the problem.

HNRTT but has this sucked the oxygen out of the room of the speculation around Grey report and Party-gate hence kicked the can down the road of the PM's future? If so then has a play out of the populist persuasion handbook recently used by DT been successful in part? Finally heard on R4 Today this morning some recognition of why the Savile allegation might have been made.

Angela Rayner 'unreservedly apologised' for her 'scum' comments.

So we agree that the appropriate action would be for Boris Johnson to unreservedly apologise for his?

has this sucked the oxygen out of the room of the speculation around Grey report and Party-gate hence kicked the can down the road of the PM's future? If so then has a play out of the populist persuasion handbook recently used by DT been successful in part?

I don't think so. His team resigned over it leaving his office in disarray and he's hired some bloke who salutes him and thinks that telling the press that they sang Gloria Gaynor together is a good way of making the public think that Johnson is the guy to fix the shambles that is Downing Street.

And now Johnson is linked with the baying mob that abused Starmer on the street.

I wouldn't call that a success.

The Angela Rayner "scum" thing was widely reported in part to hide this gem:
www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19606166.tory-mp-apologises-suggesting-bomb-planted-oxford-mp-anneliese-dodds-office/

And it worked. Lots of frothing about AR (which continues to this day, despite her apology) and nothing about James Gray.

noblegiraffe
Clav, to be clear, you don't think that people should repeat historical offensive remarks made by the current Prime Minister, some, unapologetically, because they are offensive?

Why would I want my 13-year-old ds (ds2) to repeatedly hear 'tank-topped bum-boys' on the radio (a quote from a 1995 Spectator column) ??

OP, I think the PM has different standards for success than you - perhaps success compared with being forced to resign or there being enough votes for a 1922 leadership challenge?

I'm not comparing the two but how long did it take to elicit Angela's unreserved apology, was it a month and two days?