R4 used to be accused of being pinkos but with Tories like Nick Robinson (used to be a paid up member of the party) and Humphreys (big mate of Paul Dacre) that’s no longer the case. Editor Sarah Sands past working for the Telegraph, Mail and Standard shines through. I wouldn’t be all that bothered but Humphreys in particular gets on my nerves so much with his rudeness and arrogance I’ve stopped listening.

The BBC tends to follow the mood of whichever government is in power which explains the soft treatment of Johnson. He’s playing to the Tory base with the letterbox and bank robber remarks. They were obviously going to overshadow whatever else he said. If he’s as clever as some people claim then he did that on purpose. I’m not so sure, he is gaffe prone and as PM he’d be a disaster. He’d go down well with the Brexiteers but I can’t help but think the country would find him less popular. I know a lot of conservatives who aren’t on board with the party’s continuous move to the right. Dog whistle politics didn't get Goldsmith the mayoral job. It won't win an election either.

Fact is, they're right. True freedom of speech includes the right to offend (within the law) and that includes mocking the appearance of women dressed like letterboxes (while actually defending their right to dress that way). If the 'victims' *cough* choose to take offence, so be it. Whether you approve of Boris Johnson or not is irrelevant.

I agree with you on the antisemitism furore. Oh there's little doubt many in Labour (and elsewhere) have little love for Israel - due mainly to their own alignment with Palestine and Islam - but they are absolutely entitled to criticise Israel within the law. Corbyn can hardly align himself with Hamas and Hezbollah as he has many times and expect anyone to believe he holds anything but contempt for Israel. But he's entitled to those views. He should stop squirming and backtracking and let the voters make their minds up.

We should all know by now there are 2 groups it's unwise to offend, mainly because they're particularly good at whipping up a backlash and doing a good "outrage" face: Jews/Israel (in this context the same thing) and Muslims. Whereas in fact we should all be free to legally offend, criticise and draw cartoons of certain prophets. We're heading down a very sorry path where freedom of speech is being dangerously tested.

The Grauniad today: "Islam is not a race but what Boris said is still racist". Gimme a break.

BTW, try some sources other than R4. The left-wing TV media in particular has been full of breathless "outrage" since the story broke. Just tonight I've listened to C4 News and Newsnight desperately trying to whip up further condemnation and offence. Unfortunately for them and the Left, they're finding the majority agree he has the right to offend. Whether that will stifle the rabid PC backlash remains to be seen.

FWIW I think they look like ninjas.

Utter rubbish based on zero evidence. "They'll shred the rules so companies can pollute" Have you heard yourself?

The UK has always led the way in many progressive laws - worker's rights for example, in facy moreso than the EU. Those rights are enshrined in law, just as EU law will be.

And you wonder why people accuse Remoaners of scaremongering.

There is no such thing as freedom of speech, anywhere. It is all within the law, otherwise it's not. Very few are suggesting Johnson broke the law. My views of organised religion vary between contempt & hatred, so am usually sympathetic to any pi ss take of religion. I would defend against any moves to stifle satire of religion. My problem with what Johnson said is that it (the letterbox/bank robber bit) was not an attack or criticism of religion, it was a deliberate insult, on an easy & usually silent target, meant to stoke up middle England support & xenophobia. He knew what the reaction would be, he knew May would have to react & he knew he would not apologise. It doesn’t matter if 48% of those polled support what he said, the measure of offence should be judged by those who he insulted.

There is a big difference between arguing & voting with your conscience (which is a noble tradition), & openly disregarding codes of conduct by actions carefully calculated to undermine your PM. May has no authority whatsoever.

I'm with you on this - I'm an antitheist in the vein of Christopher Hitchens (but nowhere near as clever or well read,) so I'm quite happy to see any religious symbolism mocked or lampooned - and I think that any god who was so sensitive as to prohibit that, can't be much of a god at all. If I was the supreme creator of the universe, I could probably overlook a bit of satire.

Boris Johnson, quite deliberately, didn't do that - he wasn't discussing the beliefs or the symbolism, he was attacking the women; they're a soft target, and he knew exactly what he was doing - playing to the gallery to gain some traction for his leadership bid - which appears to have worked; the MSM and many Tories are playing down the sinister elements of what he said, and straight out of the Bannon playbook, now positioning Johnson himself a "victim" - of the PC, anti-free speech brigade.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this will embolden those people who hold similar views, and will make veiled women more vulnerable; in the next week or so, we'll see reports of women being attacked in the street, called letterboxes, or having their headgear torn off, and Mr Johnson won't give it a second thought.

Your problem with it is therefore a political one. So what if it's an insult? Grow a thicker skin. He's said nothing illegal. If he's stoking up support that's his business. If someone uses it to express hate views they probably held those views anyway.

In what way, shape or form is any part of Islam an "easy & usually silent target"?? Utter nonsense.


It doesn't matter how many support or oppose him, he has the right to say it. If some folk don't agree, tough.

Measuring offence (what a stupid term) should certainly not be judged by those offended. Otherwise before we know it no-one would be able to say anything about anyone, ever. Someone, somewhere is offended at everything. Mind you we've been heading that way for the last 20 years.

It already happens. The difference is in the next week we'll see it highlighted in the press.

I think we should hold our elected officials to a higher standard than, "he said nothing illegal."

If Boris Johnson wanted to contribute to a genuine debate about liberal values and the centuries old use of religion (by men) to oppress women, he could have done so without name-calling and playground insults, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's classic dog-whistle politics, and he has form for it:

President Obama was "part Kenyan, with an ancestral dislike of Britain"
Africans - "Picaninnies with watermelon smiles"
Compared the EU project with Hitler
Papua New Guinea - "orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing"
Hillsborough - enough said
Referred to gay people as "tank-topped bum-boys."

He's a turgid, horrible man, unfit to hold public office. I don't know what they teach these people at Eton, but it is proving to have quite a track record of churning our very clever but deeply unpleasant people, with a total disregard for the people they believe they are entitled to rule.

The voters will decide. While I doubt I'd ever vote for Boris, I'd sooner have someone willing to speak their mind and defend their views rather than crawl on their knees to the weakest sensitivities and faux outrage. 99% of 'apologies' in politics are meaningless, hollow statements.

And what are those quotes supposed to prove? Are they supposed to be shocking? This may come as a surprise but hardly anyone cares. Your sterile, PC, left-wing snowflake-led social media nirvana only exists in sections of the media and on social media, where folk desperately seek out their viral outrage. Out on the streets most people couldn't give a shiny sh*t for snowflake sensitivities or if someone might take offence. Similarly, most people don't want the standards of others forced upon them.

The odd thing with the quotes you've chosen is that Obama IS part Kenyan and anecdotal evidence is that he doesn't hold much love for the UK, or at least its colonial past. PNG does have a history of cannibalism. The EU project...well you know my views on that. There are indeed people who feel Liverpool fans should bear some responsibility for Hillsborough and that there's a 'victim' culture in Liverpool. And plenty of people quite simply don't want to accept homosexuality or being told they're 'not allowed' to use certain words to describe other races. BTW the 'bum-boy' quote is from 1998, when such language was hardly uncommon. I personally don't hold the same views but I'll defend the right to hold them within the law.

Furthermore, many millions of people across the UK share those views. Some might vocalise them, others might use them online and others might only ever think them - but they are out there. The Left have yet to understand why their cause continually loses elections - let me tell you, decades of enforcing your standards on everyone else is a big part of it.

Being offended has become the new 'crying wolf'. People are tired of hearing it every 2 minutes.

Interesting those who were so gleeful about the Trump baby blimp or can't wait to sling the new trendy 'gammon' insult at every opportunity are up in arms about Boris Johnson. Either you're allowed to offend or you're not.