Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

PM Boris Johnson - monster thread for a monster twat

Maybe he thinks certain people will make a moral judgement on him, some of them openly, and some whilst claiming they "aren't judgemental about such things, and oppose the demonisation of single parent families" and so on.
I couldn't care less how many children he has. But if I were ever to meet him, I think this might be my first question to him. Probably my only question.
 
OK...x Bishop's into Friday afternoon...I'll bite.
What are you suggesting, then?
Well, in principle I think we should make our moral judgements based on what politicians do in practice, that is, what they vote for and promote politically and what they implement policy-wise, rather than based on half baked information about their private life. I'd rather the newspapers were filled with stories about that kind of stuff, than what appeals to a prurient audience. I didn't think that was a controversial view on urban75.
 
Maybe you're just a mug who is effectively supporting Johnson in his dishonesty and hypocrisy while claiming to be asking challenging questions and so on.

Sorry teuchter, having thought about this and read your subsequent posts I realise I was wrong.

There's no maybe about it, you're definitely a mug who is effectively supporting Johnson in his dishonesty and hypocrisy while claiming to be asking challenging questions and so on.

Happy to have corrected my previous comment.
 
Well, in principle I think we should make our moral judgements based on what politicians do in practice, that is, what they vote for and promote politically and what they implement policy-wise, rather than based on half baked information about their private life. I'd rather the newspapers were filled with stories about that kind of stuff, than what appeals to a prurient audience. I didn't think that was a controversial view on urban75.
Have you an example to hand of someone who is depraved in their personal life but upright and incorruptible as a politician? And maybe an example of someone corrupt and amoral in public life who is wholly devoted to their spouse and children, a family person, in their personal life
 
I get that you like to play 'devil's advocate' teuchter but I have met you and you are a decent guy. Not calling you out as a Labour voter or a socialist but your posting style does not seem to reflect the man I met. Also not calling you out as a Tory or being a cunt saying that but seems you just want to annoy?

Doesn't this apply to most of us on here?

In this case though, I agree with kenny g 's initial post. I'd rather, on principle, that politicians' personal lives were left out of political interviews and reporting. It goes both ways; politicians will use a seemingly "respectable" private life as cover for unpleasant business enacted when in power. And there seems no need to dig for private stuff on Boris Johnson when there is no shortage of other ammunition to use against him. If that view annoys people I'm not really bothered.
 
Doesn't this apply to most of us on here?

In this case though, I agree with kenny g 's initial post. I'd rather, on principle, that politicians' personal lives were left out of political interviews and reporting. It goes both ways; politicians will use a seemingly "respectable" private life as cover for unpleasant business enacted when in power. And there seems no need to dig for private stuff on Boris Johnson when there is no shortage of other ammunition to use against him. If that view annoys people I'm not really bothered.
Yeh let's give politicians a free pass when they demand privacy while every aspect of normal people's lives is intruded into by the state.
 
Well, in principle I think we should make our moral judgements based on what politicians do in practice, that is, what they vote for and promote politically and what they implement policy-wise, rather than based on half baked information about their private life. I'd rather the newspapers were filled with stories about that kind of stuff, than what appeals to a prurient audience. I didn't think that was a controversial view on urban75.
To some extent I agree. It is hard when Johnson sells himself to the press who intrude on private life.

This is also not a huge intrusion. He may have created a Streisand Effect by hiding 'nothing' several times but have really not seen other politicians children ever mentioned outside the gutter press in the same way? Correct me if I am wrong.

My feeling on this is that Johnson used money and influence (that few have) to hide his life then went to the public pretending to stand with them.

No doubt you will find reasons for this to be wrong but there it is. I take umbridge with people defending his type or party when he/they are really indefensible as you well know.

Scoring points online is a great hobby and you are cleverer than many people but think on it.
 
Their lack of clarity over the number could be circumstantial evidence.
Or worse yet, the fact that he clearly does know but is unwilling to admit. I mean, if for example a man thought that he had 5 children, he would say, 'I have 5 children'. It might be that he actually has 6 but he can be forgiven for not knowing of the sixth child's existence. He thought he had 5. He said he had 5. He actually had 6. Never mind.

But to say 'I don't know' in an age of DNA tests, well, something is not ringing true.
 
As has been hinted at, there is enough to hang Boris with without incorporating his apparent inability to use birth control. Children aren't responsible for the activities of their parents and it is more than likely he doesn't want his children to know quite how many half brothers and sisters they have. Maybe not an ideal way to live a life but he has never, as far as I know, presented himself as a family traditionalist.
 
My feeling on this is that Johnson used money and influence (that few have) to hide his life then went to the public pretending to stand with them.

I agree, completely.

No doubt you will find reasons for this to be wrong but there it is. I take umbridge with people defending his type or party when he/they are really indefensible as you well know.

I choose not to object to his decision not to discuss his children in public, and perhaps even welcome it. That's not the same as defending everything or the major part of what he does in the world. There are plenty of folks on here who are more than willing to jump on my comment and interpret it as me defending the Tories. That's really their problem and not mine though, even if I might encourage them to do so.

By the way one of the issues with going into public people's private lives is that it impinges on people connected to them, who did not choose to be connected to them and who aren't seeking to govern us. It's particularly the case with children - no child chooses their parent. We can all speculate on Boris's motivations for not wanting to discuss anything to do with his children but to not have them caught up the consequences of his antics is, in principle, absolutely right. So, if he says he is not going to discuss his children - that's that as far as I'm concerned.
 
Back
Top Bottom