Jim Carroll - 02 Aug 16 - 12:55 PM

"It appears I wrongly attributed the "lower IQ remark to Johnson - aploogies.

Having said that, as far as his position as Foreign Secretary is concerned, it makes no difference whatever. {Of course not Jom your biased mind was already unalterably made up - Not in the least surprised at that, nothing new there}

It is a reflection on the the Government of the Day to appoint someone to such a position whose reputation is tainted by association with racist remarks."

Now that last sentence is closing in on the nub of this discussion about the Labour anti-Semitism row in which there are three parts.

1: Baroness Royall's inquiry into the Oxford University Labour Club

2: Shami Chakrabarti's investigation

3: The decision by Labour's NEC to make public Chakrabarti's Report but keep Baroness Royall's report secret.

The actions recommended by Shami Chakrabarti's report effectively put a "statute of limitations" on any prior transgressions of anyone in the Labour Party (What a pity Boris Johnson wasn't a "socialist" eh Jom because under these new Labour rules the matter would not have been looked into and he would have been allowed to carry on as normal). So we have all of these completely anonymous slightly or moderately anti-Semitic young Labour "hopefuls" at Oxford University preparing themselves for careers in politics and nobody has got the foggiest notion of who they are or what they did. They must have done something Jom otherwise there would have been no urgent recommendations that required immediate and sustained action. But because of Chakrabarti's recommendations and the NEC's decision it would appear that the Labour Party of the future (If indeed it has any future at all) may appoint to important positions goodness knows how many candidates whose reputations have been tainted by racist behaviour or association with racist behviour.

Piccanniny is a deeply racist term and has been for the best part of my lifetime - no matter how our Royal racist Duke of Edinburgh, who is known fro his racist gaffes, refers to the "colonials"

Oh Dear, Jom's grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick again, as usual.

Taking the first part of that:

"Piccanniny is a deeply racist term and has been for the best part of my lifetime"

Irrelevant, you were brought up in the UK and you now live in Ireland where what you say above is undoubtedly the case. Elsewhere in the world it most certainly is not the case, the word means a small child (That is any child of any origin) and is in constant daily usage. Boris Johnson, wrote a line about the Queen and the Commonwealth, as stated previously there is nothing racist at all in him referring to "flag waving piccanninnies" as that is how they would be referred to by their own parents.

Now the second bit:

"no matter how our Royal racist Duke of Edinburgh, who is known fro his racist gaffes, refers to the "colonials"

The Duke of Edinburgh has referred to "colonials" as piccanninnies? That's news to me Jom, any more details on that? Or is this just more Jim Carroll "Made-up-shit"?

"The number one Piccanninny who belongs to the Queen" was how Prince Charles was referred to on an official visit to Papua New Guinea. He was so amused by it that he used the phrase to introduce himself to people who spoke the native language for the entire trip.

"Pickaninny (also picaninny or piccaninny or pickinniny) is a term in English which refers to a racist and derogatory caricature of dark-skinned children of African descent - it has long been associated with slavery."

Whereas elsewhere in the world it is in common everyday usage and it refers to a small child.

It is immaterial that Obama accepted it with good grace - it is a racist term and should not be one associated with a British Foreign secretary"

It is racist to state the fact that Barack Obama's father was Kenyan? Dying to hear your further explanation of that.

It is racist to make the observation and comment on the fact that you think someone is "ancestrally anti-British"?

Don't think so in either case Jom, they are merely statements of fact as one person sees it. You do it all the time, the only difference is that Boris did explain why he held the views he did by providing examples of how Barack Obama could be described as being "ancestrally anti-British" (I would imagine that, considering the history of the country, quite a few Americans are).

As far as I am aware Boris Johnson has made no "gaffes" so far in his capacity as Foreign Secretary - but early days yet as you say - let's see if he can surpass Labour's late great Lord George Brown in the "total embarrassment-stakes" in the post of Foreign Secretary shall we?