Has Boris Johnson ever referred to any of his opponents as “traitors”?Has one vote ever made a difference?Has Obama or any other US President authorized the assassination of US citizens?Politicians claim there have been big “cuts” to education, has this ever occurred?Did Fidel Castro ever make this prediction?Has Stephen Bannon ever used the word “nigger” publicly?Did Fethullah Gülen “publicly boasted about his “soldiers” waiting for his orders to do whatever he directs them to do”?
Notation clarity question for a conglomerate of accidentals
Could the Queen overturn the UK Supreme Court ruling regarding prorogation of Parliament?
Why Vegetable Stock is bitter, but Chicken Stock not?
What's the correct way to determine turn order in this situation?
Can I bring this power bank on board the aircraft?
Why do personal finance apps focus on outgoings rather than income
Could Boris Johnson face criminal charges for illegally proroguing Parliament?
The answer is a girl's name (my future granddaughter) - can anyone help?
Magento 2 Country Name not get translated when using countryFactory
Are there types of animals that can't make the trip to space? (physiologically)
Is there an in-universe explanation of how Frodo's arrival in Valinor was recorded in the Red Book?
Why does the Pilatus PC-24 have such a large "Wing Support"?
Does the US Armed Forces refuse to recruit anyone with an IQ less than 83?
PhD Length: are shorter PhD degrees (from different countries) valued differently in other counter countries where PhD Is a longer process?
Why does it seem the best way to make a living is to invest in real estate?
As a team leader is it appropriate to bring in fundraiser candy?
How important is knowledge of trig identities for use in Calculus
What are one's options when facing religious discrimination at the airport?
What does a textbook look like while you are writing it?
How do we know Nemesis is not a black hole (or neutron star)?
Where does the image of a data connector as a sharp metal spike originate from?
How to protect bash function from being overridden?
Rank-one positive decomposition for a entry-wise positive positive definite matrix
Lighthouse Alternatives
Has Boris Johnson ever referred to any of his opponents as “traitors”?
Has one vote ever made a difference?Has Obama or any other US President authorized the assassination of US citizens?Politicians claim there have been big “cuts” to education, has this ever occurred?Did Fidel Castro ever make this prediction?Has Stephen Bannon ever used the word “nigger” publicly?Did Fethullah Gülen “publicly boasted about his “soldiers” waiting for his orders to do whatever he directs them to do”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
Yesterday Paula Sherriff said (quote from Hansard, emphasis mine):
We stand here, Mr Speaker, under the shield of our departed friend. Many of us in this place are subject to death threats and abuse every single day. Let me tell the Prime Minister that they often quote his words—surrender Act, betrayal, traitor—and I, for one, am sick of it. We must moderate our language, and that has to come from the Prime Minister first, so I should be interested in hearing his opinion. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. [Applause.]
Boris Johnson has indeed referred to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 as the "surrender Act", and for all I know he has referred to some policy or position as being a "betrayal" (as is commonly done in politics, and unremarkable). But Sherriff's claim - made in the context of Boris's rhetoric supposedly inciting abuse against MPs - notably includes only one example of an epithet directed at an individual - the word "traitor".
Yesterday's Hansard transcript certainly contains no instance of any politician referring to another as a "traitor"; the only uses of the word are by MPs talking about how bad it is for people to be called traitors. Boris perhaps meant to deny the claim that he had used such language (though his precise meaning was unclear) by responding that it was "humbug". And, according to the Guardian, conservative MP James Cleverly explicitly denies the claim:
But the Conservative party chair, James Cleverly, defended Johnson’s comments to MPs in the Commons. He denied that the PM called opposition MPs “traitors”.
“The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair,” Cleverly said. “He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that.”
Has Boris Johnson ever referred to any of his opponents, whether individually or collectively, as a "traitor" or "traitors"? Or is this a fabrication of Paula Sherriff's?
politics
asked 8 hours ago
Mark AmeryMark Amery
3443 silver badges11 bronze badges
add a comment
|
Yesterday Paula Sherriff said (quote from Hansard, emphasis mine):
We stand here, Mr Speaker, under the shield of our departed friend. Many of us in this place are subject to death threats and abuse every single day. Let me tell the Prime Minister that they often quote his words—surrender Act, betrayal, traitor—and I, for one, am sick of it. We must moderate our language, and that has to come from the Prime Minister first, so I should be interested in hearing his opinion. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. [Applause.]
Boris Johnson has indeed referred to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 as the "surrender Act", and for all I know he has referred to some policy or position as being a "betrayal" (as is commonly done in politics, and unremarkable). But Sherriff's claim - made in the context of Boris's rhetoric supposedly inciting abuse against MPs - notably includes only one example of an epithet directed at an individual - the word "traitor".
Yesterday's Hansard transcript certainly contains no instance of any politician referring to another as a "traitor"; the only uses of the word are by MPs talking about how bad it is for people to be called traitors. Boris perhaps meant to deny the claim that he had used such language (though his precise meaning was unclear) by responding that it was "humbug". And, according to the Guardian, conservative MP James Cleverly explicitly denies the claim:
But the Conservative party chair, James Cleverly, defended Johnson’s comments to MPs in the Commons. He denied that the PM called opposition MPs “traitors”.
“The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair,” Cleverly said. “He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that.”
Has Boris Johnson ever referred to any of his opponents, whether individually or collectively, as a "traitor" or "traitors"? Or is this a fabrication of Paula Sherriff's?
politics
asked 8 hours ago
Mark AmeryMark Amery
3443 silver badges11 bronze badges
He uses the language of the far right, such as "betrayal" and "surrender". I think she just meant that he uses the language of the kind of extremists who murdered Jo Cox.
– dont_shog_me_bro
5 hours ago
@dont_shog_me_bro Far right extremists like... The Guardian, perhaps? Referring to political positions as "betrayals" of some group or value is perfectly ordinary political rhetoric, that has been used by all sorts of political factions for as long as I've been alive, and which prominent Remainers also use. That's why I focussed on the only word listed that was actually an epithet.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
Yesterday Paula Sherriff said (quote from Hansard, emphasis mine):
We stand here, Mr Speaker, under the shield of our departed friend. Many of us in this place are subject to death threats and abuse every single day. Let me tell the Prime Minister that they often quote his words—surrender Act, betrayal, traitor—and I, for one, am sick of it. We must moderate our language, and that has to come from the Prime Minister first, so I should be interested in hearing his opinion. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. [Applause.]
Boris Johnson has indeed referred to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 as the "surrender Act", and for all I know he has referred to some policy or position as being a "betrayal" (as is commonly done in politics, and unremarkable). But Sherriff's claim - made in the context of Boris's rhetoric supposedly inciting abuse against MPs - notably includes only one example of an epithet directed at an individual - the word "traitor".
Yesterday's Hansard transcript certainly contains no instance of any politician referring to another as a "traitor"; the only uses of the word are by MPs talking about how bad it is for people to be called traitors. Boris perhaps meant to deny the claim that he had used such language (though his precise meaning was unclear) by responding that it was "humbug". And, according to the Guardian, conservative MP James Cleverly explicitly denies the claim:
But the Conservative party chair, James Cleverly, defended Johnson’s comments to MPs in the Commons. He denied that the PM called opposition MPs “traitors”.
“The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair,” Cleverly said. “He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that.”
Has Boris Johnson ever referred to any of his opponents, whether individually or collectively, as a "traitor" or "traitors"? Or is this a fabrication of Paula Sherriff's?
politics
asked 8 hours ago
Mark AmeryMark Amery
3443 silver badges11 bronze badges
Yesterday Paula Sherriff said (quote from Hansard, emphasis mine):
We stand here, Mr Speaker, under the shield of our departed friend. Many of us in this place are subject to death threats and abuse every single day. Let me tell the Prime Minister that they often quote his words—surrender Act, betrayal, traitor—and I, for one, am sick of it. We must moderate our language, and that has to come from the Prime Minister first, so I should be interested in hearing his opinion. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. [Applause.]
Boris Johnson has indeed referred to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 as the "surrender Act", and for all I know he has referred to some policy or position as being a "betrayal" (as is commonly done in politics, and unremarkable). But Sherriff's claim - made in the context of Boris's rhetoric supposedly inciting abuse against MPs - notably includes only one example of an epithet directed at an individual - the word "traitor".
Yesterday's Hansard transcript certainly contains no instance of any politician referring to another as a "traitor"; the only uses of the word are by MPs talking about how bad it is for people to be called traitors. Boris perhaps meant to deny the claim that he had used such language (though his precise meaning was unclear) by responding that it was "humbug". And, according to the Guardian, conservative MP James Cleverly explicitly denies the claim:
But the Conservative party chair, James Cleverly, defended Johnson’s comments to MPs in the Commons. He denied that the PM called opposition MPs “traitors”.
“The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair,” Cleverly said. “He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that.”
Has Boris Johnson ever referred to any of his opponents, whether individually or collectively, as a "traitor" or "traitors"? Or is this a fabrication of Paula Sherriff's?
politics
politics
asked 8 hours ago
Mark AmeryMark Amery
3443 silver badges11 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Mark AmeryMark Amery
3443 silver badges11 bronze badges
edited 6 hours ago
Mark Amery
asked 8 hours ago
Mark AmeryMark Amery
3443 silver badges11 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Mark AmeryMark Amery
3443 silver badges11 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Mark AmeryMark Amery
3443 silver badges11 bronze badges
3443 silver badges11 bronze badges
He uses the language of the far right, such as "betrayal" and "surrender". I think she just meant that he uses the language of the kind of extremists who murdered Jo Cox.
– dont_shog_me_bro
5 hours ago
@dont_shog_me_bro Far right extremists like... The Guardian, perhaps? Referring to political positions as "betrayals" of some group or value is perfectly ordinary political rhetoric, that has been used by all sorts of political factions for as long as I've been alive, and which prominent Remainers also use. That's why I focussed on the only word listed that was actually an epithet.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
He uses the language of the far right, such as "betrayal" and "surrender". I think she just meant that he uses the language of the kind of extremists who murdered Jo Cox.
– dont_shog_me_bro
5 hours ago
@dont_shog_me_bro Far right extremists like... The Guardian, perhaps? Referring to political positions as "betrayals" of some group or value is perfectly ordinary political rhetoric, that has been used by all sorts of political factions for as long as I've been alive, and which prominent Remainers also use. That's why I focussed on the only word listed that was actually an epithet.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
He uses the language of the far right, such as "betrayal" and "surrender". I think she just meant that he uses the language of the kind of extremists who murdered Jo Cox.
– dont_shog_me_bro
5 hours ago
He uses the language of the far right, such as "betrayal" and "surrender". I think she just meant that he uses the language of the kind of extremists who murdered Jo Cox.
– dont_shog_me_bro
5 hours ago
@dont_shog_me_bro Far right extremists like... The Guardian, perhaps? Referring to political positions as "betrayals" of some group or value is perfectly ordinary political rhetoric, that has been used by all sorts of political factions for as long as I've been alive, and which prominent Remainers also use. That's why I focussed on the only word listed that was actually an epithet.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
@dont_shog_me_bro Far right extremists like... The Guardian, perhaps? Referring to political positions as "betrayals" of some group or value is perfectly ordinary political rhetoric, that has been used by all sorts of political factions for as long as I've been alive, and which prominent Remainers also use. That's why I focussed on the only word listed that was actually an epithet.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
"Guilty of betrayal", which at least implies the person so accused being a traitor.
YouTube:
I know that my right honorable fried will appreciate that in deciding to remain in the customs union, the leader of the opposition is guilty of a shameless u-turn and a betrayal of millions of people who voted 'leave'.
Wanting to "betray the people" (also "selfish", and being "cowards").
YouTube:
Out of sheer selfishness and political cowardice, members opposite are unwilling to move aside and give the people a say. We will not betray the people who sent us here. That is what they want to do.
I was not able to find a direct quote using the word traitor explicitly, but then, all I had was a couple of sessions I watched live and what search engines served up.
Looking at how the threats on opposition do "quote his words -- 'Surrender Act', 'betrayal', 'traitor'", I'd say the statement is two-point-x out of three correct, because he has used the first two (repeatedly), and at least implied the third.
Let's have a look at that "denial" by James Cleverly in turn:
The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair. He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that.
Johnson has used the term "Surrender Act" (a position that was affirmed again today), he has called the actions of the opposition a betrayal, and at least implied the term traitor. Many of his followers have used that word (and worse) publicly, and at the very least Johnson is utterly unapologetic about any of it ("never heard such humbug").
Calling accusations of him escalating the language used in and about parliament "deeply unfair" because he might not have used one of those three words explicitly is a bit rich.
answered 5 hours ago
DevSolarDevSolar
13.8k5 gold badges52 silver badges58 bronze badges
-1 because this doesn't answer the question so much as shrug and say that whether the claim is true or not doesn't matter in the bigger picture. That's a defensible opinion (albeit not one I share), but not an answer to the question I asked.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
4
@MarkAmery: As with many other questions asked here on Skeptics.SE, I disagree with the framing of the question. If I just said, "there is no proof that he did call anyone 'traitor'", I would implicitly acknowledge Mr. Cleverly's position that the accusations "were deeply unfair", which I absolutely do not think they are. You might be looking for that, but you won't get it from me. I admitted there's no (easily locatable) proof that he used the word 'traitor', I gave live video links to occasions where he did use the term "betrayal", and framed a different context than your question.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
@MarkAmery: Or, to put it differently -- "I could not find proof that he used that term explicitly." You know as much yourself, because I am sure you did your own research before posting here. But you, I, Mr. Cleverly, and future readers of this question each might draw their own conclusions from it, as you are well aware. If you were looking for just that one fact, not the conclusions, you wouldn't have added those conclusions to your question, would you?
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
I - like Mr. Cleverly - don't care that Johnson described a political position as a "betrayal"; that is ordinary rhetoric, also used by Remainers to describe Brexiteer positions, and widely used in politics long before Brexit. Whether "one of those three" terms wasn't used makes a great deal of difference when it's the only one that has any bearing on Sherriff's argument. I could just as well claim that Sheriff said Boris "must moderate his language", "should be absolutely ashamed" and "should be publicly lynched" and be two thirds correct, but the incorrect third makes rather a difference.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
@MarkAmery: As I said, I very much disagree with your framing of the question. -1 accepted. We don' have to discuss this further.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
"Guilty of betrayal", which at least implies the person so accused being a traitor.
YouTube:
I know that my right honorable fried will appreciate that in deciding to remain in the customs union, the leader of the opposition is guilty of a shameless u-turn and a betrayal of millions of people who voted 'leave'.
Wanting to "betray the people" (also "selfish", and being "cowards").
YouTube:
Out of sheer selfishness and political cowardice, members opposite are unwilling to move aside and give the people a say. We will not betray the people who sent us here. That is what they want to do.
I was not able to find a direct quote using the word traitor explicitly, but then, all I had was a couple of sessions I watched live and what search engines served up.
Looking at how the threats on opposition do "quote his words -- 'Surrender Act', 'betrayal', 'traitor'", I'd say the statement is two-point-x out of three correct, because he has used the first two (repeatedly), and at least implied the third.
Let's have a look at that "denial" by James Cleverly in turn:
The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair. He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that.
Johnson has used the term "Surrender Act" (a position that was affirmed again today), he has called the actions of the opposition a betrayal, and at least implied the term traitor. Many of his followers have used that word (and worse) publicly, and at the very least Johnson is utterly unapologetic about any of it ("never heard such humbug").
Calling accusations of him escalating the language used in and about parliament "deeply unfair" because he might not have used one of those three words explicitly is a bit rich.
answered 5 hours ago
DevSolarDevSolar
13.8k5 gold badges52 silver badges58 bronze badges
-1 because this doesn't answer the question so much as shrug and say that whether the claim is true or not doesn't matter in the bigger picture. That's a defensible opinion (albeit not one I share), but not an answer to the question I asked.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
4
@MarkAmery: As with many other questions asked here on Skeptics.SE, I disagree with the framing of the question. If I just said, "there is no proof that he did call anyone 'traitor'", I would implicitly acknowledge Mr. Cleverly's position that the accusations "were deeply unfair", which I absolutely do not think they are. You might be looking for that, but you won't get it from me. I admitted there's no (easily locatable) proof that he used the word 'traitor', I gave live video links to occasions where he did use the term "betrayal", and framed a different context than your question.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
@MarkAmery: Or, to put it differently -- "I could not find proof that he used that term explicitly." You know as much yourself, because I am sure you did your own research before posting here. But you, I, Mr. Cleverly, and future readers of this question each might draw their own conclusions from it, as you are well aware. If you were looking for just that one fact, not the conclusions, you wouldn't have added those conclusions to your question, would you?
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
I - like Mr. Cleverly - don't care that Johnson described a political position as a "betrayal"; that is ordinary rhetoric, also used by Remainers to describe Brexiteer positions, and widely used in politics long before Brexit. Whether "one of those three" terms wasn't used makes a great deal of difference when it's the only one that has any bearing on Sherriff's argument. I could just as well claim that Sheriff said Boris "must moderate his language", "should be absolutely ashamed" and "should be publicly lynched" and be two thirds correct, but the incorrect third makes rather a difference.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
@MarkAmery: As I said, I very much disagree with your framing of the question. -1 accepted. We don' have to discuss this further.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
"Guilty of betrayal", which at least implies the person so accused being a traitor.
YouTube:
I know that my right honorable fried will appreciate that in deciding to remain in the customs union, the leader of the opposition is guilty of a shameless u-turn and a betrayal of millions of people who voted 'leave'.
Wanting to "betray the people" (also "selfish", and being "cowards").
YouTube:
Out of sheer selfishness and political cowardice, members opposite are unwilling to move aside and give the people a say. We will not betray the people who sent us here. That is what they want to do.
I was not able to find a direct quote using the word traitor explicitly, but then, all I had was a couple of sessions I watched live and what search engines served up.
Looking at how the threats on opposition do "quote his words -- 'Surrender Act', 'betrayal', 'traitor'", I'd say the statement is two-point-x out of three correct, because he has used the first two (repeatedly), and at least implied the third.
Let's have a look at that "denial" by James Cleverly in turn:
The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair. He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that.
Johnson has used the term "Surrender Act" (a position that was affirmed again today), he has called the actions of the opposition a betrayal, and at least implied the term traitor. Many of his followers have used that word (and worse) publicly, and at the very least Johnson is utterly unapologetic about any of it ("never heard such humbug").
Calling accusations of him escalating the language used in and about parliament "deeply unfair" because he might not have used one of those three words explicitly is a bit rich.
answered 5 hours ago
DevSolarDevSolar
13.8k5 gold badges52 silver badges58 bronze badges
-1 because this doesn't answer the question so much as shrug and say that whether the claim is true or not doesn't matter in the bigger picture. That's a defensible opinion (albeit not one I share), but not an answer to the question I asked.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
4
@MarkAmery: As with many other questions asked here on Skeptics.SE, I disagree with the framing of the question. If I just said, "there is no proof that he did call anyone 'traitor'", I would implicitly acknowledge Mr. Cleverly's position that the accusations "were deeply unfair", which I absolutely do not think they are. You might be looking for that, but you won't get it from me. I admitted there's no (easily locatable) proof that he used the word 'traitor', I gave live video links to occasions where he did use the term "betrayal", and framed a different context than your question.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
@MarkAmery: Or, to put it differently -- "I could not find proof that he used that term explicitly." You know as much yourself, because I am sure you did your own research before posting here. But you, I, Mr. Cleverly, and future readers of this question each might draw their own conclusions from it, as you are well aware. If you were looking for just that one fact, not the conclusions, you wouldn't have added those conclusions to your question, would you?
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
I - like Mr. Cleverly - don't care that Johnson described a political position as a "betrayal"; that is ordinary rhetoric, also used by Remainers to describe Brexiteer positions, and widely used in politics long before Brexit. Whether "one of those three" terms wasn't used makes a great deal of difference when it's the only one that has any bearing on Sherriff's argument. I could just as well claim that Sheriff said Boris "must moderate his language", "should be absolutely ashamed" and "should be publicly lynched" and be two thirds correct, but the incorrect third makes rather a difference.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
@MarkAmery: As I said, I very much disagree with your framing of the question. -1 accepted. We don' have to discuss this further.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
"Guilty of betrayal", which at least implies the person so accused being a traitor.
YouTube:
I know that my right honorable fried will appreciate that in deciding to remain in the customs union, the leader of the opposition is guilty of a shameless u-turn and a betrayal of millions of people who voted 'leave'.
Wanting to "betray the people" (also "selfish", and being "cowards").
YouTube:
Out of sheer selfishness and political cowardice, members opposite are unwilling to move aside and give the people a say. We will not betray the people who sent us here. That is what they want to do.
I was not able to find a direct quote using the word traitor explicitly, but then, all I had was a couple of sessions I watched live and what search engines served up.
Looking at how the threats on opposition do "quote his words -- 'Surrender Act', 'betrayal', 'traitor'", I'd say the statement is two-point-x out of three correct, because he has used the first two (repeatedly), and at least implied the third.
Let's have a look at that "denial" by James Cleverly in turn:
The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair. He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that.
Johnson has used the term "Surrender Act" (a position that was affirmed again today), he has called the actions of the opposition a betrayal, and at least implied the term traitor. Many of his followers have used that word (and worse) publicly, and at the very least Johnson is utterly unapologetic about any of it ("never heard such humbug").
Calling accusations of him escalating the language used in and about parliament "deeply unfair" because he might not have used one of those three words explicitly is a bit rich.
answered 5 hours ago
DevSolarDevSolar
13.8k5 gold badges52 silver badges58 bronze badges
"Guilty of betrayal", which at least implies the person so accused being a traitor.
YouTube:
I know that my right honorable fried will appreciate that in deciding to remain in the customs union, the leader of the opposition is guilty of a shameless u-turn and a betrayal of millions of people who voted 'leave'.
Wanting to "betray the people" (also "selfish", and being "cowards").
YouTube:
Out of sheer selfishness and political cowardice, members opposite are unwilling to move aside and give the people a say. We will not betray the people who sent us here. That is what they want to do.
I was not able to find a direct quote using the word traitor explicitly, but then, all I had was a couple of sessions I watched live and what search engines served up.
Looking at how the threats on opposition do "quote his words -- 'Surrender Act', 'betrayal', 'traitor'", I'd say the statement is two-point-x out of three correct, because he has used the first two (repeatedly), and at least implied the third.
Let's have a look at that "denial" by James Cleverly in turn:
The accusations thrown at him yesterday were deeply unfair. He was accused of calling people traitors – he has never done that.
Johnson has used the term "Surrender Act" (a position that was affirmed again today), he has called the actions of the opposition a betrayal, and at least implied the term traitor. Many of his followers have used that word (and worse) publicly, and at the very least Johnson is utterly unapologetic about any of it ("never heard such humbug").
Calling accusations of him escalating the language used in and about parliament "deeply unfair" because he might not have used one of those three words explicitly is a bit rich.
answered 5 hours ago
DevSolarDevSolar
13.8k5 gold badges52 silver badges58 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
DevSolarDevSolar
13.8k5 gold badges52 silver badges58 bronze badges
answered 5 hours ago
DevSolarDevSolar
13.8k5 gold badges52 silver badges58 bronze badges
answered 5 hours ago
DevSolarDevSolar
13.8k5 gold badges52 silver badges58 bronze badges
13.8k5 gold badges52 silver badges58 bronze badges
-1 because this doesn't answer the question so much as shrug and say that whether the claim is true or not doesn't matter in the bigger picture. That's a defensible opinion (albeit not one I share), but not an answer to the question I asked.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
4
@MarkAmery: As with many other questions asked here on Skeptics.SE, I disagree with the framing of the question. If I just said, "there is no proof that he did call anyone 'traitor'", I would implicitly acknowledge Mr. Cleverly's position that the accusations "were deeply unfair", which I absolutely do not think they are. You might be looking for that, but you won't get it from me. I admitted there's no (easily locatable) proof that he used the word 'traitor', I gave live video links to occasions where he did use the term "betrayal", and framed a different context than your question.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
@MarkAmery: Or, to put it differently -- "I could not find proof that he used that term explicitly." You know as much yourself, because I am sure you did your own research before posting here. But you, I, Mr. Cleverly, and future readers of this question each might draw their own conclusions from it, as you are well aware. If you were looking for just that one fact, not the conclusions, you wouldn't have added those conclusions to your question, would you?
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
I - like Mr. Cleverly - don't care that Johnson described a political position as a "betrayal"; that is ordinary rhetoric, also used by Remainers to describe Brexiteer positions, and widely used in politics long before Brexit. Whether "one of those three" terms wasn't used makes a great deal of difference when it's the only one that has any bearing on Sherriff's argument. I could just as well claim that Sheriff said Boris "must moderate his language", "should be absolutely ashamed" and "should be publicly lynched" and be two thirds correct, but the incorrect third makes rather a difference.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
@MarkAmery: As I said, I very much disagree with your framing of the question. -1 accepted. We don' have to discuss this further.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
-1 because this doesn't answer the question so much as shrug and say that whether the claim is true or not doesn't matter in the bigger picture. That's a defensible opinion (albeit not one I share), but not an answer to the question I asked.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
4
@MarkAmery: As with many other questions asked here on Skeptics.SE, I disagree with the framing of the question. If I just said, "there is no proof that he did call anyone 'traitor'", I would implicitly acknowledge Mr. Cleverly's position that the accusations "were deeply unfair", which I absolutely do not think they are. You might be looking for that, but you won't get it from me. I admitted there's no (easily locatable) proof that he used the word 'traitor', I gave live video links to occasions where he did use the term "betrayal", and framed a different context than your question.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
@MarkAmery: Or, to put it differently -- "I could not find proof that he used that term explicitly." You know as much yourself, because I am sure you did your own research before posting here. But you, I, Mr. Cleverly, and future readers of this question each might draw their own conclusions from it, as you are well aware. If you were looking for just that one fact, not the conclusions, you wouldn't have added those conclusions to your question, would you?
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
I - like Mr. Cleverly - don't care that Johnson described a political position as a "betrayal"; that is ordinary rhetoric, also used by Remainers to describe Brexiteer positions, and widely used in politics long before Brexit. Whether "one of those three" terms wasn't used makes a great deal of difference when it's the only one that has any bearing on Sherriff's argument. I could just as well claim that Sheriff said Boris "must moderate his language", "should be absolutely ashamed" and "should be publicly lynched" and be two thirds correct, but the incorrect third makes rather a difference.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
@MarkAmery: As I said, I very much disagree with your framing of the question. -1 accepted. We don' have to discuss this further.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
-1 because this doesn't answer the question so much as shrug and say that whether the claim is true or not doesn't matter in the bigger picture. That's a defensible opinion (albeit not one I share), but not an answer to the question I asked.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
-1 because this doesn't answer the question so much as shrug and say that whether the claim is true or not doesn't matter in the bigger picture. That's a defensible opinion (albeit not one I share), but not an answer to the question I asked.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
4
4
@MarkAmery: As with many other questions asked here on Skeptics.SE, I disagree with the framing of the question. If I just said, "there is no proof that he did call anyone 'traitor'", I would implicitly acknowledge Mr. Cleverly's position that the accusations "were deeply unfair", which I absolutely do not think they are. You might be looking for that, but you won't get it from me. I admitted there's no (easily locatable) proof that he used the word 'traitor', I gave live video links to occasions where he did use the term "betrayal", and framed a different context than your question.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
@MarkAmery: As with many other questions asked here on Skeptics.SE, I disagree with the framing of the question. If I just said, "there is no proof that he did call anyone 'traitor'", I would implicitly acknowledge Mr. Cleverly's position that the accusations "were deeply unfair", which I absolutely do not think they are. You might be looking for that, but you won't get it from me. I admitted there's no (easily locatable) proof that he used the word 'traitor', I gave live video links to occasions where he did use the term "betrayal", and framed a different context than your question.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
1
@MarkAmery: Or, to put it differently -- "I could not find proof that he used that term explicitly." You know as much yourself, because I am sure you did your own research before posting here. But you, I, Mr. Cleverly, and future readers of this question each might draw their own conclusions from it, as you are well aware. If you were looking for just that one fact, not the conclusions, you wouldn't have added those conclusions to your question, would you?
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
@MarkAmery: Or, to put it differently -- "I could not find proof that he used that term explicitly." You know as much yourself, because I am sure you did your own research before posting here. But you, I, Mr. Cleverly, and future readers of this question each might draw their own conclusions from it, as you are well aware. If you were looking for just that one fact, not the conclusions, you wouldn't have added those conclusions to your question, would you?
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
1
1
I - like Mr. Cleverly - don't care that Johnson described a political position as a "betrayal"; that is ordinary rhetoric, also used by Remainers to describe Brexiteer positions, and widely used in politics long before Brexit. Whether "one of those three" terms wasn't used makes a great deal of difference when it's the only one that has any bearing on Sherriff's argument. I could just as well claim that Sheriff said Boris "must moderate his language", "should be absolutely ashamed" and "should be publicly lynched" and be two thirds correct, but the incorrect third makes rather a difference.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
I - like Mr. Cleverly - don't care that Johnson described a political position as a "betrayal"; that is ordinary rhetoric, also used by Remainers to describe Brexiteer positions, and widely used in politics long before Brexit. Whether "one of those three" terms wasn't used makes a great deal of difference when it's the only one that has any bearing on Sherriff's argument. I could just as well claim that Sheriff said Boris "must moderate his language", "should be absolutely ashamed" and "should be publicly lynched" and be two thirds correct, but the incorrect third makes rather a difference.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago
@MarkAmery: As I said, I very much disagree with your framing of the question. -1 accepted. We don' have to discuss this further.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
@MarkAmery: As I said, I very much disagree with your framing of the question. -1 accepted. We don' have to discuss this further.
– DevSolar
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
He uses the language of the far right, such as "betrayal" and "surrender". I think she just meant that he uses the language of the kind of extremists who murdered Jo Cox.
– dont_shog_me_bro
5 hours ago
@dont_shog_me_bro Far right extremists like... The Guardian, perhaps? Referring to political positions as "betrayals" of some group or value is perfectly ordinary political rhetoric, that has been used by all sorts of political factions for as long as I've been alive, and which prominent Remainers also use. That's why I focussed on the only word listed that was actually an epithet.
– Mark Amery
5 hours ago