More Johnson

[Deptford Draylons]

Would it be a big deal if Philip Hammond was foreign secretary ? No.
Is it a bigger deal because its Boris ? Yes.
Has the story got people trying to get Boris's scalp with a rather fake sudden over interest in dignity of the office of foreign secretary ? Yes.
Does it look a bit on the desperate side when its taking into account the comments are on one of the sickest bunch of fks on the planet ? Yes.

[Sylvaforever]

Derek Smith said:

Sylvaforever said:

Totally disagree Derek, you're letting your Remainer-ism cloud your judgement, as usual, these days.

That's it. Don't argue the point, just attack the poster. Jesus: can't you leave it alone?

Pathetic.

Derek, I'm sorry if I have upset you, however the whole tone if your postings have changed, it really no longer seems to be the Derek of old.

[don4l]

Derek Smith said:

Whether we should deal with the Saudis is open to argument. However, is there anyone of any intelligence who doesn't know what the Saudis are doing in the middle east?

The Saudis are exporting Islamic extremism.

We should have nothing to do with them.

[s2art]

don4l said:

The Saudis are exporting Islamic extremism.

We should have nothing to do with them.

Got to disagree. We need to be tight in there, getting as much intel as we can. Not to mention selling them billions of pounds worth of arms. (would you prefer they bought from Putin?)

[don4l]

s2art said:

don4l said:

The Saudis are exporting Islamic extremism.

We should have nothing to do with them.

Got to disagree. We need to be tight in there, getting as much intel as we can. Not to mention selling them billions of pounds worth of arms. (would you prefer they bought from Putin?)

I agree that it would not be good if they bought their military aircraft from Russia.

However, would they be in a position to buy any aircraft at all if the west didn't buy their oil?

Russia has no need to import oil.

[ATG]

Sylvaforever said:

Totally disagree Derek, you're letting your Remainer-ism cloud your judgement, as usual, these days.

Play the ball, not the man. If you can, of course.

[stitched]

Derek Smith said:

stitched said:

Not sure I get you here Derek.
Politician tells it like he sees it, and a lot of us agree with his sentiments. = bad.
Politician lies throough his back teeth and misrepresents the facts to people he is supposed to represent. = good.
I'm not sure yet whether Boris is a buffoon or an extremely clever man but to castigate him for delivering an honest opinion, really?

This is not a question of telling lies or of honest opinion. Of course it isn't.

He is the foreign secretary and in the cabinet. This means that he has a specific job to do and spouting off, which is all he did, in a manner that is likely to make his colleagues' work more difficult is not what the job entails. Further, he did so when his prime minister was talking to the Saudis in order to get a trade deal. His timing was about as bad as it could be, unless of course . . . see later.

We need trade deals. Whether we need to sell arms to what is essentially an outlaw state is something that he, like many others, might disagree with. However, if he does and wants to spout off, he can't be part of the cabinet and do so.

His needs and desires are secondary to those of the country and if he feels that this trade deal is not in our best interests, then he needs to convince May.

However, he might have well timed his outburst to perfection if, as is possible, he is after replacing May when she goes. If so then this is close to treachery. He should not put his needs against those of the UK.

Whether we should deal with the Saudis is open to argument. However, is there anyone of any intelligence who doesn't know what the Saudis are doing in the middle east?

Why did he do it? I hope he had no specific reason and it was just a another of his normal silly errors. If it was deliberate, then it certainly wasn't to inform the public. It will be selfish.

I think the important part in that is the question of whether he is an idiot or not.
I don't believe he is and hope he is not but regardless I'll never castigate someone for stating an unpleasant truth.

[stitched]

ATG said:

Sylvaforever said:

Totally disagree Derek, you're letting your Remainer-ism cloud your judgement, as usual, these days.

Play the ball, not the man. If you can, of course.

Agree completely, Dereks name next to a post has always led me to read it carefully, that won't change.

[Gandahar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38281143

Boris is completely correct of course and the only reason he's got censure is because we have sucked up to this backward and despotic regime for too long due to financial reasons and are still doing it.

Meanwhile the equally despotic regime in Iran gets a hammering.

They are the same but on other sides, not sure why after all these years we still pander to one and slam the other when both need to encouraged to sort the issues out. Such as in Northern Ireland.

UK foreign policy in the Middle East still seams to be out of touch and archaic

Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 11th December 15:01

[Gandahar]

Derek Smith said:

stitched said:

Not sure I get you here Derek.
Politician tells it like he sees it, and a lot of us agree with his sentiments. = bad.
Politician lies throough his back teeth and misrepresents the facts to people he is supposed to represent. = good.
I'm not sure yet whether Boris is a buffoon or an extremely clever man but to castigate him for delivering an honest opinion, really?

This is not a question of telling lies or of honest opinion. Of course it isn't.

He is the foreign secretary and in the cabinet. This means that he has a specific job to do and spouting off, which is all he did, in a manner that is likely to make his colleagues' work more difficult is not what the job entails. Further, he did so when his prime minister was talking to the Saudis in order to get a trade deal. His timing was about as bad as it could be, unless of course . . . see later.

We need trade deals. Whether we need to sell arms to what is essentially an outlaw state is something that he, like many others, might disagree with. However, if he does and wants to spout off, he can't be part of the cabinet and do so.

His needs and desires are secondary to those of the country and if he feels that this trade deal is not in our best interests, then he needs to convince May.

However, he might have well timed his outburst to perfection if, as is possible, he is after replacing May when she goes. If so then this is close to treachery. He should not put his needs against those of the UK.

Whether we should deal with the Saudis is open to argument. However, is there anyone of any intelligence who doesn't know what the Saudis are doing in the middle east?

Why did he do it? I hope he had no specific reason and it was just a another of his normal silly errors. If it was deliberate, then it certainly wasn't to inform the public. It will be selfish.

Derek, sometimes morals need to be put above pure money. As an example look at BAE deals with Saudia Arabia, not many morals there?

Perhaps we need a 21st C approach to this region rather than 1980. It may cost us a bob or two, but then so will Brexit.

[Sylvaforever]

stitched said:

ATG said:

Sylvaforever said:

Totally disagree Derek, you're letting your Remainer-ism cloud your judgement, as usual, these days.

Play the ball, not the man. If you can, of course.

Agree completely, Dereks name next to a post has always led me to read it carefully, that won't change.

Unfortunately the song remains the same.

Many on here lambasted Dereks book, but I found it interesting and insightful to a past the MET would rather bury.

I presume you have also purchased and read it?

[Derek Smith]

Gandahar said:

Derek, sometimes morals need to be put above pure money. As an example look at BAE deals with Saudia Arabia, not many morals there?

Perhaps we need a 21st C approach to this region rather than 1980. It may cost us a bob or two, but then so will Brexit.

Are you suggesting that Johnson's outburst was deliberate and for moral reasons?

If you are suggesting that we should not deal with SA because they are a corrupt nation then that is an entirely different argument to our foreign sec pointlessly criticising a country that his PM is visiting at the time and he is to visit a little later.

If it is the latter then what should do about China (other countries ignoring basic human rights are available)?

It has been suggested that SA is our biggest market for weapons. Is it worth the loss of jobs, money and, let's face it, markets to make a point? If we don't sell then other countries will. It is not an easy question. Further, on a news channel one apologist government spokesperson reckoned that we do earn a modifying voice by working with them. I'm not sure we do, but isolation is not the answer as it is likely to backfire and we end up isolated.

What I'm really saying is that I can't decide.

I went to an arms fair in Brighton, some 25 years ago now. There was a cgi video, hopelessly crude now of course, but beautifully completed then. It showed a weapon being dropped from a Jet Provost, not specific to that plane, just demonstrating that even trainers were sufficient. The Provost did two passes on what was an imitation of a city street. The salesman proudly stated that after two passes he could guarantee a practically 100% casualty rate for anyone in the street.

The demonstrators outside were classified as the great unwashed. What did they know?

Conflicted of Burgess Hill

[Derek Smith]

Sylvaforever said:

Derek, I'm sorry if I have upset you, however the whole tone if your postings have changed, it really no longer seems to be the Derek of old.

It's the continual harping about brexit that has probably changed my tone. The referendum is over, gone. I have, to use the phrase I used earlier, moved on. Yesterday my rugby team was beaten in a match we could have won and needed to win. Yet 40 mins after the final whistle the teams had mixed and they were chatting to one another.

I criticised Johnson before the referendum, his duplicity during the campaign only reinforcing my opinion of him.

Bringing up that I voted remain on threads that are hardly relevant as a seeming trump card irritates. It ruins discussions as well because the 'accusation' is unanswerable because it has nothing to do with the argument.

Thanks for the apology. I overreacted to you playing the man.

[johnfm]

Derek Smith said:

stitched said:

Not sure I get you here Derek.
Politician tells it like he sees it, and a lot of us agree with his sentiments. = bad.
Politician lies throough his back teeth and misrepresents the facts to people he is supposed to represent. = good.
I'm not sure yet whether Boris is a buffoon or an extremely clever man but to castigate him for delivering an honest opinion, really?

This is not a question of telling lies or of honest opinion. Of course it isn't.

He is the foreign secretary and in the cabinet. This means that he has a specific job to do and spouting off, which is all he did, in a manner that is likely to make his colleagues' work more difficult is not what the job entails. Further, he did so when his prime minister was talking to the Saudis in order to get a trade deal. His timing was about as bad as it could be, unless of course . . . see later.

We need trade deals. Whether we need to sell arms to what is essentially an outlaw state is something that he, like many others, might disagree with. However, if he does and wants to spout off, he can't be part of the cabinet and do so.

His needs and desires are secondary to those of the country and if he feels that this trade deal is not in our best interests, then he needs to convince May.

However, he might have well timed his outburst to perfection if, as is possible, he is after replacing May when she goes. If so then this is close to treachery. He should not put his needs against those of the UK.

Whether we should deal with the Saudis is open to argument. However, is there anyone of any intelligence who doesn't know what the Saudis are doing in the middle east?

Why did he do it? I hope he had no specific reason and it was just a another of his normal silly errors. If it was deliberate, then it certainly wasn't to inform the public. It will be selfish.

Spout off?

Have you even seen the video of the event? That is not spouting anything.

Your analysis and observations are clouded by your political bias.

[Thorodin]

What a diversion from reality. The Saudis are no more appeased by the obviously phoney over-friendly obsequiousness of some politicians than they are offended by Johnson's remarks. Despots that treat citizens like the Saudi rulers do couldn't give a fig for the creepy overtures and are hardly likely to take offence at what the For. Sec. said. They are fully aware of their image across the world. The latest word re-introduced by Johnson when describing his latest excursion into everyday diplomacy seems to be 'candour' and that's about time. To denigrate an official for what Johnson said, and if the clip is studied properly rather than jumping up and down in mock horror, the truth is a good distance from what has been reported or inferred. Political allegiances aside, a spot of goodwill would be welcome.

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

What a diversion from reality. The Saudis are no more appeased by the obviously phoney over-friendly obsequiousness of some politicians than they are offended by Johnson's remarks. Despots that treat citizens like the Saudi rulers do couldn't give a fig for the creepy overtures and are hardly likely to take offence at what the For. Sec. said. They are fully aware of their image across the world. The latest word re-introduced by Johnson when describing his latest excursion into everyday diplomacy seems to be 'candour' and that's about time. To denigrate an official for what Johnson said, and if the clip is studied properly rather than jumping up and down in mock horror, the truth is a good distance from what has been reported or inferred. Political allegiances aside, a spot of goodwill would be welcome.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Saudis are that shallow. It is hardly relevant.

What is the point in question is that Johnson criticised them at a most inappropriate moment and against the cabinet's policy. We get nothing from the criticism. There is no advantage to us. Nor can it be part of a plan that the cabinet is considering. May, for heaven's sake, was there at the time and Johnson was to visit withing days.

So rulers don't give a fig for creepy overtures, but they are concerned about their image. If a politician, especially one holding one of the great offices of state, suggests that they are in some way funding wars and manipulating situations for their own advantage, and in circumstances where the public hear of it, they might be forced into reacting.

They are a totally obnoxious regime but the government sees them as a trading partner, something which Johnson is probably aware of. So why the criticism? It is silly posturing, something which gains us nothing. And it puts at risk jobs in this country.

It will have irritated the Saudis given their history of posturing. They have been given an excuse to react. It's politics and candour has no place.

[Derek Smith]

Gandahar said:

Derek, sometimes morals need to be put above pure money. As an example look at BAE deals with Saudia Arabia, not many morals there?

Perhaps we need a 21st C approach to this region rather than 1980. It may cost us a bob or two, but then so will Brexit.

Some would suggest that morals should always be put above financial advantage. However, it is not the point.

The cabinet wants to sell arms and other material to the Saudis. If Johnson has a problem with this then he should, must, leave the cabinet. We can't have the foreign secretary going off on his own, setting his own agenda. It undermines the PM almost at the time she was negotiating with them.

If Johnson did it deliberately then ask why he did it at that specific time, just when his boss was trying to get something out of them. If he didn't do it on purpose then his mouth has run away with him.

I am anti armament sales to the Saudis, and to the middle east in general come to that.

[Thorodin]

Derek Smith said:

Some would suggest that morals should always be put above financial advantage. However, it is not the point.

The cabinet wants to sell arms and other material to the Saudis. If Johnson has a problem with this then he should, must, leave the cabinet. We can't have the foreign secretary going off on his own, setting his own agenda. It undermines the PM almost at the time she was negotiating with them.

If Johnson did it deliberately then ask why he did it at that specific time, just when his boss was trying to get something out of them. If he didn't do it on purpose then his mouth has run away with him.

I am anti armament sales to the Saudis, and to the middle east in general come to that.

Seems to me morals are entirely the point about selling arms to tyrants for financial advantage. Do we really need their money that much? No alternatives to salve the troubled conscience? It's not 'just' the arms - the princes getting trained at Sandhurst and other sundry travesties are just as bad.

What's all this 'we' business? As I posted earlier what Johnson said and the way he said it may have been indiscreet, and in my view deliberately misrepresented as insulting when it wasn't, but to imply he was trying to subvert or destabilise May for some doubtful future ambition is crass I'm afraid.

I'm not actually a Johnson fan but am fed up to the back teeth at the world and his wife going off half-coked with hue-and-cry fervour at any perceived slight for publishing advantage.
Toadying up to crooks and murderers has never in history produced a favourable result. The baddie will learn he can push you around further than he first thought - a playground early lesson.