UK’s New Foreign Secretary Previous Comments on Trump “neo-Nazi-sympathizing sociopath”

[JonnyF]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He’s smart enough to get straight to the business of repairing the UK’s damaged relationship with the EU, so of course the rightwing press are whinging and whining.

 

Mark July 18 on your calendar.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/european-political-community-meeting-2024

 

 

 

Yes well Lammy famously declared that Brexiteers are worse than Nazis so it would be no surprise if he starts simping to the EU.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/15/message-david-lammy-disagreeing-brexit-does-not-allow-compare/

 

As for him being 'smart enough', there are many examples to show his lack of intellect. I wouldn't call someone who thinks Henry VII succeeded Henry VIII, a great mind. 😄

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/david-lammy-gets-it-wrong-again/

 

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes well Lammy famously declared that Brexiteers are worse than Nazis so it would be no surprise if he starts simping to the EU.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/15/message-david-lammy-disagreeing-brexit-does-not-allow-compare/

 

As for him being 'smart enough', there are many examples to show his lack of intellect. I wouldn't call someone who thinks Henry VII succeeded Henry VIII, a great mind. 😄

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/david-lammy-gets-it-wrong-again/

 

Paywall, I just managed to see it's an opinion piece from braverman.

[Gecko123]

On 7/8/2024 at 8:28 AM, JonnyF said:

Lammy is a complete fool. The new version of Dianne Abbott.

 

Here is an excellent article which sums him up very well.

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/15/the-madness-of-david-lammy/

 

For the record, he's a Harvard Law School graduate. 

[JonnyF]

15 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

For the record, he's a Harvard Law School graduate. 

 

Which is a wonderful argument for stopping positive discrimination. 

 

 

 

 

[billd766]

On 7/8/2024 at 4:55 AM, CharlieKo said:

He's a complete idiot with No diplomatic experience. 

But the thread is about David Lammy and not Donald Trump.

 

It is not often that I agree with anything that any Labour party spokesman says, but on this I agree 100%.

 

 

[billd766]

On 7/8/2024 at 10:31 AM, CharlieKo said:

 

This tread is about UK politics. So keep your US politics out of it Please. UK politics isn't quite as F.....ked as US politics, Yet!

Who appointed you to decide who can post on a topic?

 

He has the same right to post as you, me or anybody else.

 

If you don't like his post skip over it.

 

UK politics has been screwed up by both major UK political parties for many years.

[Chomper Higgot]

56 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Which is a wonderful argument for stopping positive discrimination. 

 

 

 

 

I wonder what it is about David Lammy that makes you think he was a beneficiary of ‘positive discrimination’?

 

Prior to entering Harvard Law School to successfully read for his LLM he had already received his LLB Honors degree from SOAS University of London and had been ‘Called to the Bar’ practicing as a Barrister in both England and the U.S.

 

Perhaps you can explain your assumption or even provide some evidence to back it up.

 

 

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I wonder what it is about David Lammy that makes you think he was a beneficiary of ‘positive discrimination’?

 

Prior to entering Harvard Law School to successfully read for his LLM he had already received his LLB Honors degree from SOAS University of London and had been ‘Called to the Bar’ practicing as a Barrister in both England and the U.S.

 

Perhaps you can explain your assumption or even provide some evidence to back it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

People with a 2:1 from the 40th best University in the UK don't tend to get into Harvard. Not if they are white anyway. 

 

Harvard has already lost in court for their racist policy of "positive" discrimination. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/us-supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc-ruling

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

People with a 2:1 from the 40th best University in the UK don't tend to get into Harvard. Not if they are white anyway. 

 

Harvard has already lost in court for their racist policy of "positive" discrimination. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/us-supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc-ruling

 

 

 

You provided zero evidence that David Lammy benefitted from positive ‘discrimination/affirmative action’.

 

But you have mentioned ‘racist policy’.

 

I’m sure there is racism in this somewhere Jonny, but perhaps not where you want us to believe.

 

Edited July 10 by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

42 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You provided zero evidence that David Lammy benefitted from positive ‘discrimination/affirmative action’.

 

But you have mentioned ‘racist policy’.

 

I’m sure there is racism in this somewhere Jonny, but perhaps not where you want us to believe.

 

 

"Positive" discrimination is a racist policy. That's why the courts ruled against Harvard. Racism isn't OK just because it's against Asians and white people. 

 

I oppose such racism, unlike you. 

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

"Positive" discrimination is a racist policy. That's why the courts ruled against Harvard. Racism isn't OK just because it's against Asians and white people. 

 

I oppose such racism, unlike you. 

You haven’t provided any evidence that David Lammy benefited from ‘positive discrimination’. Your assertion!

 

You just inserted it into the discussion, why you chose to do so is a mystery.

 

Perhaps there is something about David Lammy that triggered you reaching for the race card.

 

 

Edited July 10 by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You haven’t provided any evidence that David Lammy benefited from ‘positive discrimination’. Your assertion!

 

He lacked the entrance requirements and is as thick as two short planks.

 

Yet he still gained access to a University that knowingly and openly discriminated against Asian and White students until the courts told them to stop in no uncertain terms.

 

How much evidence do you need?

 

The fact you openly support such racist policies is really quite shocking. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

He lacked the entrance requirements and is as thick as two short planks.

 

Yet he still gained access to a University that knowingly and openly discriminated against Asian and White students until the courts told them to stop in no uncertain terms.

 

How much evidence do you need?

 

The fact you openly support such racist policies is really quite shocking. 

 

 

Where is your evidence that he lacked the entry requirements?

 

Your assertion, you back it up.

[JonnyF]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Where is your evidence that he lacked the entry requirements?

 

Your assertion, you back it up.

 

Harvard typically requires a GPA of 4.0.

 

A 2:1 UK degree is between 3.3 and 3.6.

 

His 2:1 was not from a top University either. 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Harvard typically requires a GPA of 4.0.

 

A 2:1 UK degree is between 3.3 and 3.6.

 

His 2:1 was not from a top University either. 

Again no evidence whatsoever. ‘Typically’, assumed grade equivalence, absolutely no consideration of Lammy’s work experience as an Barrister with international experience.

 

But you have let your cat out of its bag.

 

You’ve asserted without evidence that David Lammy did not meet the entrance requirements. 
 

You also stated that Harvard has been ordered by a court of law to cease discriminatory practices against Asian and White applicants.

 

And there we have it.

 

You don’t know on what basis David Lammy entered Harvard, so you assume that because he’s not White or Asian that he must have benefited from positive discrimination.

 

Stop digging Jonny.

 

 

Edited July 10 by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You also stated that Harvard has been ordered by a court of law to cease discriminatory practices against Asian and White applicants.

 

That was after he had graduated.

 

Unless he's capable of time travel. Maybe that explains why Lammy thinks Henry VII came after Henry VIII? 

 

But yes, I'm sure it was his intellectual brilliance that he displayed on Mastermind, along with his 2:1 from a very average UK University that got him into the "positive" discriminating Harvard. 😃

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

That was after he had graduated.

 

Unless he's capable of time travel. Maybe that explains why Lammy thinks Henry VII came after Henry VIII? 

 

But yes, I'm sure it was his intellectual brilliance that he displayed on Mastermind, along with his 2:1 from a very average UK University that got him into the "positive" discriminating Harvard. 😃

Once again you come up with no evidence whatsoever to back your claim that Lammy was the beneficiary of positive discrimination.

 

But he’s not Asian, he’s not White and he went to Harvard.

 

More than enough for your hair trigger.

[Pickwick]

20 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

But yes, I'm sure it was his intellectual brilliance that he displayed on Mastermind, along with his 2:1 from a very average UK University that got him into the "positive" discriminating Harvard

 

Judging someone's intelligence from a rapid fire question game under the spotlights of a television show - and then ignoring that he successfully studied Law and was admitted to the Bar, subsequently studied at Harvard, worked as a lawyer in California (with the further qualifications required), has been a democratically elected MP for some time, and has become one of the most powerful people in government - is frankly odd. Unless it is to suit an agenda which you seem intent on perpetuating.

 

Also odd that you choose to speculate - and it is nothing but speculation - over his admission to Harvard. You seem to think his upper second class degree is not worthy as it possibly translates into a GPA of 3.7. It is true that last year the mean GPA was 3.82 - but Lammy didn't apply straight from graduation - he did so after being admitted to the Bar. Harvard has explicitly stated that they do not just look at GPA, and a GPA of 4.0 alone is not enough to get admitted. I have no idea why they accepted him, but I would be astonished if being admitted to the Bar of England and Wales was of no consequence to the application.

 

You can focus all you want on his appearance on a television game show and the colour of his skin; but to ignore all the other stuff smacks of more agenda driven bias.

Edited July 10 by Pickwick
typo

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Pickwick said:

You can focus all you want on his appearance on a television game show and the colour of his skin; but to ignore all the other stuff smacks of more agenda driven bias.

Insulting someone that may be the next POTUS when he want a career in politics goes to show that he isn't very intelligent, IMO.

[Pickwick]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Insulting someone that may be the next POTUS when he want a career in politics goes to show that he isn't very intelligent, IMO.

You write that as if his article was published this week. He wrote it six years ago, when Donald Trump was president. He said that he had been offended by Trump's comments about London. He called him a neo-nazi sympathiser for retweeting Britain First, a group from the extreme right, of whom Nigel Farage himself said ' On the fringes of our politics are nutters'. He called him a sociopath for trying to score political points after a horrendous terrorist attack in the UK capital.

 

I have some sympathy with his sentiment, though would not have worded it so strongly. At the time he was taking part in an anti-Trump protest march, along with tens of thousands of UK citizens, including some of his constituents, whom he represents in parliament. That he still represents them suggests most were supportive. I was not a fan of these marches, with inflatable Trumps etc., but hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens took to the streets in marches all over the UK and I respect their democratic right to protest.

 

By all means you can disagree with what he said, but you can't have it both ways. You told me previously that the UK acts like a 'poodle' pandering to the USA. Now, you have a problem with a UK politician speaking out against Donald Trump (six years ago) just because he may become president again. Maybe his constituents - the actual people he represents in parliament - think a politician who speaks his mind is better than the usual meaningless spin, I don't know, I am not one of them?

 

Ill-advised perhaps, too emotive maybe - but I do not see it as a lack of intelligence. 

 

 

Edited July 11 by Pickwick
typo

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Pickwick said:

You write that as if his article was published this week. He wrote it six years ago, when Donald Trump was president. He said that he had been offended by Trump's comments about London. He called him a neo-nazi sympathiser for retweeting Britain First, a group from the extreme right, of whom Nigel Farage himself said ' On the fringes of our politics are nutters'. He called him a sociopath for trying to score political points after a horrendous terrorist attack in the UK capital.

 

I have some sympathy with his sentiment, though would not have worded it so strongly. At the time he was taking part in an anti-Trump protest march, along with tens of thousands of UK citizens, including some of his constituents, whom he represents in parliament. That he still represents them suggests most were supportive. I was not a fan of these marches, with inflatable Trumps etc., but hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens took to the streets in marches all over the UK and I respect their democratic right to protest.

 

By all means you can disagree with what he said, but you can't have it both ways. You told me previously that the UK acts like a 'poodle' pandering to the USA. Now, you have a problem with a UK politician speaking out against Donald Trump (six years ago) just because he may become president again. Maybe his constituents - the actual people he represents in parliament - think a politician who speaks his mind is better than the usual meaningless spin, I don't know, I am not one of them?

 

Ill-advised perhaps, too emotive maybe - but I do not see it as a lack of intelligence. 

 

 

He can say whatever he likes about Trump, it is still a free country ( just ). My point, which I obviously didn't get across, is that if one wants to be in a government that has dealings with other countries that have leaders that one does not like, but insults those leaders, then if one becomes a foreign secretary likely to be face to face with said insulted leader one should not expect to be treated politely.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He can say whatever he likes about Trump, it is still a free country ( just ). My point, which I obviously didn't get across, is that if one wants to be in a government that has dealings with other countries that have leaders that one does not like, but insults those leaders, then if one becomes a foreign secretary likely to be face to face with said insulted leader one should not expect to be treated politely.

I don’t think any politician in any liberal democracy expects to be treated politely by Donald Trump.

 

He reserves his respect and politeness for dictators, tyrants and America’s enemies.

[Pickwick]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

My point, which I obviously didn't get across, is that if one wants to be in a government that has dealings with other countries that have leaders that one does not like, but insults those leaders, then if one becomes a foreign secretary likely to be face to face with said insulted leader one should not expect to be treated politely.

Well that's a valid point but we were discussing intelligence, not politeness. It should also be noted that he was reacting to what Donald Trump said about London. You can disagree with his reaction (and I said I wouldn't have chosen the same words) but the implication that Lammy was just throwing insults around is not accurate.

[JonnyF]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He can say whatever he likes about Trump, it is still a free country ( just ).

 

It is not a free country.

 

You are free to criticize Trump. That doesn't mean you are free to say similar things about Muslims, lgbt rainbow people, ethic minorities etc. That's a hate crime.

 

You are only free to criticize people that the authorities classify as bad. That is not freedom. 

[Jingthing]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He can say whatever he likes about Trump, it is still a free country ( just ). My point, which I obviously didn't get across, is that if one wants to be in a government that has dealings with other countries that have leaders that one does not like, but insults those leaders, then if one becomes a foreign secretary likely to be face to face with said insulted leader one should not expect to be treated politely.

Let's hope that decent Americans can prevent that neo-Nazi-sympathizing sociopath from taking power again so that nobody has to ever face that fascist convicted felon ever again outside a golf course or prison cell.

Edited July 11 by Jingthing

[Pickwick]

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

You are free to criticize Trump. That doesn't mean you are free to say similar things about Muslims, lgbt rainbow people, ethic minorities etc. That's a hate crime.

 

You are only free to criticize people that the authorities classify as bad. That is not freedom. 

It's true that the UK is ranked only as 'partially open or free' by the Index on Censorship - though I am not sure how robust their data are.

 

This has nothing to do with 'hate crime', though - which is the persecution of someone for the colour of their skin (majority of hate crime), sexual orientation etc.

 

They highlight the erosion of freedom under the last right-wing government - notably Nadhim Zahawi's (then chair of the Tory Party) use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation to try and silence journalists. Or Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman (who was ruled in the High Court to have acted unlawfully) by trying to curb the right to peaceful protest.

 

That you ignore these real erosions of liberty and focus on minority groups is bizarre, unless you have some existing prejudice against these groups.

 

There were 145,000 reported hate crimes in England Wales last year. There were 12,500 convictions. 0.019% of the population. There were three times more convictions for people being abused because of a physical disability than for transphobic crimes. The Hate Crime laws are not being used to erode your freedom, they are being used as a convenient deflection from the real issues.

Edited July 12 by Pickwick
typo

[Chomper Higgot]

13 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

It is not a free country.

 

You are free to criticize Trump. That doesn't mean you are free to say similar things about Muslims, lgbt rainbow people, ethic minorities etc. That's a hate crime.

 

You are only free to criticize people that the authorities classify as bad. That is not freedom. 

More self grievance stroking.

Is your life really shackled by not being able to engage in hate mongering without the consequences being reserved for the targets of your hatred?

[Hanaguma]

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More self grievance stroking.

Is your life really shackled by not being able to engage in hate mongering without the consequences being reserved for the targets of your hatred?

I think EVERYONE should be able to engage in hate mongering.  Hurt feelings should not be a matter for the law to adjudicate.  The exceptions should be direct threats of physical harm, specific threats or encouragement of immediate violence.... well, that's it really.

 

Of course copyright violations, national security, NDA agreements excepted. But emotion charged rhetoric? Fill yer boots.  

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I think EVERYONE should be able to engage in hate mongering.  Hurt feelings should not be a matter for the law to adjudicate.  The exceptions should be direct threats of physical harm, specific threats or encouragement of immediate violence.... well, that's it really.

 

Of course copyright violations, national security, NDA agreements excepted. But emotion charged rhetoric? Fill yer boots.  

I’m guessing you aren’t in the receiving end of much hate mkmgering.

[Hanaguma]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m guessing you aren’t in the receiving end of much hate mkmgering.

Wanna bet?

 

But also irrelevant. It may be rude, but it should not be illegal, and certainly not a crime worthy of prison.