The Guardian Cartoon of Priti Patel & Boris Johnson

Oh, come on growstuff people may not claim openly that the Guardian is the only accurate/acceptable source of news/current affairs. but you saying There aren't many reputable newspapers left in the public domain these days. The Guardian is one of the few. rather undermines your argument.

I always feel confident when I quote The Guardian on GN that all the Bien-pense will read and listen to my point with more confidence and belief than if I quoted the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph.

Being as the Guardian is a Labour orientated newspaper and Labour have no objection to multiculturism, I'd have said it was published as a skit/ slight towards other publications who'd have been lambasted for printing it. Only the Guardian dared print this.

False premise alert: I don't think I have ever seen any GN poster claim that the Guardian is the only accurate/acceptable source of news/current affairs. There aren't many reputable newspapers left in the public domain these days. The Guardian is one of the few.

I hadn't spotted the cartoon, so I googled it. Both Patel and Johnson are depicted as bulls. I'm not sure whether Patel is a Hindu, but I'm sure Johnson isn't.

My interpretation of it is that they are being depicted as bulls in a china shop, which is probably a fair observation.

GrannyGravy What are your views about the numerous cartoons of Jeremy Corbyn, which have appeared over the years? What about the anti-Muslim cartoons, which appeared in Charlie Hebdo? Or the Mohammed cartoons, which appeared in a Danish newspaper a few years ago?

I find it interesting that when people agree with the sentiments in cartoons, however offensive they are, they claim that it's free speech. However, the same people turn into snowflakes, when they disagree with the sentiments.

Granny Gravy 13

To be honest as a generalisation I think satire does go way too far at times and can be quite purposefully cruel, the intention of it after all. The nature of the beast is fed by the oxygen of those who revel in belittling or abusing those they dislike, the same as effigy burning. It is perversely deemed as innocent fun but there is an unspoken dark side that most people accept and to be fair should be allowed to happen unless it is overtly racist/anti semetic etc. The border can be a tad fuzzy however at times.

It is not the domain of left/right politics but it does shine a light on the nature of the both the producer of some cartoons /satire and those who deem it funny or not. What one person will find funny at any one given time another will not and so satire lives on because it is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

And I rather think you may be trying to provoke another argument.

It's by Steve Bell who is renowned for his depiction of many PMs over the years. and he is a regular cartoonist for the Guardian. I found it quite amusing.

I wanted to know if others thought it was unacceptable or because it was in The Guardian and not one of the other newspapers people on here found it to be acceptable.

If it has been a Labour/Liberal MP in what is regularly called on GN The Daily Mail/Heil I feel that there would have been outrage shown by many.

I expect the cartoonist at The Guardian is ignorant of that fact ( that she is from the Hindu religion.)
Either that or he doesn’t care either way.
But you are right GG had a Muslim minister been depicted in a cartoon as a pig, there would be all hell let loose in the media.

So why mention it at all?