You can see why Starmer wants the gates up on Primose Rose Hill...
I'm old enough to remember when Hyde Park was a civilized place. But evidently that's no longer the case.
It a serious problem across London (and elsewhere, but particularly London). There are the gang feuds, but also the slightest disagreement currently too often quickly escalates from some shouting / pushing and shoving to that sort of incredible violence and people getting stabved.
Not like the good old days of Teddy boys and razor gangs, or the Krays etc.
Nor indeed the generation of football violence making Saturday no go areas whenever there was a home game. Or widespread mindless vandalism of play parks, phone boxes, bus shelters and the like.
Yes, casual violence was endemic in the Seventies and Eighties when I were a lad.
Evening Standard reporting Carrie hired her wedding dress for £45
It showed.
That's just nasty. Give the girl a break. It was her wedding day..
My gf, like almost all my mates not on twitter, saw the abuse under the photo of their wedding pics and just said “Why do people have to be so nasty? Haven’t they got anything better to do?”
Twitter, and politics related social media, is so detached from the real world
The demented level abuse is how they prove they are good people - to themselves.
Except when it’s Diane Abbott because it barely exists and is all about her counting abilities anyway.
Yep. The jokes and memes about "stupid" Diane from white, middle aged blokes who haven't got a racist or sexist bone in their body are because of all the stupid things she says. 🆗
You never told us whether you stand by your earlier contention that she gets "by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country".
Why should I say things twice?
You shouldn't even have said it once, given that the only evidence you were able to provide said "This article was amended on 20 November 2018. The headline and some text references in an earlier version said that Diane Abbott received more abuse than any other MP. The data involved were from a study of female MPs only". Sensible move to shut up about it for five hours; foolish one to reopen it again.
Ok you spock away trying to argue that Diane does not get a shitload of racist sexist abuse. That the grief she gets is mainly cos she's stupid.
And I'll draw the obvious and correct conclusion.
If you can't even accurately conclude who owns Chatsworth House, perhaps you should hold off on impugning the motives of fellow posters whose only crime is to have a secondary school ability to decipher statistics - or read to the bottom of an article before posting it.
in order to communicate there has to be a shared common reality. The basics have to be agreed.
Indeed they do. However, you have demonstrated yourself unwilling to admit that Diane Abbott does not, in fact, get "by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country," or even that the Guardian article you posted in support of that claim had in fact to be revised to remove that very assertion. If we can't get you to admit something that basic, why would we even try to get you to confront the reason you felt you had to invent those claims in the first place?
That's all a bit spocky and anal.
Are we agreed that the high level of abuse Diane Abbott has received as a high profile black female politician of the left is to a large extent explained by her being a high profile black female politician of the left?
A "yes" will open the door to a shared basic reality that we can then explore in ways which could surprise and delight.
You can see why Starmer wants the gates up on Primose Rose Hill...
I'm old enough to remember when Hyde Park was a civilized place. But evidently that's no longer the case.
It a serious problem across London (and elsewhere, but particularly London). There are the gang feuds, but also the slightest disagreement currently too often quickly escalates from some shouting / pushing and shoving to that sort of incredible violence and people getting stabved.
Not like the good old days of Teddy boys and razor gangs, or the Krays etc.
Nor indeed the generation of football violence making Saturday no go areas whenever there was a home game. Or widespread mindless vandalism of play parks, phone boxes, bus shelters and the like.
Smashing bus shelters up doesn't really equate to a 14 year old been chased down and knifed to death by a big gang in the middle of the day.
Any thoughts on how the Trumpists taking over the US through undemocratic means would impact the global economy, the relationship between the major power blocs and particularly foreign (non US) holders of US shares over the next decade?
Is the current global economy sustainable with an undemocratic USA and the tensions that will create?
Trump is essentially only interested in personal aggrandisement and enriching his loathsome family so it probably won't make much difference to the unchallenged supremacy of capital.
The most significant impact for the UK will be the continuing lobotomisation of NATO.
I think Trump's era looks increasingly rosy in retrospect now that the senile coot in power at the moment (in his more lucid moments) is going around 'putting America back on the map' and busily sticking totally unwanted fingers into everyone's pies again. Trump had an essentially laissez faire attitude to other countries.
If you don't have official lockdowns, you still have lockdowns. They're just unofficial ones that happen when everyone is utterly terrified to go out.
You have a series of waves that come and go, as people get scared of the virus and stay home. So the choice is not between zero years locked down and 66 million, it's between "n" and 66 million.
Plus there's the fact that without restrctions, we would probably have had higher peaks, and we might have actually seem the health service overloaded, leading to situtations like happened in New York or Milan early last year (or Manaus). And when you have those kind of peaks, you're not killing off people with just 10 years to go, you are killing off those with 20 or 30 or 40.
If you want to see just how bad excess deaths can go, look at Ecuador: they have been running at deaths 3x the normal level. Three times. We've been at 20-30% above normal levels for the last year.
Without restrictions, we would still have lost decades of peoples' lives to lockdowns, and we would have had much higher death tolls.
Now, should we have opened up much quicker? Damn right we should. But the idea that "no restrictions" is milk and honey is for the birds.
Yes to the illusion of lockdown free paradise. I'm also aware of rather a lot of people who have had quite a decent year, and some who quietly say they've really preferred it (mostly people who have seen far more of their young kids and much less commuting) but in view of the horrors that so many have experienced are shy of saying it.
Indeed I am one of those. Lockdowns has signalled the end of the office for me and allowed me the freedom to move home and actually be close to family instead of seeing the once or twice a year which has been the case for the last 33 years. You also can't, i would argue, multiply 66 million by a year to calculate lost time. A lot of those 66 million would have spent 4 or 5 nights a week sat on the sofa watching tv in any case. I doubt many but the young have 7 day a week of "Wow what a brilliant day" and for most of us many days of the week aren't much different to lockdown
Sorry to post without introduction. But I am a lockdown winner. My property has gone up by at least £100k, and these price rises show no signs of slowing. I have a whole host of new employment opportunities as the acceptance of remote working means that I can take jobs in London without the daily supercommute. We got to spend a lot of time in the garden and save a lot money. At worst the restrictions were a bit annoying. All this would be fine but for the civilisation ending woke cultural revolution that has come with it. Everyone has their own opinion on this, but in my case I am seriously looking at emigration.
Welcome 'darkage'. Sounds like you have a great life. Just out of curiosity, how has this "civilisation ending woke cultural revolution" had such an impact on that good life that you're considering emigrating?
Some people see the 'woke' as the reinvention of western civilisation, I see it as the end of western civilisation. As I said, it is a personal opinion and I am not mad about it in the way that some people are. We will have to see who is right.
I think it could end there, yes, because we might bring the whole house down on ourselves through reductionist identity politics and year-zeroism. I even wrote a thread header on it once.
But, I don't think there's anywhere to "go". I think the battle needs to be won here and at least we have a Government in office here that sees that.
The problem is not really with the government. The problem is with the English. The government doesn't have popular support for its war on woke. It is all a bit half hearted and viewed as a fringe issue, when it is actually an existential threat to civilisation. You have to look at what happened last year with the desecration of the centopah and conclude it is basically game over, the generation that cared about these things has died out.
I don't know what the answer is; emigration in my case is an option due to family connections; I am simply trying to pursue a viable alternative when I can see everything here falling apart, despite my apparent middle class status and affluence.
So where are you moving too, given most of the Western world is going through the same Woke clashes and in the US the problem is even more pronounced than here? Eastern Europe or Singapore?
It is actually a fairly uniquely anglo american issue.
It is most pronounced in the Anglosphere but France has also seen statues toppled and Merkel's Germany is full of self flagellation about its past. Russia, Poland, Israel, the Far East and at a push Spain and Italy are your best bets to stay Woke free
If the only criteria was to find a stable and successful non woke country the best option would be China
Provided you can accept the risk of jail or firing squad if you criticise the state, Israel and Singapore are wealthier per head than China, more democratic and also largely woke free
That would be the Israel that had the first Trans winner of Eurovision?
Israel has a thriving LGBT community, and some of the most reactionary obscurantism side by side.
Singapore has such a low fertility rate that without immigration it would be quickly extinct.
Of course "anti-Woke" countries tend to be very chauvinist and emigrating there puts you automatically into a suspect character group, as immigrant.
Perhaps Ulster would be a better bet, and join the TUV or DUP?
Wokeism is not so much about being socially liberal.
It is perfectly possible to be gay and unwoke eg David Starkey or Douglas Murray.
It is not even so much about being pro immigration, there are plenty of patriotic immigrants.
Wokeism is more about hating your nation's past and culture and wishing to erase it
No it isn't. Being Woke is becoming aware of historical injustice, particularly racial injustice.
That is not hating your countries past, it is developing a more rounded view of it. Hagiography is not history.
No it is far more than that, it is actively wishing to erase all reference to the nation's history and its key figures and the pivotal characters in its culture.
That is what its followers wish to do, deliver a Marxist culturally leftist state and apologists for them like you will allow them to do it
That is total bollocks from beginning to end.
HYUFD is entirely right. That is the avowed intent of the Woke
Who is Woke then? I don't qualify on that criteria, does anyone on here?
Criterion. Anyone on here is not the same as anyone in the country. I listened to a professor of something from a Midlands University on radio 4 the other day solemnly proclaiming that all white people are at heart white supremacists even if they have no idea that they are, and having his pronouncements taken seriously by the interviewer.
Social Media has merely amplified the views of crackpots like this who would normally sit at the fringes of the debate.
UK ministers are preparing to add a handful of countries to the government’s “green list” of travel destinations this week, but will stop short of the major expansion the leisure industry has called for.
Territories under consideration include Spain’s Balearic and Canary Islands, plus Malta, although UK government officials said no final decisions have been taken.
Grant Shapps, transport secretary, on Thursday will unveil the revised green list of countries from which people originally travelling from England do not need to quarantine on their return, with changes to the arrangements due to take effect next week. https://www.ft.com/content/b655c705-6172-4fad-8fc1-4f07b6c3045d
I'd previously read that the Canaries might get the nod, but not the Balearics - because they're simply too popular. The theory being that the Government can't expand its green list beyond a certain point, regardless of how well the potential destinations are doing, because border control can't cope with all the extra Covid checks. You'd end up with fourteen hour long queues for returning travellers. The Balearics can also be written off under the pretence of their being too interconnected with the mainland. But we shall see what transpires later in the week.
The Covid checks are increasingly irrelevant. So what if people bring Covid back from their hols in August: who are they going to infect?
Evening Standard reporting Carrie hired her wedding dress for £45
It showed.
That's just nasty. Give the girl a break. It was her wedding day..
My gf, like almost all my mates not on twitter, saw the abuse under the photo of their wedding pics and just said “Why do people have to be so nasty? Haven’t they got anything better to do?”
Twitter, and politics related social media, is so detached from the real world
The demented level abuse is how they prove they are good people - to themselves.
Except when it’s Diane Abbott because it barely exists and is all about her counting abilities anyway.
Yep. The jokes and memes about "stupid" Diane from white, middle aged blokes who haven't got a racist or sexist bone in their body are because of all the stupid things she says. 🆗
The Burgon Test should apply to this.
If they make the same jokes and memes about both Diane and Burgon then that's neither racist nor sexist. If they make the jokes and memes about Diane but give Burgon a pass then its probably racist and/or sexist.
I don't think Burgon's ever been called a fat black c**t, has he? Whereas Diane frequently has. And it's not really jokes or memes that are the problem, it's abuse.
It’s an interesting question of language.
I’m not convinced that calling someone a “fat black c**t” is racism. It’s just vulgar abuse - the “black” is purely descriptive rather than an active part of the sentence. It’s entirely equivalent to calling someone a “fat ginger c**t”
Oh dear. It really isn't. The equivalent would be a "fat white c**t"' but you don't hear that, do you?
I agree with Charles on this one. I think it is just as likely an abusive black man would say that as much as an abusive white man would say the former. Both crude, angry and obnoxious. They may or may not be racist, but primarily just abusive.
You can see why Starmer wants the gates up on Primose Rose Hill...
I'm old enough to remember when Hyde Park was a civilized place. But evidently that's no longer the case.
It a serious problem across London (and elsewhere, but particularly London). There are the gang feuds, but also the slightest disagreement currently too often quickly escalates from some shouting / pushing and shoving to that sort of incredible violence and people getting stabved.
Not like the good old days of Teddy boys and razor gangs, or the Krays etc.
Nor indeed the generation of football violence making Saturday no go areas whenever there was a home game. Or widespread mindless vandalism of play parks, phone boxes, bus shelters and the like.
There are some rather depressing videos on twitter of our finest soccer supporters causing damage to bars in Portugal, what a way to repay a nations hospitality.
Well indeed. Particularly as they went out on a limb and altered their Covid protocols to host the game. And to allow fans not to have to fly in and out the same day. And football grounds are not even open for Portugeuse fans. Aside from that, they'll be greatful for our money is probably the politically correct line.
If you don't have official lockdowns, you still have lockdowns. They're just unofficial ones that happen when everyone is utterly terrified to go out.
You have a series of waves that come and go, as people get scared of the virus and stay home. So the choice is not between zero years locked down and 66 million, it's between "n" and 66 million.
Plus there's the fact that without restrctions, we would probably have had higher peaks, and we might have actually seem the health service overloaded, leading to situtations like happened in New York or Milan early last year (or Manaus). And when you have those kind of peaks, you're not killing off people with just 10 years to go, you are killing off those with 20 or 30 or 40.
If you want to see just how bad excess deaths can go, look at Ecuador: they have been running at deaths 3x the normal level. Three times. We've been at 20-30% above normal levels for the last year.
Without restrictions, we would still have lost decades of peoples' lives to lockdowns, and we would have had much higher death tolls.
Now, should we have opened up much quicker? Damn right we should. But the idea that "no restrictions" is milk and honey is for the birds.
Yes to the illusion of lockdown free paradise. I'm also aware of rather a lot of people who have had quite a decent year, and some who quietly say they've really preferred it (mostly people who have seen far more of their young kids and much less commuting) but in view of the horrors that so many have experienced are shy of saying it.
Indeed I am one of those. Lockdowns has signalled the end of the office for me and allowed me the freedom to move home and actually be close to family instead of seeing the once or twice a year which has been the case for the last 33 years. You also can't, i would argue, multiply 66 million by a year to calculate lost time. A lot of those 66 million would have spent 4 or 5 nights a week sat on the sofa watching tv in any case. I doubt many but the young have 7 day a week of "Wow what a brilliant day" and for most of us many days of the week aren't much different to lockdown
Sorry to post without introduction. But I am a lockdown winner. My property has gone up by at least £100k, and these price rises show no signs of slowing. I have a whole host of new employment opportunities as the acceptance of remote working means that I can take jobs in London without the daily supercommute. We got to spend a lot of time in the garden and save a lot money. At worst the restrictions were a bit annoying. All this would be fine but for the civilisation ending woke cultural revolution that has come with it. Everyone has their own opinion on this, but in my case I am seriously looking at emigration.
Welcome 'darkage'. Sounds like you have a great life. Just out of curiosity, how has this "civilisation ending woke cultural revolution" had such an impact on that good life that you're considering emigrating?
Some people see the 'woke' as the reinvention of western civilisation, I see it as the end of western civilisation. As I said, it is a personal opinion and I am not mad about it in the way that some people are. We will have to see who is right.
I think it could end there, yes, because we might bring the whole house down on ourselves through reductionist identity politics and year-zeroism. I even wrote a thread header on it once.
But, I don't think there's anywhere to "go". I think the battle needs to be won here and at least we have a Government in office here that sees that.
The problem is not really with the government. The problem is with the English. The government doesn't have popular support for its war on woke. It is all a bit half hearted and viewed as a fringe issue, when it is actually an existential threat to civilisation. You have to look at what happened last year with the desecration of the centopah and conclude it is basically game over, the generation that cared about these things has died out.
I don't know what the answer is; emigration in my case is an option due to family connections; I am simply trying to pursue a viable alternative when I can see everything here falling apart, despite my apparent middle class status and affluence.
So where are you moving too, given most of the Western world is going through the same Woke clashes and in the US the problem is even more pronounced than here? Eastern Europe or Singapore?
It is actually a fairly uniquely anglo american issue.
It is most pronounced in the Anglosphere but France has also seen statues toppled and Merkel's Germany is full of self flagellation about its past. Russia, Poland, Israel, the Far East and at a push Spain and Italy are your best bets to stay Woke free
If the only criteria was to find a stable and successful non woke country the best option would be China
Provided you can accept the risk of jail or firing squad if you criticise the state, Israel and Singapore are wealthier per head than China, more democratic and also largely woke free
That would be the Israel that had the first Trans winner of Eurovision?
Israel has a thriving LGBT community, and some of the most reactionary obscurantism side by side.
Singapore has such a low fertility rate that without immigration it would be quickly extinct.
Of course "anti-Woke" countries tend to be very chauvinist and emigrating there puts you automatically into a suspect character group, as immigrant.
Perhaps Ulster would be a better bet, and join the TUV or DUP?
Wokeism is not so much about being socially liberal.
It is perfectly possible to be gay and unwoke eg David Starkey or Douglas Murray.
It is not even so much about being pro immigration, there are plenty of patriotic immigrants.
Wokeism is more about hating your nation's past and culture and wishing to erase it
No it isn't. Being Woke is becoming aware of historical injustice, particularly racial injustice.
That is not hating your countries past, it is developing a more rounded view of it. Hagiography is not history.
No it is far more than that, it is actively wishing to erase all reference to the nation's history and its key figures and the pivotal characters in its culture.
That is what its followers wish to do, deliver a Marxist culturally leftist state and apologists for them like you will allow them to do it
That is total bollocks from beginning to end.
HYUFD is entirely right. That is the avowed intent of the Woke
Who is Woke then? I don't qualify on that criteria, does anyone on here?
Criterion. Anyone on here is not the same as anyone in the country. I listened to a professor of something from a Midlands University on radio 4 the other day solemnly proclaiming that all white people are at heart white supremacists even if they have no idea that they are, and having his pronouncements taken seriously by the interviewer.
The interviewer probably didn't say anything contrary to the professor for fear of being accused of being a racist him/herself.
You can see why Starmer wants the gates up on Primose Rose Hill...
I'm old enough to remember when Hyde Park was a civilized place. But evidently that's no longer the case.
It a serious problem across London (and elsewhere, but particularly London). There are the gang feuds, but also the slightest disagreement currently too often quickly escalates from some shouting / pushing and shoving to that sort of incredible violence and people getting stabved.
Not like the good old days of Teddy boys and razor gangs, or the Krays etc.
Nor indeed the generation of football violence making Saturday no go areas whenever there was a home game. Or widespread mindless vandalism of play parks, phone boxes, bus shelters and the like.
Smashing bus shelters up doesn't really equate to a 14 year old been chased down and knifed to death by a big gang in the middle of the day.
No. But there is a danger of regarding this kind of thing as something particularly new. I don't think it is. It was never filmed and spread around the world at lightning speed before.
Laurence Fox ✌🏼🇬🇧✌🏼 @LozzaFox · 16m Anne Boleyn was a straight white female.
Stick that in your diversity pipe.
The Diversity agenda is racism. Pure and simple.
I get the criticism and concern about wokeism and share some of it but stuff like this is irrelevant, it’s a drama not a documentary. I think it’s also great marketing from C5 who will probably get decent ratings. I don’t see why a black woman shouldn’t play Anne Boleyn. TV drama can often require willing suspension of disbelief.
I have no problem with it as long as we can also have a white man playing Nelson Mandela
There must be a publicity-hungry theatre company somewhere that would be prepared to cast Lozza Fox as Martin Luther King Jr.?
Evening Standard reporting Carrie hired her wedding dress for £45
It showed.
That's just nasty. Give the girl a break. It was her wedding day..
My gf, like almost all my mates not on twitter, saw the abuse under the photo of their wedding pics and just said “Why do people have to be so nasty? Haven’t they got anything better to do?”
Twitter, and politics related social media, is so detached from the real world
The demented level abuse is how they prove they are good people - to themselves.
Except when it’s Diane Abbott because it barely exists and is all about her counting abilities anyway.
Yep. The jokes and memes about "stupid" Diane from white, middle aged blokes who haven't got a racist or sexist bone in their body are because of all the stupid things she says. 🆗
You never told us whether you stand by your earlier contention that she gets "by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country".
Why should I say things twice?
You shouldn't even have said it once, given that the only evidence you were able to provide said "This article was amended on 20 November 2018. The headline and some text references in an earlier version said that Diane Abbott received more abuse than any other MP. The data involved were from a study of female MPs only". Sensible move to shut up about it for five hours; foolish one to reopen it again.
Ok you spock away trying to argue that Diane does not get a shitload of racist sexist abuse. That the grief she gets is mainly cos she's stupid.
And I'll draw the obvious and correct conclusion.
If you can't even accurately conclude who owns Chatsworth House, perhaps you should hold off on impugning the motives of fellow posters whose only crime is to have a secondary school ability to decipher statistics - or read to the bottom of an article before posting it.
in order to communicate there has to be a shared common reality. The basics have to be agreed.
Indeed they do. However, you have demonstrated yourself unwilling to admit that Diane Abbott does not, in fact, get "by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country," or even that the Guardian article you posted in support of that claim had in fact to be revised to remove that very assertion. If we can't get you to admit something that basic, why would we even try to get you to confront the reason you felt you had to invent those claims in the first place?
That's all a bit spocky and anal.
Are we agreed that the high level of abuse Diane Abbott has received as a high profile black female politician of the left is to a large extent explained by her being a high profile black female politician of the left?
A "yes" will open the door to a shared basic reality that we can then explore in ways which could surprise and delight.
No. The high level of abuse is because she's a high profile thicko who can't count, who at one point was trying to seriously convince the country that she was fit for ministerial office. And thus she became a figure of fun who greatly adds to the gaiety of the nation, providing there no danger of her being put in charge of anything.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, similar and greater levels of abuse are also hurled at several white blokes who are near the top of the greasy pole, who mostly take it with a good humour rather than complain about it (JRM retweeted Joe's musical send up of him for instance). Diane Abbott appears to get about the rate of abuse you would expect for someone of her political prominence - less than Boris, more than some random backbencher. This isn't racism or misogyny, its just normal life.
How rude we should be to our politicians is a different question, but it's important to understand that most of the abuse they receive is because they are politicans, not because of their age, sex or gender.
The high level of abuse is because she's a high profile thicko who can't count, who at one point was trying to seriously convince the country that she was fit for ministerial office. And thus she became a figure of fun who greatly adds to the gaiety of the nation, providing there no danger of her being put in charge of anything.
WATCH: Home Secretary Priti Patel slipped up at today’s Downing Street briefing, saying the total number of #COVID19 tests conducted in the UK was “Three hundred thousand, thirty four, nine hundred and seventy four thousand”.https://twitter.com/PoliReview/status/1249042857375260672/video/1
The high level of abuse is because she's a high profile thicko who can't count, who at one point was trying to seriously convince the country that she was fit for ministerial office. And thus she became a figure of fun who greatly adds to the gaiety of the nation, providing there no danger of her being put in charge of anything.
WATCH: Home Secretary Priti Patel slipped up at today’s Downing Street briefing, saying the total number of #COVID19 tests conducted in the UK was “Three hundred thousand, thirty four, nine hundred and seventy four thousand”.https://twitter.com/PoliReview/status/1249042857375260672/video/1
Politician, like all of us, make mistakes all the time. If Diane Abbot had said £300,000 when she meant £3 million, or even £3 million when she meant £3 billion then you would have a point that she was unfairly picked on.
She didn’t.
Listen to the interview (or just read the transcript). Do you have any idea what the cost of the policy was?
Comments
Are we agreed that the high level of abuse Diane Abbott has received as a high profile black female politician of the left is to a large extent explained by her being a high profile black female politician of the left?
A "yes" will open the door to a shared basic reality that we can then explore in ways which could surprise and delight.
Social Media has merely amplified the views of crackpots like this who would normally sit at the fringes of the debate.
And football grounds are not even open for Portugeuse fans.
Aside from that, they'll be greatful for our money is probably the politically correct line.
I don't think it is. It was never filmed and spread around the world at lightning speed before.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, similar and greater levels of abuse are also hurled at several white blokes who are near the top of the greasy pole, who mostly take it with a good humour rather than complain about it (JRM retweeted Joe's musical send up of him for instance). Diane Abbott appears to get about the rate of abuse you would expect for someone of her political prominence - less than Boris, more than some random backbencher. This isn't racism or misogyny, its just normal life.
How rude we should be to our politicians is a different question, but it's important to understand that most of the abuse they receive is because they are politicans, not because of their age, sex or gender.
She didn’t.
Listen to the interview (or just read the transcript). Do you have any idea what the cost of the policy was?
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/