"She added: "Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know.
"You don't know unless you stop to speak to them or you're in a meeting with them.
"But if you see a black person walking down the street, you see straight away that they're black. They are different types of racism."
Asked if she believed she had done anything wrong or had said something in her Observer letter that she did not believe in, she said: "I just think that it's silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism.
"I just... I don't know why people would say that.""
I think she is making a fair point.
I don't, for the reasons I give below.
While I agree with you, for the reasons you gave above.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
It is obvious what Diane means and equally obvious it is a stupid thing to say in today's climate but to take your rhetorical question about Jews being beaten up, note that there are two different words available, antisemitism and racism. And to continue Diane's analogy, we can tell from a distance that she is Black but not that Graham Norton is Irish. Hearing them on the radio, it is the other way round. After that it is just a question of semantics and having the political common sense to STFU.
Just as Starmer should have laughed this off as Diane being Diane and not allowed the anti-Abbott forces at Labour HQ to have another go at ousting her, like they did a few years ago.
"Corbyn most popular politician" - Has Starmer thought this through?
No. He never thinks anything through
Also Big Nigel is right in that vid. Reform are ALREADY in 2nd place with the kids. If Reform focus on those voters they could easily come first - Farage has more TikTok followers than all other UK pols combined. Starmer is such a fucking hapless stupid dork
FPT I said this:
Starmer is horribly bad at every single aspect of politics. Strategic, tactical, retail. He cannot orate and he has zero ideas, he doesn't understand party management and he is a terrlble negotiator, his charisma is negative and he's awful on TV
Setting aside Liz Truss (as being sui generis) he is without question the worst prime minister of my lifetime - in terms of the skillset he brings to the job. He has NO skillset
Quite extraordinary then, that he became leader of his party, and then Prime Minister, having persuaded you to vote for his party.
I simply cannot account for how this complete nullity, a politician of such outstanding awfulness that he makes even Liz Truss almost look good, had you fooled.
Recall the alternatives
Also, I agree with @SeanT, the brilliant Spectator writer, when he wrote on this subject. There were tentative reasons for some timid hope that Starmer might be OK, at first
Are we allowed to link to the Spec? Not sure. If we are then I shall
I think every single one of us has been disappointed by Starmer. Whatever our expectations - whether we thought he'd be great, good, ok-ish, perhaps not that bad, bad, terrible, the worst prime minister ever - he's managed to undershoot everyone's expectations.
Disappointed specifically by Starmer's lack of leadership, given he almost unique amongst recent prime ministers had a track record of running a major operation before becoming PM, apparently quite successfully.
Nevertheless he is factors better than: Johnson Truss Badenoch Farage Corbyn
And somewhat better than Sunak, albeit with some worrying similarities.
Is he really better than Johnson?
Starmer is definitely better than Johnson in his personal life, especially in his marriage. However Johnson did achieve most of what he set out to do, being only defeated by his large personal defects. Starmer's only triumph to date is the Assisted Dying Bill, and there's no sense of a coherent thrust to his Government, being instead a collection of eyecatching policies.
In fairness to Starmer he will probably last a full term and may still win 2028/9, whereas Johnson self-destructed early. But in a head-to-head, Starmer isn't in the lead at T+1yr.
I find that assertion to be baseless. Boris' private travails were a constant source of media copy. Starmer's (should there be any) have been kept out of the media completely.
Boris's marriages and affairs
1987 married Allegra Mostyn-Owen
1992 started affair with Marina Wheeler
1993 divorced Allegra Mostyn-Owen
1993 married Marina Wheeler
2000 started affair with Petronella Wyatt
2004 ended affair with Petronella Wyatt
2006 may have had affair with Anna Fazackerley (unconfirmed)
2008/9 had affair with Helen Macintyre
2009 may have had affair with unknown person (unconfirmed)
2012 started affair with Jennifer Arcuri
2016 ended affair with Jennifer Arcuri
2018 started affair with Carrie Symonds
2018 Marina Wheeler initiated divorce proceedings
2020 divorced Marina Wheeler
2021 married Carrie Symonds
I would be very surprised if Starmer was worse.
Frankly, I think Marina Wheeler should have cut Boris's nuts off. At least four, possibly six, mistresses during his marriage to Wheeler is really not on.
"I have not had an affair with Petronella. It is complete balderdash. It is an inverted pyramid of piffle. It is all completely untrue and ludicrous conjecture. I am amazed people can write this drivel." - Boris, 2004.
A lying shit as well as a cheating shit.
Surely being the latter, by definition, necessitates also being the former.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
Until Jews distance themselves from Netanyahu they can’t complain if they are the victims of anti-Israeli racism. A reminder. Being anti Netanyahu and anti his behaviour towards Palestinians, whether In Gaza or the West Bank is not being antisemitic, anymore than being anti Hitler was being anti all Germans, or being anti Trump is being anti all Americans.
Should british muslims spend their whole lives performatively distancing themselves from ISIS?
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
Someone obviously dissed the no socks and loafers guys.
Nonce trotters is I believe a term for that combo.
Alleged context is given below:
"An eyewitness said: The black man and one of the white men got in an argument and started pushing each other. The black man then punched the white man while he was holding the child.
So the child fell and both of the white men in formal attire starting attacked the black one and were stomping on him. Then the black man kicked one of them in the air and ran off"
If the black guy really did punch a man holding a baby then I don't blame others for piling in; you just don't do that
But this, of course, is one eye witness on one website, so who knows
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
As well as being categorically wrong.
once again you are complaining about comments you've made up in your head rather than what she actually said
"Corbyn most popular politician" - Has Starmer thought this through?
No. He never thinks anything through
Also Big Nigel is right in that vid. Reform are ALREADY in 2nd place with the kids. If Reform focus on those voters they could easily come first - Farage has more TikTok followers than all other UK pols combined. Starmer is such a fucking hapless stupid dork
FPT I said this:
Starmer is horribly bad at every single aspect of politics. Strategic, tactical, retail. He cannot orate and he has zero ideas, he doesn't understand party management and he is a terrlble negotiator, his charisma is negative and he's awful on TV
Setting aside Liz Truss (as being sui generis) he is without question the worst prime minister of my lifetime - in terms of the skillset he brings to the job. He has NO skillset
Quite extraordinary then, that he became leader of his party, and then Prime Minister, having persuaded you to vote for his party.
I simply cannot account for how this complete nullity, a politician of such outstanding awfulness that he makes even Liz Truss almost look good, had you fooled.
Recall the alternatives
Also, I agree with @SeanT, the brilliant Spectator writer, when he wrote on this subject. There were tentative reasons for some timid hope that Starmer might be OK, at first
Are we allowed to link to the Spec? Not sure. If we are then I shall
I think every single one of us has been disappointed by Starmer. Whatever our expectations - whether we thought he'd be great, good, ok-ish, perhaps not that bad, bad, terrible, the worst prime minister ever - he's managed to undershoot everyone's expectations.
Disappointed specifically by Starmer's lack of leadership, given he almost unique amongst recent prime ministers had a track record of running a major operation before becoming PM, apparently quite successfully.
Nevertheless he is factors better than: Johnson Truss Badenoch Farage Corbyn
And somewhat better than Sunak, albeit with some worrying similarities.
Is he really better than Johnson?
Starmer is definitely better than Johnson in his personal life, especially in his marriage. However Johnson did achieve most of what he set out to do, being only defeated by his large personal defects. Starmer's only triumph to date is the Assisted Dying Bill, and there's no sense of a coherent thrust to his Government, being instead a collection of eyecatching policies.
In fairness to Starmer he will probably last a full term and may still win 2028/9, whereas Johnson self-destructed early. But in a head-to-head, Starmer isn't in the lead at T+1yr.
I find that assertion to be baseless. Boris' private travails were a constant source of media copy. Starmer's (should there be any) have been kept out of the media completely.
Boris's marriages and affairs
1987 married Allegra Mostyn-Owen
1992 started affair with Marina Wheeler
1993 divorced Allegra Mostyn-Owen
1993 married Marina Wheeler
2000 started affair with Petronella Wyatt
2004 ended affair with Petronella Wyatt
2006 may have had affair with Anna Fazackerley (unconfirmed)
2008/9 had affair with Helen Macintyre
2009 may have had affair with unknown person (unconfirmed)
2012 started affair with Jennifer Arcuri
2016 ended affair with Jennifer Arcuri
2018 started affair with Carrie Symonds
2018 Marina Wheeler initiated divorce proceedings
2020 divorced Marina Wheeler
2021 married Carrie Symonds
I would be very surprised if Starmer was worse.
Frankly, I think Marina Wheeler should have cut Boris's nuts off. At least four, possibly six, mistresses during his marriage to Wheeler is really not on.
"I have not had an affair with Petronella. It is complete balderdash. It is an inverted pyramid of piffle. It is all completely untrue and ludicrous conjecture. I am amazed people can write this drivel." - Boris, 2004.
A lying shit as well as a cheating shit.
A total shit.
Until Trump came along, it was believable that he was the greatest, most dishonest shit.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Someone obviously dissed the no socks and loafers guys.
Nonce trotters is I believe a term for that combo.
Alleged context is given below:
"An eyewitness said: The black man and one of the white men got in an argument and started pushing each other. The black man then punched the white man while he was holding the child.
So the child fell and both of the white men in formal attire starting attacked the black one and were stomping on him. Then the black man kicked one of them in the air and ran off"
If the black guy really did punch a man holding a baby then I don't blame others for piling in; you just don't do that
But this, of course, is one eye witness on one website, so who knows
Why on earth is this flagged???
@Theuniondivvie gave some jocular context. I pointed out that the actual context of the fracas is given below the tweet - and it explains why there is a child howling at the foot of the escalator
I also pointed out that this account is from one alleged eye-witness quoted on one website, so it must be approached with proper caution, it is hardly proof
Despite accuweather (useless for Scandinavia, I have concluded) saying it’s been about to rain all evening, the sky remains completely blue; the sun hasn’t set but it has gone behind the mountain, so it’s now a lot cooler, and all is set for tonight’s big match…..
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but today she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
"Corbyn most popular politician" - Has Starmer thought this through?
No. He never thinks anything through
Also Big Nigel is right in that vid. Reform are ALREADY in 2nd place with the kids. If Reform focus on those voters they could easily come first - Farage has more TikTok followers than all other UK pols combined. Starmer is such a fucking hapless stupid dork
FPT I said this:
Starmer is horribly bad at every single aspect of politics. Strategic, tactical, retail. He cannot orate and he has zero ideas, he doesn't understand party management and he is a terrlble negotiator, his charisma is negative and he's awful on TV
Setting aside Liz Truss (as being sui generis) he is without question the worst prime minister of my lifetime - in terms of the skillset he brings to the job. He has NO skillset
Quite extraordinary then, that he became leader of his party, and then Prime Minister, having persuaded you to vote for his party.
I simply cannot account for how this complete nullity, a politician of such outstanding awfulness that he makes even Liz Truss almost look good, had you fooled.
Recall the alternatives
Also, I agree with @SeanT, the brilliant Spectator writer, when he wrote on this subject. There were tentative reasons for some timid hope that Starmer might be OK, at first
Are we allowed to link to the Spec? Not sure. If we are then I shall
I think every single one of us has been disappointed by Starmer. Whatever our expectations - whether we thought he'd be great, good, ok-ish, perhaps not that bad, bad, terrible, the worst prime minister ever - he's managed to undershoot everyone's expectations.
Disappointed specifically by Starmer's lack of leadership, given he almost unique amongst recent prime ministers had a track record of running a major operation before becoming PM, apparently quite successfully.
Nevertheless he is factors better than: Johnson Truss Badenoch Farage Corbyn
And somewhat better than Sunak, albeit with some worrying similarities.
Is he really better than Johnson?
Starmer is definitely better than Johnson in his personal life, especially in his marriage. However Johnson did achieve most of what he set out to do, being only defeated by his large personal defects. Starmer's only triumph to date is the Assisted Dying Bill, and there's no sense of a coherent thrust to his Government, being instead a collection of eyecatching policies.
In fairness to Starmer he will probably last a full term and may still win 2028/9, whereas Johnson self-destructed early. But in a head-to-head, Starmer isn't in the lead at T+1yr.
I find that assertion to be baseless. Boris' private travails were a constant source of media copy. Starmer's (should there be any) have been kept out of the media completely.
Boris's marriages and affairs
1987 married Allegra Mostyn-Owen
1992 started affair with Marina Wheeler
1993 divorced Allegra Mostyn-Owen
1993 married Marina Wheeler
2000 started affair with Petronella Wyatt
2004 ended affair with Petronella Wyatt
2006 may have had affair with Anna Fazackerley (unconfirmed)
2008/9 had affair with Helen Macintyre
2009 may have had affair with unknown person (unconfirmed)
2012 started affair with Jennifer Arcuri
2016 ended affair with Jennifer Arcuri
2018 started affair with Carrie Symonds
2018 Marina Wheeler initiated divorce proceedings
2020 divorced Marina Wheeler
2021 married Carrie Symonds
I would be very surprised if Starmer was worse.
Frankly, I think Marina Wheeler should have cut Boris's nuts off. At least four, possibly six, mistresses during his marriage to Wheeler is really not on.
Marina Wheeler can hardly have been that surprised when she started off as the side piece. When a man marries his mistress it creates a vacancy. No doubt, there will be further lines in due course.
My favourite version of this was a plumber I knew back thirty years ago. When I met him he had two ex wives, both of whom had given him two children. He was with his third wife, at which point she had two children…
Sadly I don’t know how it turned out but she was a rather stupid and gullible woman. (I was eighteen or nineteen and she thought I was in my forties. I didn’t look that bad…)
Despite accuweather (useless for Scandinavia, I have concluded) saying it’s been about to rain all evening, the sky remains completely blue; the sun hasn’t set but it has gone behind the mountain, so it’s now a lot cooler, and all is set for tonight’s big match…..
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but today she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Girmay Hadish Zahilay (/ˈɡɜːrmaɪ ˈzɑːhɪlaɪ/ GUR-my ZAH-hil-eye;[1] born May 6, 1987) is an American politician and lawyer who is a member of the King County Council from District 2 in Seattle, Washington. He was elected in 2019, defeating longtime incumbent Larry Gossett.
Zahilay and his brother were born in Sudan to Ethiopian refugees from Tigray[2] who had escaped military conflict. He was three years old when his family immigrated to the United States, settling in the Rainier Valley.
Is he of the same race as Clarence Thomas? Not in my opinion. There are large differences between east Africans and west Africans. You can see that in who wins sprints: west Africans, and who wins marathons: east Africans, and in many other ways.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
She basically said that they were not “all their lives” subject to racism or something along those lines, then said that instead they could be the subject of “prejudice”.
I think it was a very crude, ill-informed, and offensive thing to say and yes it was downplaying the racism that others suffer. On the narrow point made today, where she says people can experience different kinds of racism based on appearance, that is absolutely correct. The problem comes, I think, that she joined that into standing by her original comments, which were offensive.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but today she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
As well as being categorically wrong.
once again you are complaining about comments you've made up in your head rather than what she actually said
No. I'm complaining about comments I put in quotation marks.
Wes Streeting considers writing off part of doctors’ student debts to avert strike
Mouths stuffed with Gold part 94.
Write them down over x years served. Say 10 years. With the write down back loaded - so much more is written down in the last few years.
I’ve been arguing that we should do this for teachers, doctors and some other skills, for quite a while.
Oh, and while the people in question are teaching, doctoring etc, repayments and interest frozen. So they see nothing coming out of their pay while in post.
As suggested by Merryn Somerset-Webb on QT last year, conditional on them committing to the NHS for a period of time.
That’s the point of the progressive writedown.
Human Rights legislation stops you actually binding people to jobs.
By backloading it to, to most of it is write down in years 8, 9 and 10 you encourage people to stay.
If this is Streeting's compromise it's ok actually to my mind.
I think this and some movement on other issues like ability to take leave (on some rotations this is assigned, with no choice, a real problem for 2 doctors on different rotas. It can even prevent a couple fixing a date for a wedding), rotations, training expenses etc would go a long way to ending the strikes.
Worth noting that a substantial number of Resident Doctors trained overseas, so are not paying back loans via PAYE.
Wait till they hear assembly line workers have to put their hands up for permission to go to the toilet (although they've all been replaced by robots in China now).
But yes, that and some other bureaucratic problems around junior doctors such as late notification of new jobs could easily be solved given the will.
And as Foxy has warned in the past:-
I can’t get a job as a doctor after seven years of training. It’s a waste of taxpayer investment Thousands of medics are struggling to find posts in the NHS – despite the urgent need for staff ... Dr Craddock is one of thousands of junior doctors finishing their Foundation Year 2 placements this summer with no job to go to – at least not in medicine. A shortage of specialist training posts, the next step on the ladder to becoming consultants, has left many newly qualified doctors scrambling for a dwindling number of non-training roles and locum shifts. Some are leaving the profession altogether, while others are relocating abroad, where their skills are in high demand.
The crisis stems from a surge in medical school places without a corresponding rise in postgraduate training posts. Meanwhile, overseas recruitment has soared since 2019, when medicine was added to the shortage occupation list and rules prioritising UK candidates were scrapped. ... ...competition has risen exponentially. The British Medical Association says more than 33,000 doctors applied for fewer than 13,000 specialty training posts this year. Craddock was among around 20,000 unsuccessful applicants. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/wellbeing/stress/unemployed-doctor-nhs/ (£££)
"Corbyn most popular politician" - Has Starmer thought this through?
No. He never thinks anything through
Also Big Nigel is right in that vid. Reform are ALREADY in 2nd place with the kids. If Reform focus on those voters they could easily come first - Farage has more TikTok followers than all other UK pols combined. Starmer is such a fucking hapless stupid dork
FPT I said this:
Starmer is horribly bad at every single aspect of politics. Strategic, tactical, retail. He cannot orate and he has zero ideas, he doesn't understand party management and he is a terrlble negotiator, his charisma is negative and he's awful on TV
Setting aside Liz Truss (as being sui generis) he is without question the worst prime minister of my lifetime - in terms of the skillset he brings to the job. He has NO skillset
Quite extraordinary then, that he became leader of his party, and then Prime Minister, having persuaded you to vote for his party.
I simply cannot account for how this complete nullity, a politician of such outstanding awfulness that he makes even Liz Truss almost look good, had you fooled.
Recall the alternatives
Also, I agree with @SeanT, the brilliant Spectator writer, when he wrote on this subject. There were tentative reasons for some timid hope that Starmer might be OK, at first
Are we allowed to link to the Spec? Not sure. If we are then I shall
I think every single one of us has been disappointed by Starmer. Whatever our expectations - whether we thought he'd be great, good, ok-ish, perhaps not that bad, bad, terrible, the worst prime minister ever - he's managed to undershoot everyone's expectations.
Disappointed specifically by Starmer's lack of leadership, given he almost unique amongst recent prime ministers had a track record of running a major operation before becoming PM, apparently quite successfully.
Nevertheless he is factors better than: Johnson Truss Badenoch Farage Corbyn
And somewhat better than Sunak, albeit with some worrying similarities.
Is he really better than Johnson?
Starmer is definitely better than Johnson in his personal life, especially in his marriage. However Johnson did achieve most of what he set out to do, being only defeated by his large personal defects. Starmer's only triumph to date is the Assisted Dying Bill, and there's no sense of a coherent thrust to his Government, being instead a collection of eyecatching policies.
In fairness to Starmer he will probably last a full term and may still win 2028/9, whereas Johnson self-destructed early. But in a head-to-head, Starmer isn't in the lead at T+1yr.
I find that assertion to be baseless. Boris' private travails were a constant source of media copy. Starmer's (should there be any) have been kept out of the media completely.
Boris's marriages and affairs
1987 married Allegra Mostyn-Owen
1992 started affair with Marina Wheeler
1993 divorced Allegra Mostyn-Owen
1993 married Marina Wheeler
2000 started affair with Petronella Wyatt
2004 ended affair with Petronella Wyatt
2006 may have had affair with Anna Fazackerley (unconfirmed)
2008/9 had affair with Helen Macintyre
2009 may have had affair with unknown person (unconfirmed)
2012 started affair with Jennifer Arcuri
2016 ended affair with Jennifer Arcuri
2018 started affair with Carrie Symonds
2018 Marina Wheeler initiated divorce proceedings
2020 divorced Marina Wheeler
2021 married Carrie Symonds
I would be very surprised if Starmer was worse.
Frankly, I think Marina Wheeler should have cut Boris's nuts off. At least four, possibly six, mistresses during his marriage to Wheeler is really not on.
It is not an excuse for Boris's behaviour, but Marina Wheeler acquired him through an extramarital affair, so I am not sure what she expected would happen. You always lose them how you got them.
The person I feel sorry for on the list is Mostyn-Owen. She's the only one who can make any realistic claim to being deceived about his character.
I also think there's something especially bad about when a woman is forced to paint over her tears, put on a pretty frock and an ear to ear grin and play the devoted partner. Of course, I am not alleging that's what Victoria Starmer has had to do, although Rachel Reeves undoubtedly has.
During my flat refurb I am unearthing some treasures from my travels
eg I have rediscovered a length of magnificent handwoven silk, handmade by the dynastic craftswoman who weaves for the Bhutanese queen. And I bought it from her in her workshop in Bhutan a decade or more ago. It is genuinely sumptuous, probably worth a few bob (not that this matters)
But what on earth do I do with it? I suppose I could frame it but framed textiles - framed "tools" of any kind - always seem a bit sad. This cloth is meant to be used and admired, not museum'd and killed. But how?
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
During my flat refurb I am unearthing some treasures from my travels
eg I have rediscovered a length of magnificent handwoven silk, handmade by the dynastic craftswoman who weaves for the Bhutanese queen. And I bought it from her in her workshop in Bhutan a decade or more ago. It is genuinely sumptuous, probably worth a few bob (not that this matters)
But what on earth do I do with it? I suppose I could frame it but framed textiles - framed "tools" of any kind - always seem a bit sad. This cloth is meant to be used and admired, not museum'd and killed. But how?
Girmay Hadish Zahilay (/ˈɡɜːrmaɪ ˈzɑːhɪlaɪ/ GUR-my ZAH-hil-eye;[1] born May 6, 1987) is an American politician and lawyer who is a member of the King County Council from District 2 in Seattle, Washington. He was elected in 2019, defeating longtime incumbent Larry Gossett.
Zahilay and his brother were born in Sudan to Ethiopian refugees from Tigray[2] who had escaped military conflict. He was three years old when his family immigrated to the United States, settling in the Rainier Valley.
Is he of the same race as Clarence Thomas? Not in my opinion. There are large differences between east Africans and west Africans. You can see that in who wins sprints: west Africans, and who wins marathons: east Africans, and in many other ways.
It depends how you measure it, but there is a case to be made that Africa is the most diverse continent. All the top 10 countries for diversity by this measure for example:
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
Girmay Hadish Zahilay (/ˈɡɜːrmaɪ ˈzɑːhɪlaɪ/ GUR-my ZAH-hil-eye;[1] born May 6, 1987) is an American politician and lawyer who is a member of the King County Council from District 2 in Seattle, Washington. He was elected in 2019, defeating longtime incumbent Larry Gossett.
Zahilay and his brother were born in Sudan to Ethiopian refugees from Tigray[2] who had escaped military conflict. He was three years old when his family immigrated to the United States, settling in the Rainier Valley.
Is he of the same race as Clarence Thomas? Not in my opinion. There are large differences between east Africans and west Africans. You can see that in who wins sprints: west Africans, and who wins marathons: east Africans, and in many other ways.
It depends how you measure it, but there is a case to be made that Africa is the most diverse continent. All the top 10 countries for diversity by this measure for example:
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
Do us all a favour, and just take my advice.
You could always pay for it, if you're that lonely
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
Do us all a favour, and just take my advice.
You could always pay for it, if you're that lonely
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
Do us all a favour, and just take my advice.
You could always pay for it, if you're that lonely
Grow up.
This is an unedifying spectacle, @IanB2 . And we are surely boring the nipples off other PB-ers. I suggest we desist, and as a gesture of my magnanimity, I shall not insult you back and perpetuate the tedium
Despite accuweather (useless for Scandinavia, I have concluded) saying it’s been about to rain all evening, the sky remains completely blue; the sun hasn’t set but it has gone behind the mountain, so it’s now a lot cooler, and all is set for tonight’s big match…..
Despite accuweather (useless for Scandinavia, I have concluded) saying it’s been about to rain all evening, the sky remains completely blue; the sun hasn’t set but it has gone behind the mountain, so it’s now a lot cooler, and all is set for tonight’s big match…..
Anyway, you now have Magic Grandpa, Abbott and Maskell (both members of the Corbyn Shadow Cabinet) and Sultana out of the party.
If they’re going to pick a time to get that alternative party together, they should really do it now.
They really SHOULD do it now. Starmer is purposefully throwing open the door and saying DO IT NOW, there will NEVER BE A BETTER TIME
Perhaps that is his strategy. Dare them, call the bluff, prove that they don't have the cullions
High risk. I might even admit a sneaking admiration of Skyr's cunning if his gambit comes off
There was a thing raised by an audience member of the Spectator's Tory meet up (and poopoohed by the panel tbf) that Starmer actually wants an early GE. The motive being to have it while the Tories are still in the doldrums. It seems utterly bonkers to me, but it is one lens through which to view this party clamp-down.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
as long as they are not masked who gives a jot if they want to stick out like sore thumbs
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
Suggesting a Jew can avoid racism so long as they try to hide their Jewishness is as offensive as suggesting a Muslim can avoid racism so long as she takes off her hijab.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
And/or will seek to dismiss the idea that other groups suffer prejudice.
On the specific point, if I’m walking through parts of Diane Abbot’s own constituency, it’s going to blindingly obvious that a person is Jewish.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
“ But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.”
Absolutely true, but I don’t think anyone is saying any different. I can’t see how that goes against what Diane Abbott said. It applies to people of all colours who wear religious dress
Abbott is talking about everyday people in civvies, and for them it is a disadvantage to be non white as far as likelihood of racial abuse is concerned. This doesn’t do down the abuse that Jews get.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
Suggesting a Jew can avoid racism so long as they try to hide their Jewishness is as offensive as suggesting a Muslim can avoid racism so long as she takes off her hijab.
There is no excuse for racism. Ever.
It's a point often made, such that it feels like a cliche, but it is nonetheless true and important
You cannot be racist against a Muslim any more than you can be racist against a Christian or an atheist. Yes Muslims are, perhaps, generally more brown that white, but they come in all races and colours, it's a vast religion of a billion+ people, stretching from north Africa to China to southeastern Europe to Indonesia, with, of course, converts all over the world and of all hues and stripes
Ditto Christianity
You can be bigoted, anti Islamic, a prejudiced wanker - and deserving of great disapproval or even punishment for your prejudice, if it harms people - but it is literally impossible to be "racist against a Muslim". That is a category error
Accurate language is important
Jewishness, of course, is somewhat more complex, because there ethnicity is much more closely tied to faith
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
Suggesting a Jew can avoid racism so long as they try to hide their Jewishness is as offensive as suggesting a Muslim can avoid racism so long as she takes off her hijab.
There is no excuse for racism. Ever.
But in most cases, ie if she was non white, a Muslim woman wouldn’t avoid racism by taking off her hijab.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but today she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Have to say mind you that the constant whining that the only racism possible is against coloured people. A load of old bollox.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
What knobhead gave you a like for that?
You can hover over it and find out. Except on mobile, where it doesn't seem to work. Because not clear what hover means in mobile world.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
It is obvious what Diane means and equally obvious it is a stupid thing to say in today's climate but to take your rhetorical question about Jews being beaten up, note that there are two different words available, antisemitism and racism. And to continue Diane's analogy, we can tell from a distance that she is Black but not that Graham Norton is Irish. Hearing them on the radio, it is the other way round. After that it is just a question of semantics and having the political common sense to STFU.
Just as Starmer should have laughed this off as Diane being Diane and not allowed the anti-Abbott forces at Labour HQ to have another go at ousting her, like they did a few years ago.
I have never heard anything from Diane Abbot that was obvious, she should have been put out to grass long ago. Voters in this country are thick.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
And/or will seek to dismiss the idea that other groups suffer prejudice.
On the specific point, if I’m walking through parts of Diane Abbot’s own constituency, it’s going to blindingly obvious that a person is Jewish.
The vast majority of Jews in Britain (and America and Israel) do not wear full Orthodox clobber and it is not blindingly obvious they are Jewish.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
What knobhead gave you a like for that?
You can hover over it and find out. Except on mobile, where it doesn't seem to work. Because not clear what hover means in mobile world.
It sometimes works on a mobile if you hold over it. From which I can see it’s an account named @scampi25, who hasn’t posted on this page, at least
Anyway, you now have Magic Grandpa, Abbott and Maskell (both members of the Corbyn Shadow Cabinet) and Sultana out of the party.
If they’re going to pick a time to get that alternative party together, they should really do it now.
They really SHOULD do it now. Starmer is purposefully throwing open the door and saying DO IT NOW, there will NEVER BE A BETTER TIME
Perhaps that is his strategy. Dare them, call the bluff, prove that they don't have the cullions
High risk. I might even admit a sneaking admiration of Skyr's cunning if his gambit comes off
There was a thing raised by an audience member of the Spectator's Tory meet up (and poopoohed by the panel tbf) that Starmer actually wants an early GE. The motive being to have it while the Tories are still in the doldrums. It seems utterly bonkers to me, but it is one lens through which to view this party clamp-down.
A PB-er yesterday suggested it was probably to try and draw a line in the sand and avoid what Starmer fears will be another breakdown in party discipline after the budget, which I feel is probably the most likely.
Reeves is probably going to run the line that there’s not enough money to abolish the two child benefit cap, which will cause ructions.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
And/or will seek to dismiss the idea that other groups suffer prejudice.
On the specific point, if I’m walking through parts of Diane Abbot’s own constituency, it’s going to blindingly obvious that a person is Jewish.
The vast majority of Jews in Britain (and America and Israel) do not wear full Orthodox clobber and it is not blindingly obvious they are Jewish.
But of course, they should be able to wear full Orthodox clobber if they so desire, and not face discrimination or abuse for doing so.
I do wonder if the reason why many do not choose to do so, is because of discrimination or abuse. Feared or real.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
And/or will seek to dismiss the idea that other groups suffer prejudice.
On the specific point, if I’m walking through parts of Diane Abbot’s own constituency, it’s going to blindingly obvious that a person is Jewish.
The vast majority of Jews in Britain (and America and Israel) do not wear full Orthodox clobber and it is not blindingly obvious they are Jewish.
Coming from an MP who has at least 10,000 Haredic Jews in her constituency, it’s a stupid argument.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
What knobhead gave you a like for that?
I presumed it was you?!
I may be a knobhead, but I wouldn't give the thumbs up to a poster deliberately sneering at a fellow poster. A bit of light banter is one thing, but no rewards from me to someone without a filter who is unaware when lines are best not crossed.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
What knobhead gave you a like for that?
I presumed it was you?!
I may be a knobhead, but I wouldn't give the thumbs up to a poster deliberately sneering at a fellow poster. A bit of light banter is one thing, but no rewards from me to someone without a filter who is unaware when lines are best not crossed.
Cheap unfunny personal abuse is at least harmless. Coming on here night after night dripping his poisonous posts on one issue after another that always come back to race and skin colour isn’t funny, or harmless, and it is high time the mods took it more seriously.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
Yes. That was the problem. Fatuous and offensive as you say. She was sanctioned at the time for it.
But she hasn't repeated that. This was her looking back (by invitation) and standing by her original main point - the obviously valid one about skin colour.
To pile onto her again (our first black female MP) and re-sanction in a smearing performative 'no room for antisemitism' exercise is pretty nauseating.
Keir Starmer has me in his corner, by and large, but not with this. It's wrong and there's no need for it.
I would argue the group most widely discriminated against is not a minority, but most definitely is on this forum.
Yes, and almost always obviously a woman, so gets a different form of discrimination than less obvious characteristics.
I think the former of discrimination most ubiquitous, yet least remarked upon is social class. While the physical features are generally subtle, British people are very adept at seeking out clues. Pygmalion shows that these can be taught to enable someone to "pass" as a different class, but it ain't easy.
What about bringing back the 'run off' system for mayors?
And, most importantly, what about STV for Parliamentary elections?
They are bringing back SV for mayors... although they should simplify it and go with AV.
I hesitate to bring this up - but STV for a single position - such as a mayor - is just AV. It's not wrong to describe it as STV, but it only has half of what makes typically STV interesting i.e. multi-member constituencies elected by transferable votes..
I want a voting system where the person who is everybody's second choice can be elected even though s/he's no-one's first choice.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
I find it surprising that Diane Abbott keeps banging on about this because it's a right on shibboleth that there is no hierarchy of protected characteristics. That is to say that an organisation or society shouldn't determine that one particular group is more deserving than another.
During my flat refurb I am unearthing some treasures from my travels
eg I have rediscovered a length of magnificent handwoven silk, handmade by the dynastic craftswoman who weaves for the Bhutanese queen. And I bought it from her in her workshop in Bhutan a decade or more ago. It is genuinely sumptuous, probably worth a few bob (not that this matters)
But what on earth do I do with it? I suppose I could frame it but framed textiles - framed "tools" of any kind - always seem a bit sad. This cloth is meant to be used and admired, not museum'd and killed. But how?
Get a shirt made maybe, depending on pattern and size? My gran had lengths of fabulous Ghanaian (Gold Coast then) woven cloth from when she was doing her bit for the Empire. Always regret that I didn’t claim them when her house was cleared, got chucked out I fear.
What about bringing back the 'run off' system for mayors?
And, most importantly, what about STV for Parliamentary elections?
They are bringing back SV for mayors... although they should simplify it and go with AV.
I hesitate to bring this up - but STV for a single position - such as a mayor - is just AV. It's not wrong to describe it as STV, but it only has half of what makes typically STV interesting i.e. multi-member constituencies elected by transferable votes..
I want a voting system where the person who is everybody's second choice can be elected even though s/he's no-one's first choice.
That’s possible under STV if a few candidates are well over quota on first preferences. Otherwise it’s unlikely as those with fewest first prefs are eliminated first.
In other news, Englands manager has some work to do during the HT break.
Continuing on the problem of identifying races: In the US, at one time it was common to think that Italian immigrants, and their children, were not "white". (There's a funny scene in The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, where a young black guy puts Italians in a non-white category.)
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
Was she?
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
I don’t think those people should have to not wear their choice of religious dress, but the point is that non white people wear a uniform they cannot shed that singles them out for abuse, and that puts them in a different position to Jews, the Irish and travellers.
That's what I put in my original post. And I think it's a bogus point, as people should not have to shed their 'uniform' in order to not suffer abuse.
Oh dear. This is going to be an all nighter if I don’t just try and close it down.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
We're not going to agree on this, but someone can be Jewish and not war a Kippah or have any other symbol of their religion. In the same way someone can be Christian and not (say) wear a cross. But for some people, such symbols are a fundamental part of the way they view their religion. Wearing symbols of your religion should not be a reason for abuse, and being forced not to wear one because of abuse is awful.
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
Suggesting a Jew can avoid racism so long as they try to hide their Jewishness is as offensive as suggesting a Muslim can avoid racism so long as she takes off her hijab.
By no means a matter to ignore, but Farage would be advised not to log onto Andrew Tate's X account after what happened the last time he did that.
In the case of Farage and other top politicians (Starmer, Davy, Badenoch etc), are they always the ones under control of their personal Twix accounts, or do they have a team who can post on it?
(Personally, if I was in their situation (ha!) I would write everything I post myself, but *never* post immediately, and where possible get my team to check what I've written before posting.)
The knuckle draggers kicking off in Epping, they are all filming themselves. Genius Level IQ.
Are Reform having a rally ?
"Kebatu, of High Road, Epping, is alleged on July 7 to have approached a group of children who were eating pizza and tried to kiss a 14-year-old girl, as well as asking her to kiss another child who was present, the court heard.
"On July 8, Kebatu is alleged to have tried to kiss the 14-year-old girl again, with the defendant alleged to have put his hand on the girl’s thigh and having tried to brush her hair.
"On the same day, Kebatu is alleged to have tried to kiss a woman, as well as putting his hand on her leg and telling her that she was “pretty”."
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
What knobhead gave you a like for that?
Why do you keep speculating who is giving likes to people? If you're that desperate to find out, go on Vanilla: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/ on a PC, or on desktop mode on your phone browser and click on it.
She has a point though that there’s a difference given a black person is easily identifiable , she was stating the obvious . And she wasn’t being anti-Semitic. I’m not a fan of hers but really the pearl clutching over her comments by some in the media and Labour is ridiculous.
Jews are identifiable too, especially if they're wearing a kippah.
To imply that's somehow not a real form of racism is disgraceful.
Even if that’s a reasonable point that doesn’t equate to anti -Semitism. At this rate saying you don’t like knishes will have you accused of being anti-Semitic .
She denied Jews are subjected to racism.
Saying that Jews aren't subject to racism absolutely is antisemitic.
She didn’t say that . She said it’s different for black people, not that Jews didn’t suffer .
She said Jews aren't subject to racism.
She said in her BBC interview that racism re skin colour isn’t the same as other forms of racism . You can disagree with her comments but where did she say Jews didn’t suffer .
"they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Bullshit, yes they are. She never recognised racism against Jews as racism, merely "similar to" racism, which she linked solely to skin colour.
Skin colour is not something you can miss. I think that’s the point she’s making . I don’t believe she’s anti-Semitic and I wish there was the same hysteria over the actions of Netenyahu and his bunch of genocidal maniacs .
So people beaten up because they're Jewish aren't subject to racism because they're white?
She absolutely is antisemitic and should be expelled from the Party. The fact that you can't criticise an antisemite without trying to link it to Netanyahu is alarming too. You should take a good look in the mirror.
I think her point is that, if you are black, it is hard to disguise you are black. Therefore you are potentially subject to racism whenever you go out, because you cannot easily disguise being black.
I think this is a really poor point, badly made, for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores racism or prejudice against other groups who have visible differences: say, Asians, or the disabled. She believes the prejudice she has suffered from for decades is more important than other forms of prejudice, and is casting around for reasons to support her belief.
Secondly, why should someone disguise themselves in order to not suffer from prejudice? A devout Jew should be able to wear their kippah if they choose, with no comment. A devout Muslim should be able to wear an Abaya or Hijab without being spat at. A Hindu should be able to wear a Sari without comment (except for how lovely they look).
She surely would accept that non white people all suffer from the kind of racism she thinks white Jews, travellers and Irish don’t. On your second point, she is talking about everyday people going about their business rather than those who choose to wear religious dress.
I actually agree with Dianne Abbott on the narrow point that racism derived from skin colour is of a different and maybe more immediate kind than other forms of racism. This seems obviousty true
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
I’m not sure what she said last year, but tOh give oday she didn’t really say anything controversial in my view
I quite like Dianne Abbott, I'm not entirely sure why. I just have a soft spot for her. Also I imagine she has come through quite unimaginable shit to get to where she is, as a black woman and now Mother of the House, starting out decades ago when racism really was pervasive and grim
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
Every night you’re on here trying to make an issue of skin colour. Don’t you have any self awareness - or shame - at all?
Oh give over, you tiresome, lonely old crank
No, you give over, you sick racist.
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
You seem tetchy. Has the dog absconded with a younger man?
What knobhead gave you a like for that?
I presumed it was you?!
I may be a knobhead, but I wouldn't give the thumbs up to a poster deliberately sneering at a fellow poster. A bit of light banter is one thing, but no rewards from me to someone without a filter who is unaware when lines are best not crossed.
Cheap unfunny personal abuse is at least harmless. Coming on here night after night dripping his poisonous posts on one issue after another that always come back to race and skin colour isn’t funny, or harmless, and it is high time the mods took it more seriously.
Well I have had a few/a lot of light hearted pops at Leon but his minders take umbrage.
Comments
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hands-swelling-bruises-cause-b2791132.html
No twitter link.
Just as Starmer should have laughed this off as Diane being Diane and not allowed the anti-Abbott forces at Labour HQ to have another go at ousting her, like they did a few years ago.
Do you really think police should not be deployed in such circumstances?
Snoop Dogg now co-owns Swansea City.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/newcastle-central-motorway-roadworks-closures-32078473
And why should people have to not wear their choice of religious dress in order to not suffer from abuse?
"An eyewitness said: The black man and one of the white men got in an argument and started pushing each other.
The black man then punched the white man while he was holding the child.
So the child fell and both of the white men in formal attire starting attacked the black one and were stomping on him.
Then the black man kicked one of them in the air and ran off"
If the black guy really did punch a man holding a baby then I don't blame others for piling in; you just don't do that
But this, of course, is one eye witness on one website, so who knows
@Theuniondivvie gave some jocular context. I pointed out that the actual context of the fracas is given below the tweet - and it explains why there is a child howling at the foot of the escalator
I also pointed out that this account is from one alleged eye-witness quoted on one website, so it must be approached with proper caution, it is hardly proof
And some snowflake flags this? Get a grip
It does NOT mean that "white"people cannot be victims of racism, of course they can
However IIRC wasn't Abbott originally sanctioned for comparing the racism against Jews to the discrimination suffered by gingers? Wasn't THAT the truly fatuous and offensive thing she said?
https://x.com/hackneyabbott/status/1945913883400495255?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Sadly I don’t know how it turned out but she was a rather stupid and gullible woman. (I was eighteen or nineteen and she thought I was in my forties. I didn’t look that bad…)
Tragically poor defending
https://www.yr.no/en
Its one of my favourite weather apps, and being Norwegian might be particularly good there.
She has said some things that are stupid, offensive and even outrageous. She has also been brave, tough, sometimes principled... and she was rather likeable on that show with Senor Portillo
Maybe this means I am unusually willing to cut her some slack. So be it, She's certainly got 100x the charisma of fecking Keir fecking Starmer
I think it was a very crude, ill-informed, and offensive thing to say and yes it was downplaying the racism that others suffer. On the narrow point made today, where she says people can experience different kinds of racism based on appearance, that is absolutely correct. The problem comes, I think, that she joined that into standing by her original comments, which were offensive.
She wasn’t talking about people who wear religious dress. Her point is that non white people get identified by racists and lined up for abuse in a way that non whites not only don’t, but can’t. I have Jewish friends that i didn’t know were Jewish, but that’s not the case for people who aren’t white
I can’t get a job as a doctor after seven years of training. It’s a waste of taxpayer investment
Thousands of medics are struggling to find posts in the NHS – despite the urgent need for staff
...
Dr Craddock is one of thousands of junior doctors finishing their Foundation Year 2 placements this summer with no job to go to – at least not in medicine. A shortage of specialist training posts, the next step on the ladder to becoming consultants, has left many newly qualified doctors scrambling for a dwindling number of non-training roles and locum shifts. Some are leaving the profession altogether, while others are relocating abroad, where their skills are in high demand.
The crisis stems from a surge in medical school places without a corresponding rise in postgraduate training posts. Meanwhile, overseas recruitment has soared since 2019, when medicine was added to the shortage occupation list and rules prioritising UK candidates were scrapped.
...
...competition has risen exponentially. The British Medical Association says more than 33,000 doctors applied for fewer than 13,000 specialty training posts this year. Craddock was among around 20,000 unsuccessful applicants.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/wellbeing/stress/unemployed-doctor-nhs/ (£££)
The person I feel sorry for on the list is Mostyn-Owen. She's the only one who can make any realistic claim to being deceived about his character.
I also think there's something especially bad about when a woman is forced to paint over her tears, put on a pretty frock and an ear to ear grin and play the devoted partner. Of course, I am not alleging that's what Victoria Starmer has had to do, although Rachel Reeves undoubtedly has.
During my flat refurb I am unearthing some treasures from my travels
eg I have rediscovered a length of magnificent handwoven silk, handmade by the dynastic craftswoman who weaves for the Bhutanese queen. And I bought it from her in her workshop in Bhutan a decade or more ago. It is genuinely sumptuous, probably worth a few bob (not that this matters)
But what on earth do I do with it? I suppose I could frame it but framed textiles - framed "tools" of any kind - always seem a bit sad. This cloth is meant to be used and admired, not museum'd and killed. But how?
How about you go to the end of the month without posting anything that comes back to skin colour?
The rest of us manage it.
If they’re going to pick a time to get that alternative party together, they should really do it now.
It depends how you measure it, but there is a case to be made that Africa is the most diverse continent. All the top 10 countries for diversity by this measure for example:
https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/most-ethnically-diverse-countries-1707289286-1
https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/most-ethnically-diverse-countries-1707289286-1
Oops, messed up the blockquotes. My bit starts with "it depends..."
Perhaps that is his strategy. Dare them, call the bluff, prove that they don't have the cullions
High risk. I might even admit a sneaking admiration of Skyr's cunning if his gambit comes off
The thing that mystifies me about this is that minority groups - whether religion, sexuality, race, disability, etc - can face similar abuse and problems from wider society. Yet often, some members of these groups intensely dislike the other minority groups, even if they face similar problems and pressures.
Have a good night, old boy
There is no excuse for racism. Ever.
On the specific point, if I’m walking through parts of Diane Abbot’s own constituency, it’s going to blindingly obvious that a person is Jewish.
Absolutely true, but I don’t think anyone is saying any different. I can’t see how that goes against what Diane Abbott said. It applies to people of all colours who wear religious dress
Abbott is talking about everyday people in civvies, and for them it is a disadvantage to be non white as far as likelihood of racial abuse is concerned. This doesn’t do down the abuse that Jews get.
You cannot be racist against a Muslim any more than you can be racist against a Christian or an atheist. Yes Muslims are, perhaps, generally more brown that white, but they come in all races and colours, it's a vast religion of a billion+ people, stretching from north Africa to China to southeastern Europe to Indonesia, with, of course, converts all over the world and of all hues and stripes
Ditto Christianity
You can be bigoted, anti Islamic, a prejudiced wanker - and deserving of great disapproval or even punishment for your prejudice, if it harms people - but it is literally impossible to be "racist against a Muslim". That is a category error
Accurate language is important
Jewishness, of course, is somewhat more complex, because there ethnicity is much more closely tied to faith
Another school coach crash.
Reeves is probably going to run the line that there’s not enough money to abolish the two child benefit cap, which will cause ructions.
I do wonder if the reason why many do not choose to do so, is because of discrimination or abuse. Feared or real.
https://x.com/GBPolitcs/status/1945923386867388426
But she hasn't repeated that. This was her looking back (by invitation) and standing by her original main point - the obviously valid one about skin colour.
To pile onto her again (our first black female MP) and re-sanction in a smearing performative 'no room for antisemitism' exercise is pretty nauseating.
Keir Starmer has me in his corner, by and large, but not with this. It's wrong and there's no need for it.
I think the former of discrimination most ubiquitous, yet least remarked upon is social class. While the physical features are generally subtle, British people are very adept at seeking out clues. Pygmalion shows that these can be taught to enable someone to "pass" as a different class, but it ain't easy.
My gran had lengths of fabulous Ghanaian (Gold Coast then) woven cloth from when she was doing her bit for the Empire. Always regret that I didn’t claim them when her house was cleared, got chucked out I fear.
In other news, Englands manager has some work to do during the HT break.
Happily, the increase in mixed marriages is making it harder and harder for racists. Here are two local examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Strickland (Congresswoman)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Harrell (Seattle mayor)
Incidentally, Mayor Harrell has my sympathy; it's a tough job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0BjGQ0ZTRM&list=PL0CB5CDA87F438F71
The "Christ" episode especially caught me.
(Personally, if I was in their situation (ha!) I would write everything I post myself, but *never* post immediately, and where possible get my team to check what I've written before posting.)
https://x.com/TheNorfolkLion/status/1945929144816025814
Strangely they are never that aggressive with the JSO / XR. They go around asking for tea and coffee orders.
"On July 8, Kebatu is alleged to have tried to kiss the 14-year-old girl again, with the defendant alleged to have put his hand on the girl’s thigh and having tried to brush her hair.
"On the same day, Kebatu is alleged to have tried to kiss a woman, as well as putting his hand on her leg and telling her that she was “pretty”."
https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/25321700.bell-hotel-protest-epping-forest-man-denies-trying-kiss-girl/