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.
It's a bit too sumptuous, and, sadly, I'm a bit too old, to get it made into a shirt
But, you have given me an idea. A cushion! It would be a magnificent silk cushion. OMG what's happened to me
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.)
Incidentally, Mayor Harrell has my sympathy; it's a tough job.
I've always thought that shows the stupidity of racism. Like Nazi Germany trying to decide who counts as being 'Jewish', or the Caribbean classification of blacks (*), and the South African colour charts. In many cases, the edge cases are far more numerous than the 'normal/pure' cases.
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”."
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.)
I think its a given that most aren't 100% under only their own control. Starmer tweets read like ChatGPT 2 generated talking point which get posted all over the day. I am sure he has better things to do doing than crafting tweets and lining them up in a tweetbot to auto post them at specific times.
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.
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.
As a matter of law, that is correct.
Where a lot of people get into legal trouble is their belief that such a hierarchy in fact does, or ought to, exist.
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.)
Incidentally, Mayor Harrell has my sympathy; it's a tough job.
I've always thought that shows the stupidity of racism. Like Nazi Germany trying to decide who counts as being 'Jewish', or the Caribbean classification of blacks (*), and the South African colour charts. In many cases, the edge cases are far more numerous than the 'normal/pure' cases.
(*) Is 'Mulatto' a word we are allowed to use?
Dual or multiple heritage is the preferred term, I believe.
Strangely they are never that aggressive with the JSO / XR. They go around asking for tea and coffee orders.
Mainly because the protester ran out into the middle of the road in front of a moving van
That is true, but when JSO / XR are in the road, the police only go near them to get the vegan sandwich orders in as they are too worried about something bad happening to the protesters.
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.)
Incidentally, Mayor Harrell has my sympathy; it's a tough job.
I've always thought that shows the stupidity of racism. Like Nazi Germany trying to decide who counts as being 'Jewish', or the Caribbean classification of blacks (*), and the South African colour charts. In many cases, the edge cases are far more numerous than the 'normal/pure' cases.
(*) Is 'Mulatto' a word we are allowed to use?
The stupidest was the “one drop” rule of the US South, which designated as black, people who were entirely white.
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.)
Incidentally, Mayor Harrell has my sympathy; it's a tough job.
I've always thought that shows the stupidity of racism. Like Nazi Germany trying to decide who counts as being 'Jewish', or the Caribbean classification of blacks (*), and the South African colour charts. In many cases, the edge cases are far more numerous than the 'normal/pure' cases.
(*) Is 'Mulatto' a word we are allowed to use?
The stupidest was the “one drop” rule of the US South, which designated as black, people who were entirely white.
Perhaps even more absurd was Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa making Japanese "Honorary Whites"
Strangely they are never that aggressive with the JSO / XR. They go around asking for tea and coffee orders.
JSO/XR for all of their annoyances don't have a history of smashing up hotels and intimidating anyone with vaguely dark skin.
They rather enjoy smashing up offices, art galleries, etc.
Yes which is reprehensible but it's not the same thing as what happened during the summer riots.
The claim is here, there was a peaceful protest which was blocking the road. They have hit an individual as they tried to ram through and now its all kicked off.
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.
Agree on social class. In circles where it matters, it's very hard to overcome.
However, I'd say university education usually allows someone from any social class to pass as middle class nowadays.
Upper social classes, however, are a mystery to me.
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.
FFS it is obviously because they are not ultra-religious.
Watching children bundled into dinghies, French police admit they’ve lost control The Telegraph spent two weeks in Calais to understand why smugglers are winning the battle on the shores
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.
There are white Muslims who wear hijabs.
And the point is, that for those for whom it is a critical part of their culture, simply saying "take it off" is not a solution. There are people, many in Diane Abbott's own constituency, who are visibly Jewish while walking on the street.
There are people, many in Diane Abbott's own constituency, who are subject to racist abuse because they are visibly Jewish while walking on the street.
Can it be different? Of course. But we should not pretend Jews are not subject to racism or belittle that which they are subject to.
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.
FFS it is obviously because they are not ultra-religious.
You're making one heck of an assumption there.
Perhaps it might be easier for them to show they are religious if they did not risk abuse for wearing the symbols of their religion?
(Besides, I'd (wrongly?) class the Kippah as being as 'ultra religious' as a cross on a Christian. A sign of identity and of the faith, but not necessarily 'ultra' religiosity. )
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.
There are white Muslims who wear hijabs.
And the point is, that for those for whom it is a critical part of their culture, simply saying "take it off" is not a solution. There are people, many in Diane Abbott's own constituency, who are visibly Jewish while walking on the street.
There are people, many in Diane Abbott's own constituency, who are subject to racist abuse because they are visibly Jewish while walking on the street.
Can it be different? Of course. But we should not pretend Jews are not subject to racism or belittle that which they are subject to.
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.
I wouldn't stress it. He works hard for plausible deniability, through various techniques, but it's clear the place he's coming from on 'identity' matters. He's loud but only mental weaklings will be unduly influenced.
Here’s the Bhutanese silk in question. Perhaps seeing it will offer ideas
“When the whip hand...meets with obstacles on its path, a blockage in its journey, it pauses. It increases in volume and strength, filling up in front of the obstacle and eventually spilling past it..."
Strangely they are never that aggressive with the JSO / XR. They go around asking for tea and coffee orders.
Two tier policing pure and simple.
Can you imagine the police force in 2025 driving like that at a "community" protest of ANY section of the "community" that wasn't WWC British.
No
It's not entirely a community protest. Tommy Robinson's social media coordinator is filming there. I'm not condoning overaggressive policing I'm just saying that there's a reason why the police are more on edge than they would be for other protests.
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.
Not all Muslim women wear a hijab.
And not all Jews wear a kippah.
But for those who want to, they should be able to, without threats of abuse.
Watching children bundled into dinghies, French police admit they’ve lost control The Telegraph spent two weeks in Calais to understand why smugglers are winning the battle on the shores
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.
Many Muslims would er… pass for being non-Muslim were they to remove their religious dress, shave beards etc.
Is the racism that is expressed against such Muslims more or less than that against black people?
Watching children bundled into dinghies, French police admit they’ve lost control The Telegraph spent two weeks in Calais to understand why smugglers are winning the battle on the shores
The best tactic to create difficulties for Labour over votes for 16 and 17-year-olds would be to add an amendment making it for UK and Irish citizens only.
I would remove the vote for Irish citizens as well. Not because I have anything against them but because it is daft to have a system where citizens of a foreign country (who are not UK citizens) can vote in our national elections.
Ireland isn't really a foreign country. We should aim to reintegrate it as much as possible.
Maybe you should suggest that to India and Egypt as well. I am sure they would welcome your suggestion.
I choose those two former colonies specifically as they were the main reason we were so desperate to keep Ireland in the Empire in 1921 for fear of setting an example to those two strategically important imperial possessions.
Watching children bundled into dinghies, French police admit they’ve lost control The Telegraph spent two weeks in Calais to understand why smugglers are winning the battle on the shores
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.
Not all Muslim women wear a hijab.
And not all Jews wear a kippah.
But for those who want to, they should be able to, without threats of abuse.
There were eight Jewish boys in my class of 30 at Ilford County (Class of '94), only one wore a Kippah.
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.
They do, don't they! I've noticed that. It's quite interesting.
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.)
Incidentally, Mayor Harrell has my sympathy; it's a tough job.
I've always thought that shows the stupidity of racism. Like Nazi Germany trying to decide who counts as being 'Jewish', or the Caribbean classification of blacks (*), and the South African colour charts. In many cases, the edge cases are far more numerous than the 'normal/pure' cases.
(*) Is 'Mulatto' a word we are allowed to use?
During the New Labour years, there was an attempt to ban the racist use of the “n” word.
This ran into the problem that about 99% of the use of the “n” word is actually by black people. But who is a “black person”?
I was drinking in a bar when I came across some juniors in a law firm who had been tasked by a partner (who was trying to help re government) to come up with some ideas.
Seeing their naivety, I went to town. Basically signed them up to the idea of using the Nuremberg Laws (serial numbers removed). I then went on, as an encore to suggest the use of colour charts. At that point I was actually worried they were taking my suggestions seriously.
On topic, strategy merlin aren't being taken seriously surely? For a start she doesn't understand that Labour are proposing to bring in legislation to give 16-17 year olds the vote, she thinks it's happened. It's a 1 person start-up with less credibility than Goodwin's mob and any poll result will be sensational to get attention
Watching videos of this Epping protest and there's more people with cameras streaming it for right wing social media channels than there are protestors.
Watching videos of this Epping protest and there's more people with cameras streaming it for right wing social media channels than there are protestors.
It's true at all protests these days, every twat is a citizen journalist or recording for their own purposes. It's bloody annoying at gigs when 50% of the crowd watch it through the screen of their mobile.
Bondi is visiting Alcatraz this evening with a view to getting the island reopened.
Maybe it will become their Spandau, with only one prisoner left, a fat, orange faced individual with plasters on his hands muttering to himself about how had a penpal in Russia once.
Dianne Abbott is a bit Red Ken, stop bring up the Jews....
She isn't. Ken did Jew baiting. DA's focus is on what she knows - anti black racism.
"I'll tell you who else doesn't have it as bad as us..."
What's that one then, William? Is it from a film I should have seen?
It’s meant to be a parody of the way Ken would always steer the conversation back to Hitler. It’s sadly overshadowed his prior fame as a keeper of newts.
Watching videos of this Epping protest and there's more people with cameras streaming it for right wing social media channels than there are protestors.
It's true at all protests these days, every twat is a citizen journalist or recording for their own purposes. It's bloody annoying at gigs when 50% of the crowd watch it through the screen of their mobile.
Filming the gig is better than filming themselves. You get people performing several takes of their spontaneous emotional reaction to get the right one for social media.
Watching videos of this Epping protest and there's more people with cameras streaming it for right wing social media channels than there are protestors.
It's true at all protests these days, every twat is a citizen journalist or recording for their own purposes. It's bloody annoying at gigs when 50% of the crowd watch it through the screen of their mobile.
Yes very true and the depressing thing is that they're all utterly useless at filming properly.
The knuckle draggers must have a short memory. The one thing Keith will take swift action on is "far right" riots. If you are going to have a ruck these days, you at very least make sure you turn up all in black. not start smashing up a police van with your face clearly visible and tats out.
Something rather strange has happened in my world of anecdata in the last 48 hours. Some of the most liberally minded people I know seem to have picked up on the stats of how many foreign nationals are claiming unemployment benefits vs the total. And they’re shocked.
And others, total yokels, are openly discussing which country to escape to, with the Afghan super injunction scandal seemingly the final straw after the ever rising tax burden on aspirational working age people.
Dianne Abbott is a bit Red Ken, stop bring up the Jews....
She isn't. Ken did Jew baiting. DA's focus is on what she knows - anti black racism.
"I'll tell you who else doesn't have it as bad as us..."
What's that one then, William? Is it from a film I should have seen?
It’s meant to be a parody of the way Ken would always steer the conversation back to Hitler. It’s sadly overshadowed his prior fame as a keeper of newts.
Yes a truly sad decline. I try to remember the earlier political incarnation. A glorious combination of muscular socialism, ahead of its time wokeness, and bone-crushing administrative competence. Any (fares) fair assessment will agree with this.
Here’s the Bhutanese silk in question. Perhaps seeing it will offer ideas
lol, the cheeky book.
reminds us of his ‘young Hitler’ screensaver in an earlier post.
Equally unsurprising is the apparent paucity of books, with the empty shelves
Ah, baited again, you're so easy
There is actually a political object in that photo, a deeply political object. I wonder if anyone can spot it
The answer is - I promise - genuinely hilarious and weird
I am serious. There is a remarkable political object in this photo. It's right there
And no, it's not the Enoch book designed to wind up zoophile dimwits like @IanB2
Look again! If you can find it and name it I will buy you a bottle of Purcari Negru, next time we meet in Moldova
Because we ordinary folk all have an Enoch Powell book hanging about to wind people up in a photo.
It will amaze you, because you;re not very clever, but I also have
1. A copy of the Communist Manifesto
2. A (rather admiring) biography of Che Guevara
3. A copy of Ten Days That Shook The World
4. The Anarchist's Cookbook
And so on, and so on. I am a politics geek that studied philosophy that now writes about politics. I know. Amazing. I imagine you are the same with widget surveying
I’ve been chatting this evening with AI. I think it’s sentient.
No, it’s just a search engine.
Once you start feeding it factual questions about which you already have some idea of the answer, you will quickly discover how flawed they currently are.
Here’s the Bhutanese silk in question. Perhaps seeing it will offer ideas
lol, the cheeky book.
reminds us of his ‘young Hitler’ screensaver in an earlier post.
Equally unsurprising is the apparent paucity of books, with the empty shelves
Ah, baited again, you're so easy
There is actually a political object in that photo, a deeply political object. I wonder if anyone can spot it
The answer is - I promise - genuinely hilarious and weird
I am serious. There is a remarkable political object in this photo. It's right there
And no, it's not the Enoch book designed to wind up zoophile dimwits like @IanB2
Look again! If you can find it and name it I will buy you a bottle of Purcari Negru, next time we meet in Moldova
Because we ordinary folk all have an Enoch Powell book hanging about to wind people up in a photo.
It will amaze you, because you;re not very clever, but I also have
1. A copy of the Communist Manifesto
2. A (rather admiring) biography of Che Guevara
3. A copy of Ten Days That Shook The World
4. The Anarchist's Cookbook
And so on, and so on. I am a politics geek that studied philosophy that now writes about politics. I know. Amazing. I imagine you are the same with widget surveying
Something rather strange has happened in my world of anecdata in the last 48 hours. Some of the most liberally minded people I know seem to have picked up on the stats of how many foreign nationals are claiming unemployment benefits vs the total. And they’re shocked.
And others, total yokels, are openly discussing which country to escape to, with the Afghan super injunction scandal seemingly the final straw after the ever rising tax burden on aspirational working age people.
Here’s the Bhutanese silk in question. Perhaps seeing it will offer ideas
lol, the cheeky book.
reminds us of his ‘young Hitler’ screensaver in an earlier post.
Equally unsurprising is the apparent paucity of books, with the empty shelves
Ah, baited again, you're so easy
There is actually a political object in that photo, a deeply political object. I wonder if anyone can spot it
The answer is - I promise - genuinely hilarious and weird
I am serious. There is a remarkable political object in this photo. It's right there
And no, it's not the Enoch book designed to wind up zoophile dimwits like @IanB2
Look again! If you can find it and name it I will buy you a bottle of Purcari Negru, next time we meet in Moldova
Because we ordinary folk all have an Enoch Powell book hanging about to wind people up in a photo.
It will amaze you, because you;re not very clever, but I also have
1. A copy of the Communist Manifesto
2. A (rather admiring) biography of Che Guevara
3. A copy of Ten Days That Shook The World
4. The Anarchist's Cookbook
And so on, and so on. I am a politics geek that studied philosophy that now writes about politics. I know. Amazing. I imagine you are the same with widget surveying
If you were a real politico you would have one of those rare collector items, the Labour racist mug.
The knuckle draggers must have a short memory. The one thing Keith will take swift action on is "far right" riots. If you are going to have a ruck these days, you at very least make sure you turn up all in black. not start smashing up a police van with your face clearly visible and tats out.
Yaxley-Lennon's mob attack the police at the top of a Stella. They are the people who used to be football hooligans. They want a fight.
Here’s the Bhutanese silk in question. Perhaps seeing it will offer ideas
lol, the cheeky book.
reminds us of his ‘young Hitler’ screensaver in an earlier post.
Equally unsurprising is the apparent paucity of books, with the empty shelves
Ah, baited again, you're so easy
There is actually a political object in that photo, a deeply political object. I wonder if anyone can spot it
The answer is - I promise - genuinely hilarious and weird
I am serious. There is a remarkable political object in this photo. It's right there
And no, it's not the Enoch book designed to wind up zoophile dimwits like @IanB2
Look again! If you can find it and name it I will buy you a bottle of Purcari Negru, next time we meet in Moldova
Because we ordinary folk all have an Enoch Powell book hanging about to wind people up in a photo.
It will amaze you, because you;re not very clever, but I also have
1. A copy of the Communist Manifesto
2. A (rather admiring) biography of Che Guevara
3. A copy of Ten Days That Shook The World
4. The Anarchist's Cookbook
And so on, and so on. I am a politics geek that studied philosophy that now writes about politics. I know. Amazing. I imagine you are the same with widget surveying
Most of what you post here, incessantly, has a clear racist subtext.
Several times you’ve been caught with material about prominent racists in photos you have posted for some other purpose.
Occam’s razor.
Pretending you do it to wind people up is a pitiful, transparent fig leaf.
The knuckle draggers must have a short memory. The one thing Keith will take swift action on is "far right" riots. If you are going to have a ruck these days, you at very least make sure you turn up all in black. not start smashing up a police van with your face clearly visible and tats out.
Here’s the Bhutanese silk in question. Perhaps seeing it will offer ideas
lol, the cheeky book.
reminds us of his ‘young Hitler’ screensaver in an earlier post.
Equally unsurprising is the apparent paucity of books, with the empty shelves
Ah, baited again, you're so easy
There is actually a political object in that photo, a deeply political object. I wonder if anyone can spot it
The answer is - I promise - genuinely hilarious and weird
I am serious. There is a remarkable political object in this photo. It's right there
And no, it's not the Enoch book designed to wind up zoophile dimwits like @IanB2
Look again! If you can find it and name it I will buy you a bottle of Purcari Negru, next time we meet in Moldova
Because we ordinary folk all have an Enoch Powell book hanging about to wind people up in a photo.
It will amaze you, because you;re not very clever, but I also have
1. A copy of the Communist Manifesto
2. A (rather admiring) biography of Che Guevara
3. A copy of Ten Days That Shook The World
4. The Anarchist's Cookbook
And so on, and so on. I am a politics geek that studied philosophy that now writes about politics. I know. Amazing. I imagine you are the same with widget surveying
Most of what you post here, incessantly, has a clear racist subtext.
Several times you’ve been caught with material about prominent racists in photos you have posted for some other purpose.
Here’s the Bhutanese silk in question. Perhaps seeing it will offer ideas
lol, the cheeky book.
reminds us of his ‘young Hitler’ screensaver in an earlier post.
Equally unsurprising is the apparent paucity of books, with the empty shelves
Ah, baited again, you're so easy
There is actually a political object in that photo, a deeply political object. I wonder if anyone can spot it
The answer is - I promise - genuinely hilarious and weird
I am serious. There is a remarkable political object in this photo. It's right there
And no, it's not the Enoch book designed to wind up zoophile dimwits like @IanB2
Look again! If you can find it and name it I will buy you a bottle of Purcari Negru, next time we meet in Moldova
The photo on the wall is very odd. Appears to be children sitting on a bed with some large pies behind them.
So maybe the pies are famous?
But then again I expect one of the drink bottles is one of the last few remaining from some historical, probably neo-Nazi, figure's cavern?
No
But good try. Those are actually impoverished Coptic Christian girls in the weird ancient mystical town of Akhmim - where "chemistry" ("Al-khmim") was born, and hermeticism, and maybe much else - in Middle Egypt. I was the only westerner there. They were selling bread from the bonnet of an old American car, next to their houses made out of cardboard
The knuckle draggers must have a short memory. The one thing Keith will take swift action on is "far right" riots. If you are going to have a ruck these days, you at very least make sure you turn up all in black. not start smashing up a police van with your face clearly visible and tats out.
Yaxley-Lennon's mob attack the police at the top of a Stella. They are the people who used to be football hooligans. They want a fight.
One thing that is noticeable is that there is a lot of youngsters. I am not sure Tommy Robinson and his old EDL mates are really the ones involved these days, most are fat, coked out 40 and 50 year olds. The footage from this evening its teenagers and buff 20 somethings. The new football hooligans.
Here’s the Bhutanese silk in question. Perhaps seeing it will offer ideas
lol, the cheeky book.
reminds us of his ‘young Hitler’ screensaver in an earlier post.
Equally unsurprising is the apparent paucity of books, with the empty shelves
Ah, baited again, you're so easy
There is actually a political object in that photo, a deeply political object. I wonder if anyone can spot it
The answer is - I promise - genuinely hilarious and weird
I am serious. There is a remarkable political object in this photo. It's right there
And no, it's not the Enoch book designed to wind up zoophile dimwits like @IanB2
Look again! If you can find it and name it I will buy you a bottle of Purcari Negru, next time we meet in Moldova
The photo on the wall is very odd. Appears to be children sitting on a bed with some large pies behind them.
So maybe the pies are famous?
But then again I expect one of the drink bottles is one of the last few remaining from some historical, probably neo-Nazi, figure's cavern?
No
But good try. Those are actually impoverished Coptic Christian girls in the weird ancient mystical town of Akhmim - where "chemistry" ("Al-khmim") was born, and hermeticism, and maybe much else - in Middle Egypt. I was the only westerner there. They were selling bread from the bonnet of an old American car, next to their houses made out of cardboard
The object is to the left...
There's a photo frame on the shelf, but it is too fuzzy for me to see clearly.
So, I give in and will return to the footy and extra girl time.
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.
Many Muslims would er… pass for being non-Muslim were they to remove their religious dress, shave beards etc.
Is the racism that is expressed against such Muslims more or less than that against black people?
I don’t understand people talking about Muslims or Hindus in this context. They are generally non white, so would obviously fall into the category of people easily identified by those who like to dish out racist abuse
Here’s the Bhutanese silk in question. Perhaps seeing it will offer ideas
lol, the cheeky book.
reminds us of his ‘young Hitler’ screensaver in an earlier post.
Equally unsurprising is the apparent paucity of books, with the empty shelves
Ah, baited again, you're so easy
There is actually a political object in that photo, a deeply political object. I wonder if anyone can spot it
The answer is - I promise - genuinely hilarious and weird
I am serious. There is a remarkable political object in this photo. It's right there
And no, it's not the Enoch book designed to wind up zoophile dimwits like @IanB2
Look again! If you can find it and name it I will buy you a bottle of Purcari Negru, next time we meet in Moldova
Because we ordinary folk all have an Enoch Powell book hanging about to wind people up in a photo.
It will amaze you, because you;re not very clever, but I also have
1. A copy of the Communist Manifesto
2. A (rather admiring) biography of Che Guevara
3. A copy of Ten Days That Shook The World
4. The Anarchist's Cookbook
And so on, and so on. I am a politics geek that studied philosophy that now writes about politics. I know. Amazing. I imagine you are the same with widget surveying
Most of what you post here, incessantly, has a clear racist subtext.
Several times you’ve been caught with material about prominent racists in photos you have posted for some other purpose.
Occam’s razor.
It is always a joke but you are too stupid to get it. That's what it is
The fact you are too stupid to get it just makes me want to do it more, because it amuses me. That's it. This probably does not reflect well on me, I am baiting a silly old man with no friends but a dog, but hey there you go. We're none of us perfect - especially online. Soz boz
Comments
But, you have given me an idea. A cushion! It would be a magnificent silk cushion. OMG what's happened to me
(*) Is 'Mulatto' a word we are allowed to use?
No mention of Winston Churchill or Maggie Thatcher
The Kaiser appealed to the British for an "alliance of the White race" in the early years of last century.
Where a lot of people get into legal trouble is their belief that such a hierarchy in fact does, or ought to, exist.
These Coldplay concerts are getting out of hand.
One child has sadly died in the coach crash near Minehead
Thoughts and prayers with the child's family and friends
Can you imagine the police force in 2025 driving like that at a "community" protest of ANY section of the "community" that wasn't WWC British.
Edit.
With Enoch as the net judge.
However, I'd say university education usually allows someone from any social class to pass as middle class nowadays.
Upper social classes, however, are a mystery to me.
Should get at least a couple of cushions out of that.
A poncho, just the thing!
Martyrs of course to the freedom that I shall provide
The Telegraph spent two weeks in Calais to understand why smugglers are winning the battle on the shores
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/07/17/watching-children-bundled-boats-french-police-lost-control/
Equally unsurprising is the apparent paucity of books, with the empty shelves
There is actually a political object in that photo, a deeply political object. I wonder if anyone can spot it
The answer is - I promise - genuinely hilarious and weird
And the point is, that for those for whom it is a critical part of their culture, simply saying "take it off" is not a solution. There are people, many in Diane Abbott's own constituency, who are visibly Jewish while walking on the street.
There are people, many in Diane Abbott's own constituency, who are subject to racist abuse because they are visibly Jewish while walking on the street.
Can it be different? Of course. But we should not pretend Jews are not subject to racism or belittle that which they are subject to.
Perhaps it might be easier for them to show they are religious if they did not risk abuse for wearing the symbols of their religion?
(Besides, I'd (wrongly?) class the Kippah as being as 'ultra religious' as a cross on a Christian. A sign of identity and of the faith, but not necessarily 'ultra' religiosity. )
But for those who want to, they should be able to, without threats of abuse.
Is the racism that is expressed against such Muslims more or less than that against black people?
I choose those two former colonies specifically as they were the main reason we were so desperate to keep Ireland in the Empire in 1921 for fear of setting an example to those two strategically important imperial possessions.
Here is Trump pocketing a FIFA championship medal (meant for the players)
https://x.com/essenviews/status/1945398891878473784
This ran into the problem that about 99% of the use of the “n” word is actually by black people. But who is a “black person”?
I was drinking in a bar when I came across some juniors in a law firm who had been tasked by a partner (who was trying to help re government) to come up with some ideas.
Seeing their naivety, I went to town. Basically signed them up to the idea of using the Nuremberg Laws (serial numbers removed). I then went on, as an encore to suggest the use of colour charts. At that point I was actually worried they were taking my suggestions seriously.
When he stands like an Ox in the furrow, with sullen set eyes on your own and grumbles 'this isn't fair dealing ' my son leave the Saxon alone".
I
It's a 1 person start-up with less credibility than Goodwin's mob and any poll result will be sensational to get attention
Maybe it will become their Spandau, with only one prisoner left, a fat, orange faced individual with plasters on his hands muttering to himself about how had a penpal in Russia once.
Ten minutes to get another
And no, it's not the Enoch book designed to wind up zoophile dimwits like @IanB2
Look again! If you can find it and name it I will buy you a bottle of Purcari Negru, next time we meet in Moldova
England score 2 goals
And others, total yokels, are openly discussing which country to escape to, with the Afghan super injunction scandal seemingly the final straw after the ever rising tax burden on aspirational working age people.
So maybe the pies are famous?
But then again I expect one of the drink bottles is one of the last few remaining from some historical, probably neo-Nazi, figure's cavern?
I’ve been chatting this evening with AI. I think it’s sentient.
1. A copy of the Communist Manifesto
2. A (rather admiring) biography of Che Guevara
3. A copy of Ten Days That Shook The World
4. The Anarchist's Cookbook
And so on, and so on. I am a politics geek that studied philosophy that now writes about politics. I know. Amazing. I imagine you are the same with widget surveying
Once you start feeding it factual questions about which you already have some idea of the answer, you will quickly discover how flawed they currently are.
Several times you’ve been caught with material about prominent racists in photos you have posted for some other purpose.
Occam’s razor.
Pretending you do it to wind people up is a pitiful, transparent fig leaf.
But good try. Those are actually impoverished Coptic Christian girls in the weird ancient mystical town of Akhmim - where "chemistry" ("Al-khmim") was born, and hermeticism, and maybe much else - in Middle Egypt. I was the only westerner there. They were selling bread from the bonnet of an old American car, next to their houses made out of cardboard
The object is to the left...
So, I give in and will return to the footy and extra girl time.
The fact you are too stupid to get it just makes me want to do it more, because it amuses me. That's it. This probably does not reflect well on me, I am baiting a silly old man with no friends but a dog, but hey there you go. We're none of us perfect - especially online. Soz boz