I have made my own opinion clear. Diane Abbott should have the right to say what she wants, no matter how seemingly racist or 19th century it is. I also believe she should have been disciplined by Miliband and axed from This Week. But the BBC treatment of this story alarms me because it seems to believe that the issue of black racism cannot be debated by a white person. Why?
Last night, on Newsnight, the BBC dragged on race hustler Darcus Howe and Sunder Katwala (who kept praising Darcus as an intrepid equality warrior) This morning, BBC today brought on Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Diran Adebayo to cover the issue. Both agreed Diane was not racist and that her defence that she was referring to 19th century colonial issues had legs! Unbelievable.
I would like to WHY the BBC felt unable to allow someone from the “community” Diane seems to have a problem with to be afforded the opportunity to comment on her tweet. Perhaps we know why…..?
It is very annoying. She was not talking about colonialism, she merely made reference to it, in a manner that was surely racist.
The dishonesty of people on this subject is very disturbing. People on the left are falling over each other to say that a a black person can’t be called racist because of an imagined “power dynamic”
The dishonesty of this argument is chilling. Never mind the fact that she is an MP, and therefore could be said to have more ‘power’ and influence than most white people.
But what the left are falling over each other to say is that there should be one rule for blacks and another for whites.
This contradicts everything they have been saying for years, and will be corrosive to race relations in this country. Ordinary white people will instantly see the hypocrisy of the BBC/Guardian/Marxist argument.
And the example being given to black people by Abbott is worrying. The whole idea was this noble notion of equality, now once again we see that noone much cares about it..
Perhaps people will say I am overreacting, I feel this matter of principle is important.
You are not over-reacting. I am not offended at what Ms Abbott said, I just think she’s wrong.
But I am offended at the fact that I do not seem to have the same right to be wrong, so to speak. Because I is white. And that is a very important matter of principle.
a perfect example …
where is this on the el beeb network today eh!
where the ahem! race-rage, droning on & on
continually rehashing it, to do what they usually do
make a range of mountains out of a molehill on anything
ANYTHING to do with race … well?…anyone?.
lots of time on chief slimer K Vaz, ferrying the,(salford student) Indian parents around … is he going to do that, for the multitude
of gunchester victims ??? …
escort them all round parliament? … treat them all the same? … well?, if not, now THAT is discrimination.
up to parliament, up to the university eh!
anyone killed is a tragedy, anyone, whether S Lawrence, the Salford student AND ANYONE ELSE too.
It has turned into an out of proportion grotesque media circus
thus, if it isn t done for anyone not black not asian, that is true discrimination of the racist variety.
You are not over-reacting at all. They have no clue as to what the word “equality” means when it comes to racial bigotry.
If this had been a tory MP, then they would have been sacked within minutes.
The left appease overt racism. Labour and the BBC are now clearly racist institutions becaue they overtly apply different policies and reactions to race related stories dependent purely on the colour of skin of the participants.
The hard left (which includes the BBC) uses racial and cuiltural displacement as its most powerful weapon in their attack on the traditional West. Our only defence against this is to protest about it, leading to exposing ourselves as “racist.” This is why being a “racist” is the ultimate evil of all evils in the eyes of the left – it removes our only defence against the left’s ultimate weapon, which is why the BBC will never allow the labelling of non-whites as racists.
I shouldn’t think any white person would take offence to what this daft woman had to say. To do so would be to lower yourself to the level of black racists with acute inferiority complexes, such as Lee Jasper, who make a living from taking offence where none is meant, taking offence on behalf of other people, and generally wallowing in self-pity.
It’s the hypocrisy that I despise. If the sort of remarks made by Emma West, or those footballers, are racist, then this undoubtedly is, and the same rules/laws should apply to all.
Personally I’d tell anyone who takes offence to any of these cases to grow a f*cking back-bone!
I have to agree with you, I made the point on Toby Young’s post about it, racism only goes one way, when will white people understand this?
I got a good few hundred recommends and then after 3 hrs it was pulled from the post as the left rose up and slapped it down.
I believe everyone should be equal, whether it is the job queue or in the eyes of the law.
The comment was clearly racist, it had a passing mention to colonialism, but that was a dig…
I find the blind backpatting of her the most feeble of it all, they could have come out and condemned her and she would have kept her job. Instead they jumped into league with her because she’s a labour MP.
Quite disgusting really…
Yes, you are right.
The question here on this website is about the BBC’s ability and interest in delivering a good, impartial public service.
Blacks can call blacks black and call whites white, OK. Whites can call whites white but they can’t call blacks black.
That is what we are talking about.
The BBC is saying Twitter is private, when your Twitter outpourings can be saved, copied, reposted, printed, audited.
When Carol Thatcher made a private comment under her breath to a colleague at a party, she was fired by the BBC. When Richard Bacon USED RADIO 5 to direct listeners to a vile rant, that was quickly apologised for.
What we expect and demand from the BBC is honest reporting with auditable impartiality, and we demand that because WE pay for the whole shebang.
It is very very depressing and disappointing for me, a libertarian conservative, who has fought racism for decades, believing that all people are individuals given the exact same divine rights, (regardless of creed, colour, religion, gender etc…), to witness so many on the left, who I fought alongside against racism, who are now defending and appeasing exactly the same racism that we used to fight against. Ironically they are defending it based upon entirely racist reasons.
We have to have a real debate in this land. Do we tackle ALL racism in ALL communities from ALL colours? Or do we allow the same free-speech for ALL people, black and white and brown alike and scrap the “hate speech” laws altogether?
If we impose a racist, one sided, hypocritical standard of self-control and imposed tolerance on the white community, which is NOT imposed on non-white communities, the racial backlash WILL be immense.
I fear for the racist “rivers of blood” which this racist imposition on only one race could trigger.
Dianne Abbot and her defenders are setting back race relations by decades! Why can’t the left not see this through their racist race tinted spectacles?
The only reality the Left care about is the hate in their hearts.
Abbott, whitewashed by the BBC.
Err, sorry, I mean blackwashed…
Err, make that khaki/coffee washed?
Err, I give up.
yep! D.(lets keep racism out of politics) Abbot ….
absolutely catagorically, not racist OKAY … JEEZ! you people 😀
explain the reasons why? … er! right! … no problem!
erm i ll just … 🙂 get this call ……… “that you Ed” 😀
(exit stage left).
thats all you need to know, the old maccy-pher report,
absurd conclusion …if you perceive it to be racist, thats it!.
oh … the slippery slope that erodes freedom of speech eh!
exposed, hung out to dry, as who decides if it IS actually racist,
who has the power eh!, never has a bigger mouth opened & both feet fitted squarely in, the excusery verbal contortions are frankly hilarious, and the precedent has been set.
some people have rained on the pc parade, haven t they?
worst of all, they happen to be WHITE!,
(wash my mouth out with soap 😉 ).
well i say about time too 😀 , the next time, the shoe is even half on the other foot ……. well, we won t say anything 😉 promise
The BBC does seem to be going easy on Abbott.
Perhaps it’s because she is black and a woman that the corporation feels she needs this kid glove treatment and shouldn’t be subjected to the same rigorous standards as a white person or a man.
If this is true, perhaps this shows a deep rooted sexism and racism within the BBC, stemming from an old fashioned attitude that women or non-whites are not to be expected to be fully accountable for what they say or do due to their inherent inferiority.
Of course, the BBC would deny this, and as they are their own judge and jury we can rest assured that they are right.
I thought sky did a far better piece, the one between Harry Cole & Lee Jasper was excellent. I think Harry Cole needs to slow down when he’s in full flow, he was tripping over his own tongue on the interview (you can see it by searching Liarpoliticians channel on youtube).
Lee Jasper is an undoubted racist.
Here’s the clip. Watch Sophie Beeboid shout down and shut Coles up while allowing Samira to lie about how Abbott said only “some” white people. Which is still racist, as if I make an unfortunate remark about one single black person and not a generalization, it’s still racist.
I thought the interviewer was fair.
I love the way ethno-bigots try to confuse the issue by saying people who say ‘if a white politician had made such a comment about black people they would have been sacked’.
They’re getting away with it. Obviously, people are talking about negative stereotyping of an entire race.
Perhaps the parallel would be to say that if a white politician had said that ‘black people like to play the race card to exploit white guilt’ they would have been sacked.
‘I thought the interviewer was fair. ‘
Not sure I would accord any BBC peroxide sink the appellation ‘interviewer’, especially on the performance here.
I simply wonder at the notion in all broadcast studios that this issue is best discussed by a Harry Cole in the livid corner and a Samira ‘I think, therefore it is’ Shackle in the red.
Both are awful representatives of the public view.
And of course Order-order and New Statesman are lapping up the ‘war’ between them over it all.
Interesting to note how the twitterati from a certain ‘wing’ are using the constraints of the medium to state that they have ‘won’ in all arguments. I guess that there were not enough characters to explain that this was from a source as told to the Marines.
But agreed, scruffy right-wing motormouths, stuttering posh young wimmin, incomprehensible community leaders or shaved head, gaunt artistic bald men seem a curiously regular feature now in any left-right set up.
But then, in the ‘heavyweight’ corner we have Camerons vs. Milibands, so the pool is pretty shallow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9672000/9672339.stm
Today’s headline: ‘
Abbott tweet ‘not a resigning issue’
‘
Quite a statement. Not their opinion of course, but simply a selected quote from a selected ‘guest’. It’s also a bit over the character limit, so some sub is in troubel. Maybe they could get in Ms. Abbott in to pare it down? She’s good at that. Especially as whatever is written need not reflect the actual intended meaning.. or.. in the BBC’s case, accuracy. Just so long as it ‘fits’.
It really is getting a bit overt.
Not sure ‘an award winning novelist’ or some journo they found will agree, but then they have a good gig telling Aunty what she thinks the public need to swallow.
I had a busy day yesterday but I saw Neo-Guido pop up on the News Channel on the subject. Pretty sure he’s white. You can check on Guido’s blog http://order-order.com/2012/01/05/coming-up-lee-jasper-defends-diane-abbott/
And that… is what you have to share on the matter?
Priceless.
I agree that some leave open goals with every ‘I notice the BBC doesn’t/nowhere on the BBC..’, but with all that has been shared on what and who has been dropped, so quickly, who has been inserted, you think this is the contribution to tackle?
As you’re here (briefly), on a matter of social media, which I know you are a keen exponent of, is an exchange on twitter ‘basically a private conversation’, especially when initiated by a political publicity-whore who, like so many on the BBC, use position and/or exposure to ensure their message is disseminated to the greatest audience?
I’m interested, and would be keen to know.
Then we can get on to dropping Toby Young in favour of supportive shills in Newsnight’s ‘debate’.
DG, your link highlights a deeper problem, why was “only” a blogger on?
Also, to reiterate MySite’s comment re Twitter being private in the BBCs parallel universe…hhahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa…”TWITTER”, what does that mean? What is ‘following’/’being followed by’ mean? Why are these private conversations down the BBC online webpages?
First off… am I being called a “whore” now?
@Span Ows I don’t consider Harry Coles to be “only” a blogger. He writes for one of the most important (if not the most important) political blog in the UK. He’s a great guest. I was simply pointing out that a wider mix of people of all sorts of colours and political positions had been discussing this issue than David V was aware.
Whore? Seriously?
Is it okay if someone is, so long as it is not you?
‘First off… am I being called a “whore” now? ‘
No, Ms. Abbott is being called a ‘publicity whore’. Which is what she is. You are not, as far as I am aware, ‘political’, at least publicly, as that would be contrary to guidelines. Or a whore. Though I’d hazard the limelight appeals more than a little. Please read…
‘especially when initiated by a political publicity-whore who,’
If my intention was not clear from the above, especially in context, I am sorry. I was making the point that all this was started by Ms. Abbott’s tweet, which makes the ‘why is this being allowed to dilute the Lawerence verdict by right wingers’ shirt-rending by some commentators, allowed to do so across the BBC, all the more risible. I presume you , and the BBC would agree this is not on, otherwise any story needing derailing could be ‘managed’ by pointing elsewhere and pulling a ‘respect’ card. That… is not how news works.
However, I think it more likely you decided to take it that way and run with it on a precious victimhood basis which, given the topic, and the BBC’s reputation these days for seeing what it wants to, is ironic.
But at least you asked the question first, sort of, which is better than most. Though the repetition at the end rather belies it was in the spirit of clarification or accuracy. Learning more about ‘reporting’ and how it works every day.
Seriously 🙂
‘First off… am I being called a “whore” now? ‘
Dr. Gregory,
It has been a few days now. Considering the factual errors, editorialising to suit and knee jerk nature of your postings, might one anticipate a reply soon?
I regret this was all in open forum, as you have tracked me down privately before and could have checked first (especially bearing mind our previous, if not discarded history of civil exchange), but I would still appreciate a response in light of the claims made and shown to be without foundation.
Yes, that nicely balances out the “let’s debate Ms Abbott’s views on whites with two persons of colour” attitude shown by the flagship Newsnight and Today programmes.
‘Pretty sure he’s white.’
And I’m pretty sure that, as so often seems to happen, you have suddenly got ‘busy’ again.
I can live with the quaint sarcasm. The hit and run hypocrisy… less so.
As a persuasive technique it serves poorly. Careful, you’ll be getting a ‘just… don’t’ email from Ms. Baoden. Though I can see why you and the rest ignore ’em. She is a hole digging-Queen (regally speaking) par excellence
Still getting the busy signal.
Must be off on camp again.
It was a light hearted contribution pointing out that a major interview on the news channel that should go some way to address the points Mr Vance made. “Hit and run hypocracy”? So I’m a “Whore” and a “hypocrit” now. Combined with the exciting death threats on the blog earlier in the week against BBC staff I can’t begin to think why we don’t engage more on here.
Were there death threats made? I recall one poster suggesting celebrations on the death of BBC staff, for which he was taken to task, but I can’t say I saw any death threats. Which blogpost were they on?
‘“Hit and run hypocracy”? So I’m a “Whore” and a “hypocrit” now’
Repeat it often enough, eh? I have addressed your deliberate taking of offence to suit already.
Also, it’s easier to avoid typos if you cut and paste. Presuming the intention was not to compound misrepresenting what I wrote with introducing spelling errors (I do that on my own often enough) to add to the ‘narrative’.
As to death threats, I have no clue what you are talking about, as you allude to something without specifics, to suit. There’s a metaphor there too. If another did so, that is awful, and I hope they reap what they choose to sow. I am not them. Conflating individual posters like this is a tired generality on par with ‘Daily Mail readers’. It may play to the gallery, but does not wash.
I engage because you choose to as well. I do so politely and factually, if with the odd ‘tease’, which you seem to switch on and off at will. Uniquely. I think I have always answered your questions when demanded, and even when in scatter gun distraction.
You evidently feel some value, career or personal, is to be gained by dipping in here, but I do find it hard to deal with the notion that what you write is only for broadcast (though again an ironic presumption) and can be dropped and avoided if challenged. Especially when the challenge is valid.
I fear you really do seem to feel you want too much, all ways, so feel free not to ‘engage’ any more. But If what you write does not add up, I will feel free to address it. That is how a free and open blog operates, if often robustly.
However, if anything gets unduly, unpleasantly personal (many have have opf course endured your ‘it was just lighthearted’ ‘teasing’ or [sarc on] in good humour on many occasions) or generically threatening, I will be the first to decry it if I see it.
But it is… a blog. If you can’t take the heat….
I’ve seen no death threats. If there are such threats then that is disappointing.
However there are very serious issues – problems with the BBC’s much vaunted ‘impartiality’ – discussed here every day.
You may feel as I do on the Guardian website – I get a rough ride there sometimes, though they now have quite a range of commenters.
I anticipate BBC people would see this blog as being, in general, quite right-wing heavy. This may be true. But I think the reason for this is that these will be the people most concerned by the sides the BBC continues to take on many issues.
So I urge you to stay, and other members of the BBC to pop by and articulate where they think we are going wrong. Otherwise we are living in different bubbles 🙂
Well done David, you managed to highlight one right winger out of a whole day’s BBC broadcasting, very balanced.
Martin I was just pointing out the only interview I’d seen on the issue.. since I was busy working and not devoting my time to monitor all BBC output or indeed the rapidly moving debate on this website… had indeed featured a white person.
I think this is the first time we’ve ever talked directly. We should do it more often.
‘I was busy working and not devoting my time’
Fair enough. We all have other things to do. But with respect, that’s a reason and not an excuse if you wish to weigh in on detail and conduct. Especially for a professional journalist. Especially when by not devoting time you have managed to minsundersatnd and hence so egregiously misrepresent so much.
But popping in with a single ‘I note’ on a vastly more complex issue, and only to ‘correct’ something based on your impressions, and oddly less thorough than usual BBC archive monitoring, and then opting to vanish… is not exactly a rare occurence.
I know you feel aggrieved by this, but such frequent, predictable manifestations of your notion of ‘talking’ with folk here is why I think the ‘Cherry Vulture with their straw men baskets swooping in and off’ notion is hardly unwarranted.
Now, how about the other valid, calm, points made in this thread that you have chosen not to address beyond yours that ‘a’ white person (frankly one chosen for heat more than light as far as I am concerned) made it to the airwaves in all this?
Yes, Coles is white, and Sophie Long talked over him and shouted him down, while allowing Samira to speak freely and tell a lie about what Abbott said.
Errm, what I saw was Sophie Long emphasising it was Samira’s turn to speak.
Not quite, hippie.
@2:19 – Sophie jumps on Cole’s explanation of the context of Abbott’s statement. He was not permitted to finish his thought, and Sophie challenged him from the position of defending Abbott: It’s difficult to express things clearly in 140 characters. This is not her job. Samira was brought on to defend Abbott, but now it’s two against one.
Coles tries to respond, Sophie steps on him, and does not permit him to respond to her defending of Abbott, and instead passes it back to Samira to continue the defense she’s just set up for her with a helpfully leading question, “Is she just using the wrong tools?”
Samira: Oh, yeah, good point, glad the BBC thought of it for me (I paraphrase).
Subjectivity will always be an impossible area to ‘call’, especially when camps are entrenched.
However, within reason, there can surely be some factual assessments made on interruptions and, to a degree, the tonality.
Craig is a master of this; lauded for his skills, and objectivity and context.
Facts are another matter. Hence…
‘Sophie challenged him from the position of defending Abbott: It’s difficult to express things clearly in 140 characters. This is not her job. ‘
I have to agree.
As I agreed that the other, radio instance, when the hostess tried to spin the PR narrative (being put out by the Abbott camp) that exchanges on twitter are (or can be) private conversations.
At risk of being pounced on by the PC-police again, Ms. Abbott is a self-publicising politician to a degree of ‘anything if it gets a headline’ exposure that can be deemed extreme, and well aware of what twitter is, can be and does.
So that daft line was a non starter too. As was the character limit effort. If you can’t do it right, don’t start what you may come to regret. I think more were knocked offside by the risible excuses than the actual comment.
That the BBC has seen fit not to throw that back at her (so far… I think some journos of integrity can see a lame duck line being spun when they are required to rehash it), or jump in to assist in playing it down or play up counters, does them no favours.
But facts do not seem a strong suit chez Aunty any more. And compared to most (inc. here), the % the BBC get.. or choose to get wrong is a worry for a vast ‘professional’, ‘trusted’, ‘respected’ media monopoly of vast resource and theoretical objectivity, especiailly when uncorrected on the spot, seldom in the same show and often never even by stealth weeks later.
I listened to the Today interview this morning, I am sure that had the gaffe been made by a white conservative then the same two would be demanding his resignation; and of course it would be these two, it would never be a couple of white right wing Tories sticking up for him.
In addition, any previous ‘form’ would have been regurgitated, not just for the individual but also for the party. Abbot has form, I seem to recall that quite a few years ago she demanded that black nurses be recruited to nurse black people in her constituency, thus reversing the programme of recruitment that was current and was targeting nurses from Scandinavian countries. Try suggesting that policy, plus the ability to speak English for white patients-if you are a white politician.
It concerns me that Alibhi Brown was yet again brought on. Her ‘form’ is quite commendable. Anyone who has read some of her columns in the Independent, ‘’Independent!’ will know her form. The readers comments accuse her of racism (anti-white) being anti British anti male and most tellingly of all for the readership of this paper, of trotting out the same boring, self serving drivel week after week.
She wasn’t always like this, I remember reading articles by her many years ago when she condemned Asian racism toward blacks when she confronted Islam. Not any more, clearly, she was got at and now performs as a BBC left wing anti British puppet, that speaks via an endless loop cassette tape of acceptable drivel
Oh, another couple of things to add to the Abbott charge sheet of raaaacist offences, she sneered at the PM and Chancellor, dismissing them as two posh white boys and that was a public, broadcast statement, not a “private”-even-though-it-was-public message. She also stated, again for public consumption and with her public / politician’s hat on that black people shouldn’t be made redundant from the public sector in any cost-reducing exercise.
It is becoming quite a long list.
“I listened to the Today interview this morning, I am sure that had the gaffe been made by a white conservative then the same two would be demanding his resignation; and of course it would be these two, it would never be a couple of white right wing Tories sticking up for him. ”
Wrong. If this had been done by a cabinet level tory, then they would have been sacked from the government within minutes of the tweet raising a storm.
Cameron now has a record of sacking his ministers for racist comments. Ed Miliband now has a record of appeasing his!
if it had been Clarkson,Billt Bragg,Alibhi Brown et al would have needed to wring out their knickers after wetting them very badly
I’m a firm believer in free speech
but I’m also a firm believer in “sauce for the goose”
she made a blanket racist remark,and the left go into 3 monkeys mode
hear no evil,speak no evil ,hear no evil
I see serial trollgirl scotty is conspicuous by her absence
not too busy wringing out soggy knickers this time I take it?
3 Monkeys!!! =-O That is SOOOO racist!!!!
It is proved beyond doubt that the BBC-NUJ gives enormous political preference to campaign on behalf of blacks against whites; and BBC-NUJ is in the political vanguard to have ‘racism’ designated as a non-black offence, despite the self incriminating evidence of Diane Abbott.
‘Newsnight’ and its presentation of black Darcus Howe last night is another case in point.
Remind me again, BBC-NUJ, why did you unfairly sack Robert Kilroy-Silk?
BBC presenter, Ms Sam Mason (who happens to be white) was sacked by BBC in 2008:-
“BBC Radio host sacked after call to taxi firm requesting ‘non-Asian’ driver”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084702/BBC-Radio-host-sacked-taxi-firm-requesting-non-Asian-driver.html#ixzz1ifnsXKFE
Did Ms Mason have in mind this sort of taxidriver in Bristol (which BBC didn’t report)?
“Caught on camera: Taxi driver runs his passenger down in 3am row over £2 fare”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064205/Taxi-driver-Muhammed-Javed-ran-passenger-Huw-Lloyd-row-8-fare.html#ixzz1ifokfLxq
At least Darcus Howe gave the truth as he saw it.
Bigoted and ignorant as ever-but really honest about it all, thereby consigning his greenhorn oppo and poor Emily to their recycling bins.
All those cliches get put out every day of the week, so hats off to Darcus-no wonder Emily Maitlis needed her smelling salts at the end.
Darcus even gives a smile off camera at the multikulti goons conflabbed.
I`m guessing no white people but Emily in her limo felt “empowered” to risk a late night bus to Wood Lane to speak on behalf of we whitey slavetrading scum!
It looked to me as if he might be smiling towards the crew in response to something. Maybe they laughed, as I did, at his robust reaction to the young man spouting pieties that Howe wanted no truck with. 😀
The double standards have been there for ages. Remember Greg Dyke describing the BBC as “hideously white”?
The left wing attacked institutional racism in the Police for the simple reason that they are clearly demonstrating now that they are institutionally racist themselves. It was psychological projection.
I am beginning to feel used and sickened that I even bothered fighting racism when former friends are defending her racism and other examples of racism from ethnic minorities.
Some of the audatiously racist defences I have heard from lefties over the last 24 hours would seriously shame BNP members.
It is sickening and disgusting.
You have learned valuable lessons;
1)The ethnic minorities have been granted special dispensations in our order. These dispensations are now being extended to see how far you are prepared to stretch.
2) Free speech has been restricted and thus you only hear want you want to hear and not what people really think.
Abbott is now empowered enough to say what she really thinks without any real censure and is now displaying her real qualities instead of the platitudes you want to hear.
The ultra liberals have placed the fox in the chicken coop and are surprised on return to discover that all the chickens are gone.
There was certainly a concerted and coordinated effort on the BBC yesterday to cover for Diane Abbott. Yesterday evening on News24 they had Sunny Hundal on as well as part of the BBC-racial socialist axis of weasel conducting damage limitation on M/s Abbott’s behalf. Basically it was a choreographed effort to laugh it off.
The only community most of the guests you refer to belong to is the race hustler community, given it’s customary BBC megaphone. I’d exempt Sunder Katwala, but obviously, the other guest should have been someone like David Starkey.
The BBC promotes anti-Semitism and ethnic racism and no suprise that it was the ‘usual suspects’ Newsnight and TODAY spearheading the damage limitation exercise for bigot Abbott.
Abbot has got form for racist comments, viz ‘blonde, blue eyed Finnish nurses’ and the ethnic superiority of West Indian mums.
As usual, based on what I heard yesterday up till 2ish, I’d give R5L an exemption from the BBC ‘Save Abbott’ campaign.
Bar the ‘private convo’ attempt, I’d agree.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw who was on Newsnight’s sofa to ‘discuss’ Abbott. Darcus Howe was very familiar to me but I had to look up Sunder. Turns out he’s the general secretary of the Fabian society (surprise surprise). Getting them on to ‘discuss’ Abbott is like getting Nick Griffin and David Duke on to talk about the Tram girl’s remarks.
Katawa is ex-President of the Fabian Society. He now blogs for Iain Dale.
He was also speaking against M/s Abbot’s comments, albeit in a quite muted and ‘excusist’ form.
spoke against them in waht way hippie? Everyone has “spoken against them” by saying the were silly/stupid/crass/unadvised…were they spoken against saying they were blatant and obvious racism (which they clearly were)?
There was a highly revealing moment when he was flattering Darcus Howe, attributing to him a well-meaning sentiment of goodwill and all hands together in social harmony (at about 45mins 15 secs in):
But Darcus was probably the first person twenty years ago to say a sort of multiculturalism where white people have no role except as oppressors will never get us anywhere in our society…”
At this, Darcus leapt in to disabuse him of any such notion: Nobody’s ever heard me saying anything like that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019ch5b/Newsnight_05_01_2012/
I’m afraid I laughed as the veil was torn away and that young man’s eyes were rudely opened to the reality of the old race warrior’s view of society which is about a million miles from what the youngster fondly believed – and had been taught to believe not least by the Beeboid Corporation’s peculiar exaltation of black man, no matter how crass or heinous his words or actions. Not quite the type of revelation the Beeboids had in mind when they completed their line-up for Newsnight, eh?
Wonder if it will be Darcus` turn next time to talk through his old arse…and for the usual black mafia to come onto the Beeb outlets to explain what he meant?
Abbott..Howe…Ouseley…Bellos…Boateng…Greer…Butts…anyone who ever sat with the late great Bernie Grant…Jesse Jackson and that talentless African named fop on the Late Review(who to my knowledge has never actually DONE anything yet, but just be black!).
Oh Lordy…we`ll not be hearing from Dappy or Dizzee Rascal will we?
Oh what a circus…you can have any opinion -as long as it is black( with apologies to Henry Ford)
Some years ago, commenting about the crime problem among young black men, Jesse Jackson said once when walking home late at night he heard people walking behind him and was relieved when he turned around and saw they were white.
For some reason, when this shuckster was pontificating on 5Live, and being treated like some oracle, this never came up.
Hippie
Iain Dale has a number of people blogging for him on his site, ranging across the political spectrum. I always google the names of those who contribute if I don’t know their point of view. Sunder Kawala is a crass soft left twat. Toby Young was bumped off the programme for this apologist.
BBC – “Bias – it’s in our genes.”
This was a reply to Hippiepooter’s previous comment.
I think we could all see what was going on over the years regarding racism, Islamiphobia etc but the sheer Hypocrisy of the reaction to Fattys tweet is astounding and leaves us in no doubt where we stand. White people, especially working class white people, are second class citizens in a country being stolen from underneath them.
I also think there’s an unwitting unholy alliance between black racists like Abbott and many middle class whites. I hate to introduce another -ism into the equation, but anti-white racism also seems to satisfy the innate class prejudice of a section of the middle classes. You know the sort – they move away from black areas because “it’s so nice to bring the children up in the country” and still think their neighbourhood is multicultural because of the Indian doctor in the next street who even Nick Griffin could get on with.
I prefer the crude honesty of Emma West.
You do have a point there Barry. I must clarify what I say about fighting racism. I hate racist discrimination with a passion, and that is why I also hate multi-culturalism as it is inherantly racist, and pits race against race in endless offence-athons. We should not be segragating ourselves into these racially distinct groupings. All humans have the same inaliable rights, (until such time as their chosen behaviour demands that society is protected from them that is).
Either we stamp out all racism everywhere, or we tolerate much more freedom of speech for all people in all communities and of all colours.
Good point about “chosen behaviour”.
I remember a black guy I once worked with being giving a hard time by the other black people on the phone bank he worked on for saying he’s English. One of the posh near white ‘black girls’ who’d led the way in that sat opposite me a while later and got pretty incensed when I took her up on her racist crap. Goodness knows where it would have led if a phone call hadn’t come in. We didn’t speak to eachother afterwards.
If the ‘black community’ dont disown a blatant bigot like Abbott it shows how deep seated the problem of racism is in the black community.
I wonder how the ‘black girls’ would have reacted if a white colleague had challenged the black guy’s claim in the same way?
Can’t win.
I remember a black guy I once worked with being giving a hard time by the other black people on the phone bank he worked on for saying he’s English. One of the posh near white ‘black girls’ who’d led the way in that sat opposite me a while later and got pretty incensed when I took her up on her racist crap. Goodness knows where it would have led if a phone call hadn’t come in. We didn’t speak to eachother afterwards.
If the ‘black community’ dont disown a blatant bigot like Abbott it shows how deep seated the problem of racism is in the black community.
And while some people were earnestly “fighting racism”, they quite likely didn’t realise that some of their anti-racism comrades in arms, such as Darcus Howe, were fighting something else.
Oh, and the subtle rhetorical moves Liz Mackean pulled in her Newsnight report to deflect and diminish the issue didn’t escape my attention.
This lady, unsuprisingly, has form. Some guy called Craig has previously nabbed her:-
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/03/liz-mckeans-very-biased-report-gavin.html
She crops up elsewhere on a goole “liz mackean biased bbc”
“Some guy called Craig“…blasphemy! 😉 Craig did/does sterling work ripping the BBC a new one with timed and detailed info re the number of guests/interruptions/time to speak/etc of various shows and general BBC news coverage. If I had the money I’d employ Craig full time to carry on what he was doing.
The Tory Party has the money but not the sense.
And as if this wasn’t bad enough, in the Telegraph, we have Fraser Nelson telling us that everything is just hunky dory because it’s all about poverty not race. He’s never been to Bradford then.
Of course people are far more silent on race than they used to be, you fool, because they don’t want to lose their jobs or their liberty. Very few do, admittedly, but the fear is real.
PS: The DT seems to be removing comments right, left and centre.
Noticably, it is predominantly white people who are the ones who are losing their livelihoods and liberty for racial offences. Non-whites are being allowed to get away with racism, because of the colour or their skin!!!
What Abbott said was stupid, but not a one off, she’s got form for highlighting when a person is white and she doesn’t like them.
However, her claim and others that white people were using this Twitter thing as an equivilent to what happened to Stephen Lawrence is nonsense and the left know it.
It’s also utter bollocks to keep harping back to the British Empire and what happened. Far worse things did take place and still do under black rule in many African countries.
My issue is that the left are defending Abbott yet wanted Clarkson hung, they were totally unwilling to accept that his comments were taken out of context at the time.
However, what I find most interesting is the woman Abbott was replying to, she made a great point (that Abbott didn’t like) that who are these ‘community leaders’ that seem to pop up for a sound bite every time something kicks off.
Of course we know who they are, they are appointed by the lefty media like the BBC, be it halfwitted gang members or some priest or so on.
These people like say Owen Jones or Billy Bragg who the BBC think represent ‘Englishness’ is utter shite, but it’s the BBC that peddle this crap.
If I lived in Hackney or Brixton and was black or white and continually had to put up with some ‘gang’ member representing me on newsnight, I’d soon get pissed off.
Why don’t they have someone who represents a more positive image of those areas on as ‘representing the community’ for example?
There they go again!
They used Millie Dowler to get at Murdoch…and now they`re using poor Stephen Lawrences shroud to wipe away their own fingerprints and size nines from the race industry that Abbott is but a gargolye.
Will the liberal media and the race warriors like Jasper, Hasan etc go any lower?
Silly question!
Yes, indeed. They could have their MPs on, for example. 😉
Well said, Martin. The BBC has poor representatives on because they have to “keep it real”.
It could be argued that if the Race Relations laws were applied in the way these Fatbot supporters now want, combined with all the “Positive” Discrimination* that these Lefties have pushed for (and got in many cases) that these are the first steps to establishing political apartheid. I thought they were against apartheid – obviously not.
*Positive Discrimination is still Discrimination and is therefore as bad as any other form of it.
Bloody ‘ell, she hasn’t finished yet.
Diane Abbott: taxi drivers refuse to pick up black passengers
Hasn’t it crossed her mind that there might be very good reasons for not picking up young males in certain situations? Do black taxi drivers behave differently? Did taxi drivers pick up skinheads?
I’d suggest keeping these things top of mind, much as the BBC is leading the ‘moving on’ charge.
Have to say the Newsnight thread has stayed open longer than I had thought…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2012/01/thursday_5_january_2012.html
Could it be some within know when they are staying into very dubious territory, Minsitry of Truth wise, these days?
As for “moving on” I recall that when the Bradford headmaster Ray Honeyford was labelled a racist because he claimed that promoting multi-culturalism rather than a shared British culture was divisive, the BBC did not go on about it for days or weeks or months but years. When however a Labour frontbencher makes a racist comment (no alleged about it – she has form) almost instantly the BBC apply a “moving on” agenda.
Thank you for reminding us of that. His comments were measured but his career was destroyed regardless.
I believe Ray Honeyford is the most wrongly-maligned figure of my lifetime. I was at school in the NW of England when he made his comments and can recall the disgust all the lefty teachers had for him. It’s ironic that that town is now far worse than anything he predicted.
If you have a few minutes I recommend the great Theodore Dalrymple’s treatise:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_2_oh_to_be.html
Had the magnifying glass out and come to the conclusion that Diane Abbott is actually Nick Griffin covered in brown latex.
Has anyone actually seen them together?
No? Told you so.
Well done Nick, your new plan is working brilliantly.
I was just wondering if the BBC was going to start employing Griffin as balance to Abbott.
“Has anyone actiually seen them together?”
As it happens . . . .
Yuck
New impartial documentary on who’s to blame for the troubles in Gaza. By David Irving.
What sticks in the craw is that these black racists have now got the confidence to come out in their true colours and state openly that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR A BLACK PERSON TO BE RACIST.
This is a corollary to the statement that “if someone perceives a comment to be racist, it IS racist”.
Britain is becoming a frightening upside down place.
Exactly … if this gets the let off, (and from the likes of me, that ll never happen) and the insipid handwringers get their way … well, don t they realise what an utterly absurd can of worms they ve opened.
You ve got goons at el beeb that keep drip dripping, that criticism of muslims(i.e. Islam) is racist??!?! .. ludicrous! 😀 there is quite literally, no helping them.
So Blacks can t be racist????? …. that f–kwit maccy-pher report stating
You only have to think racism and it is, what the hell is that?.
The big beneficiaries of this skewed nonsense, will be (as always) the perpetual victims, of Islam, they never NEVER miss the opportunity, to ride coat-tails to get advantage.
With that abhorrent bunch of fascists at the OIC financing it, (they must MUST! be literally rubbing their hands at this) … expect loads more bleating islamo-faux-bia crybabies on el beeb, coming soon to a radio near you
😀
This is literally the living end,
but hey … the EDL memberships gonna get a another boost, and a lot more unrest is coming. the lib-cons can carry on pontificating about
their new OIC rep Warsi & co, but it “don t mean squat” in brum, luton,
bradford, blackburn etc.
is it maybe time to “call a spade a spade”?
Becoming?
Sorry for double posting – but perhaps it needed emphasising!
Someone posted on another blog MillipEd’s emphatic condemnation of raaacist comments by David Starkey:
I look forward to hearing what he has to say…on second thoughts, I don’t, really. I am just thinking of oily Vaz being wheeled on to Newsnight last night to intone that as far as the Labour Party is concerned, her position is safe and that she had apologised and that should be enough.
I didn’t hear any expression of outrage there. Who sent him? Who authorised him to say any of that?
I find her remarks “racist”, I don’t care what others say, I don’t care that she has apologised. According to the Law of “Social Cohesion” . I am right and nothing can be done or said in her defence to alter the fact. QED.
“Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves.”
Anon