Did you see that Labour’s Diane Abbott should not have made so many appearances on This Week since becoming a shadow minister, according to a ruling by the BBC Trust’s standards committee? BBC tried to skirt around it by pretending This Week not political!!
OH DIANE, YOU’RE SO FINE….
Bookmark the permalink.
Piggy Abbot makes me physically puke.
Do be fair, she’s got very expensive private school fees to pay for so her son doesn’t have to mix with the products of being brought up by West Indian mums.
I reckon her son doesn’t want anyone at his school to know his mother is: Lardarse racist Diane Abbott. In posh circles champagne socialists are hated with a passion.
She did have, but no longer, she sent him out to do his A levels in Ghana, living with his Ghanaian father and I imagine a reasonably good old fashioned private school is pretty cheap out there. That was a couple of years back, so he would be university age by now.
Nice – she displays a classic double whammy of left wing hypocrisy. Gets to keep her son well away from the disastrous results of multi-culti Britain while saving money by sending him to an elite school in Ghana.
The fee was worth it because she had to prepare to discuss political topics outside her brief? How much prep does she need to roll her eyes and say, “Aaaandreeeewww……”?
. . . and “Obammmerrrrr”
Yes, and that thing in the corner of my room showing programmes isn’t a television.
Can’t see that working, somehow.
Me either…
‘BBC tried to skirt around it by pretending This Week not political!!’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9508264/Diane-Abbott-overpaid-for-BBC-appearances-ruling-says.html
Given..
‘The BBC describes the Andrew Neil-fronted show as “a political review of the week.”
Even so, a market rate talent tried to front it out as only a true CECUTT pondlife is told to, but sadly for her ended up with a persistent complainant unprepared to take BS or fobbing off for an answer. They really are the lowest form of professional weasels imaginable..
But the Beeboids say it’s not a “traditional” political review show. Get-out-of-bias free.
While I’m at it, somebody needs to ask why Andrew Neil let this go on, if he’s such a stalwart conservative and provides political balance to the other 21,997 Beeboids.
In a Stalinist State it is suicidal to attack Stalin.
It would be suicidal for anybody who wants a broadcasting career (and this includes Andrew Neil) to upset the BBC because they (with your money) dominate the television and radio “current affairs” output of this country.
BBC = Stalinism.
‘Beeboids say it’s not a “traditional” political review show. ‘
Uh-huh.
So, in further ‘unique’ precedents, bolting ‘non-traditional’ in front of black can, in the right kind of light, with the wind blowing the right way, and the blessing of a Hugs Boaden ‘it is because I say it is’, mean stuff is white?
When it suits.
I can see that working well if deployed back to Jezza, Nic, Kirtsy, Jon, et Al.
Has Diane Abbott ever done a real days work in her life. Or anything productive with her life.
Apart from making cream cake makers rich from fatty body.
Shadow Minister for Shameless Hypocrisy, more like.
As for the BBC’s justification, straight out of the New Labour Guide to Lying Shamelessly Through Your Teeth And Getting Away With It.
They restrict Griffin’s appearances on tv, presumably due his racism. Surely Abbott should be similarly shunned for her repeated attacks on white people?
BTW when are we going to see a post on BBC Three’s “The revolution will be televised”. The political bias in episode two was far worse than the first episode, quite staggering left wing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mfj4v/The_Revolution_Will_Be_Televised_Episode_2/
It’s not possible for blacks to be racist! Don’t you listen to Lee Jasper?
Or the delightful(?) Jo Brand for that matter.
Blimey, that’s just awful.
Bloody hell, that’s made me genuinely angry.
How can it be worst than the first episode portraying Occupiers as gentle, innocent lambs being unfairly accused by a straw-man “reporter”?
Silly. Blacks can’t be racist.
For much the same reason, Muhammed Ali is lionized by the BBC despite expressing racist opinions (which I believe he has never recanted) that make Griffin sound like a multiculturalist.
I guess none of our defenders of the indefensible have seen this yet, or they’d be asking if that’s how much David Vance gets every time he appears on the Nolan show. Which would be, in my opinion, a far better use of the license fee than Abbott’s uninformative mewling.
I simply do not understand how this utterly useless and racist woman can get a career in British politics; it has to be political correctness, there can be no other sane explanation.
However, I’m afraid I understand all too well why this loathsome women was a regular guest on This Week; she matched the BBC’s Ethnic Diversity Person Specification perfectly and so, Robert’s your father’s brother, she gets a cushy and lucrative platform from which to spurt her inane dribble. I’d sooner vote for a walking pint of Abbott Ale than that unutterably atrocious woman.
This is what it’s all about:
CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America
I posted that on another thread a few days ago. I don’t mind any reposting it. The more people who know about this the better.
She stood for the leadership, pity she didn’t win. When asked about her chances Alister Campbell confirmed if she did win then that’s the end of the party.
But atleast she stood and lost, unlike Harperson who did’nt have the balls, how can she shout sexism if she was well and truly beaten in the full view of the public.
So according to Mr.Thompson…. The accusation that Diane Abbott is representing her Political party and it`s policies whilst being paid is quite simple…. Once again any opinions she gave were taken `completely out of context` …. the same also goes for any subsequent payments she recieved which might be found on her bank statements.. Even though the income is clearly marked alongside her salary as an `M.P.` I expect that she will `apologise` for it or she will accuse the white populace of being racist at the dinner tables again…
She shouldn’t have continued to appear on the programme. But does that justify the barrage of racially offensive slurs? It undermines the point and reduces the site to the level of a sewer.
Could you point out those slurs please? All I can see is the highlighting of the hypocrisy of the racism that Abbott screams to justify her existence.
DIVIDE AND RULE,,,,,,,,,,remember !
Feel free to point out any racist comments from the above. You’ll not find any. But, let’s be honest, you had already made up your mind before clicking on this particular thread, hadn’t you?
Given her self publicity PR and spin I feel that like all politicians she opens herself to derision though I fail to see any ‘racially offensive slurs ‘ her skin is irrelevant it’s her conduct and that of the BBC that are in question?
We are still waiting for you to find any of the slurs you pretended were here. Try again or apologise for being so wrong.
That was in reply to JAH.
JAH is projecting his own racism. He thinks that criticising Dianne Abbot is “racially offensive” because she is black.
Does anybody understand what JAH is going on about?
He/she seems to inhabit some kind of parallel universe where this site posts racial slurs. Can’t think of any other explanation, cos I’m damned if I can spot any on here (and to be honest, don’t think I ever have).
I think JAH meant that, just like any opposition to the President’s policies, any negative statement about a person of color is racist.
Nicely put, and shows it’s the leftists who are constantly drawing attention to skin colour and therefore sustaining a divisive racist narrative.
Yes, it would be nice to have a president one could criticise without being called racist for doing so.
I think JAH has got stuck in the BBC mindset of if you ain’t the same colour/race/religion/creed/sexual kink/dog lover or cat fancier you don’t have a opinion !
I don’t detect any “racist” slurs, though many have sugggested that she has made sevseral racist remarks. I think we have all heard some of them.
However I don’t think we need to be quite so unpleasant about her appearance.
We can’t all be gorgeous…
-from ‘Wikipedia’ entry on Diane Abbott:
“Race comments:
“In 1988 Abbott claimed, at a black studies conference in Philadelphia, that ‘the British invented racism.’
“In 1996, Abbott attracted widespread criticism when she claimed that at her local hospital ‘blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls were unsuitable as nurses because they had never met a black person before’. The secretary of the all-party Finland group of MPs, Conservative Ian Bruce responded by accusing her of using racial stereotypes, adding: ‘All Scandinavian countries have people from African and Caribbean countries living there. It shows ignorance to make such remarks.’
“Abbott referred to David Cameron and Nick Clegg as ‘two posh white boys from the Home Counties’ in May 2010.
“On 4 January 2012, Abbott tweeted that: ‘White people love playing ‘divide and rule’ We should not play their game’, which again led to widespread criticism including accusations of racism. Only after being told by the Labour Party leadership that the comment was unacceptable did she apologise for ‘any offence caused’, claiming that she had not intended to ‘make generalisations about white people’.The Deputy Prime Minister called her comments a ‘stupid and crass generalisation’. Nadhim Zahawi, Conservative MP, said ‘This is racism. If this was a white member of Parliament saying that all black people want to do bad things to us he would have resigned within the hour or been sacked.’ Members of the public lodged complaints but the Metropolitan Police stated that no investigation would be launched and no charges would be brought against her, saying she ‘did not commit a criminal offence’.
“In January 2012 Abbott suggested that taxi drivers discriminate on racial grounds tweeting that she was ‘Dubious of [sic] black people claiming they’ve never experienced racism. Ever tried hailing a taxi I always wonder?'”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott
Plus there was her quip about how black moms went to the wall for their children, giving the impression that she was claiming superiority to other racial groups. When Andrew Neil rubbed her face in it, she ran away from the show for quite some time.
That was an absolute delight to watch, i kept pinching myself , her face was a picture, and Portillo was sat there with a look of someone who had walked in on a ‘domestic’ between two old friends. Classic.
In any reasonable thinking person’s book, that’s quite a racist record she’s got.
Oh, hang on, she’s black, I’ll have to take that back.
I complained about the fact Abbott was on the BBc at all following her “divide and conquer” racist tweet. Didn’t get her off though did it. The BBc replied with some twaddle as normal.
That’s because the BBC will be surreptitiously supporting the ‘only whites can be racist’ agenda.
BBC Facebooks World Have Your Say page is running a thread about the foriegn student / University decision…. I posted this….
Justin Casey It`s all well and good being critical of the UK and its` student visa rules… Isn`t it about time you looked at the reasons why you have to travel abroad for higher education?? The problem lies not with our education visa policies, why don`t you have these facilities in your own countries? You imply that the decision was made to somehow benefit our country financially… that those who made the decision did it to somehow `SCAM` existing students by throwing them out and profiting from it. Sorry !!! But no!! … How come Nigeria has vast oil wealth and minerels too, yet there is no infrastructure there?? It is your own Governments that are financially corrupt. I could sit here and name about fifty countries of the African continent and also just about every single Middle Eastern state and the same statement can be made about them all!!! It is not our fault that your rulers greedily and selfishly spend what should be shared amongst your peoples, it is not our fault that you are ruled by theocracies and tin pot dictatorships…. We have no responsibility to any of you… Look at your own mess… Don`t expect the Western World to keep giving you hand outs…. I am sure that there are indeed some highly intelligent men and women who can teach you in your own countries…. Stop blaming us for your shortcomings.. It`s getting a bit boring TBH!! Demand University education from your own Leaders not us…
The thread title is…. `Would you come to the UK to study from abroad and what would you hope to gain? Today London Met University has had its license to teach overseas students revoked`
It needed to be said….. So I said it…
http://www.facebook.com/worldhaveyoursay
Independent auditors estimated a couple of years ago that around £200 billion of Nigeria’s oil wealth has been lost through corruption. That’s a hell of a lot of missed educational opportunities.
OT: Does Bias BBC have an official FB page? It would be cool to set one up! We could have a ‘I bet Bias BBC can get 1, 000, 000 likes before the BBC’ page lol… Just an idea Mr Vance, if you are reading 🙂
@Alex …. Can you imagine how many hours a B-BBC facebook page would actually remain in existence?? It`s easier to have untitled facebook page.. The BBC have a fair bit of power with the Fb admins.. due mainly to the fact about 70% of thier group members are from foriegn shores and also they have more group pages aimed at foriegners than at the UK license fee payers… Also a lot of thier mod staff are actually foriegn based… Due mainly to thier consistent headlining of the `Arab Spring` debacle… I know… I have so far been banned from commenting on about eight of thier groups pages thus far… Still … I suppose we could set one up.. I have no issue in trying it… due to my pretty good knowledge of obscuring my ip origin on there….. ( I have to do such things due to the BBC reporting me to the facebook sys ops and admins all the time.. )If anyones up for it… i`ll set one up…
i wonder what her views are on anal sex?
I`m sure if you send her a few quid she will give you an opinion…. However best make it a cheque that way you can bounce it when she later states “What i said was taken out of context, and that is why I am apologising for not clarifying my the point I was making as I didn`t realise that the press core had been having a racist rally over thier sandwiches made with white bread just prior to me making what looked to everyone like yet another ill informed badly judged and prejudicial flatulant remark about the white voters (who are probably BNP members or slave owners anyway)…
Guys!!! A whiteknighters jumped on that Facebook thread now and he is a real piece of work…. His name is Nathan Samuel Hazlett and he knows all about the international community and even goes to an `International Social Club` every week, not to kick back…. but to serve drinks and keep the bowls full of pretzels becouse thats the kind of self righteuos dude he is!!! He also goes on protests and carries the banners at the front hahaha!!! Here`s a link to a picture of him in his album on his FB profile… I spat my coffeee out…. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=412933706968&set=a.443248571968.229744.665341968&type=3&theater 🙂
It would help if he learnt not to spell ‘their’ as ‘thier.’
Media empire censured for rule-breaking payments to politician : Leveson to investigate
No, thought not – its the BBC
What’s noticeable about this is how rare an upheld complaint is, and just what it took to push through the labyrinth that is CECUTT, and in such a way as they could not find a way to blow it off.
It will be interesting how it is referred to, as of course they own the edit, and with the BBC it is as much what goes missing as what is in but ‘enhanced’.
Cue them getting very keen on smokescreens to cover this one with anything else possible. Oo, look…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/heid-banger.html?
I actually have a fair bit of time for this chap, as he can be objective at times, but this is a real wagon-circler, playing up the deranged and the daft which one is sure does form a part of the complaints process.
Of course he’s keen for you to read what they want to be read.
But where are all the highly pertinent complaints that get shared here? In a neat metaphor for so much BBC output, they seem sunk in some memory hole they don’t want anyone accessing. Propaganda backed by censorship.
‘ then wonder what it all cost.
Interesting notion to raise. So leave the BBC to it as misinformation and re-education costs a lot to conceal and defend?
Actually I do wonder what it all costs, every time I make a legitimate, well-founded, clearly-argued and clearly-substantiated complaint, and find this is spun up by the BBC through months, scores of staff (from Directors to snoops scanning the internet for lord knows what) and vast reams of paperwork, only to reach an in-house employee who, 999 out of a 1000 times, will ‘decide they got it about right’ based on no more than ‘comfort in belief’. And no backsies.
It’s unique all right. Not in a good way.
I don’t think it is worth it ‘Guest Who’.
This is the end result of an UPHELD complaint by the ECU (BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit) about 20 emails, one appeal and eight months later.
“This is my first day back from two weeks’ leave, and I was glad to find an explanation of the situation awaiting me on my return. You’re quite right in supposing that arrangements for drawing appropriate attention to relevant ECU findings are not merely informal, but the form they take is up to the BBC division responsible for the material which is the subject of the finding. In the case of Thought for the Day, the responsible division is BBC Vision – oddly, you may think, in view of the fact that it’s a radio programme, but it’s produced by the BBC’s Religion and Ethics department, which is part of BBC Vision. My colleagues in BBC Vision explain that their approach to the matter is based on the fact that the normal lifespan of Vision material on the BBC website is a week (that being the period for which it remains available on iPlayer), and that they simply weren’t aware that Thought for the Day had its own archive pages. They have now made an addition to the page, which you can see at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00nbvtl, and they assure me that they’ll be on the look-out for any similar archive pages in relation to future findings. We’re grateful to you for enabling us to close a previously unobserved loophole.”
And a discreet end note – not even in bold – duly appeared:
‘Update 10 August 2012: Following the broadcast of this edition of Thought for the Day, two listeners complained to the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) that the speaker had advocated Scottish independence, contrary to the BBC’s requirement of due impartiality on such matters. The ECU found that although the speaker had not intended to be understood in that sense, he expressed himself in terms which created the impression that he favoured one side of a controversial question. The complaints were upheld and the production team were reminded of the need to guard contributors against any appearance of political partisanship in areas of contemporary controversy.’
Is it the indolence or idiocy or the patronising tones which is worst?
Framer – tx for a valuable share. I wonder if this, upheld one will feature in the ‘look, we are 110% perfect’ list they trot out so often? As there seem to be a few versions; one with ‘quirky’ ones they have swatted away, and in the file marked ‘Beware of the Leopard’ protected 24/7 by a trained FoI lawyer the ‘other stuff’ no one is meant, and hence gets to be made aware of.
I have a special file where I keep all complaints exchanges such as these from BBBC (and other places) posters, as they do provide invaluable reference material when dealing with CECUTT. One thing I note is, like yours, these guys are either always on holiday, apologising for the delay, or blaming one for the other. Always. Yet the same system can often impose a deadline we as complainants are meant to dance to or all bets are off.
And it is worth it when you hit ’em where it hurts (with facts and direct quotes, especially if it’s from their own pages)… and they hate it. Better yet, they usually knee-jerk and lash out reactively, which simply adds more goodies to the archive.
However, in one sense you are quite correct, epitomised by this: ‘..the production team were reminded of the need to guard contributors against any appearance of political partisanship in areas of contemporary controversy.’ I’m pretty sure they have not quite got over the stitch they got laughing at that one, like the time the £400k market rate talent that is ‘Hugs’ Boaden asked them to stop showing Aunty up with Charter-busting tweets. Though of course there is another set of BBC-unique weasels in place as to whether tweets ‘count’, despite near all of its news gathering and dissemination being shunted to this platform as a matter of corporate policy. All with implausible deniability built-in. And speaking of this….
‘..they simply weren’t aware that Thought for the Day had its own archive pages.’
It’s amazing what the whole sorry cabal can suddenly find ‘they were not aware of’, but only after…. ‘about 20 emails, one appeal and eight months later’… telling the complainant to, in essence, ‘take a hike’ as their belief in rectitude is as default as it unthinking.
I’ve even had two ‘Directors’ blame the other and claim they can’t actually communicate on the same complaint as one does words and the other does people and so the words people say cannot be addressed so it all simply goes away.
It would be a joke if it was not so serious.
Which is why it was well worth your effort, and I will keep banging away too.
Because like the good little STASI kapos they are, they do keep records, and one day those records will be used to hold them to account.
That’s long term. Even short (for them) you DID get a result. It was worth it.
I do agree on one thing about the BBCs self-analysis…or “excuse” for stumping up for the likes of Abbott, Campbell, Blunkett and Portillo.
The BBC only offer us “political review”…and no news that most of us would recognise in any meaningful sense of the word.
The BBC gave up giving us “news” back in 1976 as far as I can tell-all that they have ever done since is “critique” “comment” ;”analyse” and “review”-in other words give us all the same damned cultural Marxist take on any “news” that they deem fit is worth telling us of.
Basically its Liberal Fascism and monocultural Marxist limewash…and nothing more.
Therefore the BBC should be taxed accordingly…slap on 20% for their “fiction” “infotainment” “edutainment”-and make the slimy twisters nail their pastel rainbow colours to the pedalo….when they refuse to release Balen, I want to know whether the BBC are choosing the “literature” “artistic” or “fiction” defence-but, don`t let them ever say that it`s “news”…it`s a metropolitan editors op ed that allows him to sup at a Hampstead dinner party for the coming weekend…and to be treated accordingly.
Leave the news to Randall, Holland, Rupert…leave the BBC with its sad little wishlist of Islamofascism as steeped in ecogreen One World slops and slime.