Dianne Abbott - how long?
05 January 2012, 11:39 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Her position isn't cogent. She criticised selective schools before sending her son to a fee paying school and then went on to claim it was because West Indian mothers in same way care more about their kids - I kind of inverted race card. She rails against discrimination whilst extolling the virtues of positive discrimination and attacks perceived racism with racism. She's an embarrassment to sincere socialist and pluralist and those who believe in meritocracy and see past the colour of person's skin. The deep irony is that if she wasn't black she wouldn't be in the commons because she simply doesn't have the talent.
05 January 2012, 11:57 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dosn't the format go:-
1) Furore....calls for resignation
2) Internal enq / appology, no case to answer /
3) public appology/ draw a line underneath & move on
4) More revelations in the press
5) Top person gives full backing & support
6) Stepping down to spend more time with family / stress / illness
So still some way to go
Mart
1) Furore....calls for resignation
2) Internal enq / appology, no case to answer /
3) public appology/ draw a line underneath & move on
4) More revelations in the press
5) Top person gives full backing & support
6) Stepping down to spend more time with family / stress / illness
So still some way to go
Mart
06 January 2012, 12:04 AM
#33
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Her position isn't cogent. She criticised selective schools before sending her son to a fee paying school and then went on to claim it was because West Indian mothers in same way care more about their kids - I kind of inverted race card. She rails against discrimination whilst extolling the virtues of positive discrimination and attacks perceived racism with racism. She's an embarrassment to sincere socialist and pluralist and those who believe in meritocracy and see past the colour of person's skin. The deep irony is that if she wasn't black she wouldn't be in the commons because she simply doesn't have the talent.
That said, I really like Reginald D Hunter. His comedy tends to focus on differences, which can be the anti-thesis of promoting racial harmony, and is a bit of an "obvious target". However, differences, if they are handled in an affectionate and balanced manner can serve to reinforce relationships and negate some of the resentment that "the well meaning PC crowd" shoot themselves in the foot by via supression of speech or endeavouring to make certain topics taboo.
Also, he's just too damn polite and likeable and has, no arguments please, the coolest voice EVER!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg6CT...eature=related
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 06 January 2012 at 12:54 AM.
06 January 2012, 12:12 AM
#34
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree with all this "racist" bollox. Never have and never will, but at the end of the day, what's right for one should be right for the other.
If a white person had said what she said about a coloured person, all hell would be let loose. So, she needs the same treatment. Even though I think things have got totally out of hand regarding what you should say and what you shouldn't, regarding skin. We are all people. Who cares what colour we are. It wouldn't enter my head to mention colour, if I was commenting on what someone else was doing.
If a white person had said what she said about a coloured person, all hell would be let loose. So, she needs the same treatment. Even though I think things have got totally out of hand regarding what you should say and what you shouldn't, regarding skin. We are all people. Who cares what colour we are. It wouldn't enter my head to mention colour, if I was commenting on what someone else was doing.
06 January 2012, 12:17 AM
#36
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's true though, Paul. It's all got out of hand. It's silly. I detest racists with a passion, but I do agree with fair is fair. If the law,(which is think is an ***) says you should not comment on colour, then she is wrong. Even though, what she said, did not bother me one bit.
I think it's time people grew up and stopped being so damned sensitive
I think it's time people grew up and stopped being so damned sensitive
06 January 2012, 12:39 AM
#37
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That should be a motto for SN! 
I agree though, the problem with people like Abbott is that one the one hand she purports to be pro-integration anti racist etc, but she makes comments that are actually rather devisive, i.e. that segregate on the basis of colour and provoke resentment between white and black people.
You kinda did the same thing on the one hand saying we should all get along and be less sensitive and on the other hand making what might be deemed (not by me because I'm not sensitive lol) as an inflamatory comment about there being an inherent bias towards penalising white people for perceived prejudiced comments than black people. You might be right, you might be wrong, you won't be able to prove it either way, so it's an unhelpful avenue to go down for the greater good. Of course, those of a less sensitive disposition won't be bothered, but how many de-sensitised people get to positions of influence in the equality game and how much of Joe public can hear such a comment and not take it to heart I wonder?
The reckon that the reality is that for the "average Joe" such rhetoric only promotes a tit for tat claims and counter claims between people of different races that are focused on trying to secure acknowledgment for perceived past wrongdoings rather than trying to achieve a greater common future good.
In the above example, would it not be more unifying to judge the situation soley on its merits and just say, her comments were devisive, and unhelpful and unnacceptable for someone who is supposed to be promoting racial harmony, period?
I agree though, the problem with people like Abbott is that one the one hand she purports to be pro-integration anti racist etc, but she makes comments that are actually rather devisive, i.e. that segregate on the basis of colour and provoke resentment between white and black people.
You kinda did the same thing on the one hand saying we should all get along and be less sensitive and on the other hand making what might be deemed (not by me because I'm not sensitive lol) as an inflamatory comment about there being an inherent bias towards penalising white people for perceived prejudiced comments than black people. You might be right, you might be wrong, you won't be able to prove it either way, so it's an unhelpful avenue to go down for the greater good. Of course, those of a less sensitive disposition won't be bothered, but how many de-sensitised people get to positions of influence in the equality game and how much of Joe public can hear such a comment and not take it to heart I wonder?
The reckon that the reality is that for the "average Joe" such rhetoric only promotes a tit for tat claims and counter claims between people of different races that are focused on trying to secure acknowledgment for perceived past wrongdoings rather than trying to achieve a greater common future good.
In the above example, would it not be more unifying to judge the situation soley on its merits and just say, her comments were devisive, and unhelpful and unnacceptable for someone who is supposed to be promoting racial harmony, period?
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 06 January 2012 at 12:56 AM.
06 January 2012, 08:01 AM
#38
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That should be a motto for SN!
I agree though, the problem with people like Abbott is that one the one hand she purports to be pro-integration anti racist etc, but she makes comments that are actually rather devisive, i.e. that segregate on the basis of colour and provoke resentment between white and black people.
You kinda did the same thing on the one hand saying we should all get along and be less sensitive and on the other hand making what might be deemed (not by me because I'm not sensitive lol) as an inflamatory comment about there being an inherent bias towards penalising white people for perceived prejudiced comments than black people. You might be right, you might be wrong, you won't be able to prove it either way, so it's an unhelpful avenue to go down for the greater good. Of course, those of a less sensitive disposition won't be bothered, but how many de-sensitised people get to positions of influence in the equality game and how much of Joe public can hear such a comment and not take it to heart I wonder?
The reckon that the reality is that for the "average Joe" such rhetoric only promotes a tit for tat claims and counter claims between people of different races that are focused on trying to secure acknowledgment for perceived past wrongdoings rather than trying to achieve a greater common future good.
In the above example, would it not be more unifying to judge the situation soley on its merits and just say, her comments were devisive, and unhelpful and unnacceptable for someone who is supposed to be promoting racial harmony, period?
I agree though, the problem with people like Abbott is that one the one hand she purports to be pro-integration anti racist etc, but she makes comments that are actually rather devisive, i.e. that segregate on the basis of colour and provoke resentment between white and black people.
You kinda did the same thing on the one hand saying we should all get along and be less sensitive and on the other hand making what might be deemed (not by me because I'm not sensitive lol) as an inflamatory comment about there being an inherent bias towards penalising white people for perceived prejudiced comments than black people. You might be right, you might be wrong, you won't be able to prove it either way, so it's an unhelpful avenue to go down for the greater good. Of course, those of a less sensitive disposition won't be bothered, but how many de-sensitised people get to positions of influence in the equality game and how much of Joe public can hear such a comment and not take it to heart I wonder?
The reckon that the reality is that for the "average Joe" such rhetoric only promotes a tit for tat claims and counter claims between people of different races that are focused on trying to secure acknowledgment for perceived past wrongdoings rather than trying to achieve a greater common future good.
In the above example, would it not be more unifying to judge the situation soley on its merits and just say, her comments were devisive, and unhelpful and unnacceptable for someone who is supposed to be promoting racial harmony, period?
06 January 2012, 09:16 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
She is racist end of. Always has been always will be but because she is black and she is being racist to white people that seems to make it ok.
That sums it up for me nicely. What would happen if you had White Women Mean Business or White Music awards? It would be deemed racist yet black people can single themselves out for special black only groups and then accuse white people of being racist 
06 January 2012, 10:09 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 1,790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree with all this "racist" bollox. Never have and never will, but at the end of the day, what's right for one should be right for the other.
If a white person had said what she said about a coloured person, all hell would be let loose. So, she needs the same treatment. Even though I think things have got totally out of hand regarding what you should say and what you shouldn't, regarding skin. We are all people. Who cares what colour we are. It wouldn't enter my head to mention colour, if I was commenting on what someone else was doing.
If a white person had said what she said about a coloured person, all hell would be let loose. So, she needs the same treatment. Even though I think things have got totally out of hand regarding what you should say and what you shouldn't, regarding skin. We are all people. Who cares what colour we are. It wouldn't enter my head to mention colour, if I was commenting on what someone else was doing.
When you described a person as coloured i'm sure you meant black
06 January 2012, 10:18 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Starkey, an independent historian who had the good grace to qualify his statements with suffixes like 'particular type', was on the front page of the BBC for weeks. Abbot, who not only represents her constituents, but also (according to how she is hawked as the 'first black female MP') represents, de facto, women and blacks and, by extension, minority groups. Off the page (completely) within 24 hrs! Make me equal, but make me more equal than others. See past the colour of my skin, but don't see past the colour of skin. Do we suspend the laws of reason and patronise and offer special consideration to fat, female blacks because they know no better? Perhaps people are deeply racist, but have found, perhaps unconsciously, ways to veil it. Is the mammalian, patriarchal, tribal core exposed when cutting a disproportionate amount of slack for those instinctively considered 'outside the group'? If the British Establishment are doing that, at least they're making an effort to master their animalistic tendencies. Abbot should take note.
06 January 2012, 11:54 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Abbot promotes apartheid via a narrative of them and us based on skin colour; she did it with her positive discrimination hogwash and in this latest exposé with statements like: "Ethnic communities that show more public solidarity & unity than black people do much better." Great! All the blacks together! That's the way forward, Diane! It's embarrassing that a 21st century politician should even speak in those terms. We're not even talking about an ideal or faith or shared culture here, but skin pigmentation! I say she's trying to corner the 'black vote' (whatever that is) rather than furthering the colour blindness that we ought to be working towards. Reminds me of that Reginald. D. Hunter tossèr who seems incapable progressing further than two minutes in to his set without pointing out to the world that his skin is dark. These two, Darcus Howe and others are either ignorant or, worse, engaging in hucksterish opportunism in plying their trade. The very best I can imagine is that they're doe-eyed for the excitement of the civil-rights movement of yesteryear. Well, the rest of us, including the majority of people who happen to have dark skin, are trying to move on.
But no political parties are colour-blind. All political parties support the segregation of this sort, in order to win votes. Dianne Abbot it a very useful person to all political parties. Abbot's comment with "divide and rule" is highly ironic. She, as a black woman, may be trying to corner the black vote for her and her party with her latest colur-racist comments, but don't non-black politicians do the similar, by shouting out loud many things to encourage segregation, in order to bag BME votes? Of course, they do. Evidence of which can be remembered in David Cameron's speeches that he made during his campaign to win over Labour. He was certainly more articulate than the Abbot lady with his contents to share. "Targeting groups" (may they be colour-boxed or other, it doesn't matter) is a vital part of a political campaign strategy for all political parties. For that reason, whoever is forming a group, may it be a foe, is actually a friend.
Abbot's comments on Twitter and her other champagne socialist acts won't affect her importance in the field of politics, even if she is sacked from her current position. Such publicity may make her more dislikeable among the fair thinking individuals, but fair thinking individuals do not join the unfair and multistandard "game" of politics. If they did, they wouldn't survive. I have the same comment for her as DCI Gene Hunt- she is a stupid bint with a huge chip on the shoulder. Her comment of "White people divide and rule" is extremely ignorant, and a bit too dated for today's times.
To add, when one thinks that the politics should be fair, and all politicians should be highly sensible, one is dreaming. When one thinks that we are moving on, and the society is taking a step forward with the aid of progressive education, politics intends to take the society two steps back for its benefit. Politics is more self-centred than for the masses. Abbot or Prescot, Cameron or Clegg, they are all self-centred gamers for their political parties.
06 January 2012, 12:07 PM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Indeed she is ....
Well, this is part of the problem isn't it? You describe someone as 'coloured' and they, or their 'mates', say 'they're not coloured, they're black'. Or vice versa. Half caste? Coloured? Black? Afro-Caribbean? Asian? Yellow? Speaking from a strictly PC view-point, who the **** knows what you should say? It's all very well some so-called BBC "expert" saying one thing, but the first time you use the "experts" language you get called racist, obviously because the person shouting the race card hasn't listened to what the experts say .....
As for Diane Abbot, she's a politician and they are the worst for 'divide and rule', it's how they operate. She's certainly done that in this case .... Trouble is she's so stupid that she's not very good at it and people are starting to wise up to the tactic. I reckon we'll need to manufacture more piano wire and put up more lampposts soon ....
Dave
Well, this is part of the problem isn't it? You describe someone as 'coloured' and they, or their 'mates', say 'they're not coloured, they're black'. Or vice versa. Half caste? Coloured? Black? Afro-Caribbean? Asian? Yellow? Speaking from a strictly PC view-point, who the **** knows what you should say? It's all very well some so-called BBC "expert" saying one thing, but the first time you use the "experts" language you get called racist, obviously because the person shouting the race card hasn't listened to what the experts say .....
As for Diane Abbot, she's a politician and they are the worst for 'divide and rule', it's how they operate. She's certainly done that in this case .... Trouble is she's so stupid that she's not very good at it and people are starting to wise up to the tactic. I reckon we'll need to manufacture more piano wire and put up more lampposts soon ....
Dave
06 January 2012, 01:00 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been waitng for this loathesome woman to get caught out!
As already pointed out, she's got form on this issue.
She is also a complete hypocrit, and her politics are 'off with the fairies'.
I think this issue also shows the idiocy of Milliband; putting her on the front bench just shows how poor his judgement is
As already pointed out, she's got form on this issue.
She is also a complete hypocrit, and her politics are 'off with the fairies'.
I think this issue also shows the idiocy of Milliband; putting her on the front bench just shows how poor his judgement is
06 January 2012, 01:25 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But no political parties are colour-blind. All political parties support the segregation of this sort, in order to win votes. Dianne Abbot it a very useful person to all political parties. Abbot's comment with "divide and rule" is highly ironic. She, as a black woman, may be trying to corner the black vote for her and her party with her latest colur-racist comments, but don't non-black politicians do the similar, by shouting out loud many things to encourage segregation, in order to bag BME votes? Of course, they do. Evidence of which can be remembered in David Cameron's speeches that he made during his campaign to win over Labour. He was certainly more articulate than the Abbot lady with his contents to share. "Targeting groups" (may they be colour-boxed or other, it doesn't matter) is a vital part of a political campaign strategy for all political parties. For that reason, whoever is forming a group, may it be a foe, is actually a friend. Abbot's comments on Twitter and her other champagne socialist acts won't affect her importance in the field of politics, even if she is sacked from her current position. Such publicity may make her more dislikeable among the fair thinking individuals, but fair thinking individuals do not join the unfair and multistandard "game" of politics. If they did, they wouldn't survive.
I have the same comment for her as DCI Gene Hunt- she is a stupid bint with a huge chip on the shoulder. Her comment of "White people divide and rule" is extremely ignorant, and a bit too dated for today's times.
To add, when one thinks that the politics should be fair, and all politicians should be highly sensible, one is dreaming. When one thinks that we are moving on, and the society is taking a step forward with the aid of progressive education, politics intends to take the society two steps back for its benefit. Politics is more self-centred than for the masses. Abbot or Prescot, Cameron or Clegg, they are all self-centred gamers for their political parties.
Abbot's comments on Twitter and her other champagne socialist acts won't affect her importance in the field of politics, even if she is sacked from her current position. Such publicity may make her more dislikeable among the fair thinking individuals, but fair thinking individuals do not join the unfair and multistandard "game" of politics. If they did, they wouldn't survive. I have the same comment for her as DCI Gene Hunt- she is a stupid bint with a huge chip on the shoulder. Her comment of "White people divide and rule" is extremely ignorant, and a bit too dated for today's times.
To add, when one thinks that the politics should be fair, and all politicians should be highly sensible, one is dreaming. When one thinks that we are moving on, and the society is taking a step forward with the aid of progressive education, politics intends to take the society two steps back for its benefit. Politics is more self-centred than for the masses. Abbot or Prescot, Cameron or Clegg, they are all self-centred gamers for their political parties.
Last edited by JTaylor; 06 January 2012 at 01:36 PM.
06 January 2012, 01:26 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been waitng for this loathesome woman to get caught out!
As already pointed out, she's got form on this issue.
She is also a complete hypocrit, and her politics are 'off with the fairies'.
I think this issue also shows the idiocy of Milliband; putting her on the front bench just shows how poor his judgement is
As already pointed out, she's got form on this issue.
She is also a complete hypocrit, and her politics are 'off with the fairies'.
I think this issue also shows the idiocy of Milliband; putting her on the front bench just shows how poor his judgement is
Wow Martin actually agreeing with somone about politics...must be a new year
Mart
06 January 2012, 01:49 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
Good post, Swati. Maybe I place too great an expectation on Abbot's shoulders, but she was presented with an opportunity to do great things, to be an exemplar, but she squandered it. Assuming history is written as is, it will know the first female black MP as a fraudulent racist who lied when caught out. Don't blame the player, blame the game is weak - she could have been a game changer. That she hasn't even had the courage to fall on her sword tells me everything I need to know.
06 January 2012, 01:56 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 January 2012, 02:02 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
David Starkey, an independent historian who had the good grace to qualify his statements with suffixes like 'particular type', was on the front page of the BBC for weeks. Abbot, who not only represents her constituents, but also (according to how she is hawked as the 'first black female MP') represents, de facto, women and blacks and, by extension, minority groups. Off the page (completely) within 24 hrs! Make me equal, but make me more equal than others. See past the colour of my skin, but don't see past the colour of skin. Do we suspend the laws of reason and patronise and offer special consideration to fat, female blacks because they know no better? Perhaps people are deeply racist, but have found, perhaps unconsciously, ways to veil it. Is the mammalian, patriarchal, tribal core exposed when cutting a disproportionate amount of slack for those instinctively considered 'outside the group'? If the British Establishment are doing that, at least they're making an effort to master their animalistic tendencies. Abbot should take note.
Fact is white people are seen as upper class asians middle and that leaves the black guy
, for the vast majority of the world
BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT - you sound like your fom the last century , but one
06 January 2012, 02:52 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 January 2012, 03:26 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duncan, he is having a go at Abbot for being stupid, mate. If not, prove it otherwise with much clarity than just a few cutting words. This thread can generate a good discussion, if you like. I can't see much point in just hitting it with ambiguous attacks here and there.
06 January 2012, 03:39 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 January 2012, 03:56 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Seems she's at it again ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...assengers.html ...
Poor didums! Seems she has to play the 'victim' now ...
Towards the end of the article is this, which sums up most reasonable, peoples attitde towards her:
Dave
Miss Abbott, the MP for Hackney and Stoke Newington, tweeted: “Dubious of black people claiming they’ve never experienced racism. Ever tried hailing a taxi I always wonder?”
Towards the end of the article is this, which sums up most reasonable, peoples attitde towards her:
Mr McNamara added: “She might have trouble getting a cab in the future and it won’t be because she’s black, it will be because she is stupid. I certainly won’t be stopping for her.”
06 January 2012, 04:21 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
i dont see it as her taking advantage of /abusing her position to gain a few votes , i see the reaction as your typical middle england revulsion that somebody who should be picture perfect is suddenly discovered for being what we all ( apparently) fear
its all a load of ****e
its all a load of ****e