How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet


10:20 am - January 6th 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Most commentators and activists on the left think/write about race through the prism of power, privilege and historical context (slavery etc). In the last few years I’ve started using an additional prism – civil liberties.

So the controversy around Diane Abbott’s tweetgate gives me a delicious opportunity to explain how right-wingers badly jumped the shark on the issue and will regret it.

To clarify, I’m not interested in the merits of what she said – despite her intentions it looked like a generalisation about white people and those aren’t PC – but more in the reaction itself.

For right-wingers, alarm bells should have first started going off when the easily excitable Harry Cole blogged:

Sections 17 to 29 of the Public Order Act 1986 are pretty clear on statements like this. They cover deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group, distributing racist material to the public, and perhaps most notably in this case, inciting inflammatory rumours about an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

The idea that Abbott was ‘provoking hatred’ is as silly as the idea she could be liable for prosecution.

But consider this – a self identified ‘libertarian‘ is calling for state prosecution over a private tweet that he found offensive. Is it any wonder right-wing libertarians are ridiculed so widely, if they campaign to bring back hanging or conviction over private words?

ConservativeHome similarly followed quickly by calling for her to be sacked. Bizarrely, they were quieter when Aidan Burley was exposed as having bought a nazi costume (an illegal act) for a stag do.

What strikes me is that right-wingers have walked straight into a left-wing trap. Twitter feeds on controversies and outrage – and sometimes minor flaps get blown into major controversies that dominate the news agenda.

A sensible right-winger would have looked at this, recognised the repercussions, and said: “I think Diane Abbott said something nasty and should apologise. But to show lefties that we don’t care for political correctness, I won’t make a song and dance about this or call for her to be sacked. We’re just here to have some fun.”

But they didn’t. They wanted retribution for left-wing outrages and invoked the memory of poor Aidan Burley. It was time for payback, bitches.

But next time there’s a left-wing controversy (and there will be many) and right-wingers dismiss it as PC GAWN MAD – we just point to this controversy. We just point to the fact you wanted her prosecuted for a private conversation.

Right-wingers, you couldn’t help but jump the shark, could you?

It was too tempting, even for Toby Young! But you’ll regret this because you’ve adopted the very attitude you used to rail against. And lefties won’t hesitate to keep reminding you.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties ,Race relations

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


It was not a private conversation. It was a public message posted on Twitter. This is a basic error that everyone should have understood by now. The only private conversation on Twitter is using the private message, or ‘PM’, facility.

Sunny – sometimes you are so silly it makes me wince. Why is Dianne Abbott’s latest racist slip up (see previous comments on “blue eyed Finnish nurses” and “white boys”) something to be dismissed ASAP? A coherent and credible antiracism cannot enforce double standards and expect the majority to buy into it.

The fact that you see this revealing spat through the prism of left v right, you-got-one-of-ours-so-we’ll-get-one-of-yours-next-time juvenile oneupmanship is really quite depressing.

Grow up and grow some ethical balls.

Two things:

1. The conversations you have on Twitter are not private, unless you’re Direct Messaging someone.

2. I know people on the left who were outraged by Abbott’s tweet. Although, they maintained that she’s not a racist, which is right.

But consider this – a self identified ‘libertarian‘ is calling for state prosecution over a private tweet that he found offensive.

Sunny, you seem unaccountably to have missed the next sentence in Harry’s post:

“Or perhaps a “sorry” would be more appropriate…”

I wonder why, given that you go to the trouble of linking to the post where he says it. So when you say

But next time there’s a left-wing controversy (and there will be many) and right-wingers dismiss it as PC GAWN MAD – we just point to this controversy. We just point to the fact you wanted her prosecuted for a private conversation.

We can all just point out that you’re lying, again.

No3 well said

Cept I didn’t say she should be prosecuted did I?

I said she should apologise..?

Look at the last line of the original post.

Didn’t say she should resign either.

I said she should be sacked if she didn’t apologise.

Talking shit, again, pal.

As I said at the time Burley was a bloody idiot and I personally made no analogy at any point to the two stories. Though granted others did.

As for the holes in the rest of this piece like “private conversation” I will let others do the shredding there. Twitter? Private? Grow up.

‘A sensible right-winger would have looked at this, recognised the repercussions, and said: “I think Diane Abbott said something nasty and should apologise. But to show lefties that we don’t care for political correctness, I won’t make a song and dance about this or call for her to be sacked. We’re just here to have some fun.”

But they didn’t…’

Not everyone has piled into the storm-in-a-teacup. You’re only counting the ones who have commented. Also, I think you’re misusing the term ‘jump the shark’, which marks a watershed between something being good and then turning bad. I doubt that you consider rightwingerism to have been good until now.

7 – I saw a comment a while back to the effect that saying that the phrase ‘jumped the shark’ had jumped the shark had, itself, now jumped the shark.

I prefer ‘nuking the fridge’ myself.

To go along with the left-wing line and shout “You can’t say that” and demand apologies is to concur with the left’s grotesque obsession with offence and race, so clearly demonstrated in recent days, and it affirms their distorted values. Have her words hurt anyone? Have any white person suffered as result? The whole point of free speech is to make statements which may, or may not, be true. Why shouldn’t she make generalisations about people like me? Why shouldn’t I make generalisations about people like her? BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME TRUTH IN THEM! That’s the whole vital principle of allowing people to voice what they believe. It doesn’t bother me in the least if anyone makes genealisations about any category to which I belong.
The problem of a society in which people are free to voice their opinions and beliefs is that it requires that its members be reasonably robust human beings, and the overwhelming majority are. We should not be encouraging thin-skinnedness – quite the opposite. I abhor the actions of those on the right who call for condemnation and apology on the grounds that we might as well jump on the bandwagon – they do it, so we should do it too. NO – we shouldn’t do it. What we should be doing is saying “See, Diane Abbott has said blah racist blah, and look – I’m still in one piece.”. Let anyone say what they wish, as long as they are prepared to defend it. What’s unpleasant is that Abbott tried to pretend it was an accident. Now that IS offensive.
By the way, being of a reasonably advanced age, I cannot help but be struck, on reading the numerous comments on blogs and newspapers, at how many people now, predominantly those under 40, appear to accept as a fundamental tenet of their belief system, that “racism” – which can mean virtually anything the speaker wants it to mean, and which does not necessarily even involve “race” – is the very most dreadful phenomenon in the universe, and possibly parallel universes.

10. Giles Bradshaw

It was a blanket statement about people on the basis of their colour and was therefore wrong. I am not sure that giving the view that it might have contravened race relations laws is the same as calling for her to be prosecuted.

Personally as long as she did not intend to make a blanket statement about people on the basis of her colour then as long as she makes that clear I don’t think she should be sacked. However if she does then of course she should be and I think you would agree Sunny?

Dianne should be open and honest about what her views are and then Ed Milliband should decide if he wants her in his shadow cabinet.

Talking about the left using racial issues as a ‘trap’ is just appalling. Can’t we leave out the petty politics and realise that some issues are actually important and not just things to score petty points over?

I’m not offended by Dianne’s comments and won’t pretend I am. It clearly pales into virtual insignificance when compared to a lot of white on black racism both historically and currently. However I can see how they are deeply damaging. I have no doubt that in some quarters they will be used by malicious people to stoke up further racism. Why delight in such a thing as being a ‘trap’?

The people who whine the loudest about not being able to say anything nowadays because of PC are usually just racists who are whining because guess what, not everybody laughs at racist jokes these days, not everybody shares their racist views, they don’t get quite so much automatic privilege anymore… this kind of thing proves it.

But we all knew that ;)

Personally I think she’s been very unprofessional and foolish but we kind of also knew that about her, too.

I still think her hypocrisy over private schools – and bizarre justification of it (“I’m a west indian mother and we go to the wall for our kids”) is worse. So Labour took away assisted places, and stopped grammar schools, because comps are good enough for everyone except middle class white kids and black kids. In other words everyone except white poor people? Hmm… can’t imagine why so many of the white working class feel a bit neglected by Labour :s

12. Giles Bradshaw

@Trofim of course people should be allowed to voice what they believe. IMO people should be allowed to make racist comments and have racist views – as long as they do not incite hatred or violence (which is a fairly tricky line to negotiate for a racist). That IMO is what Dianne has done and I defend her right to do so.

However there is another question which is if she genuinely holds such views should she be in the shadow cabinet?

It’s similarly legal to be a right wing tory however Ed M should similarly sack someone from his cabinet if they were tory surely?

13. Giles Bradshaw

Further more are people on the left who continually conduct witch hunts over the casual remarks of others really in a position to criticise people on the right for doing the same? Isn’t that a kind of double standard? Calling people hypocrites while being a hypocrite yourself is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

UNISON Pete

Come on, he’s not defending what she said – he states as much. He’s just pointing out that ridiculous double standards of the whining people who pretend they are just tough and never get offended but actually do nothing but get offended – by total nonsense, usually.

15. Chaise Guevara

@ Sunny

There’s a difference between the sort of political correctness people normally mean when they talk about “PC gone mad” and out-and-out racism like Abbott’s comment. Also, right-wingers are not all the same person. If some right-wingers genuinely don’t care about racism against non-whites, that doesn’t make other right-wingers hypocritical for caring about racism against everyone, including whites.

Yes, no doubt the usual suspects are trying to get political capital out of her comment, and probably there are plenty of individuals (left-wing and right-wing both) who are showing themselves to be hypocrites in the way they treat such events. And calling for prosecution is way OTT. But it’s hardly “jumping the shark” to complain when a bigot makes a bigoted comment in public. It’s reasonable human behaviour.

This is yet another argument based on the disingenuous practice of treating “the right” and/or “the left” as homogenous groups, so you can smear all people in that group with the behaviour of any individual in this group.

Abbott is a racist, at least to the extent that she’s happy to make racist comments in public, which is pretty damn racist by today’s standards. Calling her on that is the right thing to do. You should do the same, instead of offering apologetics by talking about her “intentions”. Her intentions were to make a racist comment, based on the evidence.

@ 7 “I prefer ‘nuking the fridge’ myself.”

Agreed!

Seen as Ed Miliband gave her a “severe dressing down” over the comments, does that make him “right-wing”? I am no Harry Cole fan but this is a very, very poor blog!

17. Giles Bradshaw

@Sunny do you think that sections of the left saying it is ok to make blanket statements about white people on the basis of their colour undermines the struggle for racial equality?

@ 11

“The people who whine the loudest about not being able to say anything nowadays because of PC are usually just racists..”

Whenever somebody defends freedom of speech – which is only ever in dispute over controversial issues – they get accused of supporting those ideas the expression of which others wish to criminalise.

I actually think Diane made a racist comment, but would not call for her to be sacked, resign or even issue an apology.

If they are the views that she holds then fine – let her constituents decide if they still want her to represent them next time there is an election. If they do, then we can assume they have either forgiven her or agree with her.

We have Nick Griffin representing the North West of England in the European Parliament, so we already have a precedent for the electorate choosing a candidate with racist opinions…

20. Tina Reeves

I am seriously stunned at the way the world has changed in terms of what one can say and what one cannot. As a child I was taught fairly early on that “sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you”. I believe that political correctness has spiralled out of control with the concept of freedom of speech dying day by day. Soon we will all have to text each other rather than speak and doubtless the internet will be so highly monitored that we won’t be able to debate in forums such as this for fear that we may inadvertently upset someone.

I moved out of the UK several years ago and I fear that if I returned I would be in terrible trouble. There have been things that I deem ridiculous on the news such as the airline check in girl who wasn’t allowed to wear a crucifix in case it offended people of other religions. How insane is that? I am an atheist but respect the right of anyone to believe in God in whatever form they choose. However, one thing that infuriates me is that mosques can spring up in the UK and here in Spain to accommodate the religions of foreigners yet I highly doubt that we would be able to build the equivalent number of Churches of England in their home countries. Does it make a difference in the UK if followers of the Church of England are offended by mosques? I think not.

The whole multi cultural ethos in the UK is great except there is a huge disparity in what is acceptable in the UK and what would be acceptable in a foreigner’s country of origin. For example can you imagine a British person going to any Islamic or Muslim nation and demanding that they integrate British law into their own? I think we all know what the response would be.

Perhaps with another couple of generations none of this will matter because by then British culture will be lost and no one will remember it. The concept of racism will also disappear at which time the white man (person) will stop having to pay for the crimes of his/her predecessors in their participation of slavery.

I am sure there is a wealth of political in-correctness in this post but being the age I am I still believe in the freedom to voice my opinion whether or not anyone agrees with it.

Giles Bradshaw:

Why is making generalisations about people on the basis of the colour of their skin more wrong than making generalisations based on any other parameter on which humans differ: age, height, attractiveness, weight, intelligence? After all, the number of -isms is potentially as large as the number of parameters on which humans differ.
Look at the comments policy above. It’s remarkably limited isn’t it? The reprehensible phenomenon are those which are currently salient in the awareness of those who organise this blog, but you will find that most blogs (blogs being a phenomenon of largely youngish people) include the same categories. No mention of ageism, for instance, or class.

The thing is, whenever David Starkey equates rioting with being black and some people say “What? That’s ridiculous! Bit racist perhaps?” they get accused of shouting everyone down… of course Harry Cole isn’t necessarily saying she should be prosecuted, but this is how it feels to point out that something is a bit off and be accused of wanting to lock everybody up and silence them…

Very amusing that some people think this is a defence of what Diane Abbott actually said. Read the post again, idiots.

I’m interested in the fact that people like Harry Cole chose to bring the law into it and give the impression it could become a legal matter, rather than defend what she said.

As I said on Twitter last night – I thought right-wingers were against media mobs against people who say stuff others find offensive. It turns out that only applies to people they agree with.

Wondered how long until this surfaced
this Sunny character seems more interested in petty point scoring, annoying righties, having his photo

taken at protests and generally feeding his ego.

I’ve lost count of the amount of similar, pointless stories on here, difference being they were directed

at tories or right wing media.

I’m certainly more left than right in most things, but even so this was a racist, offensiver comment, a

aired publicly by someone who should know better who has shown great stupidity, followed by grave

arrogance after first denying and lying before mumbling half an apology.

the most alarming thing is that an MP is not sacked for showing so little sense.

We know that if a white MP had tweeted something like “black people always like to paint themselves as victims” s/he wouldn’t have lasted five seconds.

That is more “outrageous” than the tweet itself.

But Sunny is probably right on the narrow point that the scale of the outrage is somewhat OTT.

Very amusing that some people think this is a defence of what Diane Abbott actually said. Read the post again, idiots.

The post is balls Sunny, because you deliberately misrepresent what Harry Cole said, and then try to use this misrepresentation as a “ha ha gotcha” against ‘the right’. Your post also only makes sense if a defense of Abbott’s tweet is implied.

It’s only if Abbott was right to say what she did about “white people”, that there would be no need for her to apologise (which is what Harry suggested that she did). Your attack on Harry for hyperventilating would then make sense. Of course, you would probably also need to explain why she was “given a severe dressing down” by Ed Miliband (which must have been fearsome to behold) and told to apologise.

If she wasn’t right to say what she did, and was therefore right to apologise for it, then Harry Cole was right to point this out, and right to call for an apology. Which makes the premise of your post a bit stupid.

I wonder how many of those in a position to implement divide and rule actually are white. Probably all of them.

@20 Tina Reeves

Your age isn’t any excuse for your views… although the fact that you don’t live in the UK any more has to be counted as a plus; one less nut job to worry about.

The fact that Christians are discriminated against or even oppressed in other countries doesn’t mean UK Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to build mosques here. I’m an atheist too, but I don’t feel threatened by mosque building; perhaps you’ve swallowed some of the right wing “tide of Islam” nonsense, and are so out of touch that you don’t see the fact that the multi-cultural society is a fact of life and a positive thing for “most” people in the UK, excpet and out of touch minority with views like yours.

The BA woman with the cricifx had a martyr complex; she could simply have worn it inside her uniform. I don’t particularly want to see check in people of airlines I use wearing any obvious religious or political symbols – I’m not trying to limit their free speech, I’m making a judgement that as a representative of their company, they should be aware of the sensitivites of others.

Issues like the BA woman and e.g. the christians turning gay couples away from their B&B have been extensively debated here and elsewhere; unsurprisingly on an avowedly left of centre blog, you will find that those in sympathy with that leaning will find your views misjudged, illogical and even repellant.

Jeremy Clarkson said something far worse when he jokingly suggested that strikers should be shot. There was an outcry from the Left. What was the Right’s reaction? “Get a sense of humour!” Hypocrites!

@19 – Most sensible thing Ive ever read here

@26

” Of course, you would probably also need to explain why she was “given a severe dressing down” by Ed Miliband (which must have been fearsome to behold)”

….like been savaged by a dead sheep perhaps?

32. Giles Bradshaw

“Why is making generalisations about people on the basis of the colour of their skin more wrong than making generalisations based on any other parameter on which humans differ: age, height, attractiveness, weight, intelligence? ”

old people are old, fat people are fat, ugly people are ugly and thick people are stupid. There I said it – shoot me. Oh and white people (generally) have paler skin than black people.

“Also, right-wingers are not all the same person. If some right-wingers genuinely don’t care about racism against non-whites, that doesn’t make other right-wingers hypocritical for caring about racism against everyone, including whites.”

Of course not but some of these are exactly the same people…

@20 – Tina you seem to be suggesting you have the right to say what you like, but others do not have the right to say what they want and criticse your opinion in return.

Plus, you talk about foreigners building mosques in Spain – what the fuck are you doing there then?

“For example can you imagine a British person going to any Islamic or Muslim nation and demanding that they integrate British law into their own? I think we all know what the response would be. ”

They would probaly say no – just like the British would.

Anyway thankyou for continuing to shine the light of truth and being brave enough to voice what people are not allowed to say ™. Im sure with the efforts of courageous freedom fighters like yourself we can burn all the pakis and put the Great back into Britain!

“Seen as Ed Miliband gave her a “severe dressing down” over the comments, does that make him “right-wing”? I am no Harry Cole fan but this is a very, very poor blog!”

Where does it say that disliking her comments makes you right wing?

The point is hypocrisy from some individuals, which is important, IMHO, because this “you can’t say anything without being called racist! I’m not a racist but…” BS gets pandered to way too much, and affects serious policy decisions. So when it is shown up to be very often just nasty racist idiots defending other nasty racist idiots I think it is well worth highlighting.

31 – I knew there was a reason Geoffrey Howe was never made leader of the party.

Actually, for all the fact that all the attention has been focused on Abbott’s lazy racist generalisation that white people love to play divide and rule, I think the more interesting thing is what Abbot meant by this:

Essentially, that black people need to maintain a united front, regardless of whether or not there is a homogenous black identity, because if they don’t then ‘white people’ are waiting to pounce, and play one side off against the other. It’s actually this idea – that ‘white people’ are inherently hostile to ‘black people’ that’s the more troubling.

Oh, and to be clear: I’m not ‘offended’ by this. I just think it’s unthinking bigotry directly comparable with ‘Enoch was right’ (note: comparable, not ‘the same’. For what it’s worth, Powell’s views are more toxic, precisely because of the power relationship point that people trot out).

37. Chaise Guevara

@ 20

” Soon we will all have to text each other rather than speak ”

Um, what?

After all the occasions when some District Council Deputy Leader has used the wrong words in place of ‘convenience store’ (or Alan Hansen forgetting it’s not 1972 when trying to describe a black footballer), this was a perfectly healthy and sane media/Twitter reaction considering Diane Abbott is a Shadow Cabinet Member, former Labour leadership candidate, TV personality and MP for a place where plenty of these conspiratorial ‘white people’ live. Healthy and sane reaction by the standards of the day, any way.

“Whenever somebody defends freedom of speech – which is only ever in dispute over controversial issues – they get accused of supporting those ideas the expression of which others wish to criminalise.”

I’m not talking about people who consistently defend all free speech – I do that too.

I am talking about the WHINERS. The people who cry about anyone getting “offended” (expressing their own opinion that something is racist, which is also free speech) by certain types of free speech, then they themselves get massively offended over England shirts “banned” (or not) on buses, lesbians kissing on TV, Tesco supporting gay pride, christmas cards with “Winterval” or “happy holidays” on, atheist bus campaigns…. but then whine about THEIR free speech when THEY want to be homophobic or racist. That is a specific group of people, totally removed from real libertarians, liberals, and free speech defenders, (I agree Sunny should have said this in his blog) but I took his blog to be clearly about those people.

Sunny himself after all wrote a comment piece in the Graun about defending the racist tram lady from prosecuting etc, so I’m sure he would also be in the group of genuine free speech liberals that you are referring to.

“The concept of racism will also disappear at which time the white man (person) will stop having to pay for the crimes of his/her predecessors in their participation of slavery.”

Well my direct debit to the slavery fund is due to expire at the end of the year – shall we organise an end to racism party – no blacks though eh Tina :)

Can we have Carol Thacth back on TV then ?

( Have you noticed how brown men are always so pushy ,always shouting their leftish views at you like some squawking little sub continental railway offiicial …. Labour seems to be full of them Medhi Hassan… oh god does he ever stop telling us all how clever he is , never see their sisters out do you ..)

Is that ok ?

42. Chaise Guevara

@ Libertarian Lou

“Of course not but some of these are exactly the same people…”

Absolutely, and those people ARE hypocrites.

43. Chaise Guevara

@ 20 Tina

“However, one thing that infuriates me is that mosques can spring up in the UK and here in Spain to accommodate the religions of foreigners yet I highly doubt that we would be able to build the equivalent number of Churches of England in their home countries.”

Oh, god, this. This bloody “argument” again. Yet another person who is somehow angry that they live in a free country when other people don’t.

Poor you, having to share your world with people who are different to you! If only you were fortunate enough to live in an illiberal fascist state! Some folk get all the luck!

23, I recall A blog you put on the riots (tried ot find it but couldn’t maybe you could help) saying the Riots were A disaster as It generated sympathy (i think you said from white Britain) for Cameron, where previously the Uk-Uncut protests had got sympathy for those suffering with the cuts, Anyway not sure if White britain was the exact words you said, But I got hte idea that it was gerenalising that the population who had sympathy for those on council estates and were generally white middle class, wouldn’t have sympathy now, I actually agreed with what dian said in general but to generalise that there’s A us and them attitude with White people as sometimes the’yre in charge of black people and the black people shouldn’t have to take sides is odd, As far back as 1987 and the forming of the Black cacuas of the Labour party,Paul Boateng felt that the View of the other 3 m.ps that anti white racsim didn’t exist was slef defeating that’s why he backed Kinnock rather than Benn in the leadership election that year.

Libertarian Lou: The point is hypocrisy from some individuals, which is important, IMHO, because this “you can’t say anything without being called racist! I’m not a racist but…” BS gets pandered to way too much, and affects serious policy decisions.

So when it is shown up to be very often just nasty racist idiots defending other nasty racist idiots I think it is well worth highlighting.

SPOT ON

As I keep telling you all. There is NO such thing as libertarians. They are all fake. Usually white males with huge egos. Harry Cole becomes the latest to reveal his big govt tendencies.

The word ‘Freedom’ has a different meaning to these pretend libertarian morons. It means in their crazy world that they should be free to impose their half baked theories and prejudices on everyone else. A better word for these so called libertarians would be bullies.

47. Tina Reeves

From the comments that have been posted in response to mine it really is clear how defensive people have become.

I count among my closest friends some Moroccan couples, two gay couples and particularly close a Pakistani chemist in Southampton and an Indian writer in Delhi. My point has been missed entirely. There are few people on the planet less racist than I am. I couldn’t care less how many mosques there are in the world let alone in Spain and the UK but I do feel that if Britain is expected to accommodate these then Islamic or Muslim nations should accommodate the building of Churches of England.

In terms of the crucifix I have no problem with having to hide it if the same applies across all religious sectors. I don’t see that a Sikh would be banned from wearing a turban.

It is also interesting to note that my ethnic friends don’t seem to share the views of many posters here with regard to my opinion. And in terms of my opinion, where in my post does it state that I don’t feel that everyone has the right to express theirs, whether it differs from mine or not?

My politics are more left than right and always have been. I just feel that there is an inherent unfairness within racism. My brother lives in an area where there is a high populace of ethnic communities and on a weekly basis endures insults because he is white. Turning the other cheek is second nature to him possibly because of the way he was brought up however, if he doled out the same insults he would be prosecuted. How can that possibly be right?

I live in a small agricultural village in Spain where racism is rife toward practically everyone but there aren’t wars over it here. Something is said, someone may be offended but it is usually forgotten within minutes. No one is rushing to the government or lawyers to sort out what really amounts to petty squabbles over culture.

If as much effort was being put toward solving the economic crisis, feeding the starving millions and dealing with more important issues than who said what I am certain the world would be a better place.

Doesn’t this just reinforce the point made last week on the guest post here about twitter storms:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis-hasteley/2011/12/facing-feminism-women-daily

LC has offences to be taken into consideration here – interesting posts on austerity, liberties, climate change, etc. Then you go and spoil it by someone getting irate over some piece of utter trivia.

So when it is shown up to be very often just nasty racist idiots defending other nasty racist idiots I think it is well worth highlighting.

to true like when Lee jasper has defended Abbotts other racist comments in the past

50. twitter_does_my_nut_in

I hate all these political twitter ‘storms in a tea cup’ cause not only does it slow down my twitter feed, but it also makes me miss what Chomsky quote Joey Barton has tweeted or what new exciting Ricky Gervais products that Ricky Gervais has to sell.

Also the lady is a fool, why don’t she just bog off anyway. If she resigned She could have more free time to go to dinner parties and wow guest with her ‘outrageous’ left wing opinions.

As for nuking the fridge, I found that the bad part had already set in before the fridge. I think ‘THE RED ARMY IN THE MIDDLE OF NEVADA’ should really be the phrase

I find Libertarians very childish because they tend to be extremely touchy and will have temper tantrums whenever they are assumed to be wrong or are wrong.

52. Tina Reeves

@48 Jonathan

Well said and thanks for the link.

Time to leave this topic to those who have more time to spend on being outraged about who said what and when.

53. Planeshift

All this proves is that twitter is to interesting debate what boy bands are to music.

@47 Tina Reeves

It isn’t a matter of being defensive; you don’t seem to be able to grasp the fairly simple rejoinder made above to your point about Muslim nations not allowing christian churches to be built; yes, it is lamentable but because the Saudis (for example) do this, doesn’t mean we are as a result “allowed” to stop mosques being built here. By all means lobby to promote freedom of religious expression where it is denied, limited or minorities arer persecuted, but don’t compound the sins of the oppressors by imitating them!

If you feel your point has been missed entirely, perhaps you haven’t expressed it well enough. We all know that there are in fact plenty of “I’m not a racist but…” types happy enough to troll these threads; I’m happy enough to take your word that you aren’t one, but still reckon your original post is misjudged.

Your ethnic friends might feel differently if you promoted that they weren’t allowed to build a mosgque, gurdwara or synagogue until the CofE could build churches in countries where it currently couldn’t.

The kind of casual racism you refer to in Spain needs to be challenged, faced down, and if necessary in extreme cases those responsible need to be punished. Part of the process is education, and ensuring that such views are discredited, but the alternative of total dilation and letting anyone say whatever they want no matter how monstrous isn’t acceptable to most people. Casual bigotry and racism might not seem such a big issue to some people, but it lies on the same continuum as things a good deal more serious.

@47

“I count among my closest friends some Moroccan couples, two gay couples and particularly close a Pakistani chemist in Southampton and an Indian writer in Delhi. “
So?
“There are few people on the planet less racist than I am.”
Lol
“ I couldn’t care less how many mosques there are in the world let alone in Spain and the UK but I do feel that if Britain is expected to accommodate these then Islamic or Muslim nations should accommodate the building of Churches of England. “
I thought you didn’t care, again are you jealous of others peoples lack of freedom?
“In terms of the crucifix I have no problem with having to hide it if the same applies across all religious sectors. I don’t see that a Sikh would be banned from wearing a turban.”
A Sikh is required due to religion to wear a turban; a Christian isn’t required to wear a cross. Do you concede a black person would have been asked to remove the crucifix?
“It is also interesting to note that my ethnic friends don’t seem to share the views of many posters here with regard to my opinion.”
Why? What does their ethnicity have to do with their opinion on racism, which by definition affects all races.
“ And in terms of my opinion, where in my post does it state that I don’t feel that everyone has the right to express theirs, whether it differs from mine or not?”
I am seriously stunned at the way the world has changed in terms of what one can say and what one cannot.
“My brother lives in an area where there is a high populace of ethnic communities and on a weekly basis endures insults because he is white. Turning the other cheek is second nature to him possibly because of the way he was brought up however, if he doled out the same insults he would be prosecuted. How can that possibly be right?”
So because he doesn’t prosecute but they do this is racist? Grow up.
“I live in a small agricultural village in Spain where racism is rife toward practically everyone but there aren’t wars over it here. Something is said, someone may be offended but it is usually forgotten within minutes.
No one is rushing to the government or lawyers to sort out what really amounts to petty squabbles over culture. “
No one is in this instance either.

56. Chaise Guevara

@ 47 Tina

” I couldn’t care less how many mosques there are in the world let alone in Spain and the UK but I do feel that if Britain is expected to accommodate these then Islamic or Muslim nations should accommodate the building of Churches of England. ”

Expected by whom? Britain doesn’t accommodate mosques because the world has collectively decided that someone has to be tolarent and it may as well be Britain. It tolerates mosques because it has a tolerant society. We (and this includes you, in Spain), are fortunate to live in such enlightened societies. Nevertheless, people insist on somehow spinning this into a BAD thing, as if it’s unfair that we don’t get to live in a theocracy.

For the record, some Muslim countries do allow non-Muslim worship. Pakistan, for example.

“It is also interesting to note that my ethnic friends don’t seem to share the views of many posters here with regard to my opinion.”

Why is that interesting, exactly? Everyone’s “ethnic”, by the way. It’s not a catch-all term for non-whites.

“My brother lives in an area where there is a high populace of ethnic communities and on a weekly basis endures insults because he is white. Turning the other cheek is second nature to him possibly because of the way he was brought up however, if he doled out the same insults he would be prosecuted. How can that possibly be right?”

How many prosecutions has he brought to court? The law is the same regardless of the victim’s skin colour, so if he did take it to court he should have the same chance as winning as an “ethnic” person would have suing a white person.

If he’s decided not to take it to court, that’s his choice – and one I salute him for. But it’s hard to see where the unfairness comes in. It sounds like you’ve decided it must be unfair but haven’t actually tried to find out if that’s true.

I still want to know why you think we’ll all have to text each other in the future. Or why you object to people taking offense, while you yourself are parading a massive victim complex.

57. twitter_does_my_nut_in

@ 47 Hello

58. twitter_does_my_nut_in

Ed Milliband tweets ‘Sad to hear that Bob Holness has died. A generation will remember him fondly from Blackbusters.’

shome mistake surely. Poor Ed must of been thinking of something else

59. Trooper Thompson

@51 Steve,

“I find Libertarians very childish because they tend to be extremely touchy and will have temper tantrums whenever they are assumed to be wrong or are wrong.”

Thanks for sharing that. Are you sure you posted it on the right thread, though?

60. twitter_does_my_nut_in

@59 alright calm down, your getting all touchy about it.

Honestly Sunny, you are a horrible little hypocrite.

Your entire reason for existence (and certainly for this blog) is to score points having a go at right wingers yet you rush to defend Abbot and attack those who have pointed out what she said is undeniably racist and stupid.

Your double standards along partisan lines doesn’t surprise me at all, though it does reduce nearly everything you say to propaganda.

Sunny,

In all honesty, what was this meant to achieve? You must have read the sentance you omitted from the end of your quote from Harry Cole, and you know by know that commentators around here (due to your sensible, liberal, comments policy) pick these things up, so anyone glancing below the line would see the flaw in your piece – selective quoting makes it look like you are manufacturing an argument rather than engaging with the problem.

Furthermore, for someone who is a believer in free speech and lack of discrimination (as you appear to be), to try and make capital out of outrage at a racist comment (if, in all honesty a laughably mild and inoffensive one by the standard of such comments) seems odd, without an outright condemnation first.

Incidentally, you seem to accept Ms Abbot’s statement of her intentions – is this really wise, considering that the vast majority of nineteenth-century ‘white’ people were also suffering ‘divide and rule’ from the ruling classes (which could include the odd indian and even black person by the end of the nineteenth century in the UK – this was never a racial issue).

@62

Agreed. I think im getting the hang of this now, heres my latest scoop. just look at what Sunny posted on LibCon

“In the last few years I’ve started deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group, distributing racist material to the public, and inciting inflammatory rumours about an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

I was exposed as having bought a nazi costume (an illegal act) for a stag do.

I call for her to be sacked. bitch.”

tut tut

#EdMilibandgameshows is, on the other hand, made of pure win.

65. Chaise Guevara

@ 62 Watchman

“Incidentally, you seem to accept Ms Abbot’s statement of her intentions – is this really wise, considering that the vast majority of nineteenth-century ‘white’ people were also suffering ‘divide and rule’ from the ruling classes…”

It’s worse that that. 19th-century politics ain’t got nothing to do with it. Abbott appears to have deleted the comment now (fair enough), but the BBC has a transcript of the conversation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278

Assuming that the Beeb isn’t mistaken or lying, the context is exactly what it appears to be – present-day Britain. The whole thing is in present tense, and Abbott appears to be defending her use of the phrase “black community” on the basis that admitting that black people are different to each other will give those evil whites the upper hand. Seriously.

The context makes it MORE racist, if anything. I wonder if Sunny didn’t bother to read it, or read it and decided to ignore it?

What Abbott said was just a bit stupid that’s all. But it’s pretty much in the ballpark of much of the ”black political front” of which she is a part.
She was calling for solidarity amongst black people, and not to allow divisions.
Just like Stokely Carmichael was doing in the 1960s when he was calling for a ”Black United Front.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLLsn1f7Tdc&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLC06E081B0905B7BB

Her friend Darcus Howe vigorously defended her on Newsnight last night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8fMqIAa9qg

I agreed with him about Ed Miliband. What a twerp Miliband was, to have been rattled by a simple tweet and forcing her to apologise.

Abbott is part of the OBV, Lee Jasper and Jesse Jackson stream of black politics.
I’m not a fan at all.
http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/diane-abbott-attack-ott

The whole thing is in present tense, and Abbott appears to be defending her use of the phrase “black community” on the basis that admitting that black people are different to each other will give those evil whites the upper hand.

Her use of the phrase was it?

It was a response to journalist Bim Adewunmi, who complained about the use of the terms “the black community” and “black community leaders” in the media.

Not quite!

She was however arguing against rocking the boat* given that it was dead cert that following on from the verdict against the two Lawrence suspects, and the way this highlighted the facts of institutional racism in British society, that it wouldn’t be long before the media would begin finding a way to restore white victimhood. Which Tina Reeves did a right good impression of, even managing to highlight the downsides of theocratic Iran etc as if they were good points we should consider doing ourselves! 5 gold crescents for her!

*Which clearly worked out very well, given that we’re now crawling with people who can be paraphrased down to – “For 18 years all of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, a blameless and innocent individual, escaped justice thanks to institutional police racism and I was, and continue to be, largely unmoved, but now a black politician has said something vaguely critical of white people on twitter, I am incensed and will ride forth to fight the good fight on such an important issue.”

Ms Abbott seems to be coming from the position (almost) of Stokely Carmichael’s ”Black United Front”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLLsn1f7Tdc

It wasn’t so much her comments about white people – more her suggestion that there shouldn’t be public criticism of ”black community leaders” – or even to question if such people exist and how and why, that I found more interesting.

I think her comments were just a bit silly, and showed Ed Muiliband in a bad light for his reaction too them. Diane Abbott is part of a black political outlook that is the most mainstream and high profile. It includes her friend Darcus Howe, who defended her on Newsnight, and Operation Black Vote, Lee Jasper and Jesse Jackson.
It’s not an outlook I favour, but it’s the most dynamic one in Britain at this time.
And obviously has supporters in people like Ken Livingstone too.

69. Chaise Guevara

@ 66 Cylux

“Her use of the phrase was it?”

Apologies – Twitter illiteracy on my part! It doesn’t matter really, I was just setting up the context.

“She was however arguing against rocking the boat* given that it was dead cert that following on from the verdict against the two Lawrence suspects, and the way this highlighted the facts of institutional racism in British society, that it wouldn’t be long before the media would begin finding a way to restore white victimhood. Which Tina Reeves did a right good impression of, even managing to highlight the downsides of theocratic Iran etc as if they were good points we should consider doing ourselves! 5 gold crescents for her!”

It’s not actually a set of scales. Yes, Tina seems to have mistaken this place for the Daily Mail comment pages, but there’ll always people going on about how whites are the only race that suffer racism etc. etc. The Lawrence case doesn’t make it go away; Abbott’s remark doesn’t make it come back.

“Which clearly worked out very well, given that we’re now crawling with people who can be paraphrased down to – “For 18 years all of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, a blameless and innocent individual, escaped justice thanks to institutional police racism and I was, and continue to be, largely unmoved, but now a black politician has said something vaguely critical of white people on twitter, I am incensed and will ride forth to fight the good fight on such an important issue.”

I’m always suspicious when people claim to know someone’s stance on one issue based on their stance on a totally different issue. In any case: whataboutery.

The thing is, nobody seems to be arguing that it’s a bad thing that two of Lawrence’s killers have been convicted. “Bad” isn’t the same as “controversial”. But Sunny’s doing his apologetics routine for a compatriot who’s done something wrong, and that invites comment.

First thing to say is that, as a self appointed libertarian purity assessor, Harry Cole and his boss may self-define as libertarian but the views they express are no more libertarian than are Tony Blair’s views socialist. I think Sunny knows this full but he just can’t resist pulling our tails. A bit childish but……hey, it’s his blog.

And of course Diane Abbott has a perfect right to say that the modus operandi of white people is to divide and rule. If she was referring to colonialism she is absolutely correct.

Why is she apologising?

However the elephant in this room is the history of the murder of Stephen Lawrence being successfully hijacked by black political activists and authoritarian leftist fellow travellers for the purpose of social engineering.

Statistically, white on black knife attacks and murders are relatively rare- knife crime committed by black offenders per head of population is very high and most of the victims are not white but black. As I am not a racist, I believe this is due to socio-economic and cultural factors rather than any congenital propensity, among people with black skins, to try to harm others.

So, the crime of Diane Abbott, Nelson Mandela, Jesse Jackson, Imran Khan, Ian Blair, Brian Paddick, Trevor Phillips and all the others who have ridden the racist bandwagon and seized on this horrible crime for their own murky political ends was that, in doing so, they have defiled the memory of this undeserving young man.

My initial response to this was that Labour should ‘refuse to be driven back to their core support’ thus avoiding the Tory trap of being seen to pander to ethnic minorities and women; instead they should concentrate on the mainstream, broad church of British opinion and only have White working class men as MPs/spokesmen.

On the other hand, Diane Abbott made a remark on Twitter, some people accused her of making a racist comment. Ms Abbott reviewed her one hundred and forty characters and made a clarification of here initial remarks.

She did not deny tweeting it.
She did not dismiss it as a joke.
She did not decry Political Correctness gone mad.

Tweet made, statement clarified and that should be that.

So why all the fuss from the Tories?

Jim @ 70:

“Tweet made, statement clarified and that should be that.

So why all the fuss from the Tories?”

Perhaps because the “clarification” is unconvincing (the conversation was about the situation in modern Britain, not the nineteenth century, and Ms. Abbott’s tweets were all in the present tense), and so comes across less as a clarification and more as an attempt to weasel out of appearing racist?

73. the a&e charge nurse

It’s not just right wingers who regard Abbot’s comments as lamentable, even die hard socialists have branded her a bit of a racist – or at least race-obsessed?
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=8687

74. Chaise Guevara

@ Jim

Wot XXX said.

Abbott said something racist. She presumably didn’t intend for things to turn out this way, but she’s a politician: she must at least glance over her Twitter submissions before sending them off into the public arena. It’s not like it was a typo, or a fumbled remark in a live interview.

Apparently it didn’t occur to her that mainstream people would object to her views. On the available evidence, she’s racist enough to think that racism is unremarkable, like when someone starts complaining that “there’s not a white face in sight” and then is genuinely surprised when people criticise them for it.

I don’t think this makes her a terrible person or anything like that. She maybe deserves to be sacked, but she certainly doesn’t deserve to be prosecuted. If she’s committed a crime under the law, that’s a bad law. Her ideals generally seem decent, and she’s put a lot of work into fighting for them. But that comment was shockingly bigoted, coming from a fairly senior politician. And we shouldn’t pretend it never happened, or blindly accept her clumsy excuses, just because she’s on “our side”. It’s partisan bullshit.

@72 I see your obsessive compulsive disorder for posting links has been moved to this debate now Florence, reassuring to see you’re still on your intrepid journey through the internet for man’s greater enlightenment. One has to wonder if it’s a link to more misinformation like you kept spitting out in the Liverpool debate though? Seeing you retreated on that specific topic and have been missing from there for 2 days now it can only mean game, set and match to the Lion……nah Liverpool 0:5 Millwall sounds far better.

@28 Great to know we can count on you to pipe up about any Muslim check in girl wearing a hijab then, after all they could always wear wigs instead eh or is it just Christians showing devotion to their faith in public that offends you?

‘White’ people, not grasping the sociological history of whiteness mistake it for ethnicity, which causes a lot of confusion.

@73 I have never envisaged that at any moment in my life would I find myself agreeing with someone calling themselves Lynch sorry Guevara but fair play to you, I totally agree with nearly every word you have said.
Perhaps you could teach Florence a thing or two about honesty and encourage her to stop dealing in ‘partisan bullshit’? If you can, I won’t just applaud you, I will give you my life savings and promise to guarantee you round the clock protection from her global pro LFC Stasi

78. So Much For Subtlety

69. pagar

And of course Diane Abbott has a perfect right to say that the modus operandi of white people is to divide and rule. If she was referring to colonialism she is absolutely correct.

In what possible sense is she correct? If anything, the historical record proves otherwise. Yes, I know for the purposes of the anti-colonial struggle, various independence movements had to justify an authoritarian, unified, centralised political movement, but it is still not true. Britain, if anything, tried as hard as possible to create large-scale unified political entities. They created countries like India – which had never existed as a unified country over that much territory (except perhaps nearly and very briefly under Aurangzeb) – instead of dividing them. They went out of their way to eliminate smaller countries like the Princely States as independence. They worked to create unified political movements like the Indian National Congress. The same is true in places like Canada and Australia. It was even true in the Caribbean where they tried to create a large scale Federation. They also massively reduced the number of independent African polities and attempted to create unified political movements there too. There was no attempt to break Nigeria up, for instance, after they created it.

It is just left wing myth making.

So, the crime of Diane Abbott, Nelson Mandela, Jesse Jackson, Imran Khan, Ian Blair, Brian Paddick, Trevor Phillips and all the others who have ridden the racist bandwagon and seized on this horrible crime for their own murky political ends was that, in doing so, they have defiled the memory of this undeserving young man.

As the Left usually does.

79. Charlieman

@72. the a&e charge nurse: “It’s not just right wingers who regard Abbot’s comments as lamentable…”

Sorry, a&e but that was a shitty link. The author is not a liberal socialist — Michael Rosen is as likely to post here as I am to post on Conservative Home.

80. Charlieman

@72. the a&e charge nurse: “It’s not just right wingers … or at least race-obsessed?”

Which is the downfall in her commentary about Stephen Lawrence.

Personally, I am justice-obsessed.

81. So Much For Subtlety

66. Cylux

She was however arguing against rocking the boat* given that it was dead cert that following on from the verdict against the two Lawrence suspects, and the way this highlighted the facts of institutional racism in British society, that it wouldn’t be long before the media would begin finding a way to restore white victimhood.

Institutional racism is not a fact. It is an opinion.

*Which clearly worked out very well, given that we’re now crawling with people who can be paraphrased down to – “For 18 years all of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, a blameless and innocent individual, escaped justice thanks to institutional police racism

No, they escaped justice because, as in most murders not involving a family member, there was bugger all evidence against them. None in fact. No one taking an impartial view of this case can be happy about it – minute droplets of blood were used even though they could have been the result of contamination. To get their largely circumstantial case, the police had to mount a massive multi-year campaign to bug these people, follow them everywhere, pressure their friends to grass them up, even befriend them. This smacks of nothing so much as the Jill Dando case.

Chaise Guevara

The thing is, nobody seems to be arguing that it’s a bad thing that two of Lawrence’s killers have been convicted. “Bad” isn’t the same as “controversial”. But Sunny’s doing his apologetics routine for a compatriot who’s done something wrong, and that invites comment.

I think it is a thoroughly bad thing that Lawrence’s killers have been convicted. At least in the way that they have been. I find it hard to believe that any sensible person can think otherwise. Yes, they are vile people who probably belong in prison but there was and there is no real evidence against them. To get their conviction the police had to tape them for years to get a good selection of vile comments from the men about Black people to prejudice the jury, there was a massive and sustained media campaign against them – and isn’t it interesting to see LC on the side of the Daily Mail’s coverage? – which must make any impartial jury utterly impossible to find and they had next to nothing in the way of forensics. Not one eye witness either. But the worst thing is that to get this result they had to over turn a centuries’ old civil liberty in the double jeopardy rule. We are all the worse off because we have lost an important legal protection.

So to recap – if the State does not like you, they can now follow you for nearly two decades, taping everything you say, pressuring your friends to grass you up, they can be as creative as they like with DNA evidence, they can be complicit in a massive media smearing – and if they don’t get it right the first time, they can come back as many times as they like until they have a conviction.

Yes I tend to think these men did it, yes they should be in jail, but the way they have been put there is little short of a lynching and it is a very bad thing.

Dianne Abbott’s habitual anti-White racism is trivial in comparison.

@78 hahahaha I owe you a pint as it seems Florence is dishing out more shitty links again and you are quite clearly on the same side as her, you’ve made my night and no doubt pushed her to the brink of internal combustion lol I can see the steam flying out of her little Scouse lugs from here and I’m on the other side of Europe at this precise moment in time!

83. Charlieman

@80. So Much For Subtlety in argument with 66. Cylux: “No, they [Ed: Lawrence murderers] escaped justice because, as in most murders not involving a family member, there was bugger all evidence against them. None in fact. No one taking an impartial view of this case can be happy about it – minute droplets of blood were used even though they could have been the result of contamination.”

Bollocks. Two men were convicted on the basis of fibre (from somebody at the crime scene) on clothing. The prosecution was not about DNA or blood; it was about fabric remnants on a jacket or pair of jeans. (Personally, I think that this is questionable evidence.)

“To get their largely circumstantial case, the police had to mount a massive multi-year campaign to bug these people, follow them everywhere, pressure their friends to grass them up, even befriend them.”

I cannot disagree that the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.

Recall, SMFS, that the alleged killers were allegedly related to members of a gangster clan. Everything about this investigation is utterly fucked up.

Diane Abbot shouted randomly this week. Had I been in a position to raise my concerns about the circumstances of Stephen Lawrence’s murder, I’d talk about police corruption.

84. So Much For Subtlety

82. Charlieman

Bollocks. Two men were convicted on the basis of fibre (from somebody at the crime scene) on clothing. The prosecution was not about DNA or blood; it was about fabric remnants on a jacket or pair of jeans. (Personally, I think that this is questionable evidence.)

All they had was a tiny drop of blood on someone’s jacket and fibres and hair on the clothing of two of the men. The hair evidence relied on DNA testing as did the blood. The problem with all of them is that these pieces of clothing had been in police labs for the past 16 years. They were not detected at the time of the actual murder. There is no sane way you can make an argument beyond any reasonable doubt that they were not the result of contamination in police custody.

But still, if you want to agree that the evidence is questionable and even less strong than I said, I have no objections.

I cannot disagree that the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Recall, SMFS, that the alleged killers were allegedly related to members of a gangster clan. Everything about this investigation is utterly fucked up.

And so evidence will be hard to get. For all the claims of racism, it is worth bearing in mind that dozens of their neighbours denounced them to the police within days of the murder. There was no racial feeling in the area. At least not against the victim. The fact is there is just no way to convict criminals who are smart enough to keep their mouths shut and refuse to even talk to the police. Well virtually no way. You need forensic evidence and here there was, to all intents and purposes, none. Not at the time. Not now.

Racism was not to blame. The fact is unless the police catch you with a weapon in your hands, generously covered in the victims blood *and* you confess, the chances of a conviction are low.

Diane Abbot shouted randomly this week. Had I been in a position to raise my concerns about the circumstances of Stephen Lawrence’s murder, I’d talk about police corruption.

Something for which there is zero evidence. Lawrence’s death has been brutally exploited by the usual race hustlers. It would be a shame if they were allowed to smear the police over it some more. The fact is there is just no evidence against these men. They probably did it, but there is no safe way to prove it. What has happened has been a farce – and a farce that has every potential to come back and make us all suffer.

As I said, this makes Barry George’s conviction over Jill Dando’s death look like a triumph of the British justice system. There too they found a microscopic piece of “gunpowder” residue on his coat – after it had been in police labs for over a year. There too they found someone who no one liked and there was a large scale media campaign against him too. But at least in George’s case they had an eyewitness who saw him on her street around the time and others who said that the man who did it could have been George. They have no real evidence. They have smeared these men beyond any hope of an impartial jury. The Left has pushed them into an unsafe conviction. But, hey, justice, that’s only for the Right On isn’t it?

69.72 what a load of tosh 77, well said,
Chaise guaevara, do you really believe such rubbish

@80 Yet another person I have to take my hat off to, you are so right with the points you have made and the eloquent way you made them, if somebody from my side of the political divide said that in here they’d be shot down in flames but that’s horses for courses, common sense should be applauded from all angles regardless who speaks it.
I will nail my colours to the mast here, I live in that part of South London so yes I have a very intimate knowledge of the case, all the natives here know things that will never be reported in the press and I am not going to blab my mouth off about them in here either so don’t expect anything that will make you want to run off to the media or the police(as if they not keeping an eye on anything being said about this case anyway) but I would like to point out as a result of that terrible murder the white youth of Eltham have been targeted for many years now, targeted by the police, targeted by anti racist groups and targeted by black youths from surrounding areas so when people in the media and on the left scream out the place hasn’t changed at all well what do you expect? A siege mentality has took hold and there have been plenty of assaults and I mean serious assaults on white kids just walking along doing what kids do because they live in Eltham and dress in a certain way so that makes them as guilty as whoever did commit that murder…..well sorry no it doesn’t, it just increases hatred and resentment. That is the hidden untold story, the reality the Metropolitan police want swept under the carpet because it may offend the memory of Stephen Lawrence, offend his family or the black community in general. When Doreen Lawrence said the black community doesn’t trust the police, she should have added that neither do the white community. Yes the Met have a thankless task i accept that but the pendulum has swung so much the other way over the last 20 years that instead of it bringing people together it has divided them all the more. Dare to mention the countless black on black murders in London and Operation Trident you get branded a racist, well no it doesn’t make anything of the sort! Speak to the victims families and they will say the police don’t care because it’s black on black, then they will also say they care even less when it’s white on black when the Lawrence case clearly proves the exact opposite.

Centuries old law has been changed, the country’s legal landscape has as was pointed out has been changed forever and for the worse for all of us, the very serious matter of deliberate cross contamination of DNA, a whole new generation who are even more bitter than their elders when things should have been getting better not worse and all to nail 2 men for something a lot of people who know far more than me swear blind they weren’t even responsible for. If putting tiny microphones and pin cameras in to the skirting boards of one the suspect’s homes as far back as 1994 when that sort of technology cost an absolute fortune solely with the intention of starting a smear campaign by the state because there was little else they had to go on doesn’t send alarm bells ringing for everyone’s civil liberties nothing will. Neville Lawrence even wanted the law changed so they could be charged for what they said in that surveillance footage for god’s sake, well I’m sorry as unpleasant as it was it was in the privacy of their own home……out in the street in a public place aimed another person fair enough but not in your own home when amongst friends who share the same views, no matter how distasteful they may be.

Maybe the guilty are now in jail but maybe they are not and still free living their daily lives but whatever the truth in years to come, British citizens from all communities and of all creeds n colours will question whether this was all worth it, especially those with liberal beliefs. No doubt many of you will want to call me a right wing crank because I’m not one of you and accuse me of much worse for speaking up on behalf of our much maligned community and so be it but contrary to popular we’re not all racist murderers, and no it wasn’t any of us who lost our son,/brother/cousin that night 20 years ago but oh have we been made to pay for it since. I wouldn’t even dare to suggest we have felt the pain the Lawrence family did but we have suffered and with them 2 nutters locked up now we will suffer even more because the stigma will never go away and the random beatings of white Eltham youth in ‘revenge attacks’ will just increase but the Metropolitan Police will continue to bury its head in the sand about it, the media will continue to ignore it because we’re the ‘racist murderers’ manor and instead of time healing things for the better, the resentment, bitterness and lack of trust will fester with the consequent violence that will bring.

Two sides to every story and I’ve just told you the one that never gets told anywhere, we are used to being hated and maybe nearly all of us don’t even care any more but at least give us the common courtesy of trying to understand why there is such a different mindset in SE9 compared to anywhere else in London

87. the a&e charge nurse

[74] Oh dear, Sir Geoffrey, harping on about an old thread – I assume I must have touched a nerve – I will revisit your comments soon enough – lets hope you have moved beyond trite post code based stereotypes, and your unique ability to rub shoulders with ‘real’ people.

Personally I thought Rosen’s letter was rather pertinent given that he is by no means a tory (despite watchmans objections at 79) – maybe it was too long for you to read, you know so that you might have been able to contribute to the actual points being made?

Anyway, just to remind you what Rosen says “I notice that your decision (DA’s) to send your son to a private school is embarrassing you, making a mockery of what you’ve said in the past about education. You may remember your confused burblings about white teachers and black boys. Your argument was that white teachers, especially women, couldn’t deal with black boys. You seemed to be saying that black boys need an authoritarian black male hand to set them right. I, for one, thought that this was a load of nationalist, racist and sexist tosh. You seemed to be falling for most of the major myths peddled in British culture, namely that: (1) there is such a thing as the uniform stereotype ‘black boy’; (2) that males who are seen as not conforming with mainstream values need tough males pushing them around; (3) that a multicultural society is always fighting against what’s ‘natural’.

88. Chaise Guevara

@ John Reid

“Chaise guaevara, do you really believe such rubbish”

You don’t think you could possibly be more specific about what you thought was rubbish and why you thought it was rubbish, do you? Cos your comment above is basically trolling.

89. Tina Reeves

@85 Lazy Lion

I am rendered almost speechless by your post. In 1969 I lived in Sydenham in a bedsit and was the only white person in the street. At that time we all lived happily together and there was no violence. I’m positive that racism existed then because my parents were very racist but in Sydenham it didn’t seem to surface. I can also remember visiting friends in Eltham which was a really nice area and somewhere many of us aspired to live in if we could have afforded it.

I have lived in a small mountain village in Spain for 12 years (today is the 12th anniversary) and as I stated previously racism exists here against almost everyone but this place is about 50 years behind the UK. What I see here is a lot of name calling and various little squabbles but no violence with no one being deeply offended or hurt which is probably what existed in Sydenham all those years ago. The Spanish here in the village were predominantly pro Franco and none of them will talk about the Civil War because of shameful secrets that a lot of them hide.

Sometimes I think I am living in a time bubble because I honestly cannot see how the world has changed so dramatically and I suspect that Eltham is not the only place in the UK that is as you describe. My brother lives in Essex and having visited him recently I was astounded by the behaviour of youths there no matter their colour.

My belief is that there is a lack of discipline and respect which has developed over the last two generations and I’m not sure how that can be put right. I stated this on another post and someone questioned my politics in that I am more left than right. My politics too are in a time warp dating back to when left meant left in a society where basic morals and values existed.

Thanks for an enlightening post Lazy Lion, clearly keeping abreast of the news doesn’t come close to living in the environment and experiencing something first hand.

@86 Well Florence you’ve still not revisited it thus far, perhaps that might be because it was you who was inaccurately dishing out postcode stereotypes(one can only assume this is because you can’t even bring yourself to utter the name Bermondsey), namely posting another one of your legendary youtube links purporting to show Millwall fans getting a tad boisterous when in fact all it showed was West Ham giving us their usual warm welcome whenever we visit there. You ‘LC’s bastion of truth and justice’ seem rather prone to slip ups on the factual front with things not always being what they appear to be, in uneducated South London lingo that real people like me use you’re a bit of a bullshitter then, all smoke and mirrors. Indeed you are so inept at it that it clearly illustrates why you’ve had to keep your day job going and not quite landed your dream position as Alistair Cambpell’s PA quite yet

91. the a&e charge nurse

[85] if I was the nasty sort I would say that your outpouring is not dissimilar to the whining you were accusing scousers of not 5 minutes ago – you can’t have it both ways.

As a matter of fact I think you make some good points, but then again I think the scousers have been misrepresented as well – maybe you are only able to accept the nuances once it’s happening in your own backyard?

XXX @ 71

In what sense is it ‘unconvincing’. Diane Abott is not a racist, clearly she was talking about ‘divide and rule’ politics carried out by white people in power. I don’t think the was talking about be, so I don’t think it was racist.

I bet the rest of the white community couldn’t care less about this tweet. The only people who think this is somehow racist are those constantly furious knobheads who are looking to take offence at anything a black person says remotely concerning race. The Tory press have announced that the bigots should be offened by this and hey presto lots of moaning face petty minded bigots have took offence!!! From heir own backs of course, not a bit of faux outrage or anything like that.

@88 Tina Reeves

For someone so prone to being rendered speechless, you certainly seem disinclined to stop digging when you’re already in a fairly deep hole, huh?

Your personal experience, however heartfelt, tells us little about general issues, nor indeed do you seem capable (or willing?) to raise your eyes away from your direct experience and see that is unlikely to be generally applicable any more than the tendentious and self-serving rant Lazy Lion treated us to above.

Your direct experience of a hill village in Spain populated apparently by a bunch of francoist racists who must be OK because well, you know they can have arguments and not be offended… so they are “acceptable” racists, isn’t any more enlightening or applicable to anything much than your experience of Sydenham decades ago, or Essex on your holiday to see your brother.

Things in the rest of Spain are likely to be much different, you do realise that right? Similarly Sydenham in the days of your youth may not have been the slightly rose tinted paradise you misremember; do you actually think there wasn’t overt and casual racism then, discrimination, racially motivated assaults…? Do at least TRY to see that your personal experience tells us little about what things were actually like then in Sydenham. Similarly, you might think things are all so much worse now than 12 years ago…. but how about all the kids out there who aren’t the feral beasts of your atavistic Daily Mail nightmares?

Your politics do appear to be in a time warp; don’t expect the rest of us to come and join you, or give any credence to your “Honestly, I’m a left winger, but what about those……” narrative.

@88 Well thank you for giving me a response that I was not expecting to get in here, in fact I am almost knocked senseless by the fact I have not received a barrage of the usual leftist claptrap that has been aimed at Eltham for decades now. Anyone left of centre forever goes on about the right eternally dealing in stereotypes but that all seems forgotten when they talk of my manor: namely, it’s ok to label us Little Englanders who spout out non stop racist ideology from sunrise to night fall bla bla bla. Well yes there are racists here and yes the English Defence League and the British National Party have become more and more prominent as the years have gone by but I think my above post goes a long way to explaining why this has happened. I must apologise for a couple of missing words in that said post but it was getting very late as I wrote it and I’m sure people will easily work out what word should be in the places where I wearily missed them out.

Just go back a few months to the riots when football casuals got together to form what some in here would call ‘vigilante’ groups to defend their home turf from yet further chaos. In Enfield it was Arsenal and Tottenham that stood shoulder to shoulder to form patrols and that was generally hailed as ‘community spirit’ by the media, yet in Eltham where it was Millwall and Charlton doing the exact same thing we found the Sky News chopper hovering above and half of the South Wales Police there to stop us even walking a hundred yards down the street. As usual the left started pointing the finger at far right organisations for stirring it up and no doubt Florence will dig out some youtube link showing a couple of drunken skinheads lobbing bottles at a bus with a couple of black kids on board and scream ‘there, that is the Eltham nazis at it again’ but she wasn’t there and chooses to ignore the fact that the media as ever went out of their way to sensationalise ‘the continued march of the right’ in our little corner of London.

I don’t live in lala land, I am the first to admit the far right do have a foothold in our community and it has increased over the years since the Lawrence murder for the exact reasons I have stated but the vast majority of us would rather try to move on yet that is not going to be permitted to happen any time soon. So which community exactly are the recipients of the ‘divide and rule’ conspiracy that Abbott was whining on about the other day in this specific case then eh?

Without wanting to sound like a parrot, I shall say it again……two sides to every story.

So which community exactly are the recipients of the ‘divide and rule’ conspiracy that Abbott was whining on about the other day in this specific case then eh?

The white ruling class, obviously. You might be unaware, but racial populism in Cold War America also had the beneficial side effect (from the white ruling class’s point of view) of depressing white worker’s rights and pay packages.

@92 self serving rant eh, maybe you are a member of the oh so tolerant anti racist mobs who regularly encroach in to our part of the world to dish out ‘summary justice’ on behalf of the black community then?

Very confused morals from the left side as ever, attacks on whites permitted and fully justified but attacks on blacks something that should be dealt with as crimes against humanity. You know what, why not start proceedings to have all the residents of Eltham indicted and sent to The Hague to stand trial then?

97. So Much For Subtlety

91. Jim

Diane Abott is not a racist

Given her past comments, she clearly is a racist and it is impossible to claim otherwise I would have thought. Why do you think she isn’t?

Cylux

You might be unaware, but racial populism in Cold War America also had the beneficial side effect (from the white ruling class’s point of view) of depressing white worker’s rights and pay packages.

Well no, I suspect he is not aware because it is not true. That would be why Americans are considerably richer than almost anyone else on the planet. Whatever else the Cold War did, it greatly enriched American workers.

@95 Lazy Lion

“@92 self serving rant eh, maybe you are a member of the oh so tolerant anti racist mobs who regularly encroach in to our part of the world to dish out ‘summary justice’ on behalf of the black community then?”

Errrmmmm… no, I’d like to think I am tolerant yes (you’d have to be with some of the trolls who increasingly come and infect this site, and of course people like yourself and the hilarious Tina Rioja giving us the benefit of her pearls of wisdom from exile in the Costa del Dailymail). I’ve never been to Eltham of course, but it wouldn’t occur to me to be part of an “anti-racist mob” dishing out anything. Of course, don’t let a good fantasy stand in the way of actually engaging in issues will you? So much easier to deal in crude generalisations and stereotypes based on your individual circumstances… I mean, they must be totally representative of everywhere. Yeah, right. Maybe you should move to Spain and keep Tina company..? Sounds like you have much in common.

“Very confused morals from the left side as ever, attacks on whites permitted and fully justified but attacks on blacks something that should be dealt with as crimes against humanity. You know what, why not start proceedings to have all the residents of Eltham indicted and sent to The Hague to stand trial then?”

Oh, you poor victim… it must be such a terrible existence; and of course, it must ALWAYS be a sinister plot by the left, or the ones with coffee coloured skins, or the muslims, or the jews…. no doubt the Scots and the Irish played a part… and those Hugenots, what about them eh? And don’t get me started about those Vikings…

There’s nothing confused about my morals you nasty piece of work…. tho from the posts above, the same obviously couldn’t be said of someone purporting to “know things” about the Lawrence case that he isn’t minded to divulge. Have some balls and stop justifying your apologia by assuming a victimhood you and your community aren’t entitled to.

99. Chaise Guevara

@ 96 SMFS

“Given her past comments, she clearly is a racist and it is impossible to claim otherwise I would have thought. Why do you think she isn’t?”

As far as I can make out, it’s circular: Abbott isn’t a racist cos I say she isn’t. Therefore the clearly racist comment she made can’t be racist, because she isn’t a racist. Not to mention that she’s on our side – close ranks! And anyone who calls her a racist just because she said something racist (which obviously wasn’t really racist because I declared her to be non-racist already) must be a black hat who’s only complaining because they get their orders from the Sun. After all, no reasonable person would call someone a racist just because they said something racist…

@96 SMFS

“Well no, I suspect he is not aware because it is not true. That would be why Americans are considerably richer than almost anyone else on the planet. Whatever else the Cold War did, it greatly enriched American workers.”

That’s so outrageous it’s almost funny. Even for an obscurantist like you SMFS that statement kinda takes the biscuit. Have you ever even BEEN to the USA? Their system relies on a vast underclass of poor helots with no social security safety net, many of them illegal immigrants with virtually no rights at all. Even those with more live in fear of being bankrupted by their whacky health system in the event they are unfortunate enough to fall seriously ill.

Despite the fondness of the Cameroons for the Big Society and shrinking the state, you aren’t going to find many takers for turning the UK into some pale imitation of the USA. Course, lots of the nutters in the USA and the Tea Party loons rail against big government too… until something happens to remind them it sometimes helps, whether picking up the pieces after the hurricane in New Orleans (so much for States rights then eh…?), or trying to stop the global economic system melting down after all that light touch regulation worked out so well. Oh, wait…..

@96

Well no, I suspect he is not aware because it is not true. That would be why Americans are considerably richer than almost anyone else on the planet. Whatever else the Cold War did, it greatly enriched American workers.

Given that I was talking about racial populism (segregation, and areas which rejected fordism) during the cold war period, rather than the cold war itself, and given I’m talking about the exploitation and relative inequality of workers within the USA’s borders (in general the southern states) rather than worldwide, you have pretty much missed the point.

The effect of racial populism was that segregation was sustained through a series of perks and employment opportunities which of course left the employing class unchallenged: Whites ‘grateful’ they were more likely to be employed than blacks and regarding their bosses, therefore, as ‘on their side’, even when segregation began to magnify income inequalities among whites – or, to put it another way, to increase the rate of exploitation of white workers, and blacks feeling aggrieved but without the secure situation from within production to even fight for better wages and conditions.
Ideal for employers, and a rather clear cut case of divide and rule.

102. Chaise Guevara

@ 88 Tina

“My belief is that there is a lack of discipline and respect which has developed over the last two generations and I’m not sure how that can be put right. I stated this on another post and someone questioned my politics in that I am more left than right.”

That would be me. It’s just hard to see why you call yourself left-wing when your comments thus far have a) claimed that whites and Christians are institutionally discriminated against, b) made out that it’s unfair that we don’t live in a fascist theocracy, or c) demanded that we should be allowed to hit children.

The impression I’m getting is that you’re a small-c conservative right-winger who claims to be left-wing in the hopes that this will make left-wingers take your views more seriously.

“My politics too are in a time warp dating back to when left meant left in a society where basic morals and values existed.”

There’s plenty of morals and values about, so can I take it that this means “a society that shared my personal values”? I don’t know how far back you mean, but I suspect it’s far enough to refer to a society where gay people couldn’t marry and men could legally rape their wives. “Basic morals” my eye.

This rose-tinted nostalgia doesn’t get you anywhere. I guarantee that, if we were talking about this 30, 50 or 100 years ago, you’d still be talking about how society had lost its moral compass and gone to the dogs. Some people just get a kick out of whinging about the Decline of Morality in Today’s Society, regardless of evidence. You appear to be one of them.

@101 Chaise

Well said.

It always interests me when people like Tina come out with all this guff about how things are soooooo much worse now, but when you scratch the surface you soon realise that they are of course talking out of their hats.

As you say nostalgia for the certainties of yesterday, or references to “of course, in my day….” simply highlight the fact that those harping on about Victorian values tend to cherry pick which aspects of yesteryear they’d like to see re-instated. A big yes for manners, community, leaving your doors unlocked, friendly Bobbies giving young scamps a clip round the ear…. presumably a big no for child labour, no votes for women, and hanging people for stealing tuppence?

104. Tina Reeves

@92

Just so that we are clear, I spent most of my career as a marketing director working for a large corporation and my job entailed travelling to many countries throughout the world. No, in Sydenham generally during the year that I lived there I did not witness overt racism but the definitions of the word racism below seem to have been expanded upon over the years:-

rac·ism? ?[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

There will always be people who believe they are superior not just to foreigners but also to each other.

The word discrimination has been taken to the nth degree over recent years, almost anything that is said can be defined as discriminatory.

I was born in Devon and there was always a huge divide between Devon and Cornwall with people from both counties considering themselves to be superior. Many years ago Appledore shipyard workers wouldn’t work with people from Bideford (less than 5 miles down the road). But as for the word “hatred” I would say that people who have a hatred of another race or races are in a minority. It is something that comes from poor education and possibly from upbringing.

The one thing that I have noticed about this forum is the anger that is prevalent as soon as someone tries to infer that the problem is not as huge as a lot of people would like to make it. In some areas it is rife but in others it is not. I did not perceive Lazy Lion as ranting but I guess an angry person would judge everyone else by their own standards.

The day I go to a lawyer because of something that someone has said about me in terms of calling me a white honky or a pom will be the day I give up. Yes it is racism but who the hell cares – not me! And nor would I expect several people on a forum to try to change the world on my behalf or even debate the issue.

In terms of kids, I have two. YOU would have to be running around with rose tinted spectacles to not notice the kids in various areas around the UK who clearly have no respect for anyone or anything. And NO, not all kids are like this but there certainly seem to be a lot more of them now than I have ever seen in all the time I spent in the UK. You don’t have to read the Daily Mail or any other newspaper, just walk around the streets and take on board the recent rioting. More particularly think about the reason some of these kids gave for rioting!

I don’t believe it is possible to completely eliminate racism because it also crosses religious borders and whilst the greatest marketing exercise in the world exists it will continue. However, for those who want to spend hours of their time trying to eliminate it, I commend you. But picking on every little word that is said is hardly likely to achieve much.

And if you think I am digging myself into a hole, that’s your opinion to which you are entitled.

105. Tina Reeves

@101 and 102
I grew up in the sixties not during Victorian times and I wonder whether it is just coincidence that up until three years ago it was not necessary to lock our doors here It is now.

If you can’t see the evidence of moral decline living in the UK perhaps you should visit an optician.

And in terms of Left wing politics I wonder what your definition of that is, clearly it doesn’t agree with mine.

106. Gordon Rae

Left-wingers jump the shark over these sorts of remarks all the time, as long as it’s a Tory that’s making them. Look at Boris Johnson. Diane Abbott said he had 1950s attitudes to racial politics which weren’t fit for modern London. Who looks old fashioned now? Meanwhile, Boris is doing a better job of standing up for disabled people than any of the Labour front bench. You can forgive people their gaffes, or you can pounce on them. But real politics is about justice.

@103 Tina Reeves

Good grief… where to start….

1) The Sydenham thing; just because you didn’t see overt racism, or discern covert racism, doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. You don’t have to have a “No dogs, No Irish, No Blacks” sign in your B&B window to be a racist. You may think that the pendulum has swung too far, and that “it’s all PC gawn mad”, but 5 will get you 10 that some of the black people who were no doubt subject to deep rooted, institutional and casual racism would have much preferred the current situation (however imperfect) than the situation that prevailed at the time. Talk to virtually any black, asian or ethnic minority person who can remember back to the halcyon days you seem to miss so much and ask them if they think their lives were better then.

2) The lawyer thing: oh come now… you’re obviously not unintelligent… so why is it so difficult for you to understand that being called a honky or a pom, or a Jock or Mick however unpleasant isn’t the same as institutional racism? Trust me as a Scot in the South I’m well used to (mostly) light hearted ribbing about Jocks….but trying to laugh off serious, ingrained and institutionalised discrimination and racism as something that should be laughed off just makes you look callous. Perhaps racially abusing opponents on the football field was once so widespread, and deemed so trivial, that shaking hands and apologising would be enough…. but it’s 2012, not 1912.

3) Feral kids thing: there have ALWAYS been problem kids and area, and riots. You may sincerely believe your narrative… but that doesn’t make it true, anymore than the overdone fear of crime when crime rates are going down means that the fears are justified because the Daily Mail says so. Of course there are problems, but the world and our communities are also full of kids who excel, who act as carers for their disabled parents, who put something back.

You obviously have a real bee in your bonnet about people picking up every little word, but society and what it judges acceptable change, and for the better. Discrimination and racism won’t be eliminated of course, any more than religious sectarianism will…. but they can be isolated, ridiculed and with luck ultimately rendered pretty harmless. It won’t happen with attitudes like yours however, because you’re too attached to the notion that it’s really rather harmless, and anyway…they don’t really mind if it’s not meant in a hateful way.

As my estimable friend Chaise says… you appear to be one of those who just enjoys a good whinge about things being better in the olden days, despite the plentiful evidence they weren’t. It isn’t some smorgasbord where you can selectively remember and cherish the good bits, and ignore the bad.

Chaise @ 101:

“It’s just hard to see why you call yourself left-wing when your comments thus far have a) claimed that whites and Christians are institutionally discriminated against, b) made out that it’s unfair that we don’t live in a fascist theocracy, or c) demanded that we should be allowed to hit children.

The impression I’m getting is that you’re a small-c conservative right-winger who claims to be left-wing in the hopes that this will make left-wingers take your views more seriously.”

Depends on how you define “left-wing”, really. You might, for example, describe somebody who’s socially conservative but holds socialist stances on economic issues as “left-wing” because, from an economic point of view, that’s what they would be.

109. Just Visiting

But Galen:

> 3) Feral kids thing: there have ALWAYS been problem kids and area, and riots.

Are you sure Tina was saying that feral kids didn’t exist before and do now?

Unless anyone is sayng that society has not changed at all – (no one here is), then some of the the changes may be good or bad.

Tina’s case is very weak because it is purely anecdotal evidence.

But it would be more constructive if you could refute such, with evidence of facts and statistics.

I’ve not googled for this, but maybe you have ? Are there are measures of anything relevant to ‘feral kids’ over the last 20 years?

I do recall reading somewhere, that there is evidence that percentages have increased of young women (i) with liver disease due to binge drinking over years (ii) being actively involved in violent crime.

Sorry, no stats to quote right now. And not sure you’d consider inccreasing % of young women involved in violence as a ‘feral’ issue.

The flip-side is also true, as I point out here – http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/01/luis-suarez-diane-abbott-racism-rows-tribalism/ – the next time there is a race row, the authority of those who have defended Abbott now to go on the attack will be diminished.

I look forward, the next time a right-winger makes offensive remarks, to people on the left defending him/her, and people on the right attacking them…

Too many left-wingers have misplayed this, and it’ll come back to haunt them – right-wingers like Harry or Toby Young won’t hesitate to remind you of this.

111. Chaise Guevara

@ 104 Tina

“I grew up in the sixties not during Victorian times and I wonder whether it is just coincidence that up until three years ago it was not necessary to lock our doors here It is now.”

Exactly three years? Wow. What event caused the change?

“If you can’t see the evidence of moral decline living in the UK perhaps you should visit an optician. ”

Spoken like someone with no actual basis for their beliefs. Unsurprisingly.

I personally think allowing gays to marry and banning marital rape are signs of moral improvement, don’t you? Not to mention that out-and-out racism is now considered unacceptable in most social circles, whereas a few decades ago it would be normal, and that women are now treated as an equal gender rather than being corralled into certain “acceptable” jobs.

So there we have several arguments against moral decline. In favour of moral decline, we have the outlawing of child-beating and “go see an optician”. The board is weighted.

“And in terms of Left wing politics I wonder what your definition of that is, clearly it doesn’t agree with mine.”

Well, the definition moves around a lot. Generally, in the UK, the beliefs you’ve so far stated would generally be considered right-wing. It’s possible that you have a few right-wing beliefs, but loads of left-wing ones, and it just so happens that only the right-wing ones have thus far come up. I wouldn’t know.

112. Chaise Guevara

@ 107 XXX

“Depends on how you define “left-wing”, really. You might, for example, describe somebody who’s socially conservative but holds socialist stances on economic issues as “left-wing” because, from an economic point of view, that’s what they would be.”

Sure. I assumed we were using the social metric rather than the economic metric because the conversation thus far has been all about social issues. I don’t believe Tina’s mentioned any economic beliefs in this thread.

Even so, I have to admit that “left” and “right” in the political sense are among the least well-defined words in the English language. But I think the ones Tina’s raised so far – the three I listed in post 101 – would generally be considered right-wing beliefs. Still, she and I could just use the words differently.

109
Would Liverpool fans have backed Suarez if he had been a supporter rather than a player? I would suggest that the ulterior motive for backing him is quite clear.

And what it does illustrate is that right-wingers who complain about ‘PC gone mad’ are hypocrites.

114. Chaise Guevara

@ 102 Galen

“A big yes for manners, community, leaving your doors unlocked, friendly Bobbies giving young scamps a clip round the ear…. presumably a big no for child labour, no votes for women, and hanging people for stealing tuppence?”

Pretty much! And many of these things are less clear-cut than they appear:

Social norms in terms of manners change over time, but the old guard tend only to notice what’s going away, not what’s coming in, and thus get the impression that manners overall are being abandoned. And in some cases, those manners don’t make any sense – if you’ve got a decent-sized table, why not have your elbows on it when you eat? I think people tend to confuse manners (in the sense of fairly arbitrary rules) with the idea of treating others with respect.

There’s a similar thing with community: yes, people are less likely to know their neighbours than before, but that’s often just because they live their lives in a bigger area. It’s the difference between a broad community and a narrow one, not between big and small. And apparently many parents think their kids are antisocial loners because they don’t realise how much socialising gets done via phone or Facebook.

Locking your door may indicate that you have more to steal, or that you read more reactionary papers, rather than the fact that you live in a less trustworthy society (although, in fairness, I think the nostalgics are probably onto something here; it goes back to knowing your neighbours).

Obviously the friendly bobby clipping the kid round the ear can be seen in more than one light… and would that bobby be so friendly if you were Asian, or outwardly gay, or a working-class person in a generally middle-class neighbourhood?

I realise I may well not be telling you anything you already know, I’m just putting it out there. I think the main error is assuming that any social or cultural change must necessarily be bad. Like how my Dad thinks that most modern music is either rubbish, or a rip-off of his generation.

115. the a&e charge nurse

[112] the suarez case is slightly more complicated
http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showpost.php?p=6859329&postcount=1148

Two other important differences – suarez was punished, and punished quite severely (not least by trashing his reputation) but more importantly he had no aspirations to become prime minister unlike other certain gaff prone race obsessionalists

116. Just Visiting

Chaise

> I think the main error is assuming that any social or cultural change must necessarily be bad.

Equally, we should not assume changes are all for the good.

You’ve mentioned some positive changes for sure – but I guess nobody on LC would take the extreme view that ‘not a single thing in society has got worse’.

So there is an interesting discussion to be had here.

On things like the changing patterns of violence between young people.
Or new forms of violence (honour killing).

@104 Tina Reeves

“I grew up in the sixties not during Victorian times and I wonder whether it is just coincidence that up until three years ago it was not necessary to lock our doors here It is now.”

I grew up in the 60′s and 70′s too, but I don’t have the same atavistic urge to roll back the years to the good old days when you could call a spade a spade…. and then get all hoity toity about people taking offence because you didn’t mean anything by it….

I don’t know if it is a confidence that crime rates in your area of Spain have gone up in the last 3 years… do enlighten us; perhaps it was the gypos wot dun it?

“If you can’t see the evidence of moral decline living in the UK perhaps you should visit an optician.”

Nothing wrong with my eye sight. Moral decline… hmmnn. I think we’ve already dealt with your somewhat eccentric views of how things were so much better in days of yore. Maybe some things were better… but there was an awful lot that was much, much worse, and more that we just never heard about.

“And in terms of Left wing politics I wonder what your definition of that is, clearly it doesn’t agree with mine.”

Clearly. I don’t really accept that your “weltanschauung” entitles you to call yourself of the left, still less to call into question the ideological cojones of others.

P.S. For someone who worked in marketing… you don’t present your case too well…. are you sure you weren’t in charge of New Labour’s election campaign? I’d probably want to leave the country too if been involved in that…so fair play.

118. Just Visiting

Tho’ watching TV last night about the year 1977 – I was surprised by the level of violence: national front marches: punks recounting how they would verbally abused/attacked in the street.

OK, I guess it was just the highlights, and 2010′s highlights in 30 years time will have the riots… so maybe one TV show is not a great indicator of social change!

119. Chaise Guevara

@ 115 JV

“Equally, we should not assume changes are all for the good.

You’ve mentioned some positive changes for sure – but I guess nobody on LC would take the extreme view that ‘not a single thing in society has got worse’.”

I would hope not, that would be silly. But there do seem to be an awful lot of people who blithely assume that things are getting worse, without actually looking into it. I think it’s a combination of the nostalgia filter, generational arrogance, and the fact that many people enjoy feeling outraged.

“So there is an interesting discussion to be had here.

On things like the changing patterns of violence between young people.
Or new forms of violence (honour killing).”

Certainly. I’m not sure honour killing is actually new, although that might depend how you define it.

SMFS @ 96

Given her past comments, she clearly is a racist and it is impossible to claim otherwise I would have thought. Why do you think she isn’t?

Because she has never uttered a single racist comment in her life. The only people who have accused her of racism are the Tory types who regularly demand that we have ‘White History weeks’ and ‘music of white origin’ awards and the like, in other words, people who are not interested in racism, per se, but merely seek out these types of things to stir up more shite.

To be honest, if you or the rest of of the Tory vermin showed any concern for the vast amount of racism that truly does exist in this Country, then perhaps, just perhaps I would show the slightest bit of interest in what any of you cunts have written about the subject.

Given that you people have ignored every real racist remark ever made, then I can safely assume that that your interest in this tweet is more about faux outrage than anything else.

Galen @ 102:

“big yes for manners, community, leaving your doors unlocked, friendly Bobbies giving young scamps a clip round the ear…. presumably a big no for child labour, no votes for women, and hanging people for stealing tuppence?”

If society changes both for the better and for the worse, wouldn’t it be rather sensible for somebody to advocate keeping the changes for the better, and changing back the things which have changed for the worse?

(Also, “Victorian values” is generally used as a short way of referring to a certain set of values associated with, though by no means exclusive to, the Victorian era. People who say “we need a return to Victorian values” almost never mean “I want this country to be exactly like it was in the Victorian period in every single respect”.)

123. David Jatt

I very much doubt she’s racist but she’s as thick as two short planks, way out of her depth and always has been. Apologising for being an idiot doesn’t stop you being an idiot, but at least she’s had the grace to do so.

Chaise @ 113:

“Social norms in terms of manners change over time, but the old guard tend only to notice what’s going away, not what’s coming in, and thus get the impression that manners overall are being abandoned”

Do you have any evidence for this?

“There’s a similar thing with community: yes, people are less likely to know their neighbours than before, but that’s often just because they live their lives in a bigger area. It’s the difference between a broad community and a narrow one, not between big and small. And apparently many parents think their kids are antisocial loners because they don’t realise how much socialising gets done via phone or Facebook.”

Again, I’m not sure how far Facebook makes parents think their kids are antisocial loners. I probably ought to point out, thought, that a narrow community is in many ways better than a broad one. (If you fall seriously ill, for example, you’d find it easier to get help and support if you were friendly with all the people in your neighbourhood than if you were friendly with an equal number of people scattered over a whole city or county.)

“Locking your door may indicate that you have more to steal, or that you read more reactionary papers, rather than the fact that you live in a less trustworthy society”

Crime did rise significantly over the last century, so it’s not just right-wing newspapers making stuff up.

Gordon Rae @ 105

Left-wingers jump the shark over these sorts of remarks all the time, as long as it’s a Tory that’s making them.

That is because Tories are more or less racists. Behind every ‘racist joke’ made by a Tory there are racist sentiments behind it. Whatever Diane Abbott is or is not, she isn’t a racist, these remarks do not betray how Diane Abbots’ deep held belief about the white race in general.

Only a complete fucking halfwit could believe that if I walked into a pub that Diane Abbott was in, that she would instantly think ‘hmm, that white guy there, I bet he divides and rules at every opportunity’. Quite obviously, that is not an attribute that one instant associates with white people. White governments, perhaps rightly or wrongly, but of the white race in general? Nope.

However, EVERY time a Tory makes a remark about race & intelligence/criminal behaviour/sexual promiscuity/drug use/looking like a golliwog or whatever there is a deeply held belief behind that throwaway remark.

As I said before, I would have more sympathy for the Tories on this board if they had been as quick to condemn real racism, not just the odd remark made by black Labour MPs and spokespeople.

“I wonder how many of those in a position to implement divide and rule actually are white. Probably all of them.”

I don’t think Diane Abbott is white.

@125
You’d best tell Dianne that she has considerably more power than her position would normally grant then.

Jim @ 124:

“Whatever Diane Abbott is or is not, she isn’t a racist, these remarks do not betray how Diane Abbots’ deep held belief about the white race in general.”

You’re sounding a bit like Chaise’s characterisation of your arguments above: Diane Abbott can’t be a racist, so whenever she says racist things, they aren’t really racist, because she’s not a racist.

“However, EVERY time a Tory makes a remark about race & intelligence/criminal behaviour/sexual promiscuity/drug use/looking like a golliwog or whatever there is a deeply held belief behind that throwaway remark.”

First of all, I can’t think of any examples of Tories making such remarks. Can you?

Secondly, how do you know this? Have you asked every Tory about their beliefs on race?

No one – as far as I can see – has pointed that her remarks we directed towards a journalist who’d questioned the validity of notions of a “black community”, and the value of the “community leaders” who purport or are seen to represent them. It was, in other words, a rather nasty piece of fearmongering in response to awkward questions. That’s as or more unpleasant to me than her comments about “white people”. (And surely nobody thinks it’s a valid excuse to say that she was talking about 19th Century colonialism? If I make a comment about filthy Spaniards can I justify it with reference to the Armada?”

XXX @ 127

Diane Abbott can’t be a racist

Nobody is saying she can’t be racist we are saying she isn’t racist, or at the very least, she has never said anything racist in public. Her views are in the public domain and there is nothing to suggest that she holds racist views.

so whenever she says racist things.

She hasn’t said anything racist!!!!! This is just your typical ‘Lets beat up a Leftie with some crap taken out of context and call it racist’ shite you get from the Tory press.

First of all, I can’t think of any examples of Tories making such remarks. Can you?

Secondly, how do you know this? Have you asked every Tory about their beliefs on race?

Far too many to mention and far too widespread for it to be an isolated case.

Diane Abbott is a f*ckwit! Pure and simple.

132. Tina Reeves

“It’s just hard to see why you call yourself left-wing when your comments thus far have a) claimed that whites and Christians are institutionally discriminated against, b) made out that it’s unfair that we don’t live in a fascist theocracy, or c) demanded that we should be allowed to hit children”

a) What has that to do with Left wing politics? b) wrong – I said that I live in a village where most of the Spanish were pro Franco and were ashamed to talk about the Civil War – where did I say that it was unfair that we don’t live in a fascist theocracy? (since you wish to pick at every word perhaps you should read what I wrote more thoroughly) c) where have I demanded that we should be allowed to hit our kids? I said there was no discipline, there are many other ways of disciplining children than hitting them.

“The impression I’m getting is that you’re a small-c conservative right-winger who claims to be left-wing in the hopes that this will make left-wingers take your views more seriously.”

Well you would be wrong because I really don’t care what people think of my view left wing or right. They are just my views and I am not the only person who shares them.

Depends on how you define “left-wing”, really. You might, for example, describe somebody who’s socially conservative but holds socialist stances on economic issues as “left-wing” because, from an economic point of view, that’s what they would be”.

Left wing briefly to me is that everyone should have equal opportunity, support social change when it is for the better and recognise that extreme wealth can make people lose touch with reality. There should be mutual respect within society for everyone. If that makes me a conservative fine – so be it.

By saying that there is a lack of respect in the youth of today does not make me right wing.

As for statistics, having worked for around three years with people who were retraining in order to get a job, although they were unemployed and on benefits they did not figure in the unemployment statistics. It is highly possible that unemployment statistics could be raised by at least a million to take into account people who are on government training schemes etc. I assume the same is true in terms of most stats. However for the record you could look at the following link:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/factsheet-YouthOffending.pdf

I can’t find any stats on 1968 – 1970 but I would be willing to bet money that the youth crime rate was significantly lower at a time when teachers were able to throw the odd board rubber and rap one’s knuckles with a ruler. In those days right and wrong were clearly defined. However, this is a whole different topic to the one that was started.

133. Lazy Lion

Here now follows a text(well bbm if we want to split hairs) I received from an old old friend about an hour, I will type it out word for word, letter by letter with all the poor punctuation intact because I must stress this a man far too intelligent and far too long in the tooth to be indulging in ‘txt tlk’…..had to get that that one in J ha and then I will explain all and attempt to analyse it for you all in my own unique right wing ‘ranting’ way……..

“typical tebit sendin ur tory cat in 2 the pigeons :O u aint sed nthn tht aint tru but its how u say it so dnt xpect mid clas sociology students from hampsted 2 praise u 4 it u div! We both no they wudnt set foot on the manor wivout 500 unite in tow and 500 ob wrapd round em so stp windn em up gobi :O u ok bruv?”

*ob is old bill(police) just for the benefit of middle class students not familiar with such common London terminology

Lets begin, the fella who sent me this message is a comrade of most of you in here and a friend I have known since childhood and a man I love dearly. He is 10 years my senior and is as old school left as you can get……a veteran of Wapping, the miners strike, every anti racist gathering that ever took place in London throughout the 70′s 80′s and 90′s and a close friend of a certain RMT leader, he has been on union jolly ups to Cuba where all you mob wave your fists in the air and scream ‘Viva Che’ or whatever it may be, you name it if it’s lefty he’s done it BUT this may come as a surprise to you all he is also a lifelong resident of Eltham and a fellow Millwall fan!

Now on to why I have chosen to share this with you all(and I hope I don’t incur his wrath by doing so). I mailed him a link to this debate last night and asked him for his lefty opinion on if I had gone overboard politically in the defence of our little corner of England. Those in the know will work out who he is and will definitely know who I am because he has referred to me as ‘Tebbitt’ for donkeys years, that’s right Tebbitt NOT Adolf, NOT Oswald, NOT Enoch and definitely NOT Sir Geoffrey(Florence take note) and thus we have agreed to disagree on everything politics since the year dot! Because he lives on our manor he knows all about our manor and has never once been abused by any of his political opponents who live here, in fact he was only abused by his own side for daring to talk about what I was telling you all last night. Brave enough to dare to point out things will never improve whilst ‘anti racist activists’ continue to target anyone that looks like an Eltham ‘right footer’ when they get half a chance, he was even threatened with physical violence by snotty little upstarts who weren’t even a glint in their fathers eyes when this man was out on the streets counter demonstrating against the BM and the NF, snotty little upstarts on a guilt trip for coming from more than what we do………what the fxxx is that all about?

And thus he completely walked away from the ‘anti racist’ side of things many years ago, of course he still fully supports their ideals but felt he was banging his head against the wall in stating what seems obvious to me and him(maybe it’s an Eltham thing eh) and so only goes to trade union events these days.

The moral of the story is quite simple, if outsiders on both sides ceased to keep sticking their oars in we would be able to move on much quicker but judging by the repugnant comments from some of you sad little cretins in here and the way the sieg heilers on the opposite side keep turning up on our manor to crank it up every time something happens it will never end and Eltham will continue to be a focal point for division.

Have a nice evening

134. Tina Reeves

@116

The truth of why we now have to lock our doors will cause huge outrage in this forum. Partly, the influx of foreigners mainly Eastern Europeans, partly the influx of Brits who had more to steal and partly the fault of developers and building firms that dumped their illegal workforce (as much as 80%) when the boom came to a dramatic end.

There is no safety net in Spain for Europeans or otherwise who are here and don’t pay social security. Employers don’t want to issue contracts because it costs astronomical amounts of money. When I arrived here 49% of the Spanish economy was black (not in colour). I have no idea what percentage it is now but people are starving in Spain. They are moving out of the cities to the country because at least they can find food on the land. Whole towns are being abandoned and naturally the crime rate is increasing. The recession started here at the end of 2008 and it wasn’t a gradual process. It hit fast and hard.

There is little or no work in rural areas and for those people who have mortgages it is becoming impossible for them to pay back their loans. The banks are releasing repossession properties at the moment and will sell for the price of the outstanding mortgage or less. Private owners have little chance of selling their properties at any reasonable market price when the banks are doing this.

A search of any of these issues on Google will provide more than sufficient information to back this up.

Jim @ 129:

“Nobody is saying she can’t be racist we are saying she isn’t racist, or at the very least, she has never said anything racist in public. Her views are in the public domain and there is nothing to suggest that she holds racist views.”

She’s just made a tweet saying “White people love playing divide and rule. We shouldn’t play their games”. How is that not racist?

“She hasn’t said anything racist!!!!! This is just your typical ‘Lets beat up a Leftie with some crap taken out of context and call it racist’ shite you get from the Tory press.”

The context of her remarks was a discussion about the situation of black people in modern Britain, not a discussion about nineteenth-century colonialism, which makes her defence seem rather unconvincing. Taking her remarks in context just makes her look dishonest as well as racist.

136. Leon Wolfeson

@131 – “By saying that there is a lack of respect in the youth of today does not make me right wing.”

Nope, it just makes you anti-social and by using that kind of stereotyping, NOT to the left. Plenty of grumpy old centralists out there, Sorry, your point?

@123 – Oh yes, because the falling crime rate…wait, no, that’s a myth. There’s people being killed on the streets every minute. Panic! Statistics are irrelevant!

137. Leon Wolfeson

Oh and Tina? Certainly there’s moral decline. When you strip away the social network people will try and eat, even if what they do to get the food is illegal. Strange that. The evil at the top causes evil.

Leon @ 135:

“Oh yes, because the falling crime rate…wait, no, that’s a myth. There’s people being killed on the streets every minute. Panic! Statistics are irrelevant!”

First, that’s a straw man. No-one is suggesting that people are being “killed on the streets every minute”.

Secondly, the recent fall in crime rates has come after several decades of increase. Levels of crime aren’t as bad as they were in the 1990s, but they’re still higher than they were for most of the twentieth century.

139. Leon Wolfeson

@137 – You want America’s crime statistics, why shouldn’t I use them?

And strangely enough when you start recording all crimes the “reported” rate will rise, yes. Other measures and surveys don’t show the same long-term rise.

@90 Florence, please feel free to be the ‘nasty sort’ because you trying to compare me talking about my manor n my football club to you talking about yours are totally different things.

1. I have no qualms about admitting my football club has a fearsome reputation for hooliganism, I would go as far as to say like the vast majority of Millwall fans I quite revel in it. We know we have done plenty wrong and don’t deny it, even the club itself admits it’s an eternal problem and has never sought to blame outside influences or mitigating circumstances. The same can not be said about LFC or its ‘whiter than white’ supporters, no pun intended, not even with your fans or the club’s hierarchy rallying round Suarez and one of your followers sat in a cell right now facing race hate charges for something he gobbed off at a black Oldham player last night.

2. Nobody in Eltham denies we have a deep rooted and strong far right tradition, nobody here denies it was some of our own who murdered Stephen Lawrence, though debates on who it was and why exactly they did it will go on for as long as the case is in living memory regardless of if there are convictions or not. We don’t care what people say about us because as I have just admitted it’s quite clear that it is warranted to a degree but I am merely trying to state the obvious which is the more outsiders provoke and persecute us for it the more hard line the natives will become, it’s not rocket science.

So there you have it. I don’t deal in pretending all is fine n dandy in our rose garden because it isn’t. We know what we are all about but keep putting us down and we will never change, we will just play up to it all the more. Yes I am indeed trying to explain it and maybe even justifying what I can but I am not denying anything and definitely not trying to shift the blame on to someone else’s door so I would say my stance is completely different to yours.

And finally you actually almost giving me a wee bit credit saying I made some valid points did not go unnoticed, my jaw is still on the deck and I may have to seek some treatment from you for the effects of shock.

141. Arthur Seaton

Cor blimey, they don’t like it up em do they?

Sunny is of course absolutely correct, and that this episode has shown once again how hopelessly intellectually incoherent and hypocritical most “libertarians” are. In fact, here’s a suggestion, unless any person who flaunts this label also genuinely attempt to address how corporate forces may also infringe on human freedom and autonomy…… they should now on only ever be referred to as “libertarians” with the inverted commas fully present and correct.

142. So Much For Subtlety

98. Chaise Guevara

As far as I can make out, it’s circular: Abbott isn’t a racist cos I say she isn’t. Therefore the clearly racist comment she made can’t be racist, because she isn’t a racist. Not to mention that she’s on our side – close ranks!

I would agree with that except I think it has to start from being on Jim’s side. Because there is no way this logic would be applied to, say, Boris Johnson. Basically she hates White people. Jim doesn’t much like Britain or the British either, therefore it is not racism.

Galen10

That’s so outrageous it’s almost funny. Even for an obscurantist like you SMFS that statement kinda takes the biscuit. Have you ever even BEEN to the USA? Their system relies on a vast underclass of poor helots with no social security safety net, many of them illegal immigrants with virtually no rights at all. Even those with more live in fear of being bankrupted by their whacky health system in the event they are unfortunate enough to fall seriously ill.

Well there were a lot fewer illegals during the Cold War but even so, America is still a very wealthy place. To the point that Mississippi is something like 20% richer than a place like Greece. Illegals move to America precisely so that they can become as rich as the White working class.

Despite the fondness of the Cameroons for the Big Society and shrinking the state, you aren’t going to find many takers for turning the UK into some pale imitation of the USA.

Yet. Racial diversity is incompatible with a strong welfare state. So it is more or less inevitable that British people will gradually vote for a winding back of welfare. Or probably a shift from the sort of welfare Black people get to the sort of welfare White people get. Because if we are not one community, we will not feel the need to help each other much. And we are no longer one community if we ever were. So don’t assume we won’t move that way.

Course, lots of the nutters in the USA and the Tea Party loons rail against big government too… until something happens to remind them it sometimes helps, whether picking up the pieces after the hurricane in New Orleans (so much for States rights then eh…?), or trying to stop the global economic system melting down after all that light touch regulation worked out so well. Oh, wait…..

The Tea Party has a very good line on banking regulation – it was the bail out that prompted the movement in the first place. As for New Orleans, I have not seen the Tea Party make an argument, but if they did, they would probably point out that the problems were caused by incompetent State government who simply passed the buck to Uncle Sam. As for big government, a high tax take makes everyone poor. The lower taxes are, the richer everyone is. There is simply no intellectual case against lower taxes. The welfare state impoverished and so distorts behaviour that everyone is worse off.

Cylux

Given that I was talking about racial populism (segregation, and areas which rejected fordism) during the cold war period, rather than the cold war itself, and given I’m talking about the exploitation and relative inequality of workers within the USA’s borders (in general the southern states) rather than worldwide, you have pretty much missed the point.

No I haven’t. If racism meant that the US did not get the sort of Trade Unions that destroyed the Clyde and Merseyside, then the workers of the US got a very good deal indeed. If racial populism meant that Blacks were segregated by the good comrades of Moscow were excluded from power, even Black Americans did well out of that. As can be seen by the wealth of America.

or, to put it another way, to increase the rate of exploitation of white workers, and blacks feeling aggrieved but without the secure situation from within production to even fight for better wages and conditions.

And the result has been not more exploitation but a massive growth in wealth and freedom. A lack of Unions has been good for America and especially good for the South as manufacturers have fled the high taxes and socialism of the North for the South and the West.

Ideal for employers, and a rather clear cut case of divide and rule.

Assuming there is any evidence of employers being involved – as opposed to the usual Marxist fantasies. However a better example would be the insistence of said Marxist Trade Unionists that the world is divided between Haves and Have Nots and that the position of the latter can be improved by supporting the USSR’s foreign policy goals through destroying British industry.

143. So Much For Subtlety

119. Jim

Because she has never uttered a single racist comment in her life. The only people who have accused her of racism are the Tory types

She has repeatedly made racist remarks and it is amazing that you insist on ignoring them. You may notice that even Leftists here admit that her latest comments were racist. As were her comments about “blue eyed” nurses. But take her comment about sending her son to a private school. She said she did so because West Indian mothers cared about their children – a clearly racist remark as it implies that White mothers do not.

To be honest, if you or the rest of of the Tory vermin showed any concern for the vast amount of racism that truly does exist in this Country, then perhaps, just perhaps I would show the slightest bit of interest in what any of you cunts have written about the subject.

I assume the turn to anger and bad language is because you know you are wrong and you hope to cover this up with bluster. To be honest I don’t care that much about racism. I used to, but as I get older I tend to think of all the ways that people have to be mean to each other, racism is not nice but hardly the worst. Britain still manages to be a decent place no matter how much racism there is here. And there isn’t a great deal. Especially among the young. You just wish there was. Because you need it to justify your political views.

Abbott’s hypocrisy is more important. As is the growth of anti-White racism. This will be the important issue as Whites gradually become a minority in the UK. People like Abbott represent the future and if views like hers are given a free pass, the future of a multi-racial Britain, at least a Britain with any White people in it, is not good.

@109

Too many left-wingers have misplayed this, and it’ll come back to haunt them – right-wingers like Harry or Toby Young won’t hesitate to remind you of this.

Given that Toby Young said that David Starkey wasn’t being racist on newsnight – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100100845/was-david-starkey-being-racist-on-newsnight-last-night/
Despite Starkey going on at great length on national television articulating his position with great clarity, whereas Diane Abbott, within the confines of a single 140 character tweet, was apparently most definitely being racist according to the same Toby Young
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100127409/was-diane-abbotts-tweet-racist/

I think we’d be more than justified in ignoring any charges of hypocrisy from the man.

145. Leon Wolfeson

@141 – “Racial diversity is incompatible with a strong welfare state”

Well, then we should have a VERY strong welfare state compared to most countries. And yet we don’t. I haven’t seen so much crap since I was at my cousin’s farm some years ago and some manure was delivered.

You’re a fascist, a racist and a bigot who’s as usual trying to justify purging non-Anglo-Saxons.

146. Lazy Lion

@141 Careful SMFS

Don’t piss Galen10 off too much or you will be labelled a ‘troll’ or even worse a ‘nasty piece of work’ because he quite clearly is the ultimate authority on absolutely everything, just look at some of his peaches in this debate…….

(28) has issues with airline check in staff that wear tiny crucifixes on the outside of their uniform because they clearly have a ‘martyr complex’ wanting to flaunt their faith in public but doesn’t seem at all bothered by certain other staff wearing hijabs because of their devotion to another religion. And just for the record, I have no issues with either because if someone practises their religion and it makes them a better person regardless of what faith it is why should I object? Just Galen here banging on the usual leftist nonsense that our own are fair game but others are not are not because we should respect ethnic minorities religions………bollocks, respect all religions or respect none, don’t pick n choose to suit your political beliefs!

(97) admits to never even having set foot in Eltham but accuses me of talking fantasy when I point out white youth have been targeted persistently by people like him, the police and by black youth from places like Woolwich and Lewisham. Says our community are assuming victimhood we’re not entitled to hmmmm well no I am not assuming anything, least of all victimhood but if he says we’re not entitled to it and I’m not asking for that we kind of agree bizarrely enough I suppose. It’s just odd how he doesn’t seem to see any problem whatsoever with black on white or left on right violence but gets all judgemental and rather mouthy when it’s the other way round, in my humble opinion one is no more morally justifiable than the other, i thought random violence was random violence but not according to our Galen, oh no.
Even has the audacity to assume I have issues with Scots, Irish and Hugenots hahaha walked right in to that one gobshite because my mum’s side come from the west coast of Scotland and Ulster but no doubt in Galen’s world that will be the wrong kind of Irish and Scots because that makes me Protestant and loyal to the crown and thus every bit as bigoted as the thousands of the 100% English storm troopers he clearly believes walk the streets of our manor.

Funnily enough I popped over the border to Hungary earlier today for a couple of hours and I did see some blokes walking around Sopron in gear that resembled some kind of third reich uniform pleasantly being greeted by many of the natives so had to ask the lady I was with what that was all about and she explained to me they are some kind of street presence from the rightist Jobbik party and are there to I quote ‘protect shoppers from gypsy criminals because the police don’t’ hmmmm even I who likes to think myself rather broad minded on matters right wing was taken a wee bit aback by that one, I wonder what dear Galen would make of it……….he might even partake in that exclusive domain of the right and slag an entire foreign country off now, go on son I dare ya, label Hungary a fascist state and all Hungarians ‘nazi trolls’ or something like that! My pal I was talking about earlier did when I mentioned it in our bbm chat lol but then again he is an honest lefty rather than a too far up your own arse holier than though type like you clearly are.

@145 Is there actually a problem with ‘thieving gypsy bastards’ in Hungary, as opposed to thieves in general, or is the Jobbik party acting a bit like the bear patrol from the Simpsons, and achieving similar results.

148. Chaise Guevara

@ 123 XXX

“Do you have any evidence for this?”

No, I don’t. It’s conjecture, and in retrospect I should have phrased it that way. Fair cop. I’d say that it’s almost a given for illogical or out-of-date manners (like keeping your elbows off the table), but you’re right that I’d need evidence to claim that it means people who think courtesy in general is falling are mistaken.

“Again, I’m not sure how far Facebook makes parents think their kids are antisocial loners.”

I did actually read about an investigation into this, although I don’t have it to hand. Today’s youth were being dubbed something like “the new silent generation”, and someone looked into it and discovered that they actually talk more than previous generations, if talking is assumed to include online communication like Facebook conversations. So the parents’ error was to assume that communication only counts if it’s face-to-face. They were behind the times, in other words.

“I probably ought to point out, thought, that a narrow community is in many ways better than a broad one. (If you fall seriously ill, for example, you’d find it easier to get help and support if you were friendly with all the people in your neighbourhood than if you were friendly with an equal number of people scattered over a whole city or county.)”

No argument here. Broad communities also have their advantages, of course. For example, it suggests that people have had more opportunity to pick and choose their friends, which I reckon would mean people in general being happier. But I’m not criticising narrow communities – I’m just pointing out that it’s a mistake (or at least an assumption) to go from “people don’t know their neighbours” to “people are antisocial”.

I like narrow communities. I grew up in one. I currently live in Manchester, but when I go visit my parents in Surrey, I enjoy walking around the village, exchanging cheery “good mornings” with everyone I happen across. This actually freaks out city-dwellers who witness it, because you don’t walk through Manchester saying hello to everyone. It’s a wonderful thing, and it gives you a real feeling of security and belonging. That doesn’t mean we should put it on a pedestal as high as Nelson’s Column, though.

“Crime did rise significantly over the last century, so it’s not just right-wing newspapers making stuff up.”

Did it? 100 years sound like enough time for the methods of recording crime to change so much that statistics become seriously unreliable. Anyway, I believe it’s been falling more recently, over the last decade or two.

More to the point, I’m not talking about papers making things up. I’m talking about papers giving more headroom to crimes, spinning individual events out to such an extent that they get the whole country in a panic in case the same thing happens in their neighbourhood. Newspapers have changed in the last 100 years. They’ve become far more emotive, far more likely to put words like “outrage” and “horror” into headlines. Far more likely to focus on the victim’s weeping family than to actually attempt to analyse and explain the crime. Far more likely to lead people by the nose.

That said, I’m not claiming that the world hasn’t become more dangerous in the last umpteen years. Again, I don’t have data. I just think that whether or not people lock their doors can be explained by many things. Rising crime is one, but it’s not the only one.

149. Leon Wolfeson

@145 – Yes. Why? Because it’s VERY hard for Romani in the country to have a job thanks to widespread prejudice. The same sort of prejudice SMFS pushes, of course.

150. Chaise Guevara

@ 131 Tina

“What has that to do with Left wing politics?”

Not much. It has to do with right-wing politics, specifically those where you attempt to portray the majority as suffering more discrimination than anyone else. That doesn’t make much sense in a democracy, and it’s totally disconnected from the world as it is.

“wrong – I said that I live in a village where most of the Spanish were pro Franco and were ashamed to talk about the Civil War – where did I say that it was unfair that we don’t live in a fascist theocracy? (since you wish to pick at every word perhaps you should read what I wrote more thoroughly)”

Or perhaps you should try to follow the conversation. It’s got nowt to do with your Spanish village. It has to do with you thinking it’s unfair that we let Muslims build mosques when fascist Muslim states don’t let people build churches. Apparently we should follow the example of the theocrats, right?

“where have I demanded that we should be allowed to hit our kids? I said there was no discipline, there are many other ways of disciplining children than hitting them.”

QUOTE

With no discipline being able to be applied in schools, children being able to divorce their parents and policemen not being able to clip kids round the ear when they misbehave or are disrespectful it is hardly surprising that we are breeding anarchy

END QUOTE

“Well you would be wrong because I really don’t care what people think of my view left wing or right. They are just my views and I am not the only person who shares them.”

What’s that got to do with whether or not you’re left-wing?

“Left wing briefly to me is that everyone should have equal opportunity, support social change when it is for the better and recognise that extreme wealth can make people lose touch with reality.”

Sure, agreed. Where you differ from what is generally called “left-wing” is what you think means society is changing for the better. For example, left-wingers are generally cool with freedom of religion, whereas you get grumpy about people building mosques.

151. john reid

smfs 142,brilliant

@ 123

I very much doubt she’s racist but she’s as thick as two short planks, way out of her depth and always has been

Agreed, but why do you think that is?

Could it be that she has been promoted way beyond her abilities because of the fact that she is a black woman? That she is a victim of quotas and positive discrimination?

Why are so many ethnic and female politicians of such poor calibre, even by comparison with their peers?

@149

Would that be the same ‘prejudice’ that sees neigh on every shiny new shopping mall and major new development in Hungary belonging to Israeli registered companies then?

SMFS @ 142

Basically she hates White people.

Where do you get that from? What a fucking idiot you are. Have ever heard her say anything like this? No, it is just your typical Tory bigotry kicking in. You assume that because you hate all black people it must follow that all black people hate white people.

Jim doesn’t much like Britain or the British either, therefore it is not racism.

Again, where does that come from. I may hate the Tories, but that is only because they hate millions of British people and hate British culture as well.

It isn’t the Left that attack disabled British people, British unemployed people, British ethnic minorities and the British working class as well. It isn’t us that sell British culture to America, is it?

Yet it is the you and the other sub human

@147

Seeing I don’t live there it is a wee bit difficult for me to comment, never mind give you an accurate answer(Galen10 take note) so I can only go by what I saw briefly and that is that a lot of the good burgers of Sopron seemed more than satisfied to see what even I would describe as these rather intimidating looking uniformed gentlemen ‘patrolling’ their town centre, then add the lady I was in the company of who I would definitely describe as 100% non political considered it nothing out of the norm and seemed to fully subscribe to it so then an educated guess would suggest that yes indeed there may well be a problem with ‘thieving gypsy bastards’ as you so eloquently put it my dear Cylux.

Also quite ironic you had to get your little leftist dig in by mentioning the word ‘bear’ in it, one could read that as an obscure reference to the Russian Bear. You know the one that oppressed Hungary and many other Eastern European countries for over 4 decades in the last century. Of course at that time the Russian Bear was the Soviet Red Army who in 1956 steam rolled in to Budapest and quite literally squashed many brave Hungarians who dared to dissent against the wonderful teachings of Karl Marx and demand freedom from the Communist tyranny that had been forced on them for just over a decade at that point. Why anyone would be right leaning when their fathers and grandfathers were murdered in the interests of International Communism/Socialism is quite beyond me, how about you?

‘Avanti ragazzi di Buda’

She has repeatedly made racist remarks and it is amazing that you insist on ignoring them…As were her comments about “blue eyed” nurses…
…She said she did so because West Indian mothers cared about their children – a clearly racist remark as it implies that White mothers do not.

Invented racism, stirred up by the Right. ‘Blue eyed nurses’? For fucks sake man get a life.

To be honest I don’t care that much about racism

No? Well isn’t that a suprise! so this isn’t about racism, it is just a backward Tory joining in with all the other nutters.

Also quite ironic you had to get your little leftist dig in by mentioning the word ‘bear’ in it, one could read that as an obscure reference to the Russian Bear.

They could if they’re an idiot, given that I said Bear Patrol from the Simpsons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Apu_About_Nothing

On an ordinary day, a brown bear strolls onto the streets of Springfield, frightening the town. The bear is eventually subdued by the police, who tranquilize it. Homer convinces Springfield that something needs to be done to protect them from bears, and the town takes their complaint to Mayor Quimby. Soon, the Bear Patrol is created. Homer is shocked to see taxes have been raised five dollars to maintain the patrol, and this warrants another visit by the town to the Mayor’s office. To appease them, Mayor Quimby blames the high taxes on illegal immigrants. He then creates Proposition 24, which will require all illegal immigrants from Springfield to be deported.

Although that synopsis leaves out that Quimby blamed it on illegal immigrants due to the fact that the townsfolk didn’t want the bear patrol to be scraped, due to it being ‘successful’ in keeping away bears, but didn’t want the tax rise either.

158. Lazy Lion

@157

Oh dear, reduced to name calling and banging on about cartoon shows when I thought folk in here were above all that, did I not say ‘obscure’ reference as regards mentioning bears? No doubt you will inform us all it’s all very relevant because I assume it was an episode poking fun at the right wing.

All very convenient when you are unable to reply with any credible response to the serious points I made. I mean lets not beat about the bush here, your sort are all too quick to remind the world and his wife of all the terrible things the right have done over the years but don’t seem so keen to acknowledge any existence of the barbaric totalitarian campaign of terror that was launched on many parts of the world by your own side and why would you?

Gosh who needs to mention Stalin when you’ve all got Hitler to obsess about eh

@158 So, what, the fightback against soviets makes you prejudiced toward Roma Gypsies? That being prejudiced against certain minority groups is a right-wing trait, and any nation that could be described as being ‘right-wing’ you would expect to find greater levels of discrimination toward those deemed ‘the other’? If you’re wanting to big up ‘your side’ you might not want to make the claim that ‘prejudice = right wing’ like you do here in the context of brown-shirt style patrols hunting for gypsies:

Why anyone would be right leaning when their fathers and grandfathers were murdered in the interests of International Communism/Socialism is quite beyond me, how about you?

Because Jim’ll fucking love that argument. Being anti-racist simply shouldn’t be the sole preserve of the left, that you would associate it as so, speaks volumes.

160. Chaise Guevara

@ 154 Jim

“Where do you get that from? What a fucking idiot you are. Have ever heard her say anything like this? No, it is just your typical Tory bigotry kicking in. You assume that because you hate all black people it must follow that all black people hate white people.”

Jim, the catalyst for this thread was Abbott making a generalisation about white people – and not a relatively neutral one, but one that actively seeks to demonise. I think saying she therefore hates whites is melodramatic, but it’s a pretty obvious reason for SMFS making the statement. You don’t have to invent some crazy motive where he thinks all black people hate all white people.

161. Chaise Guevara

@158 Lazy Lion

” I mean lets not beat about the bush here, your sort are all too quick to remind the world and his wife of all the terrible things the right have done over the years but don’t seem so keen to acknowledge any existence of the barbaric totalitarian campaign of terror that was launched on many parts of the world by your own side and why would you? ”

Given that Stalin was a totalitarian who tried to push cultural monogamy by killing people, and that almost all leftists in Britain today are democrats who are into cultural tolerance and think political murder is appalling, I don’t think Stalin is a very good stick to beat the left with. And the same goes for the right and Hitler.

Basically, the difference between Stalin and the modern left, and the difference between Hitler and the modern right, is far greater than the difference between the modern left and the modern right. We almost all agree on things like freedom of speech and democracy – we actually take these principles for granted, so it’s often not necessary to point out that we believe in them, it’s just assumed.

It’s also worth noticing that while Hitler is generally described as “right-wing” and Stalin is generally described as “left-wing” (although there are people who will argue about both labels), the salient factors of their societies were very similar. Which suggests that they followed a similar ideology, but happened to use different rhetoric.

162. Lazy Lion

@159

What like the left’s prejudices towards monarchies, religion, those with more material wealth than them(apart from ‘champagne socialists’ of course) and anybody with opposing views do you mean?

Or how about we stay on the Hungarian theme and talk about how another of your darlings, the delightful President Ceausescu of Romania oversaw a campaign of terror against Roma gypsies and the ethnic Hungarians in Transylvania who tried to shelter them from his Securitate secret police? Hmmmm and you say prejudices and nationalist hatred are the exclusive trademark of the right, maybe there you will find possible clues in to what I will openly accept is a far from an ideal relationship that quite visibly exists between Hungarians and Roma gypsies these days but unlike others in here I don’t claim to be an expert on anything I don’t know the full facts about so I will the intrepid internet explorers and serial link posters to dig out articles that will suit your stance on this specific matter.

Though I would without hesitation admit I’ve noticed nearly all the Roma I’ve seen in Eastern Europe look far poorer and less healthy than the, how shall we say, poor poor poverty ridden, illegal dog fighting, skunk weed cultivating, scrap ‘collecting’, tarmac laying, Mercedes driving ex residents of Dale Farm who apparently don’t earn enough to pay any income tax whatsoever, never mind buy or rent a property made of bricks n mortar. Since that all began it has never stopped puzzling why exactly the left chose to jump in to bed with them, I mean animal rights and people on great incomes not paying enough to the state are both set in stone as issues your average British lefty’s ideology despises, how come you all chose to overlook those factors on this specific occasion? Oh that’s right, yeah they’re a minority and all minorities no matter how unsavoury or immoral should be looked after……unless of course, they are a far right minority which then means they should be sent to jail for life or even better hung from the nearest lamp post hohum and you all got the front to try painting anyone right of centre as hypocrites.

Take a long hard look in the mirror boys and girls

163. Lazy Lion

@161

Ok you have made some very good points there and I will go as so far as to half say fair play but please explain to me if the left in the UK is so tolerant and democratic these days why are they forever waving placards demanding ‘Shut down the nazi BNP’………sorry to lob a spanner in the works of your carefully worded and inclusive reply but screaming for the closure of a legitimate political party you oppose seems far more totalitarian and undemocratic than the picture you just painted of the present day left.

And no I am not a supporter of them but am willing to accept, with some regret and sorrow i have to add, that anyone on the right of the political divide is part of my camp whilst anyone on the left side of the divide is not. That does not mean I am incapable of giving credit to opponents when it’s due because I have done so regularly throughout my life, take Tony Benn for instance god I don’t like what the fella stands for but he is highly intelligent and he is a true gentleman who has always said what he believes rather than towing the party line and even I can admire that and applaud him for it.

Leon @ 139:

“@137″

You appear to be talking to yourself there. I doubt you meant to, so what exactly was your post referring to?

Jim:

“Where do you get that from? What a fucking idiot you are. Have ever heard her say anything like this? No, it is just your typical Tory bigotry kicking in. You assume that because you hate all black people it must follow that all black people hate white people.”

She said that you shouldn’t criticise black “community leaders” because “White people love playing divide and rule”. Not only is she making a sweeping and negative generalisation about a whole ethnic group, but she’s doing so in a way which implies that white people are hostile to blacks, and are just waiting for any sign of division to try and sow discord. That sounds like a pretty racist view to me.

First of all, I can’t think of any examples of Tories making such remarks. Can you?

Secondly, how do you know this? Have you asked every Tory about their beliefs on race?

Far too many to mention and far too widespread for it to be an isolated case.”

If I’m honest, Jim, I find your (conveniently vague) anecdote to be rather unconvincing.

166. Bored in Kavanagasau

161
Just to correct you on Stalin and Hitler, they were using different ideologies, Stalin drew on Marx but the USSR was never Marxists, Hitler, on the other hand, drew on an ideology of racial supremacy and, he was a racial supremacist, he was seeking to create slaves for the German people.
As for the conditions in both countries, I think we all agree that it was dire.

168. Chaise Guevara

@ 163 Lazy Lion

“Ok you have made some very good points there and I will go as so far as to half say fair play but please explain to me if the left in the UK is so tolerant and democratic these days why are they forever waving placards demanding ‘Shut down the nazi BNP’………sorry to lob a spanner in the works of your carefully worded and inclusive reply but screaming for the closure of a legitimate political party you oppose seems far more totalitarian and undemocratic than the picture you just painted of the present day left.”

Oh, those guys aren’t tolerant. I’m not saying that there aren’t some petty facists still around, such as UAF (ironically enough!). My point is that if you’re talking to a left-winger who DOES believe in free speech and equality and all that jazz, using Stalin as a kind of ad hom by proxy is not a reasonable approach.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: this is exactly the risk we take upon ourselves when we talk about “the left” and “the right” as groups. It’s very easy to start thinking of them as homogenous, at which point you start demanding that all left-wingers answer for UAF, and all right-wingers answer for the BNP. And when I say it’s easy, I don’t mean it’s easy to exploit on purpose (although that’s also true); I mean that people naturally fall into that fallacious way of thinking

You talk about the BNP being in your “camp”. This sounds like a case of that kind of thinking. Whether or not someone is on your side in politics is not an on/off thing. You don’t have to decide that the BNP are either in your camp or not. The reality is that they’re in your camp on some issues (and I’m sure there are non-contraversial parts of their manifesto I would agree with) and not on others (such as race, I assume).

169. Chaise Guevara

@ 167 steveb

“Just to correct you on Stalin and Hitler, they were using different ideologies, Stalin drew on Marx but the USSR was never Marxists, Hitler, on the other hand, drew on an ideology of racial supremacy and, he was a racial supremacist, he was seeking to create slaves for the German people.”

The point is that their ideologies matched in some places but not in others, and that the places that they matched are generally the reasons for how terrible those regimes were. For example, the use of genocide, via brutal state force, to “purify” the country.

Do you judge people by what they say when they know you’re listening, or what they do? The rhetoric used to “justify” Naziism and Stalinism was different. The end results were very similar.

Chaise @160

Jim, the catalyst for this thread was Abbott making a generalisation about white people – and not a relatively neutral one, but one that actively seeks to demonise.

Yeah, however, when asked to clarify her remarks, she did so, and in no certain terms either. She made it clear that she was talking about the Nineteenth Centaury Colonial powers. Now given what she herself has identified what she tweeted and what she is said to believe, there a huge gulf? So a potentially ambiguous remark, was clarified to the point that we can accept?

Where is the big deal? Did ‘White’ Colonial powers ‘divide and rule’ their black subjects? Yes? Then what is the problem?

Is it the contention, irrespective of a tweet made in haste, that Diane Abbott believes that white people maliciously ‘divides and rules’? Or is it more realistic that ‘white people’ refers to the colonial powers that used those tactics?

You make a guess, based on your own judgement.

but it’s a pretty obvious reason for SMFS making the statement.

I agree, SMFS is a member of the Tory vermin who seek to demonise every black person who dare attack the Tory status quo.

Can you think of a time when the a Tory has used a racist term and attempted to distance himself from it? ‘Bongo bongoland’ for example?

When such a remark has been made, has the vermin responsible attempted to clarify it? Or did they bang on and on and on and on about ‘political correctness gone maaaaaaad’?

Give you an example. Did Carol Thatcher apologise for her ‘golliwog’ statement? Or did she go on and on and on whinging? The latter would indicate that she thinks it reasonable to describe a black person as a ‘golliwog’. The former indicates that she is a bigot.

XXX @ 165

If I’m honest, Jim, I find your (conveniently vague) anecdote to be rather unconvincing.

You are nothing more than typical of the Tory vermin that infest this board. Can you think of a reason why I would be remotely interested in whether or not you find anything I write as ‘convincing’?

You are an illustration of the type of scum who I despise, I cannot think of another human being who I am less interested in trying to convince of anything.

@164 XXX – A comment by damon all the way up @66 finally arrived, putting the thread out of sync, happens when you post 3+ links in a comment, held in moderation etc.

173. john reid

170 if smfs is attempting to demonise every black person,the fact that he(she) won so many arguments on this thread with the help of so many left wing apologists for Abbotts raicsm, then smfs is doing a good jbwith so much left wing help

No the only trap here is that Labour didn’t sack Abbott, even though everyone clearly recognises that Labour would have immediately sacked a white person who’d made a similar kind of comment.

The institutional bias is as clear as day, and people are realising how bizarrely anti-white and racist the weird Labour race-traitors really are.

That’s what the fuss over these completely fatuous non-shocking and tame remarks was about.

So well done Labour, hoisted by your own petard.

@ Jim:

“Yeah, however, when asked to clarify her remarks, she did so, and in no certain terms either. She made it clear that she was talking about the Nineteenth Centaury Colonial powers. Now given what she herself has identified what she tweeted and what she is said to believe, there a huge gulf? So a potentially ambiguous remark, was clarified to the point that we can accept?”

Her remarks weren’t “potentially ambiguous”, they were quite obviously referring to the situation today. Consider the following facts:

1.) The conversation in question was about the present-day black community, not nineteenth-century colonialism.

2.) Ms. Abbott’s tweets were all in the present tense.

3.) Starting to talk about the nineteenth century would have been a bizarre non sequitur (sort of like if we were having a consersation about the political situation in Spain, and I suddenly brought up the Spanish Armada), whereas talking about the attitude which white people today hold about black people would have fitted perfectly into the conversation.

4.) Ms. Abbott has form when it comes to making silly statements about race.

Frankly, Jim, all the evidence points to her “explanation” being a rather weak attempt to wriggle out of admitting that she is, in fact, a racist, and virtually none points to her actually having been talking about the nineteenth century. Unless you’ve got some hitherto unknown piece of evidence in her favour, it would probably be better if you were to admit it and stop defending the indefensible.

“You are nothing more than typical of the Tory vermin that infest this board… You are an illustration of the type of scum who I despise,

I consider this sort of thing from you a badge of honour more than anything else, as well as finding it rather funny. Still, if you hold me in such great contempt, why do you bother replying to my posts?

AJ @ 174

No the only trap here is that Labour didn’t sack

Why sack someone who made a perfectly acceptable comment?

even though everyone clearly recognises that Labour would have immediately sacked a white person who’d made a similar kind of comment.

So, if a white person had said that White Colonialist play the divide and rule tactics, they would have been sacked? Really? I doubt it.

and people are realising how bizarrely anti-white and racist the weird Labour race-traitors really are.

What ‘anti white bias’ are you talking about? You bastards have had this explained to you repeatedly. Diane Abbott was speaking about the colonisation of Africa in the nineteenth Centaury, not the entire race.

What is it about this that the thick scum cannot grasp? Just because you are too stupid to understand what Diane Abbott was describing, does that mean that people of average IQs are therefore too stupid to understand it.

Hey, what about this for an idea? Why don’t you and the other fuckwits on this board scrape all of your money together and buy a personality between you for sharing? That way one of you will have something worth saying once a month?

GET A FUCKING LIFE, YOU MORONS.

“Diane Abbott was speaking about the colonisation of Africa in the nineteenth Centaury, not the entire race.”

No she wasn’t. She said that divide and rule is a “tactic as old as colonialism”, but that doesn’t mean that she was “speaking about the colonisation of Africa”.

178. So Much For Subtlety

154. Jim

Where do you get that from? What a fucking idiot you are. Have ever heard her say anything like this? No, it is just your typical Tory bigotry kicking in. You assume that because you hate all black people it must follow that all black people hate white people.

Dianne Abbott is hardly all Black people. I get that from her long and shameful history of anti-White racist remarks. Where else would I get it from?

Again, where does that come from. I may hate the Tories, but that is only because they hate millions of British people and hate British culture as well.

That comes from your long and shameful history of anti-British remarks.

It isn’t the Left that attack disabled British people, British unemployed people, British ethnic minorities and the British working class as well. It isn’t us that sell British culture to America, is it?

Depends on which period you are talking about. But it is the Left that is making disabled British people, unemployed British people, British ethnic minorities and the British working class worse off. What is more, it is most definitely the Left that is using divide and rule tactics to present these groups as if they are not part of the broader British majority and so hoping to gain some petty political benefit.

Yet it is the you and the other sub human

Ahh, I am subhuman am I?

Jim

Invented racism, stirred up by the Right. ‘Blue eyed nurses’? For fucks sake man get a life.

I see. So a racist remark about a person of African origin’s hair is racism but a comment about some Finnish peoples’ eyes is not? How interesting. It is not invented. Everyone knows what Abbott has been saying. Everyone knows she is a racist. You can go on denying it all you like. It won’t change a thing.

I think the racism is a non-trivial problem but for me it is mostly the hypocrisy.

170. Jim

Yeah, however, when asked to clarify her remarks, she did so, and in no certain terms either. She made it clear that she was talking about the Nineteenth Centaury Colonial powers.

Except she wasn’t. She was talking about Black people in Britain today and the response of all White people to that. End of story. She can spin this as she likes, it won’t change what she said.

Now given what she herself has identified what she tweeted and what she is said to believe, there a huge gulf? So a potentially ambiguous remark, was clarified to the point that we can accept?

No, because it was not potentially ambiguous. It was as clear as day. She has simply tried to lie about what she said. She is not very bright to be honest.

Where is the big deal? Did ‘White’ Colonial powers ‘divide and rule’ their black subjects? Yes? Then what is the problem?

Except they didn’t. But even if they did, how does that relate to modern British people? Many Afro-Caribbean people were slaves back in the day. What sort of references to that fact linked to modern Black people do you think LC would tolerate? I know people on the internet who claim that slavery basically “bred” Black people to be strong but stupid. An idiotic claim on so many levels. Do you think it isn’t racist to make this claim?

Is it the contention, irrespective of a tweet made in haste, that Diane Abbott believes that white people maliciously ‘divides and rules’? Or is it more realistic that ‘white people’ refers to the colonial powers that used those tactics?

Given the context, the person tweeting and her past history, there is no doubt that she meant what she said – about all White people today.

Can you think of a time when the a Tory has used a racist term and attempted to distance himself from it? ‘Bongo bongoland’ for example?

I don’t see Bongobongoland as particularly racist but I would have thought saying something and then standing by it was morally superior to saying something and then lying about what you said. Why do you think the spineless lying approach is the better one?

Give you an example. Did Carol Thatcher apologise for her ‘golliwog’ statement? Or did she go on and on and on whinging? The latter would indicate that she thinks it reasonable to describe a black person as a ‘golliwog’. The former indicates that she is a bigot.

She probably is a bigot but actually that was one of her finer moments. Not saying it which was, we can all agree, crass. But she did not lie about saying it. She did not crawl to save her career. She said it, she regretted it, but she did not deny it and so she is no longer on TV. She stood by what she did, confessed and refused to play the hypocrite. She is an unpleasant person with unpleasant views, but she is also a throw back to earlier times when British people stood by what they said instead of grovelling.

176. Jim

Why sack someone who made a perfectly acceptable comment?

Because it wasn’t.

So, if a white person had said that White Colonialist play the divide and rule tactics, they would have been sacked? Really? I doubt it.

No but if someone said Black people all like, to borrow from some unlamented American politician, watermelon, something else and a loose pair of shoes, they would be sacked in a second. It is about the same level of dishonest, factually incorrect racist lie.

What ‘anti white bias’ are you talking about? You bastards have had this explained to you repeatedly. Diane Abbott was speaking about the colonisation of Africa in the nineteenth Centaury, not the entire race.

Except she wasn’t. She was clearly speaking about all White people. In the sort of fashionable anti-White racism that the Left usually embraces. She can spin this as much as she likes. What she said is what she said.

Hey, what about this for an idea? Why don’t you and the other fuckwits on this board scrape all of your money together and buy a personality between you for sharing? That way one of you will have something worth saying once a month?

GET A FUCKING LIFE, YOU MORONS.

I take it this is your de facto admission that you have had your case kicked to pieces and now you’re going to throw over the chess board, takes your pieces and go home. Good.

179. Chaise Guevara

@ Jim 170

“Yeah, however, when asked to clarify her remarks, she did so, and in no certain terms either. She made it clear that she was talking about the Nineteenth Centaury Colonial powers. Now given what she herself has identified what she tweeted and what she is said to believe, there a huge gulf? So a potentially ambiguous remark, was clarified to the point that we can accept? ”

It wasn’t clarified, it was spun. Seriously, read the exhange on the BBC website. Firstly, all of the comments are in present tense (it would still be racist if it was a generalisation about 19th century white people, but it would be more understandable).

Secondly, and more importantly, she’s warning the other person that they’re playing into the hands of white people and their divide and rule tactics. How could this possibly make sense if she was talking about the 19th century? “Oh, don’t say that, someone who’s been dead for a hundred years will use it against you”? If you respond to this post, please answer that last question, don’t ignore it, step around it or go off on a non-sequitur.

“Is it the contention, irrespective of a tweet made in haste, that Diane Abbott believes that white people maliciously ‘divides and rules’? Or is it more realistic that ‘white people’ refers to the colonial powers that used those tactics?”

The first one. As demonstrated by her comment. And how can we possibly decide this irrespective of the tweet? I’m supposed to decide if she’s racist while not treating racist comments as evidence?

“I agree, SMFS is a member of the Tory vermin who seek to demonise every black person who dare attack the Tory status quo.”

That’s not what I said, and you know it. So don’t say you agree with me and then act as if I said something totally different. It’s really fucking childish.

“Can you think of a time when the a Tory has used a racist term and attempted to distance himself from it? ‘Bongo bongoland’ for example?”

Firstly, even if every Tory who ever walked the earth was revealed as a racist, that wouldn’t make Abbott’s comments any more acceptable. It’s not like Labour get an allotment of free racist comments they’re allowed to make until they’ve caught up with the Tories.

Secondly, if a Tory said something clearly racist, and then tried to wriggle out of it with an excuse that was an obvious lie, would you be here saying “It’s ok, he clarified the comment, get off his back”? No, you’d be going on a rant starring the word “scum” and with several guest appearances by the word “cunt”. Which would be fair, our historic disagreement about terminology notwithstanding.

It’s clear that the main reason for your refusal to accept a clearly racist comment as racist is that you see Abbott as being on *your side*. As such, no criticisms of her from the other side can be brooked, however valid they are. You’ll accept left-wing criticisms of left-wingers (usually, though not today), but when most of the critics are right-wing, you pronounce them wrong by default.

I suspect you’re also motivated by annoyance at that group of right-wingers who like to pretend that anti-white racism is the only real racism in Britain today (you know, the guys who say things like “These days, the only people who suffer discrimination are white Christian straight British males!”). They piss me off too, but that’s not what happened here. A racist lady made a racist comment, was rightly called a racist, and made a desperate attempt to cover her tracks that doesn’t stack up with the comment itself and the context within which it was made. And it really does look bad when you normally rightly condemn racists, and then rush to defend one racist, in the face of the facts and all logic, simply because she’s on your side.

180. Chaise Guevara

@ XXX

“I consider this sort of thing from you a badge of honour more than anything else, as well as finding it rather funny.”

I love the way that, at this juncture, you’re basically being called vermin for objecting to racism. Bloody non-racism scum that you are!

Sunny said:
I thought right-wingers were against media mobs against people who say stuff others find offensive. It turns out that only applies to people they agree with.

*snigger*

“Blogger makes generalisation complaining about others complaining about generalisation SHOCKER”

183. Chaise Guevara

@ 181 Cylux

First article conflates genuine opposition to genuine racism with people who try to pretend that majority groups suffer the worst prejudice.

Second article seems to think that racism’s fine as long as nobody’s feelings are hurt (and then says white people who are offended by racism are pathetic).

Third article rehashes the main argument being used here – ad-hom whataboutary aimed at the right, trying to smear all people who object to Abbott’s comments (whether left or right) with the opinions of those who make excuses for anti-non-white racism. Then redefines racism to say it can only be done by the politically powerful.

All three appear to give carte blanche to anyone who wants to racially abuse whites in the UK.

What’s your point, exactly?

‘Blue eyed nurses’? For fucks sake man get a life.

She said that “blue eyed, Finnish girls” in her local hospital were unsuitable as nurses “because they’ve never met a black person”. Regardless of how firmly your blinkers are attached, it’s very hard to read that in any way other than an attack on a class of person on the grounds of their race. There is no sentence that starts “Black people are unsuitable to be nurses because…” without its being racist. Same applies for Finns.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/mar/16/lucyward.guardianprofiles

Arguably it’s hard for someone whose politics is so inextricably connected with racial identity not to be at least a little bit racist. When the politics of race is the front and centre of your political identity, racism is always likely to creep in.

Chaise @ 180

These Tories who are jumping up and down crying ‘racism’. Do you think that they could give a fuck about racism or is it a cheap attempt to get at Diane Abbott? Do you think that these people are remotely interested in stamping out racism? What are their opinions on the race row at Liverpool over the week end? Are they crawling over that? Nope, nothing to see, nothing to report there.

When I see Tories consistently attacking racism, they might have a point, but on this occasion, they have jumped on a tweet and blew it out of proportion. The three of you actually believes that Diane Abbott hates all white people and have come to that conclusion based on a tweet. Well done for your sharp observation. Remember these two cunts are the same scum that think disabled people should be shown ‘tough love’ and be forced to live of charity, so well done in picking your company, there.

Take David Cameron’s ‘Tourettes’ remark. A terrible insult to the sufferers of this neurological illness? No, an of the cuff remark, subsequently apologised for. Nobody died, nobody threw themselves of a bus, a remark was made and a few people pointed out the potential hurt and guess what? We all moved on.

You see that is the thing. The more sensible people among us, the people with a bit of intelligence, do not need to pointed to what we should and what we should not find racist. We can spot racism when it occurs, irrespective of some hard eyed Tory telling us we should be offended by something.

Take Alan Hanson’s remarks regarding ‘coloured’ players for example. Alan Hanson comes from a generation of people where the term ‘coloured’ was the correct term, therefore most of us can see that he was not being racist. If he uses the term again and again after having it explained to him the potential offence it causes? That would have been different. Had he came from a background and generation where it is reasonable to assume that he should know the offence that term would have caused? Yes, that would be different. If he had described a footballer as ‘looking like a golliwog’, yep that would have been different, too.

Look at ‘XXX’ and ‘SMFS’ other stuff and ask yourself this. Are they REALLY all that bothered about racism? Or are they bothered about kicking a black female Labour MP whenever the opportunity arises?

I suggest that most of the decent people who use the board have made our minds up already?

The far-right have been saying the left are anti-white and they are right! time and time after again the left justify racism towards white. Do white liberals get a kick out of seeing us suffer? really that liberals consider themselves the leading experts in racism makes me laugh when they dish most of it out. It’s not just the twitter comments but many others she has made in the past. She is racist and being black is no excuse.

187. Chaise Guevara

@ Jim

In the post you’re replying to, I asked you a direct question about the topic at hand AND SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THAT YOU ANSWER IT. I’m not interested in your ad-hom rant against people who disagree with you, nor your lies about my position on the matter. Especially if you’re such an intellectual coward that you’re going to ignore direct questions that don’t suit your argument.

Here’s the question AGAIN: “She’s warning the other person that they’re playing into the hands of white people and their divide and rule tactics. How could this possibly make sense if she was talking about the 19th century?”

Answer the question. Put up or shut up.

P.S. As long as your on here defending Abbott’s comment, you’ve got a fuckload of nerve accusing other people of racism. You’re the one on this thread whose au fait with racial bigotry.

188. Chaise Guevara

@ 186

While I agree that race is no excuse for racism, I really don’t think most racism is dished out by liberals. How many liberals would it take to balance out all of the “bloody Pakis” comments by a single old-fashioned conservative type?

Jim @ 185:

“Look at ‘XXX’ and ‘SMFS’ other stuff and ask yourself this. Are they REALLY all that bothered about racism? Or are they bothered about kicking a black female Labour MP whenever the opportunity arises?”

TBH I’m more bothered about the transparently false and dishonest excuses offered by Abbott and her apologists. I can’t speak for SMFS.

169
Apologies if this post is repeated, I don’t believe my original post was sent.

‘their ideologies matched in some places’

No, this is incorrect, however, both Stalin and Hitler’s method of rule was similar.
Nazism is nationalist, Marxism is internationalist, one draws on the concept of race the other on class, one is exclusive and the other is inclusive.
As one of the very few ‘hard left’ who post on LC, I have, over time attempted to correct misguided opinions about socialism specifically and Marxism generally. Unfortunately, the USSR and Stalin, who carried-out unspeakable deeds in the name of Marx and socialism, make it very difficult to show socialism as a viable economic and political system. The right will always distance themselves from racism and other social prejudices but will deny that the left are not Soviet clones.

Spot on article.

Tim J @ 184

Context is everything when considering any subject and it no different when it comes to racism. When using the term ‘blue eyed Finnish girls’ is it used as a racial slur? It is being used in an aggressive manner to denote a negative connotation? Or is she using the term as shorthand to describe the cultural aspects to modern nursing in an inner city hospital? Context is key, simply holding up the term ‘blue eyed’ as evidence of racism and that Abbott basically ‘hate white people’ is sheer nonsense.

If someone suggested that white, Scandinavian nurses could NEVER surmount the cultural differences to work in an inner city London hospital, then you could have a point, but that is not what she said.

You could argue that Abbott is wrong regarding the ease in which White Northern European nurses could assimilate into a hospital ward where racial diversity is accepted as normal, but I think it highly unlikely you could put her views down to racism. Like it or there are cultures in Europe that racism is pretty rife, to be fair I would suggest it would be more Eastern Europe, I would see as having a problem fitting in, but you get the general point.

The analogy I have is if someone described the chancellor as ‘The Jew Osborne’. Although factually correct, the clear subtext is that his ethnic background was being used in a negative manner. We both recognise that in context.

However, if we read in a newspaper that his Jewish roots made him a natural Conservative, that wouldn’t strike either of us as particularly racist, would it? I genuinely believe that we are both adult enough that we could filter out the context and make a value call. For what it is worth, if Jack Straw was described as a natural Socialist because of his Jewish upbringing, I think a paper would get away with that, too.

Simply using the term ‘blue eyed’ does not automatically mark out Abbott as a racist and it is silly to say so. Abbott has never suggested that white people do not make good nurses, nor is she suggesting that no white person should ever nurse black patients.

Tim, you know what Diane Abbott was driving at, even if you cannot go along with it and you know she wasn’t being racist in what she said. Some people on this board have an excuse, but you are NOT a fuckwit, so do not pretend to be for political point scoring.

There is an issue in this Country with racism and I am all to aware that racism aimed at white people happens and that we should be on our guard against any racism under all circumstances, but please, this isn’t racism and you know it.

193. Chaise Guevara

@ 190

We’re basically arguing over whether or not fascist control and national purity are ideologies or methods. I’m not sure we disagree on any actual matters of fact here.

When using the term ‘blue eyed Finnish girls’ is it used as a racial slur? It is being used in an aggressive manner to denote a negative connotation? Or is she using the term as shorthand to describe the cultural aspects to modern nursing in an inner city hospital? Context is key, simply holding up the term ‘blue eyed’ as evidence of racism and that Abbott basically ‘hate white people’ is sheer nonsense.

Jim, she was saying that a certain type of person is unsuitable for employment as a nurse because of their racial characteristics. There really is no context that makes that not a racist comment (also, obviously, a stupid one. Anyone living in London, regardless where they were born, has ‘met black people’). You don’t have to be explicitly nasty about people to be racist about them. Black men have big dicks, Jews control international finance – neither are ‘nasty’ things to say; both are racist.

The analogy I have is if someone described the chancellor as ‘The Jew Osborne’. Although factually correct, the clear subtext is that his ethnic background was being used in a negative manner. We both recognise that in context.

However, if we read in a newspaper that his Jewish roots made him a natural Conservative, that wouldn’t strike either of us as particularly racist, would it?

It would strike me as a bit deluded, given that George Osborne isn’t Jewish. Although I’m sure the Gideonites will be happy to see that they’re making an impact.

Tim, you know what Diane Abbott was driving at, even if you cannot go along with it and you know she wasn’t being racist in what she said.

I know exactly what Diane Abbott was driving at, and it’s not the lazy racist generalisation that bothers me, it’s the lazy racist thinking that underpins it.
http://partyreptile.blogspot.com/2012/01/diane-abbott.html

195. Lazy Lion

@185 Jim

Well here is an old school Tory ‘bigot’ who has had far more to say about the recent Liverpool FC shenanigans than he has about the ever charming Ms Abbott, why not check back 2 days and have a closer look at (140)

May I just add to this topic a wee bit more and suggest people on the left have always had a tendency(not militant no no no) to do their best to sweep the Merseyside racism issue under the carpet because, I would hazard a guess, of the supposed traditional ultra socialist heritage of that part of the world, now why would they do that?

Lets not forget about the ‘Liverpool are white’ slogan that was painted on the back of the Kop at Anfield the very night John Barnes signed for them, lets not forget that whenever a black player went within 10 yards of the touchline at Goodison Park he was bombarded with coins, monkey noises and chants of ‘Everton are white’ for quite literally years and before someone tries pulling me and saying that was the 1980′s and 1990′s…..well yes it was but even back then apart from Charlton Athletic it wasn’t happening in London, it wasn’t happening in Birmingham, it wasn’t happening in Manchester yet it was happening in Liverpool, Newcastle, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Hull and Leeds hmmmmm how interesting, all eternal Labour/Socialist strongholds.

And should we want to fast forward to more recent times and the present day, we can look at the racist murder of Anthony Walker by Joey Barton’s half brother Michael, look at dear Joey’s conduct himself, Liverpool FC’s combined effort(club and fans) to rally round Luis Suarez and even in the last 4 days and yet another Scouser on a race hate charge……I will say it again just for good measure, how very ‘militant’

196. Chaise Guevara

@ 195 Lazy Lion

“it wasn’t happening in London, it wasn’t happening in Birmingham, it wasn’t happening in Manchester yet it was happening in Liverpool, Newcastle, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Hull and Leeds hmmmmm how interesting, all eternal Labour/Socialist strongholds. ”

To be fair, Manchester is a leftist socialist stronghold too. As much Lib Dem as it is Labour, but definitely leftist.

And you get plenty of racism in the smaller, fairly monochrome towns that make up most of the Tory vote. I came from one of those places – a permanently blue market town in Surrey – and I heard far more racism there than I do now, living in Manchester. That’s just my experience, of course, so there’s a chance it’s a statistical fluke, or that there are other factors at work.

Actually, one occurs: I suspect racism is less of a problem in larger cities, because they tend to be more cosmopolitan. Racism is probably at its worst (not necessarily more common, but more intense) in medium-sized towns with a large non-white population and high unemployment, because the latter tends to get blamed on the former.

If there IS a link between socialism and levels of racism, it’s probably because socialism attracts disenfranchised people who have had their lives ruined by layoffs… and those people are at high risk of racism because of the “immigrants stole our jobs” factor. That said, some natural Tories are at-risk too, especially those dreaming of a return to a British golden age that never was.

I came from one of those places – a permanently blue market town in Surrey – and I heard far more racism there than I do now, living in Manchester. That’s just my experience, of course, so there’s a chance it’s a statistical fluke, or that there are other factors at work.

Two things: first, time. You’re about 30, right? Things have changed over the last two decades.

The second is age. County market towns have a much older profile than metropolitan ones. Older people are more racist (generally speaking) than younger ones.

198. Chaise Guevara

@ 197 Tim

“Two things: first, time. You’re about 30, right? Things have changed over the last two decades. ”

Good guess! I moved up here eight or nine years ago, so that’s your timeframe for change. Time’s definitely a factor, but I doubt it’s the biggest one. For the record, I don’t think voting patterns are a caustive factor worth talking about – they’re far more likely to be a correlation or an effect.

“The second is age. County market towns have a much older profile than metropolitan ones. Older people are more racist (generally speaking) than younger ones.”

True dat. In these towns, racism seems to be common but mild. That would tie in with age, but I think it’s also because residents haven’t grown up with a lot of non-whites around (multiethnic schools seem to be a big help in the fight against racism), so they’ve had the space to develop prejudices, but they’re generally well-off and there aren’t enough non-whites about to be seriously blamed for job shortages, so the anger isn’t there either.

Tim @ 194

Jim, she was saying that a certain type of person is unsuitable for employment as a nurse because of their racial characteristics.

No, not racial characteristics, Abbott is not implying that blonde, blue eyed women are not suitable to be nurses in inner city London hospitals. The point being that coming from a homogenously white background could potentially cause issues. I doubt very much that Abbott has a problem with a blued New Yorker applying for a job in her local hospital. It was the cultural issues, that are at stake here, not the race and that is clear when you strip away all the tribal stuff aside.

Abbott is not implying that blonde, blue eyed women are not suitable to be nurses in inner city London hospitals. The point being that coming from a homogenously white background could potentially cause issues.

Not ‘could potentially cause issues’, but ‘renders them unsuitable for work as nurses’. Immigrants from West Africa, a homogenously black background, are perhaps even less likely to have ‘met white people’, than people from Finland are to have ‘met black people’. Suggesting that people from West Africa are unsuitable to be nurses on that basis is unambiguously racist. So is the reverse.

This really isn’t that complicated. That’s why Abbott apologised when she was challenged on it, just as she apologised when she was challenged on her latest.

Tim J @ 200

Suggesting that people from West Africa are unsuitable to be nurses on that basis is unambiguously racist. So is the reverse.

Tim, it is not true. They are not the same thing and are not interchangeable. Tim, trust me on this, I do understand where you are coming from on this and on this occasion, I genuinely do not think it comes from a bad place, but I do not think it is the same.

They should be and perhaps in the future they will be, but it is at least arguable that a black nurse from a predominately black culture would find it easier to fit into a predominantly white culture, than a Northern European nurse would fit into a multicultural (as opposed to merely a ‘black’) culture. I would expect a white nurse from a multiculturally diverse city like New York to adapt quicker than someone from Helsinki as well. Of course, it could be just as likely that Finish nurse may actual be the best nurse for the job and good luck to her

Now, what tells us about race relations in this Country is perhaps not as rosy as many like to believe, but that is not Diane Abbott’s fault.

Again, by way of analogy. Imagine two English teachers (teachers of English). One white teaching in Eton College, the other black teaching in an inner city school. Switching them around for a month, I believe that the former would find a much higher culture shock than the latter. I am not suggesting that the former lacks the skills, but I think the culture differences would be harder to scale for him (or her).

We had this type of discussion a couple of months ago regarding ‘All Gay’ and ‘All straight’ nightclubs and male/female only clubs women’s hour vs. men’s hour etc, but I wasn’t convinced then and on this occasion, I could see what Diane Abbott was driving at both here and here latest comment.

That’s why Abbott apologised when she was challenged on it, just as she apologised when she was challenged on her latest.

I agree that she could have worded it better and that people are always going to take offence at everything the ‘other side’ say under every circumstance. (see above on the Tourette’s thread), however the ratio for the number of wrongs to make a right does not change, just because few nutcases jump on a bandwagon.

We need to confront racism whenever we see it, but we cannot take every single mention of race as an automatic racist issue. We need to look at the context and get a feel at what we are driving at, rather than condemning people outright.

‘white people lack empathy to be nurses’ is racist.
‘No white person can ever nurse in black wards’ is racist.
‘cultural issues may prevent people from being effective nurses’ requires further investigation.

Tim, it is not true. They are not the same thing and are not interchangeable. Tim, trust me on this, I do understand where you are coming from on this and on this occasion, I genuinely do not think it comes from a bad place, but I do not think it is the same.

They’re not interchangeable. But they are equally racist, because they each classify a category of people on the basis of their race. Saying that blue-eyed blonde Finns are unsuited to be nurses because they can’t empathise with black people is racist. Virtually definitionally so. You can argue that either statement should be acceptable, because it’s really making a cultural statement (although it’s hard to argue that Helsinki is more different to London than Abuja is), but I don’t see how you can defend one but condemn the other.

Incidentally, I’m not offended by Diane Abbott, nor do I think she should resign/be sacked (frankly, the longer she stays on the Labour front bench the better, as far as I am concerned). But calling people out on their prejudices is a good thing, because prejudice is lazy thinking.

203. Steve Lindsey

Jim, I know this is going to come as a surprise to you but you are racist.

204. Steve Lindsey

Jim, I realise this will come as a genuine surprise (I’m serious) but you are racist.

Tim j @ 202

Saying that blue-eyed blonde Finns are unsuited to be nurses because they can’t empathise with black people is racist.

But that is not what she said, and I doubt that is what she implied. She said, or it has been alleged that she said that hiring blue eyed finnish nurses who had never seen a black person was an issue. That is not the same thing.

At no point did she say that Fins lack empathy for black paitents. Now if she had said that and she did so without evidence, then we would have had a problem with that and we would expect her to address that as well.

Steve @ 204

We all bring our own cultural baggage to the table, Steve. Sometimes we have to be able to look past the blindspots in our character and seek out the truth.

@183

Then redefines racism to say it can only be done by the politically powerful.

That is the definition. Otherwise racism would not be an important enough factor to require combating on its own. Given that otherwise ‘honky’ would carry the same derogatory and inflammatory weight as ‘n*gger’, which only the mightiest obscurantist would attempt to claim. Plus, in general, when white people do suffer racism it’s for the ethnicity’s underlying their whiteness, such as being Irish/Jewish/Polish/Gypsies rather than their skin colour. For some unknown reason.

208. Lazy Lion

@196 Senor Lynch

Though I’m proud to be an old school Tory ‘bigot’ I do value democracy and thus welcome your input but hello London and Liverpool are not small provincial market towns are they and as I was driving to Vienna after making that post earlier today I realised I had somehow forgot to mention Chelsea when it came to London, my apologies to any CAFC liberals that may have been reading and started spitting feathers that I labelled them as the sole overtly racist set of fans at that time which they clearly weren’t. I would also like to add I have spent my whole life in multi cultural London yet barely socialise with any ethnic minorities but I hardly consider myself Nick Griffin’s secret love child(well maybe his father’s secret love child would be more appropriate seeing I’m in my 40′s) but there are divisions, no doubt the liberal Stasi will attempt to accuse me of stereotyping and closet racism here but sorry that’s bollocks.

When it comes to black and white in London you generally have and I STRESS GENERALLY have 2 types of people……..whites n some blacks who dress, talk and behave English and then there are blacks n some whites who dress talk and behave something like a cross breed of a Jamaican Yardie, a gangster rapper from Compton and Ali Gee.

So what I am trying to get at is that it’s not quite as straight forward as race but cultural too, one of the few black friends I do have is married to a white woman and they have 2 mixed race children, he lives in Orpington and we are very close and yes obviously he falls in to the former bracket rather than the latter and now things will get juicy………we popped up to a well know specialist HI-FI shop on Lee High Road Lewisham last year some time and bumped in to one of his old pals of the latter category he grew up with in that manor, after less than a minute of pleasantries this rebel(sorry to have terms for those types that I’m sure many of you in here will scream is derogatory) looked me up n down, looked back at him and said ‘you’ve gone all Kent white’ and proceeded to shout a load of nonsense in some form of hybrid South London Patwa with all the usual over exaggerated tutting and stomped off cussing n shouting like a big girls blouse. My mate Jason looked round at me shrugged his shoulders and philosophically said ‘I got a white mrs, my kids are half white and I live in a white manor, what’s he expect?’ and you know what I’m going to say now don’t ya…………Lewisham’s Malcom X lives in a far more ‘racially diverse’ area than those from hmmm let’s say Melton Mowbray but I guarantee you now no black man would get that kind of bunny up there as what we got off him there in inner city London and he is hardly unique, there thousands tens of thousands maybe even hundreds of thousands of him so I’m sorry your argument is weak, flawed and once again in the realms of liberal utopia that in practice are very nice notions but in reality don’t exist.

Of course people like Jim who my reply was aimed at would rather stay silent or carry on defending the uber tolerant Ms Abbott whilst lambasting her white equivalent a certain Mr Griffin but as I have been at pains to express since I first entered this debate prejudice and negativity cuts both ways but come in here or go to more right wing blogs and both sides only see what their philosophies and beliefs permit them to, yet lefist fascist gobshite vermin like Galen10 have got the front to call me a ‘nasty piece of work’?????? Hohum

209. Charlieman

@198. Chaise Guevara: “In these towns, racism seems to be common but mild. That would tie in with age, but I think it’s also because residents haven’t grown up with a lot of non-whites around…”

During the second world war, some social behaviourists conducted an opinion survey in the west of England about troops based in the area. “Americans” were unpopular but “Australians” were judged to fit into the community. This puzzled the researchers because there weren’t many Australians in the towns surveyed.

It turned out that the “Americans” were white GIs and the “Australians” were black GIs. One explanation for this is that when a community quickly absorbs an influx of new residents, it most easily accepts those with a similar social/cultural disposition (eg methodist Christian blacks with a recent agricultural background) irrespective of skin colour. I am happy to accept this as a wartime freak occurrence.

In contemporary market towns and their surroundings, there are relatively few newcomers (property prices ensure that) who are most likely to be rich and white, or rich and honorary white. Newcomers will probably be like the posh people who have always lived in those places. For nearly 70 years black people live in cities and rich people live wherever they wish; poor white working people in the countryside are a historical legacy and an economic necessity.

The market town scenario does not explain why small communities might fail to be accepting of south and eastern European immigrants. Immigrant workers are mostly white skinned and share much of their culture (eg Christian celebrations, food, music) with locals.

Immigrants may be perceived as earning more than is actually the case, in jobs that the locals may not want. So perhaps, the mistaken grievance has an economic basis. Or perhaps a communications failure has occurred; immigrants work in short term jobs with short term prospects, but people fail to understand those facts.

210. Lazy Lion

@196 Senor Lynch

Damn I meant to pull you on your little dig about the ‘golden age’ that you seem to believe never was, sorry to go all imperial/colonial here but for this small set of islands to have had a controlling interest in nearly a third of this planet a little over a century was no mean feat regardless of if you admire it or abhor it, you can’t ignore it. There have been far nastier power hungry leaders/nations/regimes that could only dream of what little old Britain managed to achieve.

Just look at your namesake a certain Irish Latino Commie who made himself busy in Africa, didn’t really have much success and spoke some home truths about the natives that had they been said by a right footer would have been interpreted as offensive n ignorant in the mildest but downright racist in the most extreme.

Yeah I am one of those sad dinosaurs who takes pride in what a Jewish Prime Minister and a female Monarch oversaw, but of course by blowing the sexist and racist accusations away I have now opened myself up for the imperialist oppressor label.

Well tough, I support monarchies and royalty. From the British Empire to the Hapsburgs to the Russian Czars. Give me them rather than the Soviet ‘Empire’, Pol Pot’s Cambodia or present day North Korea any day

211. Charlieman

@209. Lazy Lion: “Just look at your namesake a certain Irish Latino Commie…”

Please, smegging please, reflect on that remark. Chaise has no affiliation with Che Guevera — Chaise associates with “longue”.

And a belated Happy New Year to you, Lazy Lion.

212. Chaise Guevara

@ 210

Much obliged, Charlieman. I do wish people would realise that, if I actually wanted to put Che Guevara on a pedestal, I’d probably call myself Son of Guevara or Rise Che Rise or something like that.

213. Chaise Guevara

@ 209 Lazy Lion

“Damn I meant to pull you on your little dig about the ‘golden age’ that you seem to believe never was, sorry to go all imperial/colonial here but for this small set of islands to have had a controlling interest in nearly a third of this planet a little over a century was no mean feat regardless of if you admire it or abhor it, you can’t ignore it.”

I wasn’t talking about the empire, I was talking about, well, Just William books. Some people get all rose-tinted about the period between the wars, forgetting all of the bad things about our society back then, and also glossing over the fact that the charming idyll they harken back to was only ever the preserve of the more fortunate. THAT’S the golden age that never was. I admit that it’s aesthetically pretty, but we don’t want to go back there.

“There have been far nastier power hungry leaders/nations/regimes that could only dream of what little old Britain managed to achieve. ”

Well, “competent and kinda nasty” probably beats “incompetent and very nasty”, but neither of them are ideal.

“Just look at your namesake a certain Irish Latino Commie who made himself busy in Africa, didn’t really have much success and spoke some home truths about the natives that had they been said by a right footer would have been interpreted as offensive n ignorant in the mildest but downright racist in the most extreme.”

See Charlieman above.

“Yeah I am one of those sad dinosaurs who takes pride in what a Jewish Prime Minister and a female Monarch oversaw, but of course by blowing the sexist and racist accusations away I have now opened myself up for the imperialist oppressor label.”

That wouldn’t actually blow such accusations away, but I don’t remember making any in the first place.

“Well tough, I support monarchies and royalty. From the British Empire to the Hapsburgs to the Russian Czars. Give me them rather than the Soviet ‘Empire’, Pol Pot’s Cambodia or present day North Korea any day”

The phrase “false dichotomy” is legging its way towards this conversation. Oh, and stop calling me Senor Lynch. Cheers.

@ 210&211

Oh blimey, what do I make of that?

He says whilst pulling the ultimate cynical South London frown with a shot of wild raspberry schnapps in 1 hand and a fat Independence ‘Xtreme Vanilla’ cigar in the other.

Made in the EU and not in Cuba I have to stress, the lesser of 2 evils for a consumer with conscience don’t you know.

@210

And being the cynical miserable bastard I quite happily admit to being I prefer belated congratulations on another year nearer the grave to you too myself, but said in the most affectionate and polite manner someone as moody as I can muster.

216. Charlieman

214. Lazy Lion: “And being the cynical miserable bastard…”

Should you to be as grumpy as you claim to be, my liberalism must be out trumpted.

Racist?

Divide and Rule tactics have been used by Britain to enslave other nations

More like Truth

It seems you can only get a job in Britain if you have a white supremacist attitude with made up history (there were no ‘No Irish’ ‘No Black’ Signs and Paki bashing didn’t exist and neither did the evilness of the british empire or colonialism – it was called ‘development’)

And good to see good old uncle tom Sunny being trying to act ‘balanced’

218. Chaise Guevara

@ 217 Boston

“Racist?

Divide and Rule tactics have been used by Britain to enslave other nations

More like Truth”

Right. So a fact about one mainly white country can be generalised to all white people. Yeah, that’s not racist at ALL…

“It seems you can only get a job in Britain if you have a white supremacist attitude with made up history”

Funnily enough, I don’t think white power has ever come up in any of my job interviews.

Boston @ 217:

“Racist?

Divide and Rule tactics have been used by Britain to enslave other nations

More like Truth”

That’s true, although it’s also pretty irrelevant when having a discussion about black people today.

Also, I’m not sure why Ms. Abbott would want to focus on the fact that British colonialists were white, when surely the fact that they were powerful is more important when it comes to divide and rule? The idea that a white chimney-sweep or workhouse inmate would be able to “divide and rule” anything is rather silly, as is the idea that divide and rule tactics were used mainly by white colonialists, and not, say, by Chinese emperors or African kings.

“It seems you can only get a job in Britain if you have a white supremacist attitude with made up history (there were no ‘No Irish’ ‘No Black’ Signs and Paki bashing didn’t exist and neither did the evilness of the british empire or colonialism – it was called ‘development’)”

Erm, suggesting that somebody who makes sweeping negative generalisations about an ethnic group might be a bit racist isn’t the same as white supremacy.

@213 ok Chaise but sorry no point lying, witty comical or whatever your reasons behind your username the second part of it is something I am just not in to. ‘Just call me Dave’ suggested fellow ex public schoolboy Ed Balls gets tourettes during every PMQ’s which from what I have seen is quite an accurate description but of course I’m not PM so I can say that whilst he shouldn’t of. Well I get tourettes just from the image of Lynch on all that corporate capitalist merchandise people walk around in, never mind anything else about him so please try to understand my right footed stance. Anyway back to your points…..

I wasn’t talking about the empire, I was talking about, well, Just William books. Some people get all rose-tinted about the period between the wars, forgetting all of the bad things about our society back then, and also glossing over the fact that the charming idyll they harken back to was only ever the preserve of the more fortunate. THAT’S the golden age that never was. I admit that it’s aesthetically pretty, but we don’t want to go back there.

Don’t you think as all folk get older they hark back to their ‘time’ being better? I mean for me, although on the whole the music was quite poor I loved the 80′s. We came out of the stupid mod/punk/skinhead era and started wearing proper clobber, labels that even now are still considered the way to be seen from youths on council estates to global stars in the public eye. Yes we were going all over Europe on ‘shopping expeditions’ whilst following the national team with no CCTV cameras in sight to fill our wardrobes up and pay for the trips we were on, and of course kicking off up and down the country with no more than a £50-100 fine from the magistrate on the Monday morning if you were unlucky enough to get nicked on the domestic front. Contrary to all the anti Thatcher ramblings of the left, most of us had decent paid jobs whatever field we were in. Of course many will look at this in horror because I am hardly droning on about being able to leave your back door open all day and how we all respected the local bobby because you couldn’t and we didn’t but no doubt I will get put down even more than someone who does paint the perfect peaceful and wonderful picture of yesteryear. I do firmly believe we had far more fun in our disruptive youth than what the kids/teens/20 somethings are allowed these days yet things weren’t nearly as dangerous as they are now so yeah in my mind they were far better times.

Well, “competent and kinda nasty” probably beats “incompetent and very nasty”, but neither of them are ideal.

I would prefer very competent and as firm as required myself.

That wouldn’t actually blow such accusations away, but I don’t remember making any in the first place.

I never said you did, they were aimed at others in this very debate who ran their mouth off but have been conspicuous by their absence since they were put in their place. In fact their silence is deafening as the saying goes.

The phrase “false dichotomy” is legging its way towards this conversation. Oh, and stop calling me Senor Lynch. Cheers.

False dichotomy was not my intention, let me rephrase that to give me King Charlie to Oliver Cromwell all the time. I can only chuckle at how all the accusations thrown at monarchies over the centuries are now lobbed at democratically elected parliamentarians of all political persuasions never mind totalitarian tyrants. If people haven’t realised by now power corrupts whatever guise it comes in then they never will. I happen to believe that in the UK we have a better balance than most yet it has still been abused to the max so if i had to choose between a total kingdom or a total republic my JCB would head to Westminster and not Buckingham Palace, that’s all I’m saying. And I have done already Chaise or I could of course try Monsieur Longue?

I am very surprised and dare I say almost disappointed you did not add your thoughts about what I said in 208 because I have already got you down as one of the more sensible posters in here and would rather read fiven dozen of your entries compared to even one of other certain individuals that get their quids worth in.

221. Chaise Guevara

@ 220 Lazy Lion

“Chaise but sorry no point lying, witty comical or whatever your reasons behind your username the second part of it is something I am just not in to.”

Don’t blame you – just wanted to make it clear that the second part of my name wasn’t chosen out of veneration for the man.

“Don’t you think as all folk get older they hark back to their ‘time’ being better? I mean for me, although on the whole the music was quite poor I loved the 80?s…”

Absolutely. I don’t know why the twixt-war period seems to get held up as a golden age so much. Maybe it’s because a lot of golden-agers grew up during that time. Maybe it’s just attractive, so it gets treated as a utopia even by people born after WW2. Either way, it’s inaccurate.

“I would prefer very competent and as firm as required myself.”

Marching into other people’s countries, shooting and subjegating them, just to fill Britain’s boots, was never “required” in the first place. I agree the Empire was a far less harsh overlord than most, but the nastiness was there the moment we decided to do those things. This isn’t excused by the fact that some of those countries have seen long-term benefits from colonialism, either: almost everything has a positive effect somewhere, it’s not an excuse for tyranny and murder.

“False dichotomy was not my intention, let me rephrase that to give me King Charlie to Oliver Cromwell all the time. I can only chuckle at how all the accusations thrown at monarchies over the centuries are now lobbed at democratically elected parliamentarians of all political persuasions never mind totalitarian tyrants. If people haven’t realised by now power corrupts whatever guise it comes in then they never will. I happen to believe that in the UK we have a better balance than most yet it has still been abused to the max so if i had to choose between a total kingdom or a total republic my JCB would head to Westminster and not Buckingham Palace, that’s all I’m saying.”

If power corrupts, surely it makes sense to have a mechanism that allows us to remove it from those who get most corrupted? Democracy does that, monarchy doesn’t. Abuses of power in real monarchies have generally been far worse that in real democracies (a category in which I would include the UK). Nobody gets jailed or beheaded for slagging off a British prime minister, but they have been for insulting British monarchs back when they had real power. Replacing democracy with monarchy amplifies the corruption problem.

“I am very surprised and dare I say almost disappointed you did not add your thoughts about what I said in 208″

Fair enough, I’ll try to take a look later.

222. So Much For Subtlety

221. Chaise Guevara

Marching into other people’s countries, shooting and subjegating them, just to fill Britain’s boots, was never “required” in the first place.

I am not sure about that. When everyone is doing it, you have to do it too. Would Britain have survived as a country without marching in to other people’s countries? I doubt it. England had a real security issue with Scotland and Ireland. They kept siding with the French for one thing. The Scots kept raiding England for another. Annexing both was arguably necessary for England to survive.

I agree the Empire was a far less harsh overlord than most, but the nastiness was there the moment we decided to do those things. This isn’t excused by the fact that some of those countries have seen long-term benefits from colonialism, either: almost everything has a positive effect somewhere, it’s not an excuse for tyranny and murder.

No. The nastiness, as you put it, is inherent in the process of government. You cannot project back Twentieth century concepts about the justness of the nation state. Government is cruel and requires people to do nasty things. Some of those governments are successful and expand. Some are not and disappear. Some of those governments therefore survived into the modern period and you have decided they sinned, some of them disappeared and you have decided they are innocent. But it is bollocks. God did not lay down lines in the sand beyond which it was sinful to go. God did not appoint good and bad forms of government. The only basis on which you can judge is whether life was better for most people and that is a test that the British Empire passes with flying colours. It is not an excuse for tyranny and murder. Tyranny and murder are as inherent in ruling anyone as taxes are.

If power corrupts, surely it makes sense to have a mechanism that allows us to remove it from those who get most corrupted? Democracy does that, monarchy doesn’t.

Yes and no. Democracy attracts the psychopaths. Because they can. In a monarchy they cannot. As you can see in the Middle East – the republics are falling like leaves. The kingdoms are not.

Abuses of power in real monarchies have generally been far worse that in real democracies (a category in which I would include the UK). Nobody gets jailed or beheaded for slagging off a British prime minister, but they have been for insulting British monarchs back when they had real power. Replacing democracy with monarchy amplifies the corruption problem.

But the Japanese do get rounded up and dumped in camps during WW2. The American Indians do get dispossessed. It is not as clear cut as you think. The Plantation of Ireland occurred during both periods, but democracy did not stop it.

@ 217 Boston

Don’t you think the term ‘uncle tom’ is an massively inappropriate racial, possibly even racist, slur? Don’t you think it’s rather cheeky to post a comment on the author’s own website and insult him in such a crude and offensive manner?

224. Chaise Guevara

@ 222 SMFS

“I am not sure about that. When everyone is doing it, you have to do it too. Would Britain have survived as a country without marching in to other people’s countries? I doubt it. England had a real security issue with Scotland and Ireland. They kept siding with the French for one thing. The Scots kept raiding England for another. Annexing both was arguably necessary for England to survive.”

There’s a difference between winning an ongoing war and turning up and annexing someone’s country.

“No. The nastiness, as you put it, is inherent in the process of government. You cannot project back Twentieth century concepts about the justness of the nation state. ”

Yes you can. If you assume that historic figures had 21st-century values you’ll make big mistakes (or very cheesy films), but that doesn’t mean we can’t look back and say “that was wrong”.

“Government is cruel and requires people to do nasty things. Some of those governments are successful and expand. Some are not and disappear. Some of those governments therefore survived into the modern period and you have decided they sinned, some of them disappeared and you have decided they are innocent. But it is bollocks.”

No, the word you’re looking for is “straw man”. Who did I call innocent? And you’re not convincing me with this “choose between slaughter and defeat” false dichotomy.

“The only basis on which you can judge is whether life was better for most people and that is a test that the British Empire passes with flying colours.”

So human deaths aren’t to be taken into account, then? The British Empire could have ruled more humanely, less selfishly.

“It is not an excuse for tyranny and murder. Tyranny and murder are as inherent in ruling anyone as taxes are.”

Utter bollocks that. Look around you. Ooh look, it’s a democratic nation without the death penalty!

“Yes and no. Democracy attracts the psychopaths. Because they can. In a monarchy they cannot.”

You can kick the psychos out, or never vote them in in the first place. Monarchy leaves you at the whim of a family that almost certainly thinks that it’s more important than you. With no way of preventing corruption and abuse short of revolution.

“As you can see in the Middle East – the republics are falling like leaves. The kingdoms are not.”

1) How many of these are/were democratic?
2) Are they falling or changing?
3) You didn’t make mention of the democracies in Europe. Why is that? Inconvenient data?

“But the Japanese do get rounded up and dumped in camps during WW2. The American Indians do get dispossessed. It is not as clear cut as you think. The Plantation of Ireland occurred during both periods, but democracy did not stop it.”

Oh, for fuck’s sake. Who said it was clear cut? I said abuses of power were worse under tyranny, not non-existent under democracy. Stop straw-manning me. Meanwhile, tyrannical systems have given us the Holocaust, the gulags… in fact nearly every genocide.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet http://t.co/OUsaOAS6

  2. Nemesis Republic

    RT @libcon: How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet http://t.co/m2f4srl7 #EDL #BNP #BFP

  3. beanisacarrot

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet http://t.co/OUsaOAS6

  4. Martin O'Neill

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet http://t.co/OUsaOAS6

  5. Derek Thomas

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet http://t.co/OUsaOAS6

  6. Rhys Morgan

    @GuidoFawkes http://t.co/p2VbC4BN

  7. Paul Crowley

    "It's PC gone mad" looks especially hypocritical after the "sack her, sue her" reactions to Abbott's tweet http://t.co/B3Dsvy7Y

  8. Mavis Green

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet http://t.co/OUsaOAS6

  9. Harry Cole

    Left a rare comment on @libcon after @sunny_hundal jumps the shark in his defence of someone because they are Labour: http://t.co/tyGk8fBU

  10. salardeen

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet http://t.co/OUsaOAS6

  11. sunny hundal

    My view > 'How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet controversy' http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  12. Ashleigh Jade

    "It's PC gone mad" looks especially hypocritical after the "sack her, sue her" reactions to Abbott's tweet http://t.co/B3Dsvy7Y

  13. sandratowers59

    My view > 'How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet controversy' http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  14. Lily Banyard-Fox

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/meEvp0yE by @sunny_hundal

  15. Graham de Montrose

    so @Sunny_Hundal can't differentiate between enforcing political correctness & calling out left-wing "racist" hypocrisy http://t.co/Xc2vYQSw

  16. AC

    My view > 'How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet controversy' http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  17. Patron Press - #P2

    #UK : How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott ’s tweet http://t.co/KVuVVLMy

  18. Lynda Constable

    My view > 'How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet controversy' http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  19. Garth Dallas

    RT @libcon: How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet http://t.co/DD8RAN7S

  20. Ellie Mae O'Hagan

    'How politics is a game for commentators not a serious thing affecting people's lives' http://t.co/am7GVmSx by @sunny_hundal & @MrHarryCole

  21. David Raybould

    Is Sunny Hundal really this stupid? Or does he type this shit whilst wincing knowing that it's complete bollocks? http://t.co/4YFfNraM

  22. worldenron

    My view > 'How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet controversy' http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  23. Jimmy Wavamunno

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/UjAThl7a via @libcon

  24. JuliaM

    Left a rare comment on @libcon after @sunny_hundal jumps the shark in his defence of someone because they are Labour: http://t.co/tyGk8fBU

  25. Amy

    "It's PC gone mad" looks especially hypocritical after the "sack her, sue her" reactions to Abbott's tweet http://t.co/B3Dsvy7Y

  26. Lucille Brunton

    My view > 'How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet controversy' http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  27. JuliaM

    I guess @HackneyAbbott idiocy & foot-in-the-mouth is catching! http://t.co/HjGSko7R @sunny_hundal #bwahahahaha

  28. Gee

    'How politics is a game for commentators not a serious thing affecting people's lives' http://t.co/am7GVmSx by @sunny_hundal & @MrHarryCole

  29. sunny hundal

    Poor @mrharrycole – desperately flailing around after being called out for bringing law into Diane Abbott case – http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  30. nicky clark

    Poor @mrharrycole – desperately flailing around after being called out for bringing law into Diane Abbott case – http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  31. Andrew Miles

    Poor @mrharrycole – desperately flailing around after being called out for bringing law into Diane Abbott case – http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  32. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet http://t.co/8eQl0P5Y

  33. Roland Ellison

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/4sMuFJ0p via @libcon

  34. Benjamin M. A'Lee

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet http://t.co/OUsaOAS6

  35. Simon Draper

    Poor @mrharrycole – desperately flailing around after being called out for bringing law into Diane Abbott case – http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  36. Mark Doidge

    Poor @mrharrycole – desperately flailing around after being called out for bringing law into Diane Abbott case – http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  37. Jonathon Tomlinson

    'How politics is a game for commentators not a serious thing affecting people's lives' http://t.co/am7GVmSx by @sunny_hundal & @MrHarryCole

  38. Jacob Williamson

    Poor @mrharrycole – desperately flailing around after being called out for bringing law into Diane Abbott case – http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  39. Capitano Ray

    My view > 'How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet controversy' http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  40. Denise Watson

    My view > 'How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet controversy' http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  41. Mick Fealty

    Poor @mrharrycole – desperately flailing around after being called out for bringing law into Diane Abbott case – http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  42. Derek Thomas

    Poor @mrharrycole – desperately flailing around after being called out for bringing law into Diane Abbott case – http://t.co/Q1JMrz9C

  43. Sam Malone

    Next time right-wingers dismiss something as PC GAWN MAD – just point to this controversy http://t.co/zvMW5dnv via @libcon #EDL #BNP

  44. Mark Carrigan

    Consequences of Diane Abbott scandal http://t.co/Kh4GPYCi

  45. John D Clare

    Liberal Conspiracy – How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet http://t.co/8eQl0P5Y

  46. Jen Gradden

    @phh321 Racism is always wrong, the rightwing 'community' should remember that! http://t.co/XFmscJzC

  47. Jane Leach

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/uI06NdNH via @libcon

  48. Jane Leach

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/uI06NdNH via @libcon

  49. #pressreform

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7FkxDFUs via @libcon

  50. #pressreform

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7FkxDFUs via @libcon

  51. Paul Sandars

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7FkxDFUs via @libcon

  52. Paul Sandars

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7FkxDFUs via @libcon

  53. TonyCross

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7FkxDFUs via @libcon

  54. TonyCross

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7FkxDFUs via @libcon

  55. Steve Flanagan

    Worth a read RT “@yorkierosie: How right-wingers jumped the shark over Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/uVHAvUqW via @libcon”

  56. Steve Flanagan

    Worth a read RT “@yorkierosie: How right-wingers jumped the shark over Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/uVHAvUqW via @libcon”

  57. Splintered Sunrise

    Sunny from this morning on why tweeting racial stereotypes is no big deal http://t.co/b93HAiVA @mePadraigReidy @brianwhelanhack

  58. Splintered Sunrise

    Sunny from this morning on why tweeting racial stereotypes is no big deal http://t.co/b93HAiVA @mePadraigReidy @brianwhelanhack

  59. Brian Whelan

    Sunny from this morning on why tweeting racial stereotypes is no big deal http://t.co/b93HAiVA @mePadraigReidy @brianwhelanhack

  60. Brian Whelan

    Sunny from this morning on why tweeting racial stereotypes is no big deal http://t.co/b93HAiVA @mePadraigReidy @brianwhelanhack

  61. Brian Jones

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hZ4E2qUm via @libcon

  62. Brian Jones

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hZ4E2qUm via @libcon

  63. Adrian Turner

    Left a rare comment on @libcon after @sunny_hundal jumps the shark in his defence of someone because they are Labour: http://t.co/tyGk8fBU

  64. Adrian Turner

    Left a rare comment on @libcon after @sunny_hundal jumps the shark in his defence of someone because they are Labour: http://t.co/tyGk8fBU

  65. Natacha Kennedy

    http://t.co/btV2lOcF Excellent article by @Sunnyhundal about how the brainless right responded stupidly over #abbotgate and will regret it?

  66. BCMkandawire

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7FkxDFUs via @libcon

  67. Robert Lundrigan

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott’s tweet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/KQsB7EgP via @libcon

  68. Mateo Biggins

    How right-wingers jumped the shark over Diane Abbott's tweet … http://t.co/B7lXjHyz

  69. Nicolas Patience B..

    'How politics is a game for commentators not a serious thing affecting people's lives' http://t.co/am7GVmSx by @sunny_hundal & @MrHarryCole





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.