Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist remarks
that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember saying them.
Director General Tim Davie has described the allegation against Torode
as "a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable in any way shape or form".
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple of
years ago.
From The Times today:
Labour set to suspend Diane Abbott for repeating race comments
Veteran left-winger says she has no regrets over remarks in 2023 that anti-black prejudice was different from that faced by Jews
The former shadow home secretary, a veteran left-winger, had the whip
removed in April 2023 over a letter to The Observer in which she wrote
that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience prejudice” that is “similar to racism”.
But she added at the time: “It is true that many types of white people
with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this
prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”
She withdrew the comments and apologised for “any anguish caused”,
saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked on Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: “No, not
at all.”
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist remarks
that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember saying them.
Director General Tim Davie has described the allegation against Torode
as "a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable in any way shape or form".
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple of
years ago.
From The Times today:
Labour set to suspend Diane Abbott for repeating race comments
Veteran left-winger says she has no regrets over remarks in 2023 that anti-black prejudice was different from that faced by Jews
The former shadow home secretary, a veteran left-winger, had the whip
removed in April 2023 over a letter to The Observer in which she wrote
that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience prejudice” that is “similar to racism”.
But she added at the time: “It is true that many types of white people
with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this
prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”
She withdrew the comments and apologised for “any anguish caused”,
saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked on Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: “No, not
at all.”
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist remarks
that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember saying them.
Director General Tim Davie has described the allegation against Torode
as "a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable in any way shape or form".
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple of
years ago.
From The Times today:
Labour set to suspend Diane Abbott for repeating race comments
Veteran left-winger says she has no regrets over remarks in 2023 that anti-black prejudice was different from that faced by Jews
The former shadow home secretary, a veteran left-winger, had the whip
removed in April 2023 over a letter to The Observer in which she wrote
that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience prejudice” that is “similar to racism”.
But she added at the time: “It is true that many types of white people
with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this
prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”
She withdrew the comments and apologised for “any anguish caused”,
saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked on Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: “No, not
at all.”
Op 17/07/2025 om 11:11 schreef The Todal:
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I remember once Graham Norton live on air telling an American guest that
the only word not allowed on the BBC was the N-word, yes the one that
rhymes with bigger.
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was
antisemitic.
On 17/07/2025 11:11, The Todal wrote:
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist
remarks that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember
saying them.
Director General Tim Davie has described the allegation against Torode
as "a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable in any
way shape or form".
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I really don't think it would be an advantage for the Beeb to repeat
what he said. I can think of phrases that were common in my childhood
that would be frowned upon now. My guess is that he used such a phrase,
but without any racist intent.
If so, and it was a one-off remark a long time ago, then yes the BBC has over-reacted.
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple
of years ago.
From The Times today:
Labour set to suspend Diane Abbott for repeating race comments
Veteran left-winger says she has no regrets over remarks in 2023 that
anti-black prejudice was different from that faced by Jews
The former shadow home secretary, a veteran left-winger, had the whip
removed in April 2023 over a letter to The Observer in which she wrote
that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience
prejudice” that is “similar to racism”.
That was never going to go down well. It's a shame she didn't phrase it differently. But, even if she had said something like "Blacks generally experience more/worse prejudice than Irish people, Jews, and
travellers", somebody would have been upset.
Maybe, comparing your race to other races is, simply, racist?
But she added at the time: “It is true that many types of white people
with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this
prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”
She withdrew the comments and apologised for “any anguish caused”,
saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked
on Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: “No, not
at all.”
So does she now mean that she was lying when she withdrew the comments
and apologised for “any anguish caused”.
I suppose that using those words is a bit like saying "I'm sorry you're
upset by that", implying that it's the fault of the person upset that
they feel upset?
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
On 17/07/2025 11:11, The Todal wrote:
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist
remarks that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember
saying them.
Director General Tim Davie has described the allegation against
Torode as "a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable
in any way shape or form".
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I really don't think it would be an advantage for the Beeb to repeat
what he said. I can think of phrases that were common in my childhood
that would be frowned upon now. My guess is that he used such a
phrase, but without any racist intent.
If so, and it was a one-off remark a long time ago, then yes the BBC
has over-reacted.
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple
of years ago.
From The Times today:
Labour set to suspend Diane Abbott for repeating race comments
Veteran left-winger says she has no regrets over remarks in 2023 that
anti-black prejudice was different from that faced by Jews
The former shadow home secretary, a veteran left-winger, had the whip
removed in April 2023 over a letter to The Observer in which she
wrote that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience
prejudice” that is “similar to racism”.
That was never going to go down well. It's a shame she didn't phrase
it differently. But, even if she had said something like "Blacks
generally experience more/worse prejudice than Irish people, Jews, and
travellers", somebody would have been upset.
Maybe, comparing your race to other races is, simply, racist?
But she added at the time: “It is true that many types of white
people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience
this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”
She withdrew the comments and apologised for “any anguish caused”,
saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked
on Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: “No,
not at all.”
So does she now mean that she was lying when she withdrew the comments
and apologised for “any anguish caused”.
I suppose that using those words is a bit like saying "I'm sorry
you're upset by that", implying that it's the fault of the person
upset that they feel upset?
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was
antisemitic.
But her latest comment seems provocative and arrogant. She thinks
Starmer had to restore the whip to her because she is so popular and so important in the Labour movement, and effectively she now puts that to
the test. How can the Labour Party ignore the challenge? And if she were
to apologise again, it would seem wholly insincere.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:42:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was
antisemitic.
Well given that no one on earth has a clue what *is* anti semitic, it
seems hard than anyone could actually be it. Certainly not reliably.
On 17/07/2025 14:42, The Todal wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
On 17/07/2025 11:11, The Todal wrote:
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist
remarks that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember
saying them.
Director General Tim Davie has described the allegation against
Torode as "a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable
in any way shape or form".
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I really don't think it would be an advantage for the Beeb to repeat
what he said. I can think of phrases that were common in my childhood
that would be frowned upon now. My guess is that he used such a
phrase, but without any racist intent.
If so, and it was a one-off remark a long time ago, then yes the BBC
has over-reacted.
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple
of years ago.
From The Times today:
Labour set to suspend Diane Abbott for repeating race comments
Veteran left-winger says she has no regrets over remarks in 2023 that
anti-black prejudice was different from that faced by Jews
The former shadow home secretary, a veteran left-winger, had the whip
removed in April 2023 over a letter to The Observer in which she
wrote that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience >>>> prejudice” that is “similar to racism”.
That was never going to go down well. It's a shame she didn't phrase
it differently. But, even if she had said something like "Blacks
generally experience more/worse prejudice than Irish people, Jews, and
travellers", somebody would have been upset.
Maybe, comparing your race to other races is, simply, racist?
But she added at the time: “It is true that many types of white
people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience
this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.” >>>>
She withdrew the comments and apologised for “any anguish caused”, >>>> saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked
on Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: “No,
not at all.”
So does she now mean that she was lying when she withdrew the comments
and apologised for “any anguish caused”.
I suppose that using those words is a bit like saying "I'm sorry
you're upset by that", implying that it's the fault of the person
upset that they feel upset?
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was
antisemitic.
I *think* what she meant is that black people are subject to prejudice
all their lives, and to a far greater extent than other racial groups.
That may well be true, and I can't see any antisemitism involved.
Unfortunately, the words she chose imply that only black people suffer racism, which simply isn't true.
But her latest comment seems provocative and arrogant. She thinks
Starmer had to restore the whip to her because she is so popular and so
important in the Labour movement, and effectively she now puts that to
the test. How can the Labour Party ignore the challenge? And if she were
to apologise again, it would seem wholly insincere.
I have no idea why she's doubled-down on this.
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
On 17/07/2025 11:11, The Todal wrote:
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist
remarks that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember
saying them.
Director General Tim Davie has described the allegation against Torode
as "a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable in any
way shape or form".
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I really don't think it would be an advantage for the Beeb to repeat
what he said. I can think of phrases that were common in my childhood
that would be frowned upon now. My guess is that he used such a phrase,
but without any racist intent.
If so, and it was a one-off remark a long time ago, then yes the BBC has
over-reacted.
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple
of years ago.
From The Times today:
Labour set to suspend Diane Abbott for repeating race comments
Veteran left-winger says she has no regrets over remarks in 2023 that
anti-black prejudice was different from that faced by Jews
The former shadow home secretary, a veteran left-winger, had the whip
removed in April 2023 over a letter to The Observer in which she wrote
that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience
prejudice” that is “similar to racism”.
That was never going to go down well. It's a shame she didn't phrase it
differently. But, even if she had said something like "Blacks generally
experience more/worse prejudice than Irish people, Jews, and
travellers", somebody would have been upset.
Maybe, comparing your race to other races is, simply, racist?
But she added at the time: “It is true that many types of white people >>> with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this
prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”
She withdrew the comments and apologised for “any anguish caused”,
saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked
on Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: “No, not >>> at all.”
So does she now mean that she was lying when she withdrew the comments
and apologised for “any anguish caused”.
I suppose that using those words is a bit like saying "I'm sorry you're
upset by that", implying that it's the fault of the person upset that
they feel upset?
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was antisemitic.
But her latest comment seems provocative and arrogant. She thinks
Starmer had to restore the whip to her because she is so popular and so important in the Labour movement, and effectively she now puts that to
the test. How can the Labour Party ignore the challenge? And if she were
to apologise again, it would seem wholly insincere.
On 17/07/2025 15:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:42:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was
antisemitic.
Well given that no one on earth has a clue what *is* anti semitic, it
seems hard than anyone could actually be it. Certainly not reliably.
Think about Todal's ancestors, who were killed by the Nazis because they were Jewish.
In effect, Abbott said that wasn't racism, just prejudice.
It seems a strange thing to say, and a strange distinction to make. I have no idea why
she has decided to double down on it, but maybe she wants to join Sultana's new party.
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:105b8dp$1euec$1@dont-email.me...stands-by-racism-comments-that-led-to-suspension-from-labour
On 17/07/2025 15:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:42:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was
antisemitic.
Well given that no one on earth has a clue what *is* anti semitic, it
seems hard than anyone could actually be it. Certainly not reliably.
Think about Todal's ancestors, who were killed by the Nazis because
they were Jewish. In effect, Abbott said that wasn't racism, just
prejudice.
It seems a strange thing to say, and a strange distinction to make. I
have no idea why she has decided to double down on it, but maybe she
wants to join Sultana's new party.
Except she hasn't "doubled down" on it, at all. Has she ?
Here is what she ia actually reported as saying
quote:
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Reflections programme on Thursday, she said:
"Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about
colour and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a
Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know.
"I just think that it's silly to try and claim that racism which is
about skin colour is the same as other types of racism. I don't know why people would say that."
:unquote
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/17/diane-abbott-says-she-
And it really is difficult to see why anyone would seriously wish to
argue with that.
It could even be suggested that its simply another instance of
privileged white people, attempting to tell black people, how they ought
to think.
Unfortunately, the words she chose imply that only black people suffer racism, which simply isn't true.
But her latest comment seems provocative and arrogant. She thinks
Starmer had to restore the whip to her because she is so popular and
so important in the Labour movement, and effectively she now puts that
to the test. How can the Labour Party ignore the challenge? And if she
were to apologise again, it would seem wholly insincere.
I have no idea why she's doubled-down on this.
On 17/07/2025 11:11, The Todal wrote:
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist
remarks that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember
saying them.
Director General Tim Davie has described the allegation against Torode
as "a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable in any
way shape or form".
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I really don't think it would be an advantage for the Beeb to repeat
what he said. I can think of phrases that were common in my childhood
that would be frowned upon now. My guess is that he used such a phrase,
but without any racist intent.
If so, and it was a one-off remark a long time ago, then yes the BBC has over-reacted.
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple
of years ago.
From The Times today:
Labour set to suspend Diane Abbott for repeating race comments
Veteran left-winger says she has no regrets over remarks in 2023 that
anti-black prejudice was different from that faced by Jews
The former shadow home secretary, a veteran left-winger, had the whip
removed in April 2023 over a letter to The Observer in which she wrote
that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience
prejudice” that is “similar to racism”.
That was never going to go down well. It's a shame she didn't phrase it differently. But, even if she had said something like "Blacks generally experience more/worse prejudice than Irish people, Jews, and
travellers", somebody would have been upset.
Maybe, comparing your race to other races is, simply, racist?
But she added at the time: “It is true that many types of white people
with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this
prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”
She withdrew the comments and apologised for “any anguish caused”,
saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked
on Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: “No, not
at all.”
So does she now mean that she was lying when she withdrew the comments
and apologised for “any anguish caused”.
I suppose that using those words is a bit like saying "I'm sorry you're
upset by that", implying that it's the fault of the person upset that
they feel upset?
On 17/07/2025 15:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:42:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was
antisemitic.
Well given that no one on earth has a clue what *is* anti semitic, it
seems hard than anyone could actually be it. Certainly not reliably.
Think about Todal's ancestors, who were killed by the Nazis because they
were Jewish. In effect, Abbott said that wasn't racism, just prejudice.
It seems a strange thing to say, and a strange distinction to make. I
have no idea why she has decided to double down on it, but maybe she
wants to join Sultana's new party.
On 17/07/2025 15:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:42:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was
antisemitic.
Well given that no one on earth has a clue what *is* anti semitic, it
seems hard than anyone could actually be it. Certainly not reliably.
Think about Todal's ancestors, who were killed by the Nazis because they
were Jewish. In effect, Abbott said that wasn't racism, just prejudice.
It seems a strange thing to say, and a strange distinction to make. I
have no idea why she has decided to double down on it, but maybe she
wants to join Sultana's new party.
On 17 Jul 2025 at 15:03:01 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
But her latest comment seems provocative and arrogant. She thinks
Starmer had to restore the whip to her because she is so popular and so
important in the Labour movement, and effectively she now puts that to
the test. How can the Labour Party ignore the challenge? And if she were >>> to apologise again, it would seem wholly insincere.
I have no idea why she's doubled-down on this.
I take it "double down" is sort of American for repeating something? I think it is very important to note that she *didn't* repeat what she said first time
but made it plain that all those other groups experience racism, but that it was more inescapable and more continuous for black people because of their appearance. Whatever "double down" means I think she didn't do that but explained that her statement was *not* intended to imply others, including Jews, avoided racism.
Perhaps the racist press failed to make this distinction for you?
I think Abbott was ignoring what happened in the past in Germany or the
UK and was simply referring to the racism that people with dark skin experience (she might have added that some black people are prejudiced against black people with the darkest skin)
On 17 Jul 2025 at 14:42:25 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
On 17/07/2025 11:11, The Todal wrote:
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist
remarks that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember
saying them.
Director General Tim Davie has described the allegation against Torode >>>> as "a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable in any
way shape or form".
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I really don't think it would be an advantage for the Beeb to repeat
what he said. I can think of phrases that were common in my childhood
that would be frowned upon now. My guess is that he used such a phrase,
but without any racist intent.
If so, and it was a one-off remark a long time ago, then yes the BBC has >>> over-reacted.
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple
of years ago.
From The Times today:
Labour set to suspend Diane Abbott for repeating race comments
Veteran left-winger says she has no regrets over remarks in 2023 that
anti-black prejudice was different from that faced by Jews
The former shadow home secretary, a veteran left-winger, had the whip
removed in April 2023 over a letter to The Observer in which she wrote >>>> that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people “undoubtedly experience
prejudice” that is “similar to racism”.
That was never going to go down well. It's a shame she didn't phrase it
differently. But, even if she had said something like "Blacks generally
experience more/worse prejudice than Irish people, Jews, and
travellers", somebody would have been upset.
Maybe, comparing your race to other races is, simply, racist?
But she added at the time: “It is true that many types of white people >>>> with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this
prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism.”
She withdrew the comments and apologised for “any anguish caused”, >>>> saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked
on Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: “No, not >>>> at all.”
So does she now mean that she was lying when she withdrew the comments
and apologised for “any anguish caused”.
I suppose that using those words is a bit like saying "I'm sorry you're
upset by that", implying that it's the fault of the person upset that
they feel upset?
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was antisemitic. >>
But her latest comment seems provocative and arrogant. She thinks
Starmer had to restore the whip to her because she is so popular and so
important in the Labour movement, and effectively she now puts that to
the test. How can the Labour Party ignore the challenge? And if she were
to apologise again, it would seem wholly insincere.
I don't think what she said originally was particularly anti-semitic, but was ambiguously expressed; but how she summarised it this time, which was that black people are vulnerable to racist attack and discrimination just from their appearance on the street in ways that white minorities usually aren't is
completely unexceptionable to my mind. If Starmer is too afraid of the anti-semitism propagandists to agree with that then more fool him. I have no sympathy with the smarmy hypocrite.
I agree with some commentators that Starmer doesn't improve his image
when he keeps withdrawing the whip or suspending party members, and if anything he makes his position as party leader increasingly vulnerable.
On 2025-07-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I think Abbott was ignoring what happened in the past in Germany or the
UK and was simply referring to the racism that people with dark skin
experience (she might have added that some black people are prejudiced
against black people with the darkest skin)
I'm sure you will be pleased to know that the word for this is
"colourism" rather than "melaphobia" or somesuch.
On 17/07/2025 05:29 PM, GB wrote:
On 17/07/2025 15:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:42:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:54, GB wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was
antisemitic.
Well given that no one on earth has a clue what *is* anti semitic, it
seems hard than anyone could actually be it. Certainly not reliably.
Think about Todal's ancestors, who were killed by the Nazis because they
were Jewish. In effect, Abbott said that wasn't racism, just prejudice.
It seems a strange thing to say, and a strange distinction to make. I
have no idea why she has decided to double down on it, but maybe she
wants to join Sultana's new party.
Well said.
On 2025-07-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I think Abbott was ignoring what happened in the past in Germany or the
UK and was simply referring to the racism that people with dark skin
experience (she might have added that some black people are prejudiced
against black people with the darkest skin)
I'm sure you will be pleased to know that the word for this is
"colourism" rather than "melaphobia" or somesuch.
Op 17/07/2025 om 11:11 schreef The Todal:
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I remember once Graham Norton live on air telling an American guest that
the only word not allowed on the BBC was the N-word, yes the one that
rhymes with bigger.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:32:31 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 17/07/2025 om 11:11 schreef The Todal:
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I remember once Graham Norton live on air telling an American guest that
the only word not allowed on the BBC was the N-word, yes the one that
rhymes with bigger.
Which is wrong.
Stewart Lee used it in the "Context" episode of his Comedy Vehicle. Which ironically rather demolished the BBCs argument.
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist remarks
that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember saying them.
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple of
years ago.
On 17/07/2025 11:11, The Todal wrote:
She withdrew the comments and apologised for any anguish caused,
saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked on
Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: No, not
at all.
So does she now mean that she was lying when she withdrew the comments
and apologised for any anguish caused.
Jethro_uk wrote:
Stewart Lee used it in the "Context" episode of his Comedy Vehicle. Which
ironically rather demolished the BBCs argument.
I haven't seen that. Did he *use* or *mention* it (in the linguistic
or philosophical sense)?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:11:53 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
While I agree that, in contemporary British culture, the word is considered so offensive that its use is strongly discouraged even in a non-perjorative context, the absence of any malicious intention behind the use of the word
on those occasions is critical. Nobody, not even those who heard him use the word, has claimed that Torode is racist or uses racist language. The idea that there are some words which are so unutterable that you can't say them, even innocently, in earshot of anyone else is absurd[2]. It's certainly not
a justification for sacking someone.
On 2025-07-17, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:32:31 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 17/07/2025 om 11:11 schreef The Todal:
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I remember once Graham Norton live on air telling an American guest
that the only word not allowed on the BBC was the N-word, yes the one
that rhymes with bigger.
Which is wrong.
Stewart Lee used it in the "Context" episode of his Comedy Vehicle.
Which ironically rather demolished the BBCs argument.
I haven't seen that. Did he *use* or *mention* it (in the linguistic or philosophical sense)?
You sure about that? I remember a conversation on the radio with Amber
Rudd to which the delectable Diane objected violently to being referred
to as a 'coloured woman'.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:32:31 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 17/07/2025 om 11:11 schreef The Todal:
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I remember once Graham Norton live on air telling an American guest that
the only word not allowed on the BBC was the N-word, yes the one that
rhymes with bigger.
Which is wrong.
Stewart Lee used it in the "Context" episode of his Comedy Vehicle.
Which ironically rather demolished the BBCs argument.
I don't believe Abbott is antisemitic or that what she said was antisemitic.
But her latest comment seems provocative and arrogant.
She thinks Starmer had to restore the whip to her because she is so popular and so
important in the Labour movement, and effectively she now puts that to the test. How
can the Labour Party ignore the challenge? And if she were to apologise again, it would
seem wholly insincere.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:54:45 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 11:11, The Todal wrote:
She withdrew the comments and apologised for “any anguish caused”,
saying the letter had been a draft published in error. However, asked on >>> Wednesday if she regretted the comments, which led to her being
suspended from the party for a year, Abbott told BBC Radio 4: “No, not >>> at all.”
So does she now mean that she was lying when she withdrew the comments
and apologised for “any anguish caused”.
I think she probably realised at the time that she'd phrased it badly, but stood by the substance of her remarks rather than the expression of them. Which I don't think is unreasonable.
Mark
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 13:28:59 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:32:31 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 17/07/2025 om 11:11 schreef The Todal:
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I remember once Graham Norton live on air telling an American guest
that the only word not allowed on the BBC was the N-word, yes the one
that rhymes with bigger.
Which is wrong.
Stewart Lee used it in the "Context" episode of his Comedy Vehicle.
Which ironically rather demolished the BBCs argument.
The Major demolished it in Faulty Towers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoA0yA97Bw
While I agree that, in contemporary British culture, the word is
considered so offensive
She made racist remarks in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at her
local hospital because they had "never met a black person before."
She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie Grant: "Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person
before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is
nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably
don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other
parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is white.
On 18/07/2025 08:23, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I think Abbott was ignoring what happened in the past in Germany or the
UK and was simply referring to the racism that people with dark skin
experience (she might have added that some black people are prejudiced
against black people with the darkest skin)
I'm sure you will be pleased to know that the word for this is
"colourism" rather than "melaphobia" or somesuch.
Yes, colourism or colorism.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/apr/09/colorism-racism-why-black-people-discriminate-among-ourselves
quotes
(2019)
Growing up in the supportive environment my mother created for us, I
assumed into early adulthood that colorism was a thing of the past.
Colorism – the prejudice based on skin tone, usually with a marked preference for lighter-skinned people – was something I read about in novels. It seemed quaint, like pin curls or cellophane.
It is a sad and sobering fact to realize that color – how dark or light
you are perceived as being by a prospective partner, who most likely is someone of your own race – sometimes determines who in our communities
is deemed deserving of romance.
I went deeper into my colorism research, and what I found let me know
that colorism is still alive and well. I started with the marriage
market, and found out dark-skinned women are less likely to be married
than lighter-skinned women. But colorism shows up in even starker ways:
the difference in pay rates between darker-skinned and lighter-skinned
men mirrors the differences in pay between whites and blacks.
Darker-skinned women are given longer prison sentences than their light-skinned counterparts. And this discrimination starts young – if
you are a dark-skinned girl, you are three times more likely to be
suspended from school than your light skinned peers.
Even more insidious, colorism even affects how we are remembered. Lighter-skinned black people are perceived to be more intelligent.
Educated black people, regardless of their actual skin color, are
remembered by job interviewers as having lighter skin.
As long as colorism has existed in our communities, there has been a
vested interest in denying its existence. The term does not appear until 1983. It is widely credited to Alice Walker, in her classic womanist
text In Search of our Mothers’ Gardens. Before that, black Americans
used other terms, like “colorstruck” or “colorphobia”.
On 18/07/2025 14:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:11:53 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
While I agree that, in contemporary British culture, the word is
considered so offensive that its use is strongly discouraged even in
a non-perjorative context, the absence of any malicious intention
behind the use of the word on those occasions is critical. Nobody,
not even those who heard him use the word, has claimed that Torode
is racist or uses racist language. The idea that there are some
words which are so unutterable that you can't say them, even
innocently, in earshot of anyone else is absurd[2]. It's certainly
not a justification for sacking someone.
Funny how people seem to get in a tizzy about that, but tune in to
Radio 4 some time after eleven and you will stand a good chance of encountering what the BBC describes as "comedy", which apart from
being as funny as watching paint dry, is often filled with
unprintable and unnecessary swearing.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 14:35:33 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
While I agree that, in contemporary British culture, the word is
considered so offensive
I have grown up not believing in magic words.
On 18/07/2025 08:25 AM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Ref: Abbott the Famous Mathematician:
She made racist remarks in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at her
local hospital because they had "never met a black person before."
She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie Grant:
"Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person
before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is
nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably
don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other
parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is white.
I'm not aware of any antisemitism worth noting in any other party in the
UK.
Not the Conservatives, not the LibDems, not the SNP, not PC, not Reform,
not the Greens (the Greens just hate everybody and want to see everyone
taken down a peg as regards living standards).
No, it's just the Labour Party.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:11:53 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist remarks
that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember saying them.
[snip]
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple of
years ago.
I think both have been hard done by.
In Torode's case, I think there's a serious lack of context here. More
recent reports have suggested that he used the word on two occasions: the first when singing along to a Kanye West song[1] which contains it, and the second when he mentioned the word in conversation in relation to the song.
In neither case was he using it as a racial slur.
While I agree that, in contemporary British culture, the word is considered so offensive that its use is strongly discouraged even in a non-perjorative context, the absence of any malicious intention behind the use of the word
on those occasions is critical. Nobody, not even those who heard him use the word, has claimed that Torode is racist or uses racist language. The idea that there are some words which are so unutterable that you can't say them, even innocently, in earshot of anyone else is absurd[2]. It's certainly not
a justification for sacking someone.
Dianne Abbott, on the other hand, appears to have been hung out to dry for saying what every rational person will agree with but is politically uncomfortable because of the questions it raises. It's undeniable that prejudice and racism towards different ethnic and minority groups are both expressed and experienced differently, because of different characteristics and perceptions of those groups. But the problem with that is that once you accept that there are differences, you can't avoid the possibility that one of those differences might be in severity. Some forms of racism and
prejudice might actually be worse than others.
Abbott's error, such as it was, was to imply that prejudice based on skin colour is worse than other forms, and in particular that prejudice against Jews and the GRT community is less severe. Now, I think she's objectively wrong in that. But I also think it's a debate that's worth having, and I think her perspective as a member of a group which often suffers from prejudice is entirely valid. Because not all forms of prejudice are the
same, and not all expressions of them are the same. It is certainly true
that calling a Welshman a taffy is less severe than calling a black person a word which Kanye West can get away with but John Torode cannot. But, on the other hand, black people didn't get shipped off to the gas chambers that
were busy exterminating Jews and Gypsies. Then again, given a third hand, B&Bs used to have signs saying "No blacks or Irish" but not "No Jews".
The reality is that prejudice is different for different groups, and is expressed and experienced differently in different contexts. Yes, anyone
from any group who claims that their group always has it the worst needs to give their head a wobble, and Dianne Abbott probably does find herself in that category. But, as with John Torode's infelicitous use of language, it's an opportinuty for debate, not a justification for sacking.
[1] https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/kanyewest/golddigger.html
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnn2aGVcCEc
Mark
Fortunetely, films on Netflix don't seem to have succumbed to this
language censorship.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:08:58 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 14:35:33 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
While I agree that, in contemporary British culture, the word is
considered so offensive
I have grown up not believing in magic words.
I don't think it's unreasonable that the BBC (or, indeed, any other
employer) should be guided by the consensus, or, at least, majority
opinion in matters of offence. In legal terms, that's just the man on
the Clapham omnibus writ large. My point here is simply that I don't
think contemporary British culture goes so far as to consider the word unsayable under all possible circumstances. I think the majority would
agree that it should never be used perjoratively, and a majority would,
I think, also agree that it should not be used casually even when not perjorative. But I also think that the majority of the Great British
Public would be aware of potential nuance, particularly when quoting
someone else's words (eg, song lyrics) or when referring to the word in
the context of a discussion about its offensiveness. And I think that
the BBC has taken a position here which is more extreme than that which public opinion would support.
Op 18/07/2025 om 15:37 schreef JNugent:
On 18/07/2025 08:25 AM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Ref: Abbott the Famous Mathematician:
She made racist remarks in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at her
local hospital because they had "never met a black person before."
She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie Grant: >>> "Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person
before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is
nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably
don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other
parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is white.
I'm not aware of any antisemitism worth noting in any other party in
the UK.
Not the Conservatives, not the LibDems, not the SNP, not PC, not
Reform, not the Greens (the Greens just hate everybody and want to see
everyone taken down a peg as regards living standards).
I said "Antisemitism and racism". You can't deny there is or there was a strong component of racism in the Conservatives ("Rivers of blood"?) and
now Reform.
It doesn't have to be racism against black people for a party to be racist.
Have we forgotten the pre and after 2016 Brexit referendum rhetoric
against the vile "EU migrants"? Yes, these vile, white, European,
Christian immigrants who cause all the problems? Sounds like a million
years ago, doesn't it?
No, it's just the Labour Party.
But wait for the new Islington-based Islamofascist party.
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist remarks
that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember saying them.
[snip]
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple of
years ago.
I think both have been hard done by.
In Torode's case, I think there's a serious lack of context here.
On 18 Jul 2025 at 14:35:33 BST, Mark Goodge wrote:
Masterchef star John Torode is now sacked by the BBC for racist
remarks that he claims were years ago and he can't even remember
saying them.
[snip]
And now Diane Abbott is in trouble again, for what she said a couple
of years ago.
I think both have been hard done by.
In Torode's case, I think there's a serious lack of context here.
Context-free, more or less, as we're not given much information at all
beyond snippets.
Stewart Lee gives it all some thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OLXzO1oK2w
On 18/07/2025 08:25 AM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Ref: Abbott the Famous Mathematician:
She made racist remarks in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at her
local hospital because they had "never met a black person before."
She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie Grant:
"Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person
before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is
nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably
don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other
parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is white.
I'm not aware of any antisemitism worth noting in any other party in the
UK.
Not the Conservatives, not the LibDems, not the SNP, not PC, not Reform,
not the Greens (the Greens just hate everybody and want to see everyone
taken down a peg as regards living standards).
No, it's just the Labour Party.
On 18/07/2025 14:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:11:53 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
While I agree that, in contemporary British culture, the word is
considered
so offensive that its use is strongly discouraged even in a non-
perjorative
context, the absence of any malicious intention behind the use of the
word
on those occasions is critical. Nobody, not even those who heard him
use the
word, has claimed that Torode is racist or uses racist language. The idea
that there are some words which are so unutterable that you can't say
them,
even innocently, in earshot of anyone else is absurd[2]. It's
certainly not
a justification for sacking someone.
Funny how people seem to get in a tizzy about that, but tune in to Radio
4 some time after eleven and you will stand a good chance of
encountering what the BBC describes as "comedy", which apart from being
as funny as watching paint dry, is often filled with unprintable and unnecessary swearing.
On 18/07/2025 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:25 AM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Ref: Abbott the Famous Mathematician:
She made racist remarks in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at her
local hospital because they had "never met a black person before."
She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie Grant: >>> "Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person
before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is
nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably
don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other
parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is white.
I'm not aware of any antisemitism worth noting in any other party in
the UK.
Not the Conservatives, not the LibDems, not the SNP, not PC, not
Reform, not the Greens (the Greens just hate everybody and want to see
everyone taken down a peg as regards living standards).
No, it's just the Labour Party.
There is no antisemitism worth noting in the Labour Party.
As I have
pointed out before, but you have probably forgotten, during Jeremy
Corbyn's leadership the General Secretary of the Labour Party suspended
and subsequently expelled every party member who was accused of
antisemitism. By now, the total membership of the party is far smaller.
When you read the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party (I'm
sure you've never read it but you still could do) you will find that it
names just two party members whom it accuses, rather unreasonably, of antisemitic behaviour.
On 18/07/2025 15:30, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 18/07/2025 14:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:11:53 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
While I agree that, in contemporary British culture, the word is
considered
so offensive that its use is strongly discouraged even in a non-
perjorative
context, the absence of any malicious intention behind the use of the
word
on those occasions is critical. Nobody, not even those who heard him
use the
word, has claimed that Torode is racist or uses racist language. The
idea
that there are some words which are so unutterable that you can't say
them,
even innocently, in earshot of anyone else is absurd[2]. It's
certainly not
a justification for sacking someone.
Funny how people seem to get in a tizzy about that, but tune in to
Radio 4 some time after eleven and you will stand a good chance of
encountering what the BBC describes as "comedy", which apart from
being as funny as watching paint dry, is often filled with unprintable
and unnecessary swearing.
Is it possible to watch old episodes of "Till Death Us Do Part" nowadays?
Warren Mitchell (who incidentally was himself Jewish) played the part of
a racist bigot and I'm sure he used words such as "coon" from time to
time. Can't remember whether any of it was anti-Jewish. I never found it particularly funny but Warren Mitchell and Dandy Nichols were superb character actors.
I remember someone telling me that Johnny Speight, the writer of the
series, actually shared some of Alf Garnett's attitudes and beliefs. But
did it legitimise race hatred and deprave and corrupt the viewers, I
wonder.
And I think everyone knows that the brilliant Spike Milligan totally
blotted his copybook and ruined his reputation by writing "Curry And
Chips" and "The Melting Pot" - perhaps the fault lay with the people who thought it okay to broadcast these awful blackface comedies.
On 19/07/2025 12:29 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/07/2025 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:25 AM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Ref: Abbott the Famous Mathematician:
She made racist remarks in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at her
local hospital because they had "never met a black person before."
She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie
Grant:
"Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person
before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is
nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably
don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other
parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is white.
I'm not aware of any antisemitism worth noting in any other party in
the UK.
Not the Conservatives, not the LibDems, not the SNP, not PC, not
Reform, not the Greens (the Greens just hate everybody and want to see
everyone taken down a peg as regards living standards).
No, it's just the Labour Party.
There is no antisemitism worth noting in the Labour Party.
That does not accord with the Labour Party's own findings.
As I have
pointed out before, but you have probably forgotten, during Jeremy
Corbyn's leadership the General Secretary of the Labour Party suspended
and subsequently expelled every party member who was accused of
antisemitism. By now, the total membership of the party is far smaller.
You are merely stating that some the Labour Party antisemites (those who
were known about or self-declared, at least) were expelled or suspended.
Do you claim that the exercise was a copper-bottomed, 100% success and
that they missed no-one?
When you read the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party (I'm
sure you've never read it but you still could do) you will find that it
names just two party members whom it accuses, rather unreasonably, of
antisemitic behaviour.
So why did the party expel so many members that its membership is now
"far smaller" than it was before The Purge.
The membership is now far smaller not because of the expulsions but
because so many members are disillusioned with the current leadership.
The myth is that Corbyn made the party unelectable.
The reality is that
Starmer has now made the party's re-election unlikely, and nobody feels
like leafletting or canvassing for a party which continually victimises pensioners and disabled people and has nothing worthwhile to offer.
On 19/07/2025 14:08, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 12:29 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/07/2025 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:25 AM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Ref: Abbott the Famous Mathematician:
She made racist remarks in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at her
local hospital because they had "never met a black person before."
She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie
Grant:
"Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person >>>>> before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is
nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably >>>>> don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other
parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is white.
I'm not aware of any antisemitism worth noting in any other party in
the UK.
Not the Conservatives, not the LibDems, not the SNP, not PC, not
Reform, not the Greens (the Greens just hate everybody and want to see >>>> everyone taken down a peg as regards living standards).
No, it's just the Labour Party.
There is no antisemitism worth noting in the Labour Party.
That does not accord with the Labour Party's own findings.
Which findings are you referring to? Please cite the relevant report.
Not that there is one, of course.
As I have
pointed out before, but you have probably forgotten, during Jeremy
Corbyn's leadership the General Secretary of the Labour Party suspended
and subsequently expelled every party member who was accused of
antisemitism. By now, the total membership of the party is far smaller.
You are merely stating that some the Labour Party antisemites (those
who were known about or self-declared, at least) were expelled or
suspended.
No, I'm merely stating that even as far back as the Corbyn era, the
Labour Party was so assiduously pro-Israel and pro- Board of Deputies
that it suspended and often subsequently expelled, anyone criticising
Israel in social media posts.
So it was overkill.
If you spoke to any Jewish Labour Party member, they were unable to cite
any examples of antisemitism at meetings or rallies but they whined
about disrespecting Israel and focusing too much attention on Israel
rather than other bad countries.
Do you claim that the exercise was a copper-bottomed, 100% success and
that they missed no-one?
If there were any genuine antisemites, they will have left and joined
other more congenial parties.
When you read the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party (I'm >>> sure you've never read it but you still could do) you will find that it
names just two party members whom it accuses, rather unreasonably, of
antisemitic behaviour.
So why did the party expel so many members that its membership is now
"far smaller" than it was before The Purge.
You misunderstand.
The membership is now far smaller not because of the expulsions but
because so many members are disillusioned with the current leadership.
The myth is that Corbyn made the party unelectable.
The reality is that
Starmer has now made the party's re-election unlikely, and nobody feels
like leafletting or canvassing for a party which continually victimises pensioners and disabled people and has nothing worthwhile to offer.
Those who remain in the Labour Party are keen to follow the party line
and not step out of place, and to praise Israel if that's what the
leadership expects of them. Perhaps they hope to end up in Starmer's
inner circle. If they were to join the Conservative Party at least they
would be playing tennis or bridge and meeting attractive debutantes.
On 19/07/2025 03:38 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/07/2025 14:08, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 12:29 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/07/2025 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:25 AM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Ref: Abbott the Famous Mathematician:
She made racist remarks in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at her >>>>>> local hospital because they had "never met a black person before."
She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie
Grant:
"Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person >>>>>> before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is >>>>>> nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably >>>>>> don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other >>>>>> parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is white. >>>>I'm not aware of any antisemitism worth noting in any other party in >>>>> the UK.
Not the Conservatives, not the LibDems, not the SNP, not PC, not
Reform, not the Greens (the Greens just hate everybody and want to see >>>>> everyone taken down a peg as regards living standards).
No, it's just the Labour Party.
There is no antisemitism worth noting in the Labour Party.
That does not accord with the Labour Party's own findings.
Which findings are you referring to? Please cite the relevant report.
Not that there is one, of course.
Read on (particularly your own contributions).
As I have
pointed out before, but you have probably forgotten, during Jeremy
Corbyn's leadership the General Secretary of the Labour Party suspended >>>> and subsequently expelled every party member who was accused of
antisemitism. By now, the total membership of the party is far smaller.
That is SO interesting. And you said it. But below, you deny it. Isn't
that odd?
You are merely stating that some the Labour Party antisemites (those
who were known about or self-declared, at least) were expelled or
suspended.
No, I'm merely stating that even as far back as the Corbyn era, the
Labour Party was so assiduously pro-Israel and pro- Board of Deputies
that it suspended and often subsequently expelled, anyone criticising
Israel in social media posts.
So it was overkill.
If you spoke to any Jewish Labour Party member, they were unable to cite
any examples of antisemitism at meetings or rallies but they whined
about disrespecting Israel and focusing too much attention on Israel
rather than other bad countries.
A number of promnent Jewish members, including at least one female MP
(mayve more), complained of constant abuse by other party members. You
know that.
Do you claim that the exercise was a copper-bottomed, 100% success and
that they missed no-one?
If there were any genuine antisemites, they will have left and joined
other more congenial parties.
Is the BNP *still* operating?
When you read the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party
(I'm
sure you've never read it but you still could do) you will find that it >>>> names just two party members whom it accuses, rather unreasonably, of
antisemitic behaviour.
So why did the party expel so many members that its membership is now
"far smaller" than it was before The Purge.
You misunderstand.
No, I don't. I quote and take what you wrote at its full face value.
The membership is now far smaller not because of the expulsions but
because so many members are disillusioned with the current leadership.
That is not what you said above, is it? You ascribed the fall in
membership numbers to expulsions (and maaybe to suspensions).
On 19/07/2025 15:38, The Todal wrote:
The membership is now far smaller not because of the expulsions but
because so many members are disillusioned with the current leadership.
I asked Microsoft CoPilot for time series data for Labour membership. It produced this:
+------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Year | Membership | Notes |
+------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
| 1950 | 908,000 | Post-war peak |
| 1955 | 843,000 | Gradual decline begins |
| 1960 | 790,000 | Still strong grassroots |
| 1970 | 680,000 | Decline continues |
| 1980 | 348,000 | Major drop due to internal reforms | | 1990 | 311,000 | Stabilised under Kinnock |
| 2000 | 311,000 | Blair era |
| 2010 | 193,000 | Lowest point in decades |
| 2015 | 388,000 | Surge under Corbyn begins |
| 2016 | 543,645 | Peak of Corbyn-era growth |
| 2017 | 564,443 | Highest in modern times |
| 2018 | 518,659 | Start of decline |
| 2019 | 532,046 | Slight recovery |
| 2020 | 523,332 | Post-election dip |
| 2021 | 432,213 | Significant drop |
| 2022 | 407,445 | Continued decline |
| 2023 | 370,450 | NEC reports confirm fall |
| 2025 | 309,000 | Latest figure post-election |
+------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
Jon will be along in a moment to say not to believe anything AI says, so
take the above with a pinch of salt.
IF the data is correct, then it's interesting to note that party
membership dropped under the two leaders in the last 20 years who have
done well in the polls. Whilst membership grew under Corbyn, the
electorate didn't vote him into office.
There's probably a message there, and I'll speculate that the electorate
are not that interested in politics, and they like 'middle of the road'.
Not too many surprises.
The myth is that Corbyn made the party unelectable.
Do you mean that Labour lost because the Conservatives were so popular? Really?
The reality is that Starmer has now made the party's re-election
unlikely, and nobody feels like leafletting or canvassing for a party
which continually victimises pensioners and disabled people and has
nothing worthwhile to offer.
Do you know whether leafletting and canvassing increase votes
significantly?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:32:31 +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 17/07/2025 om 11:11 schreef The Todal:
What is the point of this announcement unless we are told what the
serious racist term was? Has anyone seen it quoted in social media or
anywhere else? If it was a one-off remark, has the BBC over-reacted?
I remember once Graham Norton live on air telling an American guest that
the only word not allowed on the BBC was the N-word, yes the one that
rhymes with bigger.
Which is wrong.
Stewart Lee used it in the "Context" episode of his Comedy Vehicle. Which ironically rather demolished the BBCs argument.
On 19/07/2025 16:31, GB wrote:
On 19/07/2025 15:38, The Todal wrote:
The membership is now far smaller not because of the expulsions but
because so many members are disillusioned with the current leadership.
I asked Microsoft CoPilot for time series data for Labour membership.
It produced this:
+------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Year | Membership | Notes |
+------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
| 1950 | 908,000 | Post-war peak |
| 1955 | 843,000 | Gradual decline begins |
| 1960 | 790,000 | Still strong grassroots |
| 1970 | 680,000 | Decline continues |
| 1980 | 348,000 | Major drop due to internal reforms |
| 1990 | 311,000 | Stabilised under Kinnock |
| 2000 | 311,000 | Blair era |
| 2010 | 193,000 | Lowest point in decades |
| 2015 | 388,000 | Surge under Corbyn begins |
| 2016 | 543,645 | Peak of Corbyn-era growth |
| 2017 | 564,443 | Highest in modern times |
| 2018 | 518,659 | Start of decline |
| 2019 | 532,046 | Slight recovery |
| 2020 | 523,332 | Post-election dip |
| 2021 | 432,213 | Significant drop |
| 2022 | 407,445 | Continued decline |
| 2023 | 370,450 | NEC reports confirm fall |
| 2025 | 309,000 | Latest figure post-election |
+------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
Jon will be along in a moment to say not to believe anything AI says,
so take the above with a pinch of salt.
IF the data is correct, then it's interesting to note that party
membership dropped under the two leaders in the last 20 years who have
done well in the polls. Whilst membership grew under Corbyn, the
electorate didn't vote him into office.
There's probably a message there, and I'll speculate that the
electorate are not that interested in politics, and they like 'middle
of the road'. Not too many surprises.
If you'd been present at the rallies held by Corbyn and his colleagues
you would have seen that a good many voters do take an interest in charismatic politicians and are willing to join the party just to show
their support. And vote for them.
The myth is that Corbyn made the party unelectable.
Do you mean that Labour lost because the Conservatives were so
popular? Really?
Of course Corbyn lost because the Tories were so popular. Weren't you
there at the time? It was all about Get Brexit Done, and ebullient Boris boasting that he could put the arguments behind us and move the nation on.
The reality is that Starmer has now made the party's re-election
unlikely, and nobody feels like leafletting or canvassing for a party
which continually victimises pensioners and disabled people and has
nothing worthwhile to offer.
Do you know whether leafletting and canvassing increase votes
significantly?
Apparently it does.
If you'd been present at the rallies held by Corbyn and his colleagues
you would have seen that a good many voters do take an interest in charismatic politicians and are willing to join the party just to show
their support. And vote for them.
On 19/07/2025 16:16, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 03:38 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/07/2025 14:08, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 12:29 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/07/2025 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:25 AM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Ref: Abbott the Famous Mathematician:
She made racist remarks in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at her >>>>>>> local hospital because they had "never met a black person before." >>>>>>> She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie >>>>>>> Grant:
"Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black
person
before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is >>>>>>> nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably >>>>>>> don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other >>>>>>> parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is
white.
I'm not aware of any antisemitism worth noting in any other party in >>>>>> the UK.
Not the Conservatives, not the LibDems, not the SNP, not PC, not
Reform, not the Greens (the Greens just hate everybody and want to >>>>>> see everyone taken down a peg as regards living standards).
No, it's just the Labour Party.
There is no antisemitism worth noting in the Labour Party.
That does not accord with the Labour Party's own findings.
Which findings are you referring to? Please cite the relevant report.
Not that there is one, of course.
Read on (particularly your own contributions).
Which you seem to have misunderstood, perhaps through carelessness.
As I have
pointed out before, but you have probably forgotten, during Jeremy
Corbyn's leadership the General Secretary of the Labour Party
suspended and subsequently expelled every party member who was
accused of antisemitism. By now, the total membership of the party
is far smaller.
That is SO interesting. And you said it. But below, you deny it. Isn't
that odd?
I don't know why you seem unable to understand plain English. I haven't denied anything. You've somehow got the wrong end of the stick.
You are merely stating that some the Labour Party antisemites (those
who were known about or self-declared, at least) were expelled or
suspended.
No, I'm merely stating that even as far back as the Corbyn era, the
Labour Party was so assiduously pro-Israel and pro- Board of Deputies
that it suspended and often subsequently expelled, anyone criticising
Israel in social media posts.
So it was overkill.
If you spoke to any Jewish Labour Party member, they were unable to cite >>> any examples of antisemitism at meetings or rallies but they whined
about disrespecting Israel and focusing too much attention on Israel
rather than other bad countries.
A number of promnent Jewish members, including at least one female MP
(mayve more), complained of constant abuse by other party members. You
know that.
There were two whiny bitches, called Ruth and Luciana, who put forward a phoney and fabricated complaint about antisemitism.
They were both fervent supporters of Israel and they were always
determined to undermine Corbyn because he spoke up in favour of the
oppressed Palestinians. They were not victims of antisemitism at all.
But you should know that, if you had been paying attention.
Do you claim that the exercise was a copper-bottomed, 100% success and >>>> that they missed no-one?
If there were any genuine antisemites, they will have left and joined
other more congenial parties.
Is the BNP *still* operating?
The bigots will have gone to Tommy Robinson's gang or to Britain First.
When you read the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party
(I'm sure you've never read it but you still could do) you will find >>>>> that it names just two party members whom it accuses, rather
unreasonably, of antisemitic behaviour.
So why did the party expel so many members that its membership is now
"far smaller" than it was before The Purge.
You misunderstand.
No, I don't. I quote and take what you wrote at its full face value.
You misunderstand, deliberately or accidentally.
The membership is now far smaller not because of the expulsions but
because so many members are disillusioned with the current leadership.
That is not what you said above, is it? You ascribed the fall in
membership numbers to expulsions (and maaybe to suspensions).
No, that was your cognitive impediment garbling what I said.
The fall in membership is due to people losing faith in the Labour
Party. The people who have deserted the party are not those who have
been expelled for antisemitism.
Are you still having difficulty understanding the point? Do you want me
to go through it again?
Unfair and unjustified suspensions and expulsions on the pretext of antisemitism. To prevent criticism of Israel.
Starmer signed up to a grovelling set of promises to the Board of
Deputies of British Jews, ignoring the voices of Jews who supported Palestinians. Starmer then sacked Corbyn for telling the truth about the exaggeration of antisemitism in the Labour Party.
Lots of decent members then resign or fail to renew their membership
because they no longer want to support Keir Starmer and his now very
narrow "church".
On 19/07/2025 11:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/07/2025 16:16, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 03:38 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/07/2025 14:08, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 12:29 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/07/2025 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:25 AM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Ref: Abbott the Famous Mathematician:
She made racist remarks in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at her >>>>>>>> local hospital because they had "never met a black person before." >>>>>>>> She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie >>>>>>>> Grant:
"Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black >>>>>>>> person
before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is >>>>>>>> nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably >>>>>>>> don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other >>>>>>>> parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is >>>>>>>> white.
I'm not aware of any antisemitism worth noting in any other party in >>>>>>> the UK.
Not the Conservatives, not the LibDems, not the SNP, not PC, not >>>>>>> Reform, not the Greens (the Greens just hate everybody and want to >>>>>>> see everyone taken down a peg as regards living standards).
No, it's just the Labour Party.
There is no antisemitism worth noting in the Labour Party.
That does not accord with the Labour Party's own findings.
Which findings are you referring to? Please cite the relevant report.
Not that there is one, of course.
Read on (particularly your own contributions).
Which you seem to have misunderstood, perhaps through carelessness.
I don't think so. You first said one thing, then disavowed what you had
said.
A number of promnent Jewish members, including at least one female MP
(mayve more), complained of constant abuse by other party members. You
know that.
There were two whiny bitches, called Ruth and Luciana, who put forward a
phoney and fabricated complaint about antisemitism.
Ah... I see. So anyone, particualrly any Jewish person, in the Labour
Party who says anything which undermines your point is just a liar and a whinger?
Why didn't you say so in the first place?
They were both fervent supporters of Israel and they were always
determined to undermine Corbyn because he spoke up in favour of the
oppressed Palestinians. They were not victims of antisemitism at all.
They said they were.
Where yu there on the spot, every minute, with them?
But you should know that, if you had been paying attention.
How is it possible to know any different from what the complainants allege?
I don't have your obvious inside track.
Do you claim that the exercise was a copper-bottomed, 100% success and >>>>> that they missed no-one?
If there were any genuine antisemites, they will have left and joined
other more congenial parties.
Is the BNP *still* operating?
The bigots will have gone to Tommy Robinson's gang or to Britain First.
A distinction without much of a difference (or so I understand).
The amazing thing is that Labour supporters and former members would -
in your view, have joined them.
Not just ordinary punter voters, but socialists committed enough to have joined the Labour Party and in some cases, gained public elected office.
We do live in strange times, don't we?
When you read the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party >>>>>> (I'm sure you've never read it but you still could do) you will find >>>>>> that it names just two party members whom it accuses, rather
unreasonably, of antisemitic behaviour.
So why did the party expel so many members that its membership is now >>>>> "far smaller" than it was before The Purge.
You misunderstand.
No, I don't. I quote and take what you wrote at its full face value.
You misunderstand, deliberately or accidentally.
Not in the slightest. You said that expulsions had reduced the party's membership: "now, the total membership of the party is far smaller".
How do you account for the falls in membership while Corbyn was in
chargr and during the period when Starman was the leader of the opposition?
Similarly while the profound contribution of Jewish people to Western culture cannot possibly be denied - in terms of written culture itself, along with religion, philosophy, literature, academia, music etc. it must be remembered that that contribution has had no impact all on non white cultures,
including the Chinese, at all.
On 20/07/2025 11:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 11:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/07/2025 16:16, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 03:38 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/07/2025 14:08, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 12:29 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/07/2025 15:37, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:25 AM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Ref: Abbott the Famous Mathematician:
She made racist remarks in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Comments_on_race
"blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" [are] unsuitable as nurses at >>>>>>>>> her local hospital because they had "never met a black person >>>>>>>>> before."
She wasn't the only one. From wikipedia:
"Abbott's position was supported by fellow black Labour MP Bernie >>>>>>>>> Grant:
"Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black >>>>>>>>> person before and expecting them to have some empathy with black >>>>>>>>> people is nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people— >>>>>>>>> they probably don't know how to take their temperature.""
Antisemitism and racism runs in Labour's blood as much as in other >>>>>>>>> parties, only that they think it's not racist if the victim is >>>>>>>>> white.
I'm not aware of any antisemitism worth noting in any other
party in the UK.
Not the Conservatives, not the LibDems, not the SNP, not PC, not >>>>>>>> Reform, not the Greens (the Greens just hate everybody and want to >>>>>>>> see everyone taken down a peg as regards living standards).
No, it's just the Labour Party.
There is no antisemitism worth noting in the Labour Party.
That does not accord with the Labour Party's own findings.
Which findings are you referring to? Please cite the relevant report. >>>>> Not that there is one, of course.
Read on (particularly your own contributions).
Which you seem to have misunderstood, perhaps through carelessness.
I don't think so. You first said one thing, then disavowed what you
had said.
No, it was your failure to understand my point, because you preferred to construct your version of events.
You claim that the Labour Party is the worst for antisemitism. That is
based on nothing other than Tory and Israeli propaganda and it's a pity
that you are gullible enough to accept it as truth.
If you had ever been a Labour Party member
or had even read up on the
subject, you would realise that actually the Labour Party has always had
less antisemitism (eg antisemites as a proportion of total party
membership) than any other party.
snip
A number of promnent Jewish members, including at least one female MP
(mayve more), complained of constant abuse by other party members. You >>>> know that.
There were two whiny bitches, called Ruth and Luciana, who put forward a >>> phoney and fabricated complaint about antisemitism.
Ah... I see. So anyone, particualrly any Jewish person, in the Labour
Party who says anything which undermines your point is just a liar and
a whinger?
Why didn't you say so in the first place?
Maybe it's time for you to cite specific names for the "number of
prominent Jewish members" who complained of "constant abuse". I think it
may be a vague memory in your head, unsullied by any proper research.
I can help you with the history.
Ruth Smeeth, a prominent Jewish Labour Party member, was present at a
meeting to launch the Chakrabarti report into antisemitism in the Party.
A report which was fair and objective. She was seen to be chatting with
some Tory reporters. Another member, Marc Wadsworth, unwisely remarked
that now we can see who is working hand in hand with the Tories. Smeeth reacted by bursting into tears, accusing him of antisemitism, demanding
to know why nobody else was defending her and throwing Wadsworth out of
the meeting. She flounced out and managed to get far more press coverage (from the Tory press especially) than the Chakrabarti report. She was
not the victim of antisemitism. But for her services to the Labour Party
she has since been elevated to the Lords. Baroness Anderson.
Luciana Berger, as a constituency MP, regularly accused Corbyn of antisemitism. Her constituency party reproached her because she was undermining Labour's prospects in the elections, and spoke about the possibility of de-selecting her because of her lack of loyalty to the
party (and nowadays loyalty is far more important than it was then).
Corbyn and his team instructed the local party not to de-select her, but
she continued to claim antisemitism and left the party and joined a new
party of other discontents before returning to the fold. Now Baroness
Berger. Starmer never forgets his allies.
They were both fervent supporters of Israel and they were always
determined to undermine Corbyn because he spoke up in favour of the
oppressed Palestinians. They were not victims of antisemitism at all.
They said they were.
Where yu there on the spot, every minute, with them?
I know far more about the history and the workings of the Labour Party
than you do.
But you should know that, if you had been paying attention.
How is it possible to know any different from what the complainants
allege?
I don't have your obvious inside track.
True. But you could also read reputable newspaper and magazine articles
if you wanted a more than superficial grasp of events.
Do you claim that the exercise was a copper-bottomed, 100% success >>>>>> and that they missed no-one?
If there were any genuine antisemites, they will have left and joined >>>>> other more congenial parties.
Is the BNP *still* operating?
The bigots will have gone to Tommy Robinson's gang or to Britain First.
A distinction without much of a difference (or so I understand).
The amazing thing is that Labour supporters and former members would -
in your view, have joined them.
I said "if there were any genuine antisemites" but actually I doubt if
there were any.
Not just ordinary punter voters, but socialists committed enough to
have joined the Labour Party and in some cases, gained public elected
office.
You made that bit up.
We do live in strange times, don't we?
When you read the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party >>>>>>> (I'm sure you've never read it but you still could do) you will find >>>>>>> that it names just two party members whom it accuses, rather
unreasonably, of antisemitic behaviour.
So why did the party expel so many members that its membership is now >>>>>> "far smaller" than it was before The Purge.
You misunderstand.
No, I don't. I quote and take what you wrote at its full face value.
You misunderstand, deliberately or accidentally.
Not in the slightest. You said that expulsions had reduced the party's
membership: "now, the total membership of the party is far smaller".
No, that was a link that you made in your own mind.
It would of course be impossible to expel such vast numbers of members
that it could make a noticeable difference to the total membership
tally. My point, once again, is that by imposing a Stasi-like regime,
the Party lost many good members who did not want to be part of a
pro-Israel pro-austerity party.
How do you account for the falls in membership while Corbyn was in
chargr and during the period when Starman was the leader of the
opposition?
But do you really want to know?
Corbyn achieved the highest number of party members, and this in fact
was at a time when his General Secretary was continuing to suspend and
expel members for phoney antisemitism accusations.
If you remember the history, you will know that in 2017 at the peak of Labour's popularity, the election produced a hung parliament and the
Tories continued to govern with a confidence and supply agreement with
the DUP.
The new Labour Party members, probably the youngest ones, became disillusioned with politics and many of them didn't renew their
membership because they no longer believed that a decent principled
Labour Party could win against the establishment.
Membership fell, but not by a huge amount, and it picked up again as we approached the 2019 election.
But by then, Labour's inept Brexit strategy made it less attractive both
to its own members and to the electorate at large. Boris Johnson
promised to get Brexit done and to sweep away the logjam in Parliament.
Many Labour supporters wanted to have a second referendum. Many others
wanted to get Brexit done. The clumsy compromise was for Labour to
promise in its manifesto to negotiate a better deal than Theresa May or
Boris could accomplish and then to consider another referendum. That
clumsy compromise was the work of Keir Starmer, the barrister who was
always out of touch with popular opinion.
After Starmer became party leader there was a collapse in Party
membership because he was and is wholly uninspiring, lacks charisma,
seems to have no commitment to human rights and justice and could
plainly never have won an election against Boris Johnson.
On 18/07/2025 11:18, billy bookcase wrote:
Similarly while the profound contribution of Jewish people to Western culture
cannot possibly be denied - in terms of written culture itself, along with >> religion, philosophy, literature, academia, music etc. it must be remembered >> that that contribution has had no impact all on non white cultures,
including the Chinese, at all.
I would remind you that both Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism, and that
they have had significant global impact.
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:18, billy bookcase wrote:
Similarly while the profound contribution of Jewish people to Western culture
cannot possibly be denied - in terms of written culture itself, along with >>> religion, philosophy, literature, academia, music etc. it must be remembered
that that contribution has had no impact all on non white cultures,
including the Chinese, at all.
I would remind you that both Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism, and that
they have had significant global impact.
Indeed. Good point.
Although whether as "new improved versions" they themselves consciously acknowledge
the debt, is maybe another question
Was she lying? Be clear.
So you *are* saying that those female MPs were lying.
I said "if there were any genuine antisemites" but actually I doubt if
there were any.
Have you forgotten that the party actually expelled members for
antisemitism (when it was realised that antisemitism wasn't a good look)?
Not just ordinary punter voters, but socialists committed enough to
have joined the Labour Party and in some cases, gained public elected
office.
You made that bit up.
What?
You yourself said that expelled ex-Labour members will have joined
"Britain First".
On 20/07/2025 09:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:18, billy bookcase wrote:
Similarly while the profound contribution of Jewish people to Western culture
cannot possibly be denied - in terms of written culture itself, along with >>>> religion, philosophy, literature, academia, music etc. it must be remembered
that that contribution has had no impact all on non white cultures,
including the Chinese, at all.
I would remind you that both Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism, and
that
they have had significant global impact.
Indeed. Good point.
Although whether as "new improved versions" they themselves consciously acknowledge
the debt, is maybe another question
Catholic teaching of RE starts (logically) with the fall of Lucifer and continues with
the creation of the World and the universe. It moves on with the creation of Adam and
Eve and the Fall, before getting to Abraham and his offspring and the creation of
Judaism.
The story tends to continue episodically with the captivity in Egypt, etc, before
getting to the Exodus and the forty years in the wilderness (including the battle(s)
for land).
With many references to the Prophets, wars of defence and so on, it runs right down to
the Roman occupation, following the Old Testament.
I would say that that is rather more than a mere acknowledgement of the origins of
Christianity within Judaism. Christianity is seen as something like a "Continuity
Judaism".
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/07/2025 09:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:18, billy bookcase wrote:
Similarly while the profound contribution of Jewish people to Western culture
cannot possibly be denied - in terms of written culture itself, along with
religion, philosophy, literature, academia, music etc. it must be remembered
that that contribution has had no impact all on non white cultures,
including the Chinese, at all.
I would remind you that both Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism, and
that they have had significant global impact.
Indeed. Good point.
Although whether as "new improved versions" they themselves consciously acknowledge
the debt, is maybe another question
Catholic teaching of RE starts (logically) with the fall of Lucifer and continues with
the creation of the World and the universe. It moves on with the creation of Adam and
Eve and the Fall, before getting to Abraham and his offspring and the creation of
Judaism.
The story tends to continue episodically with the captivity in Egypt, etc, before
getting to the Exodus and the forty years in the wilderness (including the battle(s)
for land).
With many references to the Prophets, wars of defence and so on, it runs right down to
the Roman occupation, following the Old Testament.
I would say that that is rather more than a mere acknowledgement of the origins of
Christianity within Judaism. Christianity is seen as something like a "Continuity
Judaism".
The people "acknowledging the debt" I was talking about were those being taught, not the teachers.
And while theoretically much of Christianity
derives from Judaism I very much doubt for instance whether
Fundamentalist Preachers in the US, when quoting the "Barble", or
the likes of Ian Paisley, made much mention of the role of Judaism,
when addressing their flocks.
While as to the spread and influence of Christianity throughout the rest
of the world, this was mainly the result of Western Missionaries and colonisation in any case.
However ....the OP does make a very good point about Islam. Because while most people would claim Judaism as a cornerstone of Western Civilisation almost everyone regards Islam, despite Andalus in Spain, as mainly a
feature of Non Western Civilisations; reaching as it did as far as
China. And still does of course, in the case of the Uyghurs.
And I was also completely overlooking the role of Karl Marx of course.
As authentic an example of Jewish Scholarship as it's possible to
imagine; beavering away there every day, in the British Museum
Reading Room. And nobody can deny his continuing influence, in some
parts of the world at least.
On 21/07/2025 09:51 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/07/2025 09:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:18, billy bookcase wrote:
Similarly while the profound contribution of Jewish people to Western culture
cannot possibly be denied - in terms of written culture itself, along with
religion, philosophy, literature, academia, music etc. it must be remembered
that that contribution has had no impact all on non white cultures, >>>>>> including the Chinese, at all.
I would remind you that both Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism, and
that they have had significant global impact.
Indeed. Good point.
Although whether as "new improved versions" they themselves consciously acknowledge
the debt, is maybe another question
Catholic teaching of RE starts (logically) with the fall of Lucifer and continues
with
the creation of the World and the universe. It moves on with the creation of Adam and
Eve and the Fall, before getting to Abraham and his offspring and the creation of
Judaism.
The story tends to continue episodically with the captivity in Egypt, etc, before
getting to the Exodus and the forty years in the wilderness (including the battle(s)
for land).
With many references to the Prophets, wars of defence and so on, it runs right down
to
the Roman occupation, following the Old Testament.
I would say that that is rather more than a mere acknowledgement of the origins of
Christianity within Judaism. Christianity is seen as something like a "Continuity
Judaism".
The people "acknowledging the debt" I was talking about were those being
taught, not the teachers.
I am one of the taught.
And while theoretically much of Christianity
derives from Judaism I very much doubt for instance whether
Fundamentalist Preachers in the US, when quoting the "Barble", or
the likes of Ian Paisley, made much mention of the role of Judaism,
when addressing their flocks.
I was addressing Catholic teaching (by far the majority of Christians) and cannot deal
with fundamentalism from my own experiences. But as I understand it, muscular Bible
Belt Christianity makes constant reference to the Old Testament.
It is common for adherents to give their male children the names of Old Testament
prophets - names hardly heard in other parts of the Anglosphere. Example would be
Ezekial ("Zeke"), Elijah ("Eli") and Zachariah / Zechariah ("Zack").
While as to the spread and influence of Christianity throughout the rest
of the world, this was mainly the result of Western Missionaries and
colonisation in any case.
Is that relevant?
However ....the OP does make a very good point about Islam. Because while
most people would claim Judaism as a cornerstone of Western Civilisation
almost everyone regards Islam, despite Andalus in Spain, as mainly a
feature of Non Western Civilisations; reaching as it did as far as
China. And still does of course, in the case of the Uyghurs.
Again, is that of relevance to the question of whether Christianity "acknowledges"
Judaism as its own origin?
And I was also completely overlooking the role of Karl Marx of course.
As authentic an example of Jewish Scholarship as it's possible to
imagine; beavering away there every day, in the British Museum
Reading Room. And nobody can deny his continuing influence, in some
parts of the world at least.
Same again. I don't want to disrespect Marx. I understand that he was attempting the
creation of a sociology and an economic theory with little prior work (of others) to
reference. It's a pity that he was so poor at economics - "Das Kapital" being full of
"assumptions" that work as he intended for his thesis but make little sense in formal
economics or the real world.
But he has nothing to do with the normal acceptance of Christians that Judaism is the
font and origin of their own religion.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:me6kusFs8b8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/07/2025 09:51 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/07/2025 09:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:18, billy bookcase wrote:
Similarly while the profound contribution of Jewish people to Western culture
cannot possibly be denied - in terms of written culture itself, along with
religion, philosophy, literature, academia, music etc. it must be remembered
that that contribution has had no impact all on non white cultures, >>>>>>> including the Chinese, at all.
I would remind you that both Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism, and
that they have had significant global impact.
Indeed. Good point.
Although whether as "new improved versions" they themselves consciously acknowledge
the debt, is maybe another question
Catholic teaching of RE starts (logically) with the fall of Lucifer and continues
with
the creation of the World and the universe. It moves on with the creation of Adam and
Eve and the Fall, before getting to Abraham and his offspring and the creation of
Judaism.
The story tends to continue episodically with the captivity in Egypt, etc, before
getting to the Exodus and the forty years in the wilderness (including the battle(s)
for land).
With many references to the Prophets, wars of defence and so on, it runs right down
to
the Roman occupation, following the Old Testament.
I would say that that is rather more than a mere acknowledgement of the origins of
Christianity within Judaism. Christianity is seen as something like a "Continuity
Judaism".
The people "acknowledging the debt" I was talking about were those being >>> taught, not the teachers.
I am one of the taught.
And while theoretically much of Christianity
derives from Judaism I very much doubt for instance whether
Fundamentalist Preachers in the US, when quoting the "Barble", or
the likes of Ian Paisley, made much mention of the role of Judaism,
when addressing their flocks.
I was addressing Catholic teaching (by far the majority of Christians) and cannot deal
with fundamentalism from my own experiences. But as I understand it, muscular Bible
Belt Christianity makes constant reference to the Old Testament.
Of course they do. But do they acknowledge its Jewish Roots ?
It is common for adherents to give their male children the names of Old Testament
prophets - names hardly heard in other parts of the Anglosphere. Example would be
Ezekial ("Zeke"), Elijah ("Eli") and Zachariah / Zechariah ("Zack").
But do they acknowledge those people as being Jewish; rather than
just figures from The Old Testament ?
While as to the spread and influence of Christianity throughout the rest >>> of the world, this was mainly the result of Western Missionaries and
colonisation in any case.
Is that relevant?
ER yes, Because the original point was contrasting the undoubted impact
of Judaism on "Western" culture, with its lack of impact on non-western cultures.
When in the latter case, in the case of Christianity, unlike Islam any
impact was "imposed" second-hand by colonising Westerners.
Whereas Islam arose spontaneously in the East.
However ....the OP does make a very good point about Islam. Because while >>> most people would claim Judaism as a cornerstone of Western Civilisation >>> almost everyone regards Islam, despite Andalus in Spain, as mainly a
feature of Non Western Civilisations; reaching as it did as far as
China. And still does of course, in the case of the Uyghurs.
Again, is that of relevance to the question of whether Christianity "acknowledges"
Judaism as its own origin?
The discussion of Christianity had ended by that point
And I was also completely overlooking the role of Karl Marx of course.
As authentic an example of Jewish Scholarship as it's possible to
imagine; beavering away there every day, in the British Museum
Reading Room. And nobody can deny his continuing influence, in some
parts of the world at least.
Same again. I don't want to disrespect Marx. I understand that he was attempting the
creation of a sociology and an economic theory with little prior work (of others) to
reference. It's a pity that he was so poor at economics - "Das Kapital" being full of
"assumptions" that work as he intended for his thesis but make little sense in formal
economics or the real world.
But he has nothing to do with the normal acceptance of Christians that Judaism is the
font and origin of their own religion.
You have again totally missed my point. When having originally claimed
that Judaism's contribution to Western Civilisation had little or no
impact on none Western Cultures, I was clearly mistaken. Given that Marx
who was an exemplar of Judaic Scholarly tradition,
clearly had, and still
has, a considerable impact. And that is regardless of your own, or anyone else's somewhat gratuitous opinions of his merits
While again as with Islam above, this has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity; in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.
On 21/07/2025 05:48 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
Whereas Islam arose spontaneously in the East.
Er... no... it did not.
It arose in the Middle East and not spontaneously or parthenologically.
You have again totally missed my point. When having originally claimed
that Judaism's contribution to Western Civilisation had little or no
impact on none Western Cultures, I was clearly mistaken. Given that Marx
who was an exemplar of Judaic Scholarly tradition,
If you mean Jewish belief and tradition, you are wrong.
and tradition, you are wrong. It also gave rise to Islam - that's a FACT.
But you didn't even know that, which explains a lot of what you have written above.
Adam Funk wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
Stewart Lee used it in the "Context" episode of his Comedy Vehicle. Which >>> ironically rather demolished the BBCs argument.
I haven't seen that. Did he *use* or *mention* it (in the linguistic
or philosophical sense)?
<https://youtu.be/B-osOSQmv4g&t=1123s>
On 21/07/2025 05:48 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
Of course they do. But do they acknowledge its Jewish Roots ?
What?
How on Earth could they NOT?
It is common for adherents to give their male children the names of Old Testament
prophets - names hardly heard in other parts of the Anglosphere. Example would be
Ezekial ("Zeke"), Elijah ("Eli") and Zachariah / Zechariah ("Zack").
But do they acknowledge those people as being Jewish; rather than
just figures from The Old Testament ?
Have you ever actually read any of the Old Testament?
You're not making sense. It has already been explained to you that one cannot be a
Christian without knowing the Old Testament history of the Jewish people. The whole
concept of a Messiah is a Jewish concept.
Whereas Islam arose spontaneously in the East.
Er... no... it did not.
It arose in the Middle East and not spontaneously or parthenologically.
Your knowledge of it might have. Your lack of know;ledge of how the
relifion of Islam came about is... astounding.
One marvels that you feel so able to discuss subjects of which you
know so little.
Because prior to that revelation Mohammed, was neither a Christian
nor a Jew.
So how it is that Mohammed's religion whatever it was up until
the age of 40, recognised these Old Testament figures ?
It can't have recognised them as being Jews in the religious sense,
otherwise Mohammed would himself already have been Jewish
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:36:27 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
Because prior to that revelation Mohammed, was neither a Christian nor a >>Jew.
So how it is that Mohammed's religion whatever it was up until the age
of 40, recognised these Old Testament figures ?
It can't have recognised them as being Jews in the religious sense, >>otherwise Mohammed would himself already have been Jewish
Details of Muhammad's early life are very limited, and it's almost
impossible to reliably separate fact from legend. However, it's widely considered by Muslim scholars that, until his vision caused him to found Islam, he was a Hanif. That is, a monothesistic religion based on the
God of Abraham, but distinct from Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad is
also widely considered (although this is probably more speculative) to
have been a direct descendant of Abraham, via Abraham's eldest son
Ishmael.
One of Islam's key tenets is that Abraham was the first to fully
recognise that there is one, and only one, God, and that all other
supposed "Gods" are merely either human inventions or misperceptions of
the One True God. This is broadly consistent with Jewish and Christian
belief (and that of other Abrahamic religions such as Baha'i and Druze). Islam's approach to Judaism and Christianity is that both correctly
identify this truth, and both have had prophets who genuinely received revelations from God, but that both have gone astray from the correct
path of the truth. The visions received by Muhammad were communicated by
God to correct those errors, and give Muhammad the correct way of
submitting to that truth.
So Muhammad would have recognised Moses as Jewish, and Jesus as Jewish,
and later followers of Jesus as Christian. His position was not that
they were worshipping a false God. His position was that they were
failing to fully and correctly worship the One True God that they knew,
but had strayed from.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:36:27 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Because prior to that revelation Mohammed, was neither a Christian
nor a Jew.
So how it is that Mohammed's religion whatever it was up until
the age of 40, recognised these Old Testament figures ?
It can't have recognised them as being Jews in the religious sense, >>otherwise Mohammed would himself already have been Jewish
Details of Muhammad's early life are very limited, and it's almost
impossible to reliably separate fact from legend. However, it's widely considered by Muslim scholars that, until his vision caused him to found Islam, he was a Hanif.
That is, a monothesistic religion based on the God of
Abraham, but distinct from Judaism and Christianity.
Muhammad is also widely
considered (although this is probably more speculative) to have been a
direct descendant of Abraham, via Abraham's eldest son Ishmael.
One of Islam's key tenets is that Abraham was the first to fully recognise that there is one, and only one, God, and that all other supposed "Gods" are merely either human inventions or misperceptions of the One True God. This
is broadly consistent with Jewish and Christian belief (and that of other Abrahamic religions such as Baha'i and Druze). Islam's approach to Judaism and Christianity is that both correctly identify this truth, and both have had prophets who genuinely received revelations from God, but that both have gone astray from the correct path of the truth. The visions received by Muhammad were communicated by God to correct those errors, and give Muhammad the correct way of submitting to that truth.
So Muhammad would have recognised Moses as Jewish, and Jesus as Jewish, and later followers of Jesus as Christian. His position was not that they were worshipping a false God. His position was that they were failing to fully
and correctly worship the One True God that they knew, but had strayed from.
From memory
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:47:03 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |