Diane Abbott suspended from Labour Party

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

Abbots views are her own they are not related to the current leadership of the Labour party.

You've forgotten that Starmer enthusiastically campaigned for Corbyn to be PM and also wanted Abbott to be Home Secretary.

Labour could walk the GE, but having Sir Kneelalot at the helm will likely force them into a coalition.

[TheGunnShow 5,960]

A coalition with Labour at the helm could be superb news for those of us who realise our electoral model is not fit for purpose, pretty much hasn't been since WW2, and needs radical overhaul. Granted, it's only one minor problem of a litany of them, but we gotta start somewhere.

[A Load of Squit 5,195]

3 minutes ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

You've forgotten that Starmer enthusiastically campaigned for Corbyn to be PM and also wanted Abbott to be Home Secretary.

Labour could walk the GE, but having Sir Kneelalot at the helm will likely force them into a coalition.

Latest polls

Labour 49%

Tories 26%

 

[Herman 9,799]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Bravermann is trying to stop people entering the country illegally by paying people smugglers to ship them across the Channel in dangerous dinghies. You can argue about whether the policies they’re trying to pass to stop it happening are good or bad but it’s certainly not racist to want to stop them.

Farage is nowhere near power, so any posturing from him regarding the crossings is irrelevant. He was a single issue politician who managed to convince a majority that leaving was better than staying, that’s it. Again wanting to leave a supranational bloc or restrict immigration isn’t racism, they’re perfectly valid political positions. Racism is discrimination against somebody simply because they’re a different colour, religion, race, nationality etc. None of that applies to the examples you’ve provided.

I’ll assume you don’t have an answer as to why the (to my eyes) non existent English nationalism is bad yet when it’s the Scottish or Welsh variety it’s seen as a positive so you’ll try to dismiss it as irrelevant, despite the fact it was you who raised the point originally 

Bravermann is not even attempting to fix the problem. She's just using racism and divisive words as part of her ongoing culture war crap. 

Farage is a racist stain on Britain. It's shameful that so many of my fellow countrymen fell under his spell. 

Welsh and Scottish nationalism is an honourable fight for self governance, independence and their own sovereignty. What the heck is English nationalism about? 

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

Welsh and Scottish nationalism is an honourable fight for self governance, independence and their own sovereignty. What the heck is English nationalism about? 

Do you think England should have its own parliament?

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

3 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Bravermann is trying to stop people entering the country illegally by paying people smugglers to ship them across the Channel in dangerous dinghies. You can argue about whether the policies they’re trying to pass to stop it happening are good or bad but it’s certainly not racist to want to stop them.

I really don't wish to get into much of argument about definitions but.

The correct word is not 'illegal' but irregular immigration. This is actually the word used on government websites.

It's not actually illegal to turn up on our shores and claim asylum (this is where the government ends up in all the international courts acting illegally if it thinks it is). Asylum can of course be refused and people refused entry. What is illegal is to enter the country as an undocumented person and work etc. 

I feel the word 'illegal' is simply used by those on the simplistic right wanting to demonize people (and is oddly similar to the racism argument) who are actually not criminals!

Lets deal with the problem (the small boats) and not the symptoms else there will be no cure.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[A Load of Squit 5,195]

19 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

Lets deal with the problem (the small boats) and not the symptoms else there will be no cure.

The other problem is that we used to have a system that could process the asylum claims in 3 to 4 weeks, Cameron decided to get rid of that and subsequent PM's and HO ministers have just made the situation worse. 

 

[Herman 9,799]

1 hour ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Do you think England should have its own parliament?

It does in all but name. 

[Yellowfuture 71]

4 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

The views still exist in many groups not just some members of the Labour party.

Abbots views are her own they are not related to the current leadership of the Labour party.

Not the current leadership as I made clear.

These are the findings of the report into anti semitism in the Labour Party, Abbotts comments illustrate that the problem has not yet been resolved 

• “A clear breakdown of trust between the Labour Party, many of its members and the Jewish community”;
• A culture that is “at odds with the Labour Party’s commitment to zero-tolerance of antisemitism”;
• Serious failings in leadership, processes and culture in dealing with antisemitism within the Party;
• Specific examples of unlawful harassment and unlawful indirect discrimination;
• “Clear examples” of inappropriate political interference in individual antisemitism cases;
• “An inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints” across our Party;
• Inadequate resourcing of the complaints process and poor record-keeping;
• A failure to deliver adequate training for all those responsible for investigating antisemitism cases; and
• Repeated failures to implement in full the recommendations of previous reports into antisemitism.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

17 minutes ago, Yellowfuture said:

Not the current leadership as I made clear.

These are the findings of the report into anti semitism in the Labour Party, Abbotts comments illustrate that the problem has not yet been resolved 

• “A clear breakdown of trust between the Labour Party, many of its members and the Jewish community”;
• A culture that is “at odds with the Labour Party’s commitment to zero-tolerance of antisemitism”;
• Serious failings in leadership, processes and culture in dealing with antisemitism within the Party;
• Specific examples of unlawful harassment and unlawful indirect discrimination;
• “Clear examples” of inappropriate political interference in individual antisemitism cases;
• “An inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints” across our Party;
• Inadequate resourcing of the complaints process and poor record-keeping;
• A failure to deliver adequate training for all those responsible for investigating antisemitism cases; and
• Repeated failures to implement in full the recommendations of previous reports into antisemitism.

No wonder reports take so long. 9 bullet points to say one thing.

If there were accusations about the Tories being anti Muslim, would therebe an inquiry?

Labour as a Party is not anti Semitic. Some outspoken members are pro Palestine and believe any support of Judaism threatens that support of Palestine. 

Remember many Labour people tend to support those they see as unjustifiably oppressed or misrepresented.

[Herman 9,799]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

No wonder reports take so long. 9 bullet points to say one thing.

If there were accusations about the Tories being anti Muslim, would therebe an inquiry?

Labour as a Party is not anti Semitic. Some outspoken members are pro Palestine and believe any support of Judaism threatens that support of Palestine. 

Remember many Labour people tend to support those they see as unjustifiably oppressed or misrepresented.

There were at exactly the same time as the Corbyn/anti-semitism debate. See Sayeda Warsi for details about an inquiry.🤨

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

20 minutes ago, Herman said:

There were at exactly the same time as the Corbyn/anti-semitism debate. See Sayeda Warsi for details about an inquiry.🤨

That wasn't the same though. She accused her Party of being anti Islamic. With Corbyn, it was the Party calling him anti Semitic.

[Yellowfuture 71]

42 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Labour as a Party is not anti Semitic. Some outspoken members are pro Palestine and believe any support of Judaism threatens that support of Palestine. 

I think that may have been the justification used in the past, and as you say continues. 

[Yellowfuture 71]

44 minutes ago, Herman said:

There were at exactly the same time as the Corbyn/anti-semitism debate. See Sayeda Warsi for details about an inquiry.🤨

The Equality  and Human Rights Commission initiated the investigation into the Labour Party because of specific complaints made to them regarding racism. Are you saying that similar complaints were made to the EHRC about the Tories regarding anti Muslim views and the EHRC failed to investigate them, if that is the case then they should be held to account for that decision, I don’t think that’s what happened but you may be right. 
Racism exists in all parties, it shouldn’t be defended but exposed and dealt with. 

[Herman 9,799]

22 minutes ago, Yellowfuture said:

The Equality  and Human Rights Commission initiated the investigation into the Labour Party because of specific complaints made to them regarding racism. Are you saying that similar complaints were made to the EHRC about the Tories regarding anti Muslim views and the EHRC failed to investigate them, if that is the case then they should be held to account for that decision, I don’t think that’s what happened but you may be right. 
Racism exists in all parties, it shouldn’t be defended but exposed and dealt with. 

She and many others were calling for a full inquiry but a partial, party led inquiry was taken. Nothing much happened with it.

What I was suggesting was the different levels of outrage for similar levels of bigotry, at the same time, just before an election,had a horrible smell of political football and partisanship at the time.

[Yellowfuture 71]

14 minutes ago, Herman said:

She and many others were calling for a full inquiry but a partial, party led inquiry was taken. Nothing much happened with it.

What I was suggesting was the different levels of outrage for similar levels of bigotry, at the same time, just before an election,had a horrible smell of political football and partisanship at the time.

I think Labour had carried out their own investigation as well but nothing happened and hence the whole thing continued to fester and got worse. Same thing may well happen with the Tories, I don’t know, but what is clear is that these sorts of allegations cant be swept under that carpet by any party without an unfavourable eventual outcome. 
To be honest I’m not sure the “levels of bigotry” as you describe them were in fact similar, as evidenced by the EHRC involvement and investigation into Labour. I do agree though that there was an element of playing politics pre election, has always been thus and not surprising. I think the Country dodged a bullet with Corbyn, but then ended up getting shot in the @RSe by the Tories. Sad reflection. Let’s hope we can get a “decent” government in power next time, whatever it’s composition.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

8 hours ago, Herman said:

You're either not paying attention to what Bravermann is doing, missed what Farage was doing or in complete denial of the clear and obvious bigotry they display. Not much different from the extreme Corbynites. 

I can't be arsed with your other bits of whataboutery. 

There's nothing bigoted about wanting to limit immigration. The UK may be a G7 country, but in terms of GDP per capita it's 25th. The strain the population puts on its own resources is more than the country can bear, as demonstrated by the dire state of the country's biodiversity.

Desperate arguments are made for welcoming those trying to enter from France because 'maybe' they could be lorry drivers or even doctors; that's rubbish. And even if they were, they'd still have to be trained and accredited with recognised qualifications.

Again, it wasn't even Europeans that were the big problem with the EU. It was those coming into the EU, through the EU to the UK that were the problem in the minds of a lot of Brexit voters, and they're all just as unwelcome on the continent as they are the UK.

Put it in perspective: That progressive paradise New Zealand that everyone wets themselves over? Tight as f**k on immigration, unless they really need the skills.

Re Diane Abbott though, TBH, I'm in the odd position of feeling sorry for her on this occasion. Pulling the whip is over the top. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?

 

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There's nothing bigoted about wanting to limit immigration. The UK may be a G7 country, but in terms of GDP per capita it's 25th. The strain the population puts on its own resources is more than the country can bear, as demonstrated by the dire state of the country's biodiversity.

Desperate arguments are made for welcoming those trying to enter from France because 'maybe' they could be lorry drivers or even doctors; that's rubbish. And even if they were, they'd still have to be trained and accredited with recognised qualifications.

Again, it wasn't even Europeans that were the big problem with the EU. It was those coming into the EU, through the EU to the UK that were the problem in the minds of a lot of Brexit voters, and they're all just as unwelcome on the continent as they are the UK.

Put it in perspective: That progressive paradise New Zealand that everyone wets themselves over? Tight as f**k on immigration, unless they really need the skills.

Re Diane Abbott though, TBH, I'm in the odd position of feeling sorry for her on this occasion. Pulling the whip is over the top. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?

 

 

Stop derailing posts to bang on about over population. Its an Abbott thread.

Diane has for as long as she has been topical, has completely missed the point. Yes she is Black and I don't know what it is like to be Black. But I am white and I know how I and many others respect people for what they are and how they treat me rather than their skin colour or ethnicity. 

I grew up when what is now considered racism or racist remarks were evident. Even then, much of it was good natured in the belief of those handing it out. There was no intent to hurt by many but merely get a cheap laugh. Which was no doubt hurtful to people like Diane.

But no amount of apologies or withdrawals can prevent me from believing the she of all people, singling out other people as not as deserving as Black people, cannot come to terms that her pilgrimage has and is succeeding with regard to Black people, but that does not mean just Black people feel offended by beliefs and attitudes.

Why does she think only she has suffered only because of the colour of her skin? She has become consumed by her hatred of those who she believes hate her.

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I really don't wish to get into much of argument about definitions but.

The correct word is not 'illegal' but irregular immigration. This is actually the word used on government websites.

It's not actually illegal to turn up on our shores and claim asylum (this is where the government ends up in all the international courts acting illegally if it thinks it is). Asylum can of course be refused and people refused entry. What is illegal is to enter the country as an undocumented person and work etc. 

I feel the word 'illegal' is simply used by those on the simplistic right wanting to demonize people (and is oddly similar to the racism argument) who are actually not criminals!

Lets deal with the problem (the small boats) and not the symptoms else there will be no cure.

Just a small addition

Irregular migration in the UK - Migration Observatory - The Migration Observatory (ox.ac.uk)

Irregular migration is often referred to as illegal immigration. The use of the term illegal in this context is considered contentious, for two reasons. First, illegal immigration can suggest the breaching of criminal laws. In some countries, breaching immigration laws is an administrative rather than criminal matter (see FRA, 2014; Provera, 2015; Library of Congress, 2019). However, in the UK it is a criminal offence knowingly to enter or remain in the country without authorisation (Immigration Act 1971, Section 24), though prosecutions are rare.

The second objection is to the related term illegal immigrant, which is argued to be degrading because it implies that people can be illegal. Most international organisations, including the United Nations and the International Organization for Migration, specifically avoid the terms illegal immigration and illegal immigrant for this reason, instead preferring irregular immigration and irregular migrant. The adjectives unauthorised and undocumented are also used to refer to the same phenomenon of illegal immigration, especially by researchers.

The term undocumented migrant is commonly used as an alternative to illegal immigrant or irregular migrant. However, the term is often used ambiguously, sometimes to refer to migrants whose movement has not been documented (i.e., recorded), and other times to people without the required documents, such as a passport or valid visa. Importantly, an undocumented immigrant is not always an irregular migrant. A person might be in a country lawfully, but not possess the documents to prove so, such as certain members of the Windrush generation.

Illegal immigration is also often used to refer to the unauthorised entry of people seeking asylum. However, because the claiming of asylum is not illegal, the term irregular is sometimes preferred to describe such movements.

This briefing adopts the conventions of the UN and IOM in using the terms irregular migration and irregular migrant. It also refers to people who are in the UK without authorisation.

[Fen Canary 851]

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I really don't wish to get into much of argument about definitions but.

The correct word is not 'illegal' but irregular immigration. This is actually the word used on government websites.

It's not actually illegal to turn up on our shores and claim asylum (this is where the government ends up in all the international courts acting illegally if it thinks it is). Asylum can of course be refused and people refused entry. What is illegal is to enter the country as an undocumented person and work etc. 

I feel the word 'illegal' is simply used by those on the simplistic right wanting to demonize people (and is oddly similar to the racism argument) who are actually not criminals!

Lets deal with the problem (the small boats) and not the symptoms else there will be no cure.

If we’re going to get into an argument around technicalities then the UK would be well within its rights to prevent those boats from ever entering its waters, seeing as asylum seekers are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, and they’re all trying to enter the UK from within EU countries.

Offshore processing stopped the boats entering Australia when it was introduced. The boats started again when the policy was suspended and then stopped when it was reintroduced so it clearly works for them, therefore why wouldn’t a similar system work for the UK?

Clamping down hard on those abusing the current system by removing the incentive seems an eminently sensible solution to me, especially if coupled with a better policy of say taking in a set number who are currently languishing in refugee camps around the world. The British people have shown they’re willing to help those fleeing genuine danger as shown by the support for helping the Ukrainian women and children and the people of Hong Kong, however boat loads of young single men from Albania or Iraq won’t draw the same level of sympathy, as they’re seen as economic migrants rather than refugees 

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

If we’re going to get into an argument around technicalities then the UK would be well within its rights to prevent those boats from ever entering its waters, seeing as asylum seekers are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, and they’re all trying to enter the UK from within EU countries.

Offshore processing stopped the boats entering Australia when it was introduced. The boats started again when the policy was suspended and then stopped when it was reintroduced so it clearly works for them, therefore why wouldn’t a similar system work for the UK?

Clamping down hard on those abusing the current system by removing the incentive seems an eminently sensible solution to me, especially if coupled with a better policy of say taking in a set number who are currently languishing in refugee camps around the world. The British people have shown they’re willing to help those fleeing genuine danger as shown by the support for helping the Ukrainian women and children and the people of Hong Kong, however boat loads of young single men from Albania or Iraq won’t draw the same level of sympathy, as they’re seen as economic migrants rather than refugees 

Get your facts straight before you start.

Refugees don't have to claim asylum in the first 'safe' country. Google it.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

9 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Refugees don't have to claim asylum in the first 'safe' country. Google it.

That is correct, but they can be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

Alas, nothing will be solved while the UK is still bound by the ECHR.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

That is correct, but they can be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

Alas, nothing will be solved while the UK is still bound by the ECHR.

What the fcuk is this to do with Abbott?

[Fen Canary 851]

30 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

What the fcuk is this to do with Abbott?

Somebody used the Home Secretary’s attempts to deter the Channel crossings as an example of Englands racism.

This is despite the example I gave showing Britain being the least racist country in Western Europe behind Malta. While in France the far right has contested the last two presidential elections and in Germany AfD regularly polls around 15% nationally, the closest we’ve come is the BNP winning a few council seats 20 years back 

[Herman 9,799]

55 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

What the fcuk is this to do with Abbott?

Fen struggles with feckin reading, that's what. (Comprehension, understanding and any element of deeper thinking too, but we can put them aside for now.)

[Fen Canary 851]

11 minutes ago, Herman said:

Fen struggles with feckin reading, that's what. (Comprehension, understanding and any element of deeper thinking too, but we can put them aside for now.)

Resorting to personally insulting people who have a different point of view to yourself doesn’t make for a convincing argument I’m afraid.

You accuse Bravermann and Farage of being racist yet haven’t given me a single quote of theirs that I’d class as racism as most people would understand it. Unless you can prove that they’ve abused or insulted people solely because of their skin colour, race or nationality then I’ll have to assume they’re not in fact racist but merely have different political viewpoints in regards to immigration.

Abbott on the other hand once says that nurses at a London hospital were “blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" and were not suitable to be nurses because they had "never met a black person before". To me that’s a racist remark implying that people aren’t able to do their job due to their ethnicity 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Fen Canary

[Herman 9,799]

I'm angry that you can't or won't see what is very clear about those two, that's why I am being rude. I feel you are being deliberately obtuse and instead on carrying on with you, and getting a slap off KG, I will bid you good night.

[A Load of Squit 5,195]

1 hour ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

That is correct, but they can be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

Alas, nothing will be solved while the UK is still bound by the ECHR.

An EU law that we are no longer part of as of 31/12/2020.

It's only the Tories who have failed to comply by the ECHR, before they came into government we regularly sent failed asylum seekers back to their country of origin. If the Home Office did their job properly then you wouldn't need to whine about the ECHR.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Stop derailing posts to bang on about over population. Its an Abbott thread.

I'm not derailing anything. Herman made a charge on this thread and he's wrong. I'm saying why.

Your perpetual complaints about what I post while you turn a blind eye elsewhere are starting to get on my nerves. Herman's comment had nothing to do with Diane Abbott, but I mentioned her in mine at least...

Edited April 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

8 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Resorting to personally insulting people who have a different point of view to yourself doesn’t make for a convincing argument I’m afraid.

You accuse Bravermann and Farage of being racist yet haven’t given me a single quote of theirs that I’d class as racism as most people would understand it. Unless you can prove that they’ve abused or insulted people solely because of their skin colour, race or nationality then I’ll have to assume they’re not in fact racist but merely have different political viewpoints in regards to immigration.

Abbott on the other hand once says that nurses at a London hospital were “blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" and were not suitable to be nurses because they had "never met a black person before". To me that’s a racist remark implying that people aren’t able to do their job due to their ethnicity 

I learned long ago that Lefties will never sensibly counterargue with anything that doesn't fit their narrative, FC..

Sometimes it's best just to laugh at them: