I agree with everything she said about racism. She was quite rightly suggesting that racism transcends into different forms. A clearly intelligent woman opening what should be intelligent debate. Starmer making an arse of himself again and clearly again knee jerking to appease the fuck knows who. I'm no fan of Abbott but she said nothing wrong here. She said everything right.

Downing Street Cat wrote:
She was quite rightly suggesting that racism transcends into different forms


Again - she was a bit more specific than that....

Its a fair point to say that if a difference is obvious from sight, then they will experience more racism than someone who's difference is less visible. How many black people are stopped and searched, compared to jewish people. You normally can't tell jewish people by sight. This is a statement of fact.

Abbott stated the bleeding obvious.

The Zionist lobby cannot bear the fact they aren't always the main characters.

Starmer supports Genocide. I loathe him far more than I did Thatcher.

The current Labour Party faces annihilation if Corbyn's proposed party gets up although I doubt it would win an election.

Of course..4 bloody years is such a long time to wait especially under Harold Wilson's mantra that 7 days is a long time in politics.

Whenever I've heard Diane Abbott speaking, she has always seemed reasonable to me and to talk sense. I seem to remember that after Margaret Thatcher died, she gave a very measured speech in the HoC, not uncritical but respectful. By contrast, Glenda Jackson put the boot in and seemed a bit undignified.

She did state a fact I agree and Starmer is a reactive wimp.

But why she repeatedly feels the need to say the particular racism she might experience is more likely to occur than that experienced by other groups is strange.

It is obviously true so why keep saying it?

She isn't just saying the words in a vacum; she is trying to establish a hierarchy of victimhood.

With her at the top.

Wyot wrote:
She did state a fact I agree and Starmer is a reactive wimp.

But why she repeatedly feels the need to say the particular racism she might experience is more likely to occur than that experienced by other groups is strange.

It is obviously true so why keep saying it?

She isn't just saying the words in a vacum; she is trying to establish a hierarchy of victimhood.

With her at the top.

I think she really only said it once in an interview ages ago and in this recent occasion she was asked about the previous interview so responded.

Decades ago when I was young (and gorgeous) with blonde hair & blue eyes and attended an event at the Hammersmith Odeon with my Irish wife who had blonde hair & green eyes & we were accompanied by our New Zealand friend who also had blonde hair, a very famous comedian walked past and quipped.."Hitler would have loved those three"

With a Jewish mother I don't think he would have loved me so much.

Appearances can be deceptive.

hedda wrote:
Wyot wrote:
She did state a fact I agree and Starmer is a reactive wimp.

But why she repeatedly feels the need to say the particular racism she might experience is more likely to occur than that experienced by other groups is strange.

It is obviously true so why keep saying it?

She isn't just saying the words in a vacum; she is trying to establish a hierarchy of victimhood.

With her at the top.

I think she really only said it once in an interview ages ago and in this recent occasion she was asked about the previous interview so responded.

Decades ago when I was young (and gorgeous) with blonde hair & blue eyes and attended an event at the Hammersmith Odeon with my Irish wife who had blonde hair & green eyes & we were accompanied by our New Zealand friend who also had blonde hair, a very famous comedian walked past and quipped.."Hitler would have loved those three"

With a Jewish mother I don't think he would have loved me so much.

Appearances can be deceptive.


Nothing wrong with dark humour. If I was there and heard that joke, I would have burst out laughing.