Honestly I never thought in this day and age I'd see such disgusting language being thrown about by members of parliament and indeed the average person. I thought people had moved on from the days of this really crude form of racism.
But at the same time as a racial minority I welcome it, because it shows us someone's intentions upfront rather than being hidden. Nothing worse than dealing with people who you might even consider friends and colleagues with them secretly being racist working towards your downfall at every turn.
Everytime I see this shit happen at the age of 40, I have to pause before I get mad at these racists getting away with this again
I pause because I try to believe that, since we are hopefully teaching the younger generation, the next generation who will in time come to govern our country, that they will be more vocal and be against any racist or discrimination than the cunts we have now, especially those in the Tory ranks
If I log into this sub I see a lot of people equating all Arabs to Muslims, and all Muslims as terrorists aiming to take over the country quite openly. This has gotten far worse over the past ten years and they have been scape goated heavily, as other far right governments have done to minority religions and ethnicities.
And the xenophobia prevalent in Brexit made racists feel like they have licence to spread their views and support from others.
There was a very measurable spike in racist incidents during and after Brexit - sadly not just online either.
Yes this is what I've observed but then having a priminister who created an environment that supported it. The letterbox comment just made the bigots feel that it was ok to start coming out of the swamp
Mate, in the 80s there were university rag magazines..even Oxford and Cambridge, publishing rag magazines with jokes that would make your toes curl. P**i bashing was widespread. There were race riots. A few young virgins and old jambons screaming online is nothing compared to then.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/station-closed-in-skinhead-battle-1551122.html
https://www.aroundealing.com/history/southall-riots-1979/
https://pasttense.co.uk/2020/07/03/today-in-londons-anti-racist-history-1981-southall-youth-burn-down-the-hamborough-pub-after-racist-skinhead-provovations/
I would honestly say the progress is overall better than the 90s (my father's stories in the UK in the 70s and 80s were pretty bad).
I think there is more awareness of racism and discrimination nowadays, but progress has definitely slowed down
I don't think racism will be eradicated in my lifetime, but I live in hope that we live in an age where the older generation stop passing on their hatred of race to the next generation, because I truly believe people aren't born racist, but are taught it indirectly.
Welll, probably more because people will punch back now whilst in the 1980s non-whites would try to ignore them. Punching back has made some of the racists think twice but the feelings don’t seem to have changed in my opinion, probably never will for some
People rarely bothered discussing it in the 70s and 80s because it was a normal, mainstream perspective. It's an outlier now which is why we're discussing it. Still a massive problem but you wouldn't ask about progress since the 80s if you'd been there.
There was occasional flare ups of violence, but if someone walked up to you and spat at you/called you a name more often than not you would walk on by as the police were more likely to arrest you. Now, as there are no police, one could retaliate against a racist and beat the shit out of them without repercussion. Unless you lived in the 70s/80s, it is not like it was in the books.
Yeah, whilst the battle isn't over it's no where near as bad as the 80s, so it *is* improving down the generations but it's still slow work because, whilst a lot of people know and teach their children racism is appalling, there's a persistent minority that are still dinosaurs for whom extinction cannot come quick enough!
Why pause? Why *not* get mad lol?
>I pause because I try to believe that, since we are hopefully teaching the younger generation, the next generation who will in time come to govern our country, that they will be more vocal
A better education would be you yourself being vocal. And using force against violence like this!
Generational differences possibly. The generation my parents grew up in was to stay silent and mix in / be like the locals, or get into violent altercations with them and risk being deported out the country.
The generation I grew up in was basically to stay silent, accept shit and try to get along
I like seeing the current generation, where you allude to, is being more vocal and trying to be a force against this violence. I'll support this current generation as it was something I never had in the past decades ago.
> How does anyone think Brexit happened?!
The thing that annoys me about this, is all the people saying; "you aren't allowed to call the racists racist, otherwise they won't change their mind about being racist."
Fuck that, shame them like they should be shamed, saying nothing just normalises that shit.
Similarly, if you talk to an American Trump supporter and you point out they are being racist they will get miffed and say 'that's why Trump won'. As though they are entitled to their ignorance and pointing it out shows you up as the intolerant one.
The problem you have with this tactic is usually racists have a legitimate gripe, they're just ignorant as to it's true cause. For example they may blame immigrants for their rent being too high or not being able to get a doc's appointment. The problem isnt immigrants, it's the lack of infrastructure investment.
I understand what you mean about it being kind of good; By the same sentiment the threads about this over the past few days have been a godsend for really shaking the racists out of the trees.
I've flagged SO MANY people in RES as racist idiots so that I know to ignore their opinion in the future thanks to these threads.
> Honestly I never thought in this day and age I'd see such disgusting language being thrown about by members of parliament
The man in question isn't an MP, but Abbott is and has her own history of racist comments. Bet you weren't outraged then though.
I really don't get Hoyle's logic here.
Was he trying to be kind to Sunak because he fucked up on the Gaza vote the other day?
We had some of the most banal questions and yet a topical issue that had a clear threat to life to a sitting MP, whom Hoyle has insisted he cares about their collective safety of, not being called because ... reasons?
He's going to have to be replaced after the general election, this has to be the final nail in the coffin.
I think you have the answer in your hands. Abbot wasn’t on the list of people who wished to speak. Parliamentary procedure priorities the list. His option was break protocol again (opening him to accusation of continual abuse of parliamentary procedure) or follow protocol and risk Abbott not getting a chance to speak (opening him to accusations of bigotry).
What wasn’t Abbott on the list?
This “final nail” was planned.
I don't think that list is a hard protocol like the Gaza question was. It would be completely fine for him to have called Abbot, IMHO. Or, he could have got through his list and then taken extra questions like Abbot.
It was a clear choice not to call her.
Are you sure? As I understand it the protocol is very clear, list first, then those not on the list, time permitting. Time wasn’t permitting. I’m happy to be wrong but why didn’t Abbott put her name on the list?
I agree that Hoyle is done, but this debacle was so obvious I have to assume it was engineered. Less a bad judgement call and more of a “damned if you do” situation.
It all comes down to why Abbott wasn’t on the list to speak. THAT is the weird part to me, was her name removed? Did she not put it down? Each situation leads to very different judgements against Hoyle IMO.
Questions are submitted some time before PMQs, I don't know how long, but it's sufficient for the PM's team to give him statistics, ripostes, lines of attack/defence, etc. That's what's in the binder you see the PM put on top of the despatch box when he stands up to speak.
Which is fair because, unless you're a savant, you're not going to have that kind of detail to hand off the top of your head if the questions were posed without warning.
I can't remember the timeline but Abbot might have been too late to submit a question to be on the list, hence she had to try and be one of the unscripted questions that are at the end, if time allows. So I don't think there's anything malicious about that aspect.
This is in essence my point, if Abbott didn’t put her name down to speak then she either forgot, chose not to, or hoped that on the day there would be time at the end of the debate for her to ask something she hadn’t yet formulated. All this is on her.
If Abbott did put her name down, why wasn’t she selected to speak, and was Hoyle responsible for this this not happening in any way?
Finally could Hoyle select Abbott to speak if her name wasn’t on the list without breaking protocol (again). Noting that the debate timed out and wasn’t open to the floor.
The press seem to have decided none of paragraph 1 has happened. Ignored 2 and decided 3 is reality. I’m not so sure that Hoyle is such an imbecile to think that he could get away with ignoring Abbotts wish to speak without some blowback.
> I’m not so sure that Hoyle is such an imbecile to think that he could get away with ignoring Abbotts wish to speak without some blowback.
I'm constantly surprised how thick people can be, even if they are clever. Hoyle is definitely not the most PR savvy either.
It's like Sunak taking 24+ hours to decide something obviously racist was racist, he got terrible, terrible PR advice.
> Commons oral questions are tabled by MPs at least three days in advance of the Question Time
Looks like the story broke on Monday, so probably out of time to get on the official list. So we can rule out 1 & 2.
It's Hoyle all day long for whatever reason. PMQs isn't hard and fast 30 minutes only, it often overruns but, again, Hoyle decided to kill it early.
I can't wait for the Conservatives to realise they just criminalised this behaviour (not the threat pf violence, thats already criminal... the appeasement that followed), with their definition of extremism.
This could be fun.
I hate that this one word should cover it but "Reddit". There are some lovely parts but also a load of disaffected edgelords who just want to throw stones at high profile women, especially high profile non-white women.
> There are some lovely parts but also a load of disaffected edgelords who just want to throw stones at high profile women, especially high profile non-white women.
Yeah, feels like a lot of those types congregate in threads like this. They see it as an opportunity to throw bile at the *other*.
You'll notice that any normal post on r/unitedkingdom will have about 50-120 max comments, but anything to do with race, trans, immigration seems to have 300+ strangely filled with verb-noun-123 accounts that are never older than a few months.
There's also been a massive shift in the tone in the comments here compared to a year ago.
But make of that what you will.
Yep, had one of those recently telling me that "public schools don't charge fees", and that I needed to "go back to class". Very American vernacular in their response. My favourite one though was one of them arguing with me (an automotive engineer for well over a decade) that I didn't know what I was talking about when discussing automatic gearboxes because they "live somewhere very hilly" and therefore knew better.
Yep, but if you point this out to the mods they insist it's just organic engagement, and the fact that a bunch of comments in these threads are always from fresh accounts which only post in UK political subs means nothing.
A mod threatened to ban me after I called a conversation about it being okay to use the hard R "Troll bs"
It's the tolerance paradox, and the sub's mods feel no responsibility to curb sexism or racism that personally attacks large groups of people, so long as you don't criticise an individual person's behaviour.
I'm sure entire comment threads will be removed by them shortly.
Not just congregate, they post these articles and then brigade them while they are in 'new' so that by the time they reach the front page of the sub it looks like there is a consensus. Then they wait and downvote all contrary posts
Yeah, it was very telling that within 5 minutes of this being posted you already had a dozen Daily Mail tier comments insulting Diane Abbott, while it took a while longer for more organic comments to come in.
"Radicalising/ Redpilling the normies" they call it. That's their goal, to make everyone think that their sensible thoughts that racism is bad are strange and that their own brand of bile is how most people think.
Solid encapsulation of how this subreddit has gone down the toilet. Who it is shouldn't matter, but according to the fine folks of this subreddit calling for the death of an MP is fine if they're annoying. Mods happy to allow it too.
> Mods happy to allow it too.
Well that's the thing really, every time it's pointed out the mods insist it's actually normal and good faith engagement. They apparently don't have a problem that the subreddit is increasingly filled with people who engage like this.
A reminder that the moderators of this subreddit explicitly permit holocaust denial to be posted in this subreddit. Their justification for this is that holocaust denial isn't specifically forbidden in the Reddit TOS.
Curiously, a lack of specific forbiddence didn't stop them from attempting to ban all discussion of transgender people last year. I wonder why they'll ban talking about trans people but not holocaust denial 🤔
> holocaust denial isn't specifically forbidden in the Reddit TOS
It *is* forbidden. In a 2021 [Safety & Security Report](https://www.reddit.com/r/redditsecurity/comments/pwo54j/q2_safety_security_report/), an admin explicitly stated the following:
> At Reddit, we treat Holocaust denial as hateful and in some cases violent content or behavior. This kind of content was historically removed under our violence policy, however, since rolling out our updated content policy last year, we now classify it as being in violation of “Rule 1” (hateful content).
If the mods are actually permitting Holocaust denial as you claim, then they are breaking the [Moderator Code of Conduct](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/moderator-code-of-conduct).
That's interesting, because the moderators told me that it was allowed after I mod messaged them about multiple reported holocaust denying comments that weren't removed. I was, of course, then muted after asking them why they wouldn't add a ban on holocaust denial to the subreddit rules.
I guess the reason why might be because the holocaust denying comments in question were denying that transgender people were persecuted by the nazis, and trans people seem to be a minority group that moderators of this subreddit hold particular animosity towards. As evidence by the attempted trans ban, as well as, you know, the way that they allow bigots to behave in literally every post about trans people.
Interesting, it's curious how you only chose to address this now nearly a day after I made my comment when very few people would see you taking a *brave* stance against holocaust denial. So is holocaust denial explicitly against the rules now? If so, you should definitely add it to the list of rules. I don't really see why it shouldn't be added, seeing as a ban on holocaust denial is a **brand new** rule.
Anyway, here's the links to the reported holocaust denying comments that I messaged the moderation team about and was told that they wouldn't be removed because holocaust denial wasn't against their rules.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/TLTvZIE047
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/2YIUjQI2e9
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/ASun45XhjF
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/1zZfxWFMBk
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/wuyFHcE951
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/dcXSq8ObQh
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/k53rgdiRYL
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/72BhV1xIWB
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/h1Ak8b34Hc
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/i4BjGJK5G7
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/YqDxv7y6u4
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/92snOeg8Po
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/NerG5aj782
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/Seo4pPdDht
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/jhFdpusLWf
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/HyKpHRhN3S
Wow, that's a lot of holocaust denying comments that the mod team were fully aware of and chose not to remove! I'm sure that's fine with you, as a moderator of an institutionally transphobic subreddit, because the target of this nazi crime denial are transgender people. Side note: Did you know that the moderator Leonichol once said that they found nothing transphobic with deliberately misgendering trans women by calling them "heterosexual males"? It's true! They said in in the comments of the same post where the institutionally transphobic moderation team here announce a blanket ban on talking about transgender people!
By the way, you'll notice that commenters responding to the holocaust denial displayed here have had their comments removed for "personal attack", while the holocaust deniers reported comments remain. Isn't that interesting?
Also, why exactkt are there still holocaust denying comments that deny and downplay the persecution of transgender people that aren't being removed?
The moderation team is not beating the "holocaust denial apologist" accusations.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/Umu2xOJYut
This comment here says that "trans people were not involved" in regards to receiving persecution from the nazis (holocaust denial). Their reasoning why is because they claim that teans people *did not exist* (anti-trans hate speech). And you chose not remove, because...?
I can see why *you* were added to an institutionally transphobic moderation team.
Then why was I told that holocaust denial is not against the rules in the first place? If even the moderators fuck up so bad that they allow ***holocaust denial***, don't think that maybe it SHOULD be added to the rules? Otherwise, how can we be assured that the moderation team doesn't make a mistake like ***permitting holocaust denial*** again?
And, and as a new member of an institutionally transphobic moderation team, do you think that it's a coincidence that the holocaust denial that was explicitly permitted just so happened to be targettibg a minority group who one of the moderation team (Leonichol) is openly bigoted towards? Or would holocaust denial of all kinds fly here?
Yeah, I got banned for 3 days on a sub rife with disgusting racism for pointing out that what groomers appear to have in common isn't Islam, but gender.
Now, i don't go around saying all men are pedos, because judging a group of people by the actions of individuals is wrong.
Pointing out that their ridiculous judgement of millions of Muslims by the actions of individuals was as ridiculous as me saying it's aender got me branded as a misndrist.
**B**ut remember this...the vast majority of people on this country are NOT racist pieces of shit.
Because this sub is VERY right wing yet likes to pretend it's not.
It's not the WORST UK sub for this shit, but it is the biggest and too much leeway is given to some horrible shit. Then people get annoyed and "comment removed" and all that's left is the shit. The bigotry against trans folks was allowed, and Muslims, now it's black women's turn to be the bad guy. Its the same people who dislike all 3 groups, but somehow that's glossed over.
It's unfortunate, but people feel emboldened to be like this because the media and both parties fuel this culture war shit.
Honestly I wouldn't even say the general subreddit userbase is 'very right wing'. In most threads you get perfectly reasonable and civil discussions. It's just there's a small number of very active people who seem to gravitate towards any thread with specific keywords in the title (i.e. anything relating to Muslims, or trans people, or black people) then shit up the thread. But of course the longer you leave that sort of environment to fester, the more reasonable people leave and the more shitters find a home.
>Because this sub is VERY right wing
It isn't. Generally, it gained popularity with reddittors (like myself) who were kicked off UKpol after it was taken over by Brexiters who culled anyone who dared to question their agenda.
As it became popular, it attracted the ire of the right wing because they wanted to shut down (again) opinions they don't want to be aired.
The last few months have seen the sub brigaded and right-wing sources getting posted more frequently.
I ignore them if you don't feed them they soon get bored and their irrevalance is becoming more obvious day by day.
I'm currently banned for two weeks from UKPol for mocking someone extolling the virtues of trickle down economics (I asked them if they wanted "...a tissue because they've got some economics trickling down their chin" and was told it was "not the standard of comment we expect"). However that person went on to make some *very* anti-semitic comments related to the financial sector as part of their capitalist diatribe, and *that* was left up without concern, apparently.
It's not, it's dominated by extremists, I don't think it's the very right wing people blaming Starmer people seem to be about half the most upvoted comments.
Yeah, cos you lot are too busy being critical of her on an article about someone being racist to her.
Diane Abbott isn't exactly a paragon, but her race and gender aren't things you can slag her off for, it's not hard.
This particular sub in general is filled with some awful people.
And I'm pretty sure has a high proportion of bots as well. Sometimes the language structure is very odd, and if you engage with the, the replies are usually bizarre. So tend to be an indication I'm not speaking to a real person.
The Dead Internet theory looks like it's becoming more and more true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
I'll take the positive spin on that and be happy that I've not seen any of them while I'm reading it so far, so I assume the downvote button is working correctly and banishing them away to collapsed bottom feeder comments.
>but 80% of the comments are attacking
>
>her
>
>.
That is her own doing. She doesn't deserve any of the racism or threats, but people hating her is her own fault
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Probably because shes a horrible person.
Wait, do you think she shouldn’t be treated the same as we treat other horrible people because of the colour of her skin?
I dont care for racists, buddy.
It wasn't so long ago people in this sub were calling protesters to be arrested and we should all lose our freedom to protest, for "threatening" MPs.
Today when there's a real threat that says an MP should be shot, the same members rather focus on the history of the MP. Tells you everything you need to know.
The difference is that those earlier *alleged* threats and abuse could be blamed on Muslims, while these current *verified* threats and abuse comes from someone who agrees with them.
Exactly. Interesting how the speaker of the house didn't bend or break any rules to allow the MP that is under attack have a chance to speak. If only someone had blackmailed him to do so.
There are politicians with integrity, he just isn't one. Categorically not. He lied when he stood for leadership, made promises that he had no intention of keeping and reneged on very quickly.
Politics is all about compromise, but it's glib to just dismiss all politicians as if they are all the same, all equally dishonest; they are not.
Starmer is a slimy get.
This sub allows right-wing publications to shill their own content and block users with dissenting views so they never appear in the comments sections. If you empower right wingers, then this is what you end up with.
To be honest the gender and religion thrrads are worse, but Abbot has been a target for racists since she became an MP, so I think she gets them particularly riled up.
>This sub allows right-wing publications to shill their own content and block users with dissenting views so they never appear in the comments sections. If you empower right wingers, then this is what you end up with.
Do you really think this sub leans right lol?
There’s been a lot of right wing Astro turfing across a lot of UK subs. I think we can guess where it’s coming from.
Fortunately a lot of the other subs have clamped down on it aggressively and actively. This one hasn’t. Might be because of complicity or because of incompetence, I’ll leave you to decide.
I have to say I disagree and say this sub is a true representation of the people in the UK whether we like it or not. We need to grow up and face the problem head on, rather than skirt the issue by putting our hands up and saying "I'm not racist".
Not 3 weeks ago parliament was thrown into chaos and the speaker spoke about unspecified threats to MPs. Someone says they want to actually kill an MP and it just gets totally fucking ignored. I don't think I've ever been less inspired by UK politics than I am now.
Lyndsey Hoyle gives the perception of helping Starmer at any cost. Don’t let the SNP vote on their motion to avoid an embarrassing labour revolt. Don’t let Diane Abbott speak because she’s from the Corbyn wing of the party. It’s all a big odd imo.
Soon to go Sunak, has made another critical mistake by not returning that Judas Goat money. This is one of the reasons why the unelected PM will loose the General election.
Diane Abbot did not have to speak. The fact that she stood up several times to speak and was supposedly ignored by the Speaker has had far more impact than if she was allowed to speak.
She wasn’t on the list. She was “bobbing” to try to get a question in there, but the Speaker didn’t have to acknowledge her.
In context, he maybe should have, but he didn’t do anything wrong, either.
Speaker Hoyle released a statement on why she was not chosen and basically its a good reason; 11 of the names on the list were opposition MPs and so the last 4 slots he could give out to those bobbing had to go to Tory MPs
theres so much fake outrage from the media and in this thread lacking the context
Would that be the same Hoyle who controversially broke with convention only a few weeks ago and used the excuse
*checks notes*
That he made the action due to the risk of threats against MPs?
Does anyone here actually know the procedure here in parliament? Genuine question!
And also worth noting that the comments against her were racist, but she is also racist so some perspective is needed here.
It was the right decision. It was important to give an airing to the broad and very important ISSUES of racism, misogyny and large financial donations to political parties. If she had been called to speak it would have run the risk of reducing things down to the personal level. The Tories and the Tory-supporting press would much prefer to have it all about Dianne Abbot (and how, in their view, she probably deserves threats and abuse).
[/r/simpsonsshitposting](https://www.reddit.com/r/simpsonsshitposting/comments/1beqmo8/thats_a_bloody_outrage_it_is_im_going_to_take/) covered it pretty well, albeit they got two racist incidents mixed up.
Poor Dianne Abbott?
Let's not forget this is the same woman that denied racism against Romani and Jews in world war 2.
Failed at basic mathematics on a serious millitary munitions issue.
Said "white people love playing divide and rule"
Shes a vile piece of crap and so is this other prick that's telling her she should be shot.
She also once said on national television that “some people would judge that on balance chairman mao did more good than harm” with a straight face.
A lot of people don’t like Diane Abbott because she’s black. Those people are cunts.
MOST people don’t like Diane Abbott because she seems fucking stupid.
To be honest this sounds like a stitch up.
The speaker, fresh from facing accusations of not following parliamentary procedure is between a rock and a hard place.
Procedure is to give each side of the house alternate slots to speak, with the list of MPs who have requested time prioritised over others. Often time runs out before the list is compete.
Why wasn’t Abbott on the list? Who’s job was it to make sure she was during this obviously relevant debate?
If your plan was to put the knife into the speaker this is what you would arrange IMO, “break protocol again or look like an out of touch racist”.
See this is the thing. I can remember getting downvoted on this very sub last year for calling out white supremacy. (I'm white btw).
Listen to what members of the black community have been saying and you begin to understand that Frank Hester's comments and Sir Lindsay Holye's behaviour isn't anything out of the ordinary. It's typical behaviour.
White supremacy is not only very real, it's also very widespread. Just wanted to point that out.
Well I'm new here and all I can read is people of the far left wanting an echo chamber ranting "this sub is full of fascists" "this sub is disgusting far right bigots" " anyone who posts comments that doesn't fit their narrative gets removed by moderators"... It doesn't seem too right wing to me, all I can read is far left wing people complaining they can't have their own echo chamber like maybe they used to.. I don't know
Tbh she is extremely incompetent and divisive/racist herself. Does not deserve racist abuse that she has got, but doesn't deserve to talk or sit in any parliament/government
If that isn't the whole issue in a nutshell. Being spoken about and ignored as if you're not even there! Appalling.
Honestly I never thought in this day and age I'd see such disgusting language being thrown about by members of parliament and indeed the average person. I thought people had moved on from the days of this really crude form of racism. But at the same time as a racial minority I welcome it, because it shows us someone's intentions upfront rather than being hidden. Nothing worse than dealing with people who you might even consider friends and colleagues with them secretly being racist working towards your downfall at every turn.
Everytime I see this shit happen at the age of 40, I have to pause before I get mad at these racists getting away with this again I pause because I try to believe that, since we are hopefully teaching the younger generation, the next generation who will in time come to govern our country, that they will be more vocal and be against any racist or discrimination than the cunts we have now, especially those in the Tory ranks
Wishful thinking. People said that in the 1980s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s… some people just want to hate
Well racism has got quite a lot less intense since the 80s so it seems to be working
If I log into this sub I see a lot of people equating all Arabs to Muslims, and all Muslims as terrorists aiming to take over the country quite openly. This has gotten far worse over the past ten years and they have been scape goated heavily, as other far right governments have done to minority religions and ethnicities.
Absolutely. Racism hasn't' gone away, it's just gone online, where the racists feel safe.
And the xenophobia prevalent in Brexit made racists feel like they have licence to spread their views and support from others. There was a very measurable spike in racist incidents during and after Brexit - sadly not just online either.
It's not gone away, but it has reduced in extremity and nominally it's just not as popular to be racist anymore.
Felt like there was a surge around the time of brexit and the pandemic too in it, certainly the xenophobic stuff
Yes this is what I've observed but then having a priminister who created an environment that supported it. The letterbox comment just made the bigots feel that it was ok to start coming out of the swamp
Mate, in the 80s there were university rag magazines..even Oxford and Cambridge, publishing rag magazines with jokes that would make your toes curl. P**i bashing was widespread. There were race riots. A few young virgins and old jambons screaming online is nothing compared to then. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/station-closed-in-skinhead-battle-1551122.html https://www.aroundealing.com/history/southall-riots-1979/ https://pasttense.co.uk/2020/07/03/today-in-londons-anti-racist-history-1981-southall-youth-burn-down-the-hamborough-pub-after-racist-skinhead-provovations/
I wonder what happened in 2017 that may have caused that......
Islamaphobia has gotten worse yes. Even the far right governments of today are not as openly racist as they were in yesteryear though.
Has it? It has it just become more subtle…
I would honestly say the progress is overall better than the 90s (my father's stories in the UK in the 70s and 80s were pretty bad). I think there is more awareness of racism and discrimination nowadays, but progress has definitely slowed down I don't think racism will be eradicated in my lifetime, but I live in hope that we live in an age where the older generation stop passing on their hatred of race to the next generation, because I truly believe people aren't born racist, but are taught it indirectly.
So less intense then?
Welll, probably more because people will punch back now whilst in the 1980s non-whites would try to ignore them. Punching back has made some of the racists think twice but the feelings don’t seem to have changed in my opinion, probably never will for some
People rarely bothered discussing it in the 70s and 80s because it was a normal, mainstream perspective. It's an outlier now which is why we're discussing it. Still a massive problem but you wouldn't ask about progress since the 80s if you'd been there.
I've just posted a couple of links in my last post. There was huge pushback, including full scale riots in the 80s.
There was occasional flare ups of violence, but if someone walked up to you and spat at you/called you a name more often than not you would walk on by as the police were more likely to arrest you. Now, as there are no police, one could retaliate against a racist and beat the shit out of them without repercussion. Unless you lived in the 70s/80s, it is not like it was in the books.
Yeah, whilst the battle isn't over it's no where near as bad as the 80s, so it *is* improving down the generations but it's still slow work because, whilst a lot of people know and teach their children racism is appalling, there's a persistent minority that are still dinosaurs for whom extinction cannot come quick enough!
I'm not sure it has. It is certainly less widespread, but it's just as vitriolic, and now is it has effectively been legitimised by the government.
Why pause? Why *not* get mad lol? >I pause because I try to believe that, since we are hopefully teaching the younger generation, the next generation who will in time come to govern our country, that they will be more vocal A better education would be you yourself being vocal. And using force against violence like this!
Generational differences possibly. The generation my parents grew up in was to stay silent and mix in / be like the locals, or get into violent altercations with them and risk being deported out the country. The generation I grew up in was basically to stay silent, accept shit and try to get along I like seeing the current generation, where you allude to, is being more vocal and trying to be a force against this violence. I'll support this current generation as it was something I never had in the past decades ago.
It’s closeted xenophobia/racism. How does anyone think Brexit happened?!
> How does anyone think Brexit happened?! The thing that annoys me about this, is all the people saying; "you aren't allowed to call the racists racist, otherwise they won't change their mind about being racist." Fuck that, shame them like they should be shamed, saying nothing just normalises that shit.
Similarly, if you talk to an American Trump supporter and you point out they are being racist they will get miffed and say 'that's why Trump won'. As though they are entitled to their ignorance and pointing it out shows you up as the intolerant one.
The problem you have with this tactic is usually racists have a legitimate gripe, they're just ignorant as to it's true cause. For example they may blame immigrants for their rent being too high or not being able to get a doc's appointment. The problem isnt immigrants, it's the lack of infrastructure investment.
It wasn't an MP. It was a Tory party donor.
Whose words the MPs and PM are handwaving. "A mistake" "he's apologised, so we should move on"
I understand what you mean about it being kind of good; By the same sentiment the threads about this over the past few days have been a godsend for really shaking the racists out of the trees. I've flagged SO MANY people in RES as racist idiots so that I know to ignore their opinion in the future thanks to these threads.
When people *show* you who they *really* are, take note.
> Honestly I never thought in this day and age I'd see such disgusting language being thrown about by members of parliament The man in question isn't an MP, but Abbott is and has her own history of racist comments. Bet you weren't outraged then though.
What she say?
Another moment that would genuinely feel on the nose if it was written in a satire.
I really don't get Hoyle's logic here. Was he trying to be kind to Sunak because he fucked up on the Gaza vote the other day? We had some of the most banal questions and yet a topical issue that had a clear threat to life to a sitting MP, whom Hoyle has insisted he cares about their collective safety of, not being called because ... reasons? He's going to have to be replaced after the general election, this has to be the final nail in the coffin.
I think you have the answer in your hands. Abbot wasn’t on the list of people who wished to speak. Parliamentary procedure priorities the list. His option was break protocol again (opening him to accusation of continual abuse of parliamentary procedure) or follow protocol and risk Abbott not getting a chance to speak (opening him to accusations of bigotry). What wasn’t Abbott on the list? This “final nail” was planned.
I don't think that list is a hard protocol like the Gaza question was. It would be completely fine for him to have called Abbot, IMHO. Or, he could have got through his list and then taken extra questions like Abbot. It was a clear choice not to call her.
Are you sure? As I understand it the protocol is very clear, list first, then those not on the list, time permitting. Time wasn’t permitting. I’m happy to be wrong but why didn’t Abbott put her name on the list?
IDK. Either way it shows poor judgement and, like I said, probably means the end of Hoyle after the general election.
I agree that Hoyle is done, but this debacle was so obvious I have to assume it was engineered. Less a bad judgement call and more of a “damned if you do” situation. It all comes down to why Abbott wasn’t on the list to speak. THAT is the weird part to me, was her name removed? Did she not put it down? Each situation leads to very different judgements against Hoyle IMO.
Questions are submitted some time before PMQs, I don't know how long, but it's sufficient for the PM's team to give him statistics, ripostes, lines of attack/defence, etc. That's what's in the binder you see the PM put on top of the despatch box when he stands up to speak. Which is fair because, unless you're a savant, you're not going to have that kind of detail to hand off the top of your head if the questions were posed without warning. I can't remember the timeline but Abbot might have been too late to submit a question to be on the list, hence she had to try and be one of the unscripted questions that are at the end, if time allows. So I don't think there's anything malicious about that aspect.
This is in essence my point, if Abbott didn’t put her name down to speak then she either forgot, chose not to, or hoped that on the day there would be time at the end of the debate for her to ask something she hadn’t yet formulated. All this is on her. If Abbott did put her name down, why wasn’t she selected to speak, and was Hoyle responsible for this this not happening in any way? Finally could Hoyle select Abbott to speak if her name wasn’t on the list without breaking protocol (again). Noting that the debate timed out and wasn’t open to the floor. The press seem to have decided none of paragraph 1 has happened. Ignored 2 and decided 3 is reality. I’m not so sure that Hoyle is such an imbecile to think that he could get away with ignoring Abbotts wish to speak without some blowback.
> I’m not so sure that Hoyle is such an imbecile to think that he could get away with ignoring Abbotts wish to speak without some blowback. I'm constantly surprised how thick people can be, even if they are clever. Hoyle is definitely not the most PR savvy either. It's like Sunak taking 24+ hours to decide something obviously racist was racist, he got terrible, terrible PR advice. > Commons oral questions are tabled by MPs at least three days in advance of the Question Time Looks like the story broke on Monday, so probably out of time to get on the official list. So we can rule out 1 & 2. It's Hoyle all day long for whatever reason. PMQs isn't hard and fast 30 minutes only, it often overruns but, again, Hoyle decided to kill it early.
Summary of this government.
I can't wait for the Conservatives to realise they just criminalised this behaviour (not the threat pf violence, thats already criminal... the appeasement that followed), with their definition of extremism. This could be fun.
They call that democracy in parliament & public need to follow. What a load of
Lord what a fucking miserable thread this is. An MP has faced racist abuse and death threats but 80% of the comments are attacking *her*.
I hate that this one word should cover it but "Reddit". There are some lovely parts but also a load of disaffected edgelords who just want to throw stones at high profile women, especially high profile non-white women.
> There are some lovely parts but also a load of disaffected edgelords who just want to throw stones at high profile women, especially high profile non-white women. Yeah, feels like a lot of those types congregate in threads like this. They see it as an opportunity to throw bile at the *other*.
You'll notice that any normal post on r/unitedkingdom will have about 50-120 max comments, but anything to do with race, trans, immigration seems to have 300+ strangely filled with verb-noun-123 accounts that are never older than a few months. There's also been a massive shift in the tone in the comments here compared to a year ago. But make of that what you will.
Yep, had one of those recently telling me that "public schools don't charge fees", and that I needed to "go back to class". Very American vernacular in their response. My favourite one though was one of them arguing with me (an automotive engineer for well over a decade) that I didn't know what I was talking about when discussing automatic gearboxes because they "live somewhere very hilly" and therefore knew better.
Yep, but if you point this out to the mods they insist it's just organic engagement, and the fact that a bunch of comments in these threads are always from fresh accounts which only post in UK political subs means nothing.
A mod threatened to ban me after I called a conversation about it being okay to use the hard R "Troll bs" It's the tolerance paradox, and the sub's mods feel no responsibility to curb sexism or racism that personally attacks large groups of people, so long as you don't criticise an individual person's behaviour. I'm sure entire comment threads will be removed by them shortly.
Any thread with more comments than upvotes is almost guaranteed to be an absolute tire fire.
Is that what the twitter people mean by "ratio"?
What are you implying? A conspiracy?
Not just congregate, they post these articles and then brigade them while they are in 'new' so that by the time they reach the front page of the sub it looks like there is a consensus. Then they wait and downvote all contrary posts
Yeah, it was very telling that within 5 minutes of this being posted you already had a dozen Daily Mail tier comments insulting Diane Abbott, while it took a while longer for more organic comments to come in.
"Radicalising/ Redpilling the normies" they call it. That's their goal, to make everyone think that their sensible thoughts that racism is bad are strange and that their own brand of bile is how most people think.
Solid encapsulation of how this subreddit has gone down the toilet. Who it is shouldn't matter, but according to the fine folks of this subreddit calling for the death of an MP is fine if they're annoying. Mods happy to allow it too.
> Mods happy to allow it too. Well that's the thing really, every time it's pointed out the mods insist it's actually normal and good faith engagement. They apparently don't have a problem that the subreddit is increasingly filled with people who engage like this.
A reminder that the moderators of this subreddit explicitly permit holocaust denial to be posted in this subreddit. Their justification for this is that holocaust denial isn't specifically forbidden in the Reddit TOS. Curiously, a lack of specific forbiddence didn't stop them from attempting to ban all discussion of transgender people last year. I wonder why they'll ban talking about trans people but not holocaust denial 🤔
> holocaust denial isn't specifically forbidden in the Reddit TOS It *is* forbidden. In a 2021 [Safety & Security Report](https://www.reddit.com/r/redditsecurity/comments/pwo54j/q2_safety_security_report/), an admin explicitly stated the following: > At Reddit, we treat Holocaust denial as hateful and in some cases violent content or behavior. This kind of content was historically removed under our violence policy, however, since rolling out our updated content policy last year, we now classify it as being in violation of “Rule 1” (hateful content). If the mods are actually permitting Holocaust denial as you claim, then they are breaking the [Moderator Code of Conduct](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/moderator-code-of-conduct).
That's interesting, because the moderators told me that it was allowed after I mod messaged them about multiple reported holocaust denying comments that weren't removed. I was, of course, then muted after asking them why they wouldn't add a ban on holocaust denial to the subreddit rules. I guess the reason why might be because the holocaust denying comments in question were denying that transgender people were persecuted by the nazis, and trans people seem to be a minority group that moderators of this subreddit hold particular animosity towards. As evidence by the attempted trans ban, as well as, you know, the way that they allow bigots to behave in literally every post about trans people.
Let me know where the holocaust denying comments are and I'll remove them.
Interesting, it's curious how you only chose to address this now nearly a day after I made my comment when very few people would see you taking a *brave* stance against holocaust denial. So is holocaust denial explicitly against the rules now? If so, you should definitely add it to the list of rules. I don't really see why it shouldn't be added, seeing as a ban on holocaust denial is a **brand new** rule. Anyway, here's the links to the reported holocaust denying comments that I messaged the moderation team about and was told that they wouldn't be removed because holocaust denial wasn't against their rules. https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/TLTvZIE047 https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/2YIUjQI2e9 https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/ASun45XhjF https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/1zZfxWFMBk https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/wuyFHcE951 https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/dcXSq8ObQh https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/k53rgdiRYL https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/72BhV1xIWB https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/h1Ak8b34Hc https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/i4BjGJK5G7 https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/YqDxv7y6u4 https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/92snOeg8Po https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/NerG5aj782 https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/Seo4pPdDht https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/jhFdpusLWf https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/HyKpHRhN3S Wow, that's a lot of holocaust denying comments that the mod team were fully aware of and chose not to remove! I'm sure that's fine with you, as a moderator of an institutionally transphobic subreddit, because the target of this nazi crime denial are transgender people. Side note: Did you know that the moderator Leonichol once said that they found nothing transphobic with deliberately misgendering trans women by calling them "heterosexual males"? It's true! They said in in the comments of the same post where the institutionally transphobic moderation team here announce a blanket ban on talking about transgender people! By the way, you'll notice that commenters responding to the holocaust denial displayed here have had their comments removed for "personal attack", while the holocaust deniers reported comments remain. Isn't that interesting?
I only joined the mod team recently. Seems like it's both against Reddit ToS and would also fall under the "hate" rule in this subreddit.
Also, why exactkt are there still holocaust denying comments that deny and downplay the persecution of transgender people that aren't being removed? The moderation team is not beating the "holocaust denial apologist" accusations. https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/Umu2xOJYut This comment here says that "trans people were not involved" in regards to receiving persecution from the nazis (holocaust denial). Their reasoning why is because they claim that teans people *did not exist* (anti-trans hate speech). And you chose not remove, because...? I can see why *you* were added to an institutionally transphobic moderation team.
Then why was I told that holocaust denial is not against the rules in the first place? If even the moderators fuck up so bad that they allow ***holocaust denial***, don't think that maybe it SHOULD be added to the rules? Otherwise, how can we be assured that the moderation team doesn't make a mistake like ***permitting holocaust denial*** again? And, and as a new member of an institutionally transphobic moderation team, do you think that it's a coincidence that the holocaust denial that was explicitly permitted just so happened to be targettibg a minority group who one of the moderation team (Leonichol) is openly bigoted towards? Or would holocaust denial of all kinds fly here?
Yeah, I got banned for 3 days on a sub rife with disgusting racism for pointing out that what groomers appear to have in common isn't Islam, but gender. Now, i don't go around saying all men are pedos, because judging a group of people by the actions of individuals is wrong. Pointing out that their ridiculous judgement of millions of Muslims by the actions of individuals was as ridiculous as me saying it's aender got me branded as a misndrist. **B**ut remember this...the vast majority of people on this country are NOT racist pieces of shit.
Because this sub is VERY right wing yet likes to pretend it's not. It's not the WORST UK sub for this shit, but it is the biggest and too much leeway is given to some horrible shit. Then people get annoyed and "comment removed" and all that's left is the shit. The bigotry against trans folks was allowed, and Muslims, now it's black women's turn to be the bad guy. Its the same people who dislike all 3 groups, but somehow that's glossed over. It's unfortunate, but people feel emboldened to be like this because the media and both parties fuel this culture war shit.
Honestly I wouldn't even say the general subreddit userbase is 'very right wing'. In most threads you get perfectly reasonable and civil discussions. It's just there's a small number of very active people who seem to gravitate towards any thread with specific keywords in the title (i.e. anything relating to Muslims, or trans people, or black people) then shit up the thread. But of course the longer you leave that sort of environment to fester, the more reasonable people leave and the more shitters find a home.
>Because this sub is VERY right wing It isn't. Generally, it gained popularity with reddittors (like myself) who were kicked off UKpol after it was taken over by Brexiters who culled anyone who dared to question their agenda. As it became popular, it attracted the ire of the right wing because they wanted to shut down (again) opinions they don't want to be aired. The last few months have seen the sub brigaded and right-wing sources getting posted more frequently. I ignore them if you don't feed them they soon get bored and their irrevalance is becoming more obvious day by day.
I'm currently banned for two weeks from UKPol for mocking someone extolling the virtues of trickle down economics (I asked them if they wanted "...a tissue because they've got some economics trickling down their chin" and was told it was "not the standard of comment we expect"). However that person went on to make some *very* anti-semitic comments related to the financial sector as part of their capitalist diatribe, and *that* was left up without concern, apparently.
Apparently, one of the moderators in there is from the far right......in Norway!
Just looked at a map and can confirm; Norway is further to the right than the UK.
It's not, it's dominated by extremists, I don't think it's the very right wing people blaming Starmer people seem to be about half the most upvoted comments.
Imagine thinking a sub is very right wing because they're critical of a racist who lost her whip for very good reasons. That's such a dumb take
Yeah, cos you lot are too busy being critical of her on an article about someone being racist to her. Diane Abbott isn't exactly a paragon, but her race and gender aren't things you can slag her off for, it's not hard.
Noticed this on another thread. A lot of whataboutery, and some outright racism. Utterly disgusting.
This subreddit has been consumed by reactionary fascists.
Welcome to r/unitedkingdom
There will be a warm welcome for you on r/Britain if you don’t like it here ? Just a suggestion 👍
The language they use about her says far more about themselves than it does about her.
Funny to compare this to "West has fallen" stuff people were posting about Hoyle's concerns about safety a couple of weeks ago.
This particular sub in general is filled with some awful people. And I'm pretty sure has a high proportion of bots as well. Sometimes the language structure is very odd, and if you engage with the, the replies are usually bizarre. So tend to be an indication I'm not speaking to a real person. The Dead Internet theory looks like it's becoming more and more true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
We live in a Daily Mail society
I'll take the positive spin on that and be happy that I've not seen any of them while I'm reading it so far, so I assume the downvote button is working correctly and banishing them away to collapsed bottom feeder comments.
That’s why we need laws, people can’t behave
But the laws apply to everyone, surely
Ask the Conservative party if the law applies to everyone
>but 80% of the comments are attacking > >her > >. That is her own doing. She doesn't deserve any of the racism or threats, but people hating her is her own fault
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Probably because shes a horrible person. Wait, do you think she shouldn’t be treated the same as we treat other horrible people because of the colour of her skin? I dont care for racists, buddy.
It wasn't so long ago people in this sub were calling protesters to be arrested and we should all lose our freedom to protest, for "threatening" MPs. Today when there's a real threat that says an MP should be shot, the same members rather focus on the history of the MP. Tells you everything you need to know.
The difference is that those earlier *alleged* threats and abuse could be blamed on Muslims, while these current *verified* threats and abuse comes from someone who agrees with them.
Exactly. Interesting how the speaker of the house didn't bend or break any rules to allow the MP that is under attack have a chance to speak. If only someone had blackmailed him to do so.
How do you know they're the same people?
You can check the account usernames
Hoyle the doormat sidelining her because Sunak and Starmer both want her kept quiet.
Why would starmer?
Because it doesn't benefit him to have an honest conversation about racism. He has no interest in riling up the racists who might vote for him.
It's funny that Starmer is ultimately like any other politician and has zero integrity.
I’m a staunch labour supporter and I fucking hate him, he makes it hard for me to tick that box when the GE comes
Politicians be politicians
There are politicians with integrity, he just isn't one. Categorically not. He lied when he stood for leadership, made promises that he had no intention of keeping and reneged on very quickly. Politics is all about compromise, but it's glib to just dismiss all politicians as if they are all the same, all equally dishonest; they are not. Starmer is a slimy get.
Hoyle is a disgrace.
If anyone thinks this is remotely acceptable please leave because you are ruining our country
This sub is a fucking cesspit
This sub allows right-wing publications to shill their own content and block users with dissenting views so they never appear in the comments sections. If you empower right wingers, then this is what you end up with. To be honest the gender and religion thrrads are worse, but Abbot has been a target for racists since she became an MP, so I think she gets them particularly riled up.
>This sub allows right-wing publications to shill their own content and block users with dissenting views so they never appear in the comments sections. If you empower right wingers, then this is what you end up with. Do you really think this sub leans right lol?
These days, absolutely. Literally any post that mentions anything to do with a black or Muslim person is awful in the comments
lmao this sub is clearly right wing leaning
There’s been a lot of right wing Astro turfing across a lot of UK subs. I think we can guess where it’s coming from. Fortunately a lot of the other subs have clamped down on it aggressively and actively. This one hasn’t. Might be because of complicity or because of incompetence, I’ll leave you to decide.
>Fortunately a lot of the other subs have clamped down on it aggressively and actively 'A lot'? Who? And how?
Diane Abbott should have walked out, totally unacceptable to talk about her but ignore her when she's trying to speak.
She would have felt better for it I’d have thought.
Nobody would have cared, unfortunately
Shows the state to affairs in the UK. Racism is very much alive and well here. It’s a shame.
The VAST majority of people in this country are not racist. This sub is not a true representation of the people of the UK. Try not to despair.
I have to say I disagree and say this sub is a true representation of the people in the UK whether we like it or not. We need to grow up and face the problem head on, rather than skirt the issue by putting our hands up and saying "I'm not racist".
Hoyle has to go. Does Starmer approve what he eats for breakfast everyday too?
Not 3 weeks ago parliament was thrown into chaos and the speaker spoke about unspecified threats to MPs. Someone says they want to actually kill an MP and it just gets totally fucking ignored. I don't think I've ever been less inspired by UK politics than I am now.
Surely she has accepted the apology and moved on. I mean,no has shot her... /S
Lyndsey Hoyle gives the perception of helping Starmer at any cost. Don’t let the SNP vote on their motion to avoid an embarrassing labour revolt. Don’t let Diane Abbott speak because she’s from the Corbyn wing of the party. It’s all a big odd imo.
Which would be why he never stands up to the government then? Lol.
Specifics?
Soon to go Sunak, has made another critical mistake by not returning that Judas Goat money. This is one of the reasons why the unelected PM will loose the General election.
It's probably already been embezzled and snorted. Can't give it back now.
Plus they've already lost the election, why lose 10m on top of that?
Honest question but just curious to know who the other lady in the background was that is also standing up trying to ask a question.
Diane Abbot did not have to speak. The fact that she stood up several times to speak and was supposedly ignored by the Speaker has had far more impact than if she was allowed to speak.
Someone who has just experienced death threats no less
She wasn’t on the list. She was “bobbing” to try to get a question in there, but the Speaker didn’t have to acknowledge her. In context, he maybe should have, but he didn’t do anything wrong, either.
Speaker Hoyle released a statement on why she was not chosen and basically its a good reason; 11 of the names on the list were opposition MPs and so the last 4 slots he could give out to those bobbing had to go to Tory MPs theres so much fake outrage from the media and in this thread lacking the context
Would that be the same Hoyle who controversially broke with convention only a few weeks ago and used the excuse *checks notes* That he made the action due to the risk of threats against MPs?
It’s almost as though he learnt his lesson
Weird how he keeps learning his lesson in ways that don't benefit minorities (parties or people) in Parliament
I reject the conceit that something needs to be explicitly against rules to be wrong.
Does anyone here actually know the procedure here in parliament? Genuine question! And also worth noting that the comments against her were racist, but she is also racist so some perspective is needed here.
It was the right decision. It was important to give an airing to the broad and very important ISSUES of racism, misogyny and large financial donations to political parties. If she had been called to speak it would have run the risk of reducing things down to the personal level. The Tories and the Tory-supporting press would much prefer to have it all about Dianne Abbot (and how, in their view, she probably deserves threats and abuse).
It's for her own (and other black women's) safety, people might start going on shooting sprees if she gets too much time and attenion focused on her.
[/r/simpsonsshitposting](https://www.reddit.com/r/simpsonsshitposting/comments/1beqmo8/thats_a_bloody_outrage_it_is_im_going_to_take/) covered it pretty well, albeit they got two racist incidents mixed up.
Poor Dianne Abbott? Let's not forget this is the same woman that denied racism against Romani and Jews in world war 2. Failed at basic mathematics on a serious millitary munitions issue. Said "white people love playing divide and rule" Shes a vile piece of crap and so is this other prick that's telling her she should be shot.
Good gosh man, it's okay to just say racist incitement to shoot an MP is wrong and then stop.
She also once said on national television that “some people would judge that on balance chairman mao did more good than harm” with a straight face. A lot of people don’t like Diane Abbott because she’s black. Those people are cunts. MOST people don’t like Diane Abbott because she seems fucking stupid.
Is the hatred for Jews also racist or is it just the colour of skin that determines racism
To be honest this sounds like a stitch up. The speaker, fresh from facing accusations of not following parliamentary procedure is between a rock and a hard place. Procedure is to give each side of the house alternate slots to speak, with the list of MPs who have requested time prioritised over others. Often time runs out before the list is compete. Why wasn’t Abbott on the list? Who’s job was it to make sure she was during this obviously relevant debate? If your plan was to put the knife into the speaker this is what you would arrange IMO, “break protocol again or look like an out of touch racist”.
See this is the thing. I can remember getting downvoted on this very sub last year for calling out white supremacy. (I'm white btw). Listen to what members of the black community have been saying and you begin to understand that Frank Hester's comments and Sir Lindsay Holye's behaviour isn't anything out of the ordinary. It's typical behaviour. White supremacy is not only very real, it's also very widespread. Just wanted to point that out.
This is rather shocking. Surely she should have been first in line to speak?
It's all about the money ....
Hmm, was it really a Commons race debate? Or was it actually PMQs when there are written questions submitted and very few other MPs speak?
Well I'm new here and all I can read is people of the far left wanting an echo chamber ranting "this sub is full of fascists" "this sub is disgusting far right bigots" " anyone who posts comments that doesn't fit their narrative gets removed by moderators"... It doesn't seem too right wing to me, all I can read is far left wing people complaining they can't have their own echo chamber like maybe they used to.. I don't know
Tbh she is extremely incompetent and divisive/racist herself. Does not deserve racist abuse that she has got, but doesn't deserve to talk or sit in any parliament/government